wally wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 7:35am:

Class is not about following the letter of the law.  It's in how you choose to follow laws & conventions.  It's also culturally & situationally contextual.

Staying on topic.  While individual situations do mitigate what a classy act would be, we are in the situation of having a maximum quota.  Let's take a look at Frank Capra's masterpiece, It's a Wonderful Life. 

Who has more class?  Old Man Potter who would be completely within his rights to foreclose on defaulted mortgages (taking his allowed quota) or George Bailey who says, "...this rabble you're talking about... they do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this community. Well, is it too much to have them work and pay and live and die in a couple of decent rooms and a bath?"

Who has more class?  The guy who when the depression hits wants all his money out of the B&L (taking his allowed quota) or the lady who just asks for $17.50 to tide herself over.

You guys miss the point....
someone takes a limit u don't agree with, a legal limit...and now they're without class?  Class is following the law.   Class is allowing others the grace to follow a law u might disagree with.  Class is realizing that what's good for u may not b good for someone else.

But then, since I know how to manage a resource better than those in charge, I have the most class?

Taking a limit is now equated with depleting a resource?  We have bean counters to determine that.

kypaddler wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

Back in the day it would have been!  I was not so enlightened as a child.  Once I filled someone's sailboat (a sunfish full of rainwater) with sunfish caught off the dock!

This is me, (You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

@wally It has always been honourable to be moderate in your consumption.  We're not talking about stocking up for winter vs. starving here.  The difference between taking what you're allowed and taking what you need is called "class".  You wouldn't call the slaughter of the buffalo honourable, would you?  They took what they were allowed.  There are put-and-take fisheries that are stocked to be fished, but native populations should be treated with respect.

PhantomJug wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 3:30pm:



Add MENTALIST to PJ's Pipe Playing/Scotch drinking/fishing prowess

I get what your saying Wally. You can't blame someone if they've paid their money and following the rules as written. But, in some cases being legal doesn't mean it's the " right" thing to do in every case. Depending on where you fill your daily limit could mean the difference between fishing a spot out or sustaining the resource.

They paid their money, they took their fish.  Wierd how you are frowned upon for maximizing your take.  When did it become honorable to consume less than allowed?  The only honorable thing is whether you follow the rules and pay for your liscense.  If these guys are "legal" in the above pic....then I applaud them.  We need a return to those times.

Gorgeous catch, and it looks like they had a ball.

I count 30 fish in that picture Preacher.  If that was in MN, between the six of them they are still under daily possession limit.  Not that I would condone it - just sayin' (before wally chimes in.) 

Preach,

that you, second from left, right?

-- kypaddler

Completely agree with you ST.  I have been asked while in back-country, met several rangers & park staff in some areas including APP.

Attitudes have, for the most part, changed.  The existence of a conservation licence illustrates.

Nobody does this anymore, do they?
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

remember those grainy black-and-white photos from deer camps of yester-yore, with 5 or 6 deer hanging from a pole propped between two trees?

i have a vision of a battleship-strong cable strung between two centuries-old pine on either side of Pickerel, with 279 fish hanging down.

-- kypaddler

Quote:


A survey for scientific/research information is quite different than the story in discussion. Hopefully someone that took the time to participate and read the survey would plan their trip not only for the catch but to not over-fish the source.
Counting and publishing the results makes it seem that there's a abundance of fish which some miscreants might take as a sign that they can take what the like, regardless of the rules.

I've never been asked for a fishing license, never been approached by a back country ranger. I buy a Conservation license, but could easily have fish 3x a day and no-one but myself and my conscience would be the wiser.

I sure most honest people feel the same way, but it only takes a few to decimate a small lake.