Tidal Fish Forum banner

As Paul Harvey would say... The rest of the story

13K views 87 replies 12 participants last post by  andrealim199320 
#1 ·
#9 ·
If a commercial waterman is by all definitions a "commercial waterman," then by all means he has a "right" to make a living. As well as an electrician, a plumber, logger, farmer etc.

But, that "question" arising on this board does not suprise me one iota.

What is your profession Bill? Do you have a "right" to make a living in your profession?
 
#10 ·
I have not had a right to make a living in my previous professions of forester, hydrologist, environmental scientist, or in my current position as a consultant. The electrician, plumber, logger, farmer, etc. are in the same boat. You pick a field, and if the circumstances are favorable (economic, legal), you might a living at it, but nowhere do I see it as a right.
 
#12 ·
You are mudding the waters with reference to the topic at hand Bill albeit, you DID slightly touch on the issue when you in ( ) stated, "legal." See, all the examples I gave ya as well as the examples you stated are legal.

If cca (lower case not a mistake, intentional) had their way, it would become illegal for commercial waterman to use gill nets. Sorta like a Forrester unable to use a Builtmore stick, compass or a Dendrometer because he may become too efficent in his profession.

I hope I have made my point.
 
#19 ·
You are mudding the waters with reference to the topic at hand Bill albeit, you DID slightly touch on the issue when you in ( ) stated, "legal." See, all the examples I gave ya as well as the examples you stated are legal.

If cca (lower case not a mistake, intentional) had their way, it would become illegal for commercial waterman to use gill nets. Sorta like a Forrester unable to use a Builtmore stick, compass or a Dendrometer because he may become too efficent in his profession.

I hope I have made my point.
Well, I don't think that a Biltmore stick is a threat to the forest. But if I were a logger, and suddenly chainsaws were outlawed, because I was destroying the last forests, then I think I might change my profession.

Where did I muddy the waters? My only point here has been that no one is guaranteed the right to make a living in a particular job. I did not introduce this topic to the thread.

The small farmer is pushed out by competition from larger agribusinesses, the independent coal miner was pushed out because of more efficient larger operations, the buffalo hunter effectively put himself out of business by being too efficient, and so forth. There are a lot of reasons why one cannot make a living doing something they love. But that love does not repeal the laws of economics or provide additional resources where there none to be had.
 
#22 ·
We are or were not talking about science or any facts that support cca's request here Bill. We were talking about "rights."

As stated earlier, he has a commercial license which in itself has afford him the right.

You know, I have been a conservertor of "natural resources" for 35 years. I am slowly but surely getting tired of the term "natural resources." What the hell is so natural about our "natural resources" today? In my opinion, NOTHING.

Government has taken every sense of the word "natural" out of the equation.

Think about it.

:jackthread: Sorry about that.
 
#25 ·
We are or were not talking about science or any facts that support cca's request here Bill. We were talking about "rights."

As stated earlier, he has a commercial license which in itself has afford him the right.

You know, I have been a conservertor of "natural resources" for 35 years. I am slowly but surely getting tired of the term "natural resources." What the hell is so natural about our "natural resources" today? In my opinion, NOTHING.

Government has taken every sense of the word "natural" out of the equation.

Think about it.

:jackthread: Sorry about that.
You have a profound misundertanding of "rights" and "privileges".

You have no inalienable right to harvest anything out of the Bay, you have a license, which grants a privilege to do what others may not, namely, take from the Bay to sell for your personal benefit...That privilege can be revoked at any time...
 
#26 ·
Chum, you have your way of thinking (right or wrong) and I have mine (right or worng). Might as well move on.

Bill, you stated, "Well, I don't think that a Biltmore stick is a threat to the forest. But if I were a logger, and suddenly chainsaws were outlawed, because I was destroying the last forests, then I think I might change my profession."

1) Are you saying that the gill net is like a Biltmore stick in your example? Show me the facts.

2) Are gill nets like chainsaws in your example? Again, show me the facts.

As I and others have said, cca is trying to bulldog another restriction. A restriction NOT BASED ON FACTS, but on the desire to rid America of commercial waterman.

Makes no difference how you want to slice the pie, that IS their intent.
 
#27 ·
=cutbait2005;797919]Chum, you have your way of thinking (right or wrong) and I have mine (right or worng). Might as well move on.
Uhhhh...No...There is such a thing in this giant world of facts as "right" and "wrong". Just as there are distinctions between rights and priviliges...I'm sure you'd like to move on, because you are, not to put too fine a point on it or anything, wrong.
You have no right to commercially harvest anything from the Bay. Period...No room for argument.
 
#29 ·
Your opinion.

I do have a right and it is a God given right. God enabled me with the talents to harvest from the waters that he provided in order to feed my fellow man. I am certainly not getting rich from doing it my friend.:cool2:

"What human being would put one man's pleasure over another man's livelihood?"
 
#28 ·
Well, having dispensed with that civics class, let's turn to history...You know the old adage about learning from history so we don't repeat it? We're all smart fellas, we can work computers...What does history tell us?

In the early 1800's the mass hunting of waterfowl to supply commercial markets with meat became a widely accepted practice. In addition to the market for food, women's fashion in the mid 1800's added a major demand for feathers to adorn hats. To meet the demand, professional hunters developed custom built extremely large shotguns (bore diameters up to 2") for the task. These weapons were so cumbersome that they were most often mounted on long square-ended flat-hulled boats called punts. Hunters would typically use a long pole to quietly push their punt into range of a flock of waterfowl resting on the lake and, POW. A single shot from one of these huge guns could kill as many as 50 birds. To increase efficiency even further, punt hunters would often work in groups of 8-10 boats. By lining up their boats and coordinating the firing of their single shot weapons, entire flocks of birds could be "harvested" with a single volley. It was not unusual for such a band of hunters to acquire as many as 500 birds in a single day. Because of the custom nature of these weapons and the lack of support by the weapons industry, they were often rather crude in design. Most were sturdy hand-built muzzle loaders fired with percussion caps.

Market waterfowling quickly depleted bird populations in the United States and many states banned the practice by the late 1860's. Public outcry and the persistence of the Audubon Society led to the ratification of the Lacey Act in 1889 which prohibited the shipment of wild game or feathers across state lines. The federal government eventually stepped in with another series of laws to completely outlaw market hunting in 1918.

Now that's efficiency...Impressive, eh? Of course they didn't have a right to do that either, but they sure were efficient...
 
#30 ·
Chum hit the nail on the head. There are rights and privileges, and they are two separate things. If it were a right, you wouldn't need a license. Licenses grant privileges.

The original point of this thread, if we can remember back that far, was that the big bad boogeyman, CCA, was trying to curtail commercial fishing for a particular species, and the editor of a particular obscure publication in Mobile thought that it was wrong, because it was not science based. The quality of the publication, and the autobiography of the editor notwithstanding, there MAY have been something of substance there.

However, others brought forth the argument that there were "rights" in play. I didn't introduce that concept or hijack the thread. However, I wasn't going to allow the original hijacker to leave that contention on the table like a red herring. This is not a rights issue, but a privilege issue. The government, as a representative of the people, can restrict privileges in the interest of the greater good. This is especially true where the privilege is being exercised in the commons.

It is clear that as long as some confuse privileges with rights, this thread will require boxes and boxes of popcorn. Since I don't particularly care for popcorn, I will not contribute any further to this thread slowly twisting in the wind.
 
#31 ·
Oh my Goodness! Talking about right or wrong! YOU ARE DEAD wrong if you think comparing market hunters to today's commercial waterman is a correct comparrison. For a minute, you sounded like you were on to something but you quickly and I mean VERY quickly digressed.

Market hunting, hmmmm. Let's discuss that.

I will try and make this as painless and simple for ya as I can.

1) Market hunting never, that's right NEVER had any regulations to control what was taken. IE: no limits

2) There was no license requirement. No way of keeping track of who and how many were doing it.

3) No reporting procedures to furnish the numbers of ducks taken.

Hell I could go on and on but i need to pull some onions out of MY garden for dinner. That's right, not yours.

BTW, COMMERCIAL FISHING IS LEGAL and will remain so.
 
#33 ·
Oh my Goodness! Talking about right or wrong! YOU ARE DEAD wrong if you think comparing market hunters to today's commercial waterman is a correct comparrison. For a minute, you sounded like you were on to something but you quickly and I mean VERY quickly digressed.

Market hunting, hmmmm. Let's discuss that.

I will try and make this as painless and simple for ya as I can.

1) Market hunting never, that's right NEVER had any regulations to control what was taken. IE: no limits

2) There was no license requirement. No way of keeping track of who and how many were doing it.

3) No reporting procedures to furnish the numbers of ducks taken.

Hell I could go on and on but i need to pull some onions out of MY garden for dinner. That's right, not yours.

BTW, COMMERCIAL FISHING IS LEGAL and will remain so.
You just described the yellow perch dilemna...No limits, no net counts, totally ficticious reporting...
 
#37 ·
Hey, you can spend all night in a sweat tent and sacrifice a goat at dawn, it doesn't change the facts of the situation...

So go ahead, exercise that God-given right of yours to commercially fish...

You ever heard of buying a license to exercise a right? I didn't think so...
 
#36 ·
Chum - That is true. But the real damage was done with corn and Browning's Model 11 Remington automatic. For what........So a few could make a buck and the privileged could eat Wild Duck at the better Restaurants.

Like someone said earlier, " think about that" :yes:
 
#40 ·
Oh goodie, are we going to debate natural rights theory now?

Would you like to distinguish between "natural" rights and enumerated rights? Can you fathom how just maybe, maybe, you have the privilege of harvesting the Bay's bounty as a commercial fisherman, a priviledge, by the way, that may be revoked at any time?

Or would you simply like to admit that you have no "right" in any way, shape, or manner, to commercially exploit a public resource for your personal gain. Do I really have to blow the dust off my John Locke?

Show me language in either the Maryland state Constitution, or the US Constitution, which establishes your claim to right. Drag up all the case law you'd like, Shepardize away...I like it when we get in these heady discussions...
 
#41 ·
Fishing, crabbing or oystering can be done in the State of MD by anyone of age with a proper license. All licenses are a legal permission, not a right. The difference between a commercial license and a recreational license is the commercial license holder is authorized by the State to use more gear, more efficient gear and much higher catch limits, if any at all, than the recreational license holder.

So let's face a plain and simple fact. If the resource cannot withstand the fishing pressure then the fishing pressure needs to be reduced. The average rec is not going to give up his one fish or one bushel limit before the comm with the no fish or no bushel limit gives up his commercial authorization first and we all are reduced to the rec license level.
 
#42 ·
BI said, "So let's face a plain and simple fact. If the resource cannot withstand the fishing pressure then the fishing pressure needs to be reduced. The average rec is not going to give up his one fish or one bushel limit before the comm with the no fish or no bushel limit gives up his commercial authorization first and we all are reduced to the rec license level."

Here is a dose of reality.

The recreational level will be and sall be reduced before the commercial level if a need ever arises for such measures.

Chumlord, try to keep up.
 
#43 ·
BI said, "So let's face a plain and simple fact. If the resource cannot withstand the fishing pressure then the fishing pressure needs to be reduced. The average rec is not going to give up his one fish or one bushel limit before the comm with the no fish or no bushel limit gives up his commercial authorization first and we all are reduced to the rec license level."

Here is a dose of reality.

The recreational level will be and sall be reduced before the commercial level if a need ever arises for such measures.

Chumlord, try to keep up.
Keep up with what, your ignoring questions and making imperial edicts?

This is great stuff...The recreational, blah, blah, blah, will be and sall (sic) be, yadda, yadda, yadda, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Release the flying monkeys!

Priceless...
 
#45 ·
They raise us on a ranch in Brazil. We are marching in lockstep to Annapolis to ensure that you are reduced to commercial fishing with Snoopy rods and Zebco spincasters from innertubes with foot paddles...And you will like it...

Quick! What's that! I think the CCA boogyman just hid under your bed, Natural Rights Boy!
 
#47 ·
Hey, you're the guy on welfare living off the taxpayer dole...A simple thank you would do...Something like this:

"Thank you Mr. Maryland Recreational Fisherman for paying the bulk of DNR's fisheries budget, as well as all the federal and state largess that I (that would be you of course) rake in every year because of your benevolent and all loving nature..."

See? Try that on for size...Sounds about right...
 
#57 ·
Does the membership know their grand president of all the fishing club chapters makes that kind of money? Does he get any of the money the LNG people donated?
 
#58 ·
What? CCA national? Gee Reds, what do you think the presidents of national membership organizations get paid? Hmmmm? Ol' Larry is just handing out jobs for a few months out of the year to a handful of MWA members and gets, what? 40k plus for his efforts? Taxpaying dollars I might add...My money, I'm paying Larry to restore oysters! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA...Filet mignon and all...

That's priceless isn't it?

What do you figure the big boofoos at the NRA or at AARP are getting paid? With membership dues I might add, not taxpayer bucks...For an organization that will actually represent their members' interests, not whatever they pull out of their hiney at the last moment...

And nobody, nobody, is getting a dollar from LNG folks or anybody else. That has been explained to you repeatedly, but you don't like facts, you like lies, and you like trying to smear people.
 
#60 ·
Oh, and while we're at it, let's have some fun...You want to talk about money? Let's talk about money...

Look at this article that started this whole thread off:

Because that's what it always boils down to in CCA's fights against the commercial fishermen. It's a fight over who gets to catch the fish - the toothless, skulking commercial fisherman with is damnable net or the environmentally friendly sportsman with his $75,000boat going after a trophy for the wall and dinner for the family.

Oh this just keeps getting better and better...75,000 dollar boat...Huh? That's something, those rich CCA guys...

Hey, you know what? I fish with the chairman of CCA Maryland...You should see his rig, man it's sweet. Well, he has the old Grumman canoe of course, but the E-ticket ride is his old jon-boat, that he fixed with what appeared to be a discarded road sign and a tig welder, and one heck of a good Minn-Kota electric motor...Of course he doesn't get to fish all that much anyway because the shenanigans in Annapolis keep him pretty busy when he's not doing what most people refer to as making a living at his real-life full time job...

You know what CCA pays him? Nada...

You know what all the volunteers restocking yellow perch get paid? Zip...

Me? I'm cheap and easy...

You got the worst of all possible worlds, pal, you got true believers who aren't making a dime off our endeavors...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top