California has passed a law that states; if you catch any bass, blue gill, striped bass, ect. in the California Delta you have to kill it as an invasive species.  So the question is; if this law was passed in your neck of the woods, what would you do?  

 

 

 

And please, don't turn this topic into a political argument.

                                                              

                                                                               -Mgmt.

On the books?  What does that mean?  Is this the effort to save the Salmon, Steelhead and Smelt in the Delta?

Correction, they have passed it.  It is Bill S2894.  It is to save the "Clear Lake Hitch".  Tom posted a thread in the Tournaments section, "The Fate Of Bass Tournaments", for more info.

Keep in mind this is a United States Senate bill S1894, not a state bill, the reason maybe federal funding.

Non- political answer;

You can't violate state regulations during a tournament, if the regs state you can't catch and release...you would be DQ'd. If the question is would I violate state regulations knowing I could be cited, no! I would bass fish where the regulations allowed for C&R or allowed for a choice to keep and eat.

Tom

I am probably in the minority here. I keep fish to eat on occasion, including bass. I have skin mounts.

 

However, even conceding that the fisheries biologists know much more than me- I would not abide by this law. With that said, I will not whine, or complain about any fine I get for not doing so. 

I am probably in the minority here. I keep fish to eat on occasion, including bass. I have skin mounts.

However, even conceding that the fisheries biologists know much more than me- I would not abide by this law. With that said, I will not whine, or complain about any fine I get for not doing so.

In California the fine is confiscated boat, motor, tackle and fishing license until you make a court appearance...you may start whining.

Tom

Wow that is a tough fine. Good thing I am a lawyer myself, so won't have legal fees to add to the fines. 

That's pretty wild. But in reality I doubt it's a big deal even if everyone killed every bass they caught in the delta. It would probably take a very long time to really hurt the population as I bet their numbers are insane. It might even start producing even bigger fish f people killed what they caught.

I am not a big fan of total eradication but I am for thinning the herd sometimes. We do throw any catfish caught at my mothers in the woods but that is different. I also could care less if some one wants to skin mount a fish. It's a drop in the bucket really.

That's kind of a tough call. I guess if I can't play by the rules in a given sandbox I'll find a different sandbox to play in

Just out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind this law?

Wow that is a tough fine. Good thing I am a lawyer myself, so won't have legal fees to add to the fines.

Haha.. That's well played. Maybe you can negotiate a plea with the "Your Honor" and walk out unscathed... Maybe

I would quit fishing.. If I'm going to break laws.. They won't be fishing laws. A man has to choose his battles, this one I will pass on.

It's impossible to fish out 1,500 mile fishery, it must be poisoned it with rotenone and that doesn't kill all the fish. What this bill will do is decimate sport fishing in the delta. There is a chance the U.S. Congress will not fund this bill, however it's tied to climate change that is popular at this time.

With your tournament entry you may get serval recipes for preparing bass. Keep in mind you can only catch 5 bass with no release.

Tom

Wow that is a tough fine. Good thing I am a lawyer myself, so won't have legal fees to add to the fines. 

But according to the old addage, you would have a fool for a client.

Y'all do not want my opinion

I dunno what tournament fisherman would do but as a recreational angler I'd just let them go.  "It slipped out of my hand back into the water while I was holding it."

Ok, so it hasn't passed the house or the senate.  it was introduced in the senate in July, that's just introduced, then it was recently heard by a committee 3 weeks ago.  thats it, it won't pass the senate , and definitley won't pass the house.  Don't forget the republicans hold a super majority over the house and the senate and would never let this drought bill  pass.  A senate bill gets introduced, then it must go to committee , then it must pass  a vote in the comittee, then it goes for a vote in the senate, if it passes the vote it goes over to the house , where it goes to committee , must be passed by vote in committee, then it goes to the house for a vote, then if it passes it has to go to a conference committee where the house and the senate have to agree on all of the amendements before it goes to the president.   

 

also the repulbicans passed their own version in the house earlier in 2015, which also won't go anywhere , this bill is just a reaction to that bill

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s1894 for more info

So this is kind of the the Fed's law against weed, but then some states allow it.  As I read on here, Still has to pass House.  And California fish and game law protects ALL gamefish.  The list other then bullhead and silversides are all gamefish.  The DFG would have to regulate this law even if it was a Federal action.  This means State Fish and Game will have to pass regulations for this.  Somehow I don't see the FBI regulating fisherman if the CA DFG doesn't inact regulations according to Fed law.  And since it has to pass congress, FLW, BASS, ABA, and all other organizations could submit petitions as well as local businesses that thrive on the tourisim of the delta and it's fishery.  And since it is a federal action that means ALL fisherman in each state could do this and have it submitted to congress as well as each of their representitives.  As much pushback as there was for the tunnels in the delta, odds are there would be even more pushback against this.

This is yet another case where the federal govt thinks they know whats best for each individual state..they dont. This is and should be a state and state only matter.

Amazing!

 

24 34 members voted to break the law.

 

Now we need a poll to see if these people would agree that others had the right to their status as "bucket fishermen", or if they actually feel that they're the only ones allowed to break the law.

 

The world may never know!

They could ship the stripers to the east coast, we could use some more.

I would probably just fish for some other species of fish. Bass aren't the only fun species to catch in my area. My vote is fish for some other species. 

What is different now that wasn't different on their introduction to Kalifornia?

Introduction took place with the railroad in lots of instances, though I can't say for certain this is one of them.

What is happening now that's changed, that bass must be killed?

Josh

Amazing!

 

24 members voted to break the law.

 

Now we need a poll to see if these people would agree that others had the right to their status as "bucket fishermen", or if they actually feel that they're the only ones allowed to break the law.

 

The world may never know!

It's an issue of our own standards that we live by. Not what others tell us is right and wrong.

It's impossible to fish out 1,500 mile fishery, it must be poisoned it with rotenone and that doesn't kill all the fish. What this bill will do is decimate sport fishing in the delta. There is a chance the U.S. Congress will not fund this bill, however it's tied to climate change that is popular at this time.

With your tournament entry you may get serval recipes for preparing bass. Keep in mind you can only catch 5 bass with no release.

Tom

That's what I was thinking. I didn't know it was 1.5k miles though. I think people are way to worried sometimes about conservation on bass fishing. The mindset that every fish has to go back can actually hurt a fishery more then keeping a select amount.

Unless fish are being caught commercially in huge numbers anglers using poles to catch fish 1 at a time will never stop the fish. It could be a good thing to keep fish as I bet the delta is totally choked with fish. People should keep any fish they want as long as it is legal no matter how big it is. The whole thing about releasing it for someone else's to catch is kinda silly. I can agree with that in a pond where there might be 5-10 fish in the whole place like that. But in places with vast amounts of water it probably will never be caught again.

That's what I was thinking. I didn't know it was 1.5k miles though. I think people are way to worried sometimes about conservation on bass fishing. The mindset that every fish has to go back can actually hurt a fishery more then keeping a select amount.

Unless fish are being caught commercially in huge numbers anglers using poles to catch fish 1 at a time will never stop the fish. It could be a good thing to keep fish as I bet the delta is totally choked with fish. People should keep any fish they want as long as it is legal no matter how big it is. The whole thing about releasing it for someone else's to catch is kinda silly. I can agree with that in a pond where there might be 5-10 fish in the whole place like that. But in places with vast amounts of water it probably will never be caught again.

Keep all you guys want, I dint care. The point is the law is unjust. Ley people take or not take fish, but you can't sit here and tell then (by law) that they have to do one or the other. That's just stupid, and frankly, nearly unconstitutional.