Pensacola Fishing Forum banner

61 - 80 of 175 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
First of all, it is within the legal limits so I have no problem with it. Secondly; There is a vast amount of fertile water in that area which holds great numbers of fish. I used to fish down there 30 years ago and the fishery has not changed. Good catch guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,344 Posts
Well I know one thing.... I am taking my kids to LA for a fishing trip this spring.

(Might just keep a few too.....)

Trout are one of my favorite eating fish and if you freeze them correctly, they are really good for a year or so.

Fried up.... taters and onions.... ummm ummmm :hungry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,124 Posts
i have racked like that in the bay on white trout (usually bigger fish) many times and you can believe they did not go to waste and there were plenty left swimming when i left.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
I myself have caught fish like that in the Mobile area...many years ago before the age of limits & i must state LIMITED FISH!

Great that they can still have the high limits & as long as the fish dont go to waste, have no problem. That may have been the only trip those guys were able to take all year. Legal, no problem :sleeping...otherwise, shame on them:nonono
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,905 Posts
Discussion Starter #65
Everyone knows the old adage about assuming something. Just about every response to this post has been negative and some hostile. This is a forum that Chris has established as a public forum for anglers. My thoughts and opinions are just as pertinent to this site as yours are. The prevailing attitude is like I'm trying to take something from you, believe me, I'm not. I love to fish and try to go as often as I can. I hope that our future generations can enjoy the same recreational advantages that I have had.



Some of you have said things like they can take the limit because it's legal and use the fish for fertilizer and it's none of my business. It is my business because I am part of the recreational angler community and I believe the we should utilize our resources to the maximum extent without waste. Using your legal theme, it's legal to drive 65 miles an hour as posted on the highways, well if it's a downpour rain and you can't see squat you slow down to a safe speed or stop on the side of the road. It's still legal to drive 65 MPH but very dangerous. If you start talking about road conditions that would be something like conservation.



I'm sure that each of you has an opinion about the process of regulating recreational fishing and I'm sure that all of you has complained at least once about restrictions of seasons and bag limits, I know I have. The fix for the whole fishing situation if we rely on State and Federal Government legislation will be drawn out and painful for us all. We are the one that enjoy the sport of recreational fishing and we are the ones that leave our footprint on our fisheries. We can continue to take our limits every time we go fishing and hope that the fishery remains sustainable or we can practice a little conservation to help ensure that it does.



I'm more concerned about my grand daughter being able to fish with her grandchildren than I am about what my bag limits and season length will be next year. I doubt that the government can guarantee that but I know that if all recreational anglers practiced some conservation of resources by taking just what they can use without waste it would do more to make our fisheries sustainable than what the government has done so far.



Every year the fishing regulations are getting more restrictive and have no doubt in your mind that the year 2010 will be no different. We as recreational anglers pretty much agree that there is a problem, the best way to solve a problem is to become part of the solution



Kim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Looks like a great day on the water to me. Limits are there for a reason, meaning you should be able to catcha certain amount of a particular species without detriment to that species. If there trout limits are setby the samepeople that set snapper limits, then they could probably catch 75 fish a piece and not effect the long term population of trout.

With that said, I've fish plenty of times for trout in the past 15 years and have only gotten into them like that once. It was a blast, and Yes we did eat them all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
I agree, I get totally sick looking at things like this too. But as I read the posts, two points usually come out:

1. if they are within their "legal limits" why should people care?

2. the fishery / capt / whatever, seems to be able to support catches like these

I have a totally different view: are you going to clean and eat all those fish? If not, who cares what the limits are? Or if there are millions of other fish out there that can be caught? Why do you want to kill a bunch of fish you have no intention of eating?

I don't hunt anymore for just this reason. I grew totally sick of seeing "males" (vs men) go out and kill beautiful animals, cut the horns off to mount and leave the body in the woods to rot.

Or take a hind quarter off for meat and leave the rest of the deer.

They were within their "legal limit" too, but was that right?

Hell no, it was wrong, just as wrong as catching dozens of fish you have no intention of eating. You can catch 10 flounder a day in NW FL, buthow many people will realistically eat 10 flounder, or 20 or more? Some folks may do the work, but I would bet 90% just want to catch a lot of fish and could care less about the killing and wastefull practice because they were within the legal limits.

I know posting this on PFF this will not be a popular reply, but so be it. I am not arguing the issues on red snapper or grouper or amberjack limits or closures, my only point is - in my tiny, slow thinking, old fashioned mind - a TRUE SPORTSMAN will not kill more than they need, or plan to eat, regardless of the bag or catch limits.

Just because you can kill something does not make it right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
Sure, I wouldn't mind being portrayed as a law-abiding sportsman who is good at his sport and stays within the legal limits.

oh, and an edit to add this:

I grew up over in South LA. Who says the fish will be wasted? We fished a lot when I was growing up, and we always had a good bit of fish in the freezer. We ate more seafood than beef because it was cheaper for us. And anyone who says specs aren't any good after being frozen is doing something wrong in the freezing/thawing process. I've eaten them fresh and frozen almost all my 37 years and you can hardly tell the difference which piece of fish was frozen if done properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,151 Posts
Interesting debate thatmay be bestconsidered against the backdropof the much larger "court of U.S. population public opinion" versus "was it a legal catch?"

Pretty sure the charter captain has the picture up to document his guide skills and to drum up business in essencemaking the statement with the picture on his charter website to interested fisherman:"Come visit Louisianaand fish with me andI will put you on some fish, Look what these gentlemen caught when they fished with me!"

There is nothing wrong with that in my mind.

However, considerthe below type picture thatenvironmental organizations are putting upfor the "court of public opinion" to judge and to raise funds to stop "overfishing".



I would venture to say that 70%? or more of the current US population has neverbutchered an animal that they themselves have killed. When you take the poor knowledge base thatthe US general population is working from in terms of their individual knowledge of fishery conservation requirements, you can beganto understand whyenvironmental groupscan get the "soccer mom" in suburban Chicagoto pull money out of her purse and give it to the environmental group that says they want to "save our seas" by showing them a picture like the oneabove versus supporting recreational fishing rights.

Kim,

Believe what you are asking would best be described in terms of a military psychological campaignor aMadisonAvenue marketing campaignwhere the minds of the people (US population) are influenced to support recreational fishing. Don't think we will ever get there. The tideturned somewhere 20+years ago "court of U.S. population public opinion" and we are becoming more isolated as a group recreational fisherman)and fighting alosing battle...how long will we last?

Mark W
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
Kim and SEL1005,

Your opinions are without merit without more information regarding the fishermen in the picture.

We can all agree that you shouldnt keep more than you are going eat, your friends or going to eat, or whatever your plans for. Just dont let them go to waste. This is a no brainer.

But you have no idea if this is whats happening. You are just assuming they dont have a good reason, and passing judgement upon them.

Since you don't have this information, you should just keep your "opinion" to yourself as you cannot "portray someone a certain way" without the facts. If these guys arecatching them and letting them rot on the shore, and you know that for a fact then that would "portray them in a negative light". I repeat you do not have this information. What if they take those fish to the homeless shelter and feed a bunch of homeless people? I bet you would eat your f'in hat then! And I would laugh my ass off at what a judgemental a'hole you are being.

As said before, they could be catching 100 fish and thats their only trip this year.Would you get upset if they made 10 trips a year and caught 10 fish each time? It's still 100 fish. Who cares how many trips it takes?

You have no clue what there intended use is for those fish, so you should really just stop defending yourself with your argument with no merit, just like you did when you told us all you hate us fishing near your dock because it spoils your view then we watch you back peddle for a week straight and defend an undefendable position.

You cannot judge them, as you haveinadequate information. That is not my opinion, that is fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Chopedliver

Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and intend to lie to you and steal from you so that they can stay fat and happy.



But you have no idea if this is whats happening. You are just assuming they dont have a good reason, and passing judgement upon them.


Practice what preach Sir!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
Capt.Eugene (12/2/2009)
Chopedliver
Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and intend to lie to you and steal from you so that they can stay fat and happy.

But you have no idea if this is whats happening. You are just assuming they dont have a good reason, and passing judgement upon them.
Practice what preach Sir!
I would say to you to do the same thing,Capt Eugee.(Got mine wrong, thought I should return the favor)

We can always count on a quote from Eugene that adds nothing to the discussion and is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
Stating facts, is not judging. The sky is blue. Not an opinion, not judging. Its a fact.

Kim does not have info to back up his opinion. Move along.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and intend to lie to you and steal from you so that they can stay fat and happy.


intend to lie to you and steal from you





I am not asking for your support don't want it. protest it that is fine BUT WHAT MAKES THE STATEMENT OK.



Were are your facts that make me A Thief and a Lier. answer this and I might move along
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,380 Posts
Capt.Eugene (12/2/2009)
Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and intend to lie to you and steal from you so that they can stay fat and happy.
intend to lie to you and steal from you


I am not asking for your support don't want it. protest it that is fine BUT WHAT MAKES THE STATEMENT OK.

Were are your facts that make me A Thief and a Lier. answer this and I might move along
Oh so this is about my signature? lol... sorry Eugene, thought you had something relevant to say about this thread. Let's not derail this any further , start a new one, or reply to one of the many threads on here already posted about the SOS plan. My last response to you on this thread as I do not wish to participate furtherin your derailing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,381 Posts
choppedliver (12/2/2009)Kim and SEL1005,

Your opinions are without merit without more information regarding the fishermen in the picture.

We can all agree that you shouldnt keep more than you are going eat, your friends or going to eat, or whatever your plans for. Just dont let them go to waste. This is a no brainer.

But you have no idea if this is whats happening. You are just assuming they dont have a good reason, and passing judgement upon them.

Since you don't have this information, you should just keep your "opinion" to yourself as you cannot "portray someone a certain way" without the facts. If these guys arecatching them and letting them rot on the shore, and you know that for a fact then that would "portray them in a negative light". I repeat you do not have this information. What if they take those fish to the homeless shelter and feed a bunch of homeless people? I bet you would eat your f'in hat then! And I would laugh my ass off at what a judgemental a'hole you are being.

As said before, they could be catching 100 fish and thats their only trip this year.Would you get upset if they made 10 trips a year and caught 10 fish each time? It's still 100 fish. Who cares how many trips it takes?

You have no clue what there intended use is for those fish, so you should really just stop defending yourself with your argument with no merit, just like you did when you told us all you hate us fishing near your dock because it spoils your view then we watch you back peddle for a week straight and defend an undefendable position.

You cannot judge them, as you haveinadequate information. That is not my opinion, that is fact.
I've read this post a few times and have to agree with you, this is a pretty stupid post. Kim you are raising a stink why because you are making assumptions based on inadequate information. It's pretty well known now this picture came from LA and these guys were most likely within their legal limits with the fish they caught so quit being a closet PETA supporter by raising such a stink over something you have no clue about. Geez, these guys probably saved up their moneyto make one trip to LA each year to catch their limit on fish to fill their freezers for the year to feed their families and here you are calling them out for doing what,obeying the law, enjoying their fishig trip and taking a picture of their success?

I can imagine how you would reacted whenI went fishing with my Grandparents whenI was a kid. The limit for Bluegill on the lake we fished was 50 a piece and guess what, everytime we went fishing we caught 150 Bluegills among the 3 of usand then went home and cleaned them and put them in the freezer and fed the whole family for weeks. What a concept, we followed the rules (legal limits in place)and provided food for thewhole family, how is that sowrong and what is wrong if we took a picture of our success? Justplain stupid this post is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,223 Posts
Kim (12/2/2009)
Some of you have said things like they can take the limit because it's legal and use the fish for fertilizer and it's none of my business. It is my business because I am part of the recreational angler community and I believe the we should utilize our resources to the maximum extent without waste. Using your legal theme, it's legal to drive 65 miles an hour as posted on the highways, well if it's a downpour rain and you can't see squat you slow down to a safe speed or stop on the side of the road. It's still legal to drive 65 MPH but very dangerous. If you start talking about road conditions that would be something like conservation.


Kim
Just to let you know it is illegal to drive 65 in the conditions you posted. So that arguement doesn't hold water. Was waiting on a LEO to say something but I will.

This is out of FLORIDA STATUE 316.183

(4)The driver of every vehicle shall, consistent with the requirements of subsection (1), drive at an appropriately reduced speed when:

(a)Approaching and crossing an intersection or railway grade crossing;

(b)Approaching and going around a curve;

(c)Approaching a hill crest;

(d)Traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway; and

(e)Any special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.



Here is the complete law if you would like to see it on the STATE website.



http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0316/SEC183.HTM&Title=->2000->Ch0316->Section%20183
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
Look, I eat fish a lot but can we please get over the whole "they were doing this to feed their families" thing.



Charters cost in the ballpark of $700 plus plus tip plus lodging plus gas to drive down there. Acting like these people are so poor they can't get food and are keeping all these fish to feed themselves and their families is a joke. You can get the same amount of meat in bubba burgers or hot dogs from the grocery store for nothing compared to the cost of going and catching fish. If you can go pay for a charter, you can feed your family. Its not like they are starving and their only source of food is small ass Louisiana trout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
choppedliver (12/2/2009)
Capt.Eugene (12/2/2009)
Please do not support any of the captains or vessels on the list below. They support the SOS plan and intend to lie to you and steal from you so that they can stay fat and happy.


intend to lie to you and steal from you





I am not asking for your support don't want it. protest it that is fine BUT WHAT MAKES THE STATEMENT OK.



Were are your facts that make me A Thief and a Lier. answer this and I might move along




Oh so this is about my signature? lol... sorry Eugene, thought you had something relevant to say about this thread. Let's not derail this any further , start a new one, or reply to one of the many threads on here already posted about the SOS plan. My last response to you on this thread as I do not wish to participate furtherin your derailing.


Actually it is relevant (altho i don't agree with Kim on all subjects) this is a good point made even tho it is legal is it MORALY CORRECT you may over fish a species and end up with more plan's to fix the problem



Kim will say I told you so.



And I'll say we tried to fix it,



And you'll say Your a lier And a thief and you cant judge me I did not Break the Law.



Question here is: Is it morally correct "NO"



Is it legal "YES"
 
61 - 80 of 175 Posts
Top