That's a big fish and kind of BS what the government did there.

By
That's a big fish and kind of BS what the government did there. It only makes the government look bad. If they had bought the fish from him, or even fined him, it would be different, but to take the fish away completely? That's BS.
http://rt.com/usa/news/fish-rafael-tuna-catch-085/

Comments

Jim Feig said…
The law needs a provision to add sanity for these odd situations, it's difficult to write without creating a loop hole.
November 23, 2011 at 3:00 PM
Jon Pederson said…
Sushi at the next EPA executives retreat!
November 23, 2011 at 3:58 PM
Jason ON said…
No one's arguing that he didn't go outside the rules of his permit, but was it worth taking his catch away? I mean, we're talking one fish, not poaching hundreds. And we're talking a fine would have sufficed in lieu of taking his catch from him.
November 23, 2011 at 5:34 PM
Jason ON said…
Really? When you get a speeding ticket you pay a fine, not have your vehicle impounded (except under exceptional circumstances). When you get caught on a motorcycle without a motorcycle endorsement you get a fine, not a vehicle impoundment. When your house doesn't meet code they fine you, they don't take away your house.

Yes, a fine would have sufficed.
November 23, 2011 at 5:42 PM
Colin Fosgate said…
I went to NOAA's site and looked up the permit. It says right on the application for the commercial permit, "Authorized gear: rod and reel (including downriggers), harpoon, handline, and bandit gear."

The man's excuse is that he didn't know he couldn't use a net, saying, "We did everything by the book. Nobody ever told me we couldn't catch it with a net."

It's right on the application. He was told.
November 23, 2011 at 5:44 PM
Jason ON said…
We're not discussing whether or not he was guilty, we're discussing whether or not his having his catch confiscated is a just action.
November 23, 2011 at 5:46 PM
Colin Fosgate said…
I think it is. Like Alice said, if you're speeding in order to make money(as in racing), you do face confiscation of your vehicle.
November 23, 2011 at 5:47 PM
Jason ON said…
"If." One, they would have to prove that he was out there with intent to circumvent the regulation. According to this article and any other I've read, no one has even made that claim much less proven it. If anything, "Rafael was recently out on his boat when his crew inadvertently snared an 881-pound tuna using a fishing net." ~the article above.

Inadvertently.

Definition for inadvertently:
Web definitions:
unwittingly: without knowledge or intention; "he unwittingly deleted the references".
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

That means no intent. They could have been fishing for something else entirely and caught the tuna a by product.

Again, does not create cause for confiscating his catch when a fine would due justice.

http://goo.gl/Iacc3
"New Bedford fishing boat owner Carlos Rafael was elated recently when one of his bottom trawlers snared an 881-pound tuna."

I'm not sure about tuna, but do you use a bottom trawler to catch them?

Again, if I'm fishing for Fish-A and catch Fish-B is it my fault? Is it my fault to the point where my catch should be taken away from me?

It would be another thing if we found out this fisher was notorious for violating the rules and had been warned, fined or whatnot in the past, but according to either article, no such warnings or fines had been issued.
November 23, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Colin Fosgate said…
On the one hand, I feel bad for the guy. Presumably, if he had tuna permits, he had the gear, so he might have been able to lie and say he caught the fish legally. . .
November 23, 2011 at 5:54 PM
Jason ON said…
Alice Cabrera and that would be up to a court, not a law enforcement official.
November 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

By
So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to remove me from whatever Circle he has me in where he posts the animated gifs and cat pictures. It was either that or unfollow him and I didn't see any reason to unfollow him. Me asking https://plus.google.com/112885755521259735422/posts/78dwnvvgh4p <==edited to add the correct link Then he plusses me onto Public posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/EuuR1tnU3vJ https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/8r6Grcm2Jpj https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/74PgSu6iL2s Then one of his friends (or Circlers) starts plussing me into posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/107120198886093172821/posts/gRW9JhWLs5T Don't get me wrong, I'm all about sarcasm and messing with people, but this seems sort of childish to me. Am I the only one who thinks so? So far I have only blocked
Read more

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.

By
I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend. Why? This stupid #gifwars thing people are so proud of. This Adam Black guy said he doesn't like gifs and now everyone is mass trolling him. Having been mass trolled like this I can relate to him easily enough. Have an opinion and the collective might of Google+'s lower class denizens jump on a bandwagon. I just saw a post where someone wanted to jump on board and had to get clarification she was tagging the proper Adam Black. She wasn't even connected to him ! Nor was she a part of the original discussion. She just wanted to follow the herd. When I called her out of it she claimed, "one gif doesn't make a troll." Perhaps not, but she's contributing to a larger troll effort. One straw doesn't break the camel's back, but thousands will. So, tonight, Google+ disgusts me. It probably will tomorrow as well. And possibly Sunday. I gave up Google+ for two months this spring
Read more