That's a big fish and kind of BS what the government did there.
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/
http://rt.com/usa/news/fish-rafael-tuna-catch-085/
Comments
Yes, a fine would have sufficed.
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.
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.