Kingfisher06

Don't call me a misinformed idiot!!!!!!

Is this place a knitting circle or what?

Soft-minded is polite, respectful terminology. I can offer up synonyms that are disrespectful to prove my point, but won't. Has it ever crossed your mind that maybe, the stance you are taking can be frustrating, and anger folks as much or more so than harsh words. I did offer a persuasive stance; that mollycoddling a certain set of folks one way deteriorates a blind justice system, but you cannot get beyond being called soft-minded or feeling bashed to address that. You simply wish to reinforce a politically correct granny vernacular that stifles good debate.

Reply in the form of a prayer, amen.

The polarization is a result of the soft-mindedness you display. Rather than hold a blind justice system accountable, it seems from your post you'd like a justice system to bend to your relative opinion that certain groups have a reasonable basis to be excused from responsibility. And if we don't adhere to your whimsical reasons, well, then we are on our way to Sharia Law or whatever you're getting at with your reference to the Middle East. It is important to present logical, historical, lawful precedence as a means to debate and change people's errant opinions. That discourse is crucial, even if you are scared someone's feelings will hurt.

There is no place better. Im all about American exceptionalism and believe in the Constitution. I have no shame in sticking up for it either. An by the way Sk8man, youre the one that has had to go back and edit your posts toconceal your true feelings on entrepreneurial profit that certainly flew in the face of any charter business, guiding service, hunting lease, or trapping endeavors.

The point of this discussion is deeper than does overfishing have an impact on the quality of fishing in a given body of water. Nobody is arguing that overfishing a species cannot happen for goodness sake, try to keep up Ric666. This is a debate regarding what someone ought to be allowed to do with their own fruits of labor. Personal property brought into possession by legal means through work or earnings is a private matter. New York is continually getting into the private matter of what you can and cannot do with your private property/business/earnings. The income tax is an unconstitutional levy against the trade of labor for pay. A good example of how far gone this country is and how ignorant its citizens are. This is a question of liberty. You are either for or against this sort of meddling. A meddling that is born out of envy of the entrepreneur’s success. Whether it be the preposterous Safe Act, egregious NYS Family Court racket, or bloated and ever-expanding tax code, etc. etc.; it all results in a more powerful, controlling, and unaccountable government. I have already explained that you cannot regulate greed. It is a human trait that does not magically get cured by being elected to office or being hired into a bureaucratic position. In fact, through the protection of elected office it runs rampant and infects the market place. Unelected positions that impose their ideologies that impart control feeds a greedy ego that lusts for power. Ordinary citizens who wish to impart unfair control are simply offering the state a means to this end. Once they sycophantically appeal to the state to achieve this, they are culpable too. It is reprehensible when this is done in a targeted manner to a minority of law abiding citizens. In essence, by trying to solve the problem of greed you create a far larger, more uncontrollable, greedy monster by utilizing the state to do so. The free market is the only fair system that can impart the fear necessary to curtail greed. I’ve given examples of the road you wish to go down and the blatant unaccountability the state has in its partial ownership of private property. Liability is extremely rare in government. Because that is what you are wishing for; partial state ownership/control of food in your freezer. I wonder if I am allowed to barter deer meat for gasoline down at the local gas mart, or firewood, or perch, honest question. If commercial selling of fish is prohibited can I trade a bucket of filets for a voucher to my favorite restaurant who wishes to trade? Can I sell that voucher? How about bitcoins for perch? My point being, you cannot regulate the bad guys, they will always find a way and in trying you strip the masses of liberty. Concerning some diehard fisherman on Otisco fishing within their legal means or Hookedups observations on Seneca. Why not make fair changes across the board rather than give the state partial control/ownership of what is in your freezer? If a lake can be proven to be overfished then lower the limit for all. If you did outlaw commercial fishing, what then if you realize the same guys are out there on Otisco and it turns out they are just loading up their extending families freezer and simply love fishing to no end? Do you wish to impose further draconian laws where a person can only visit a lake a certain amount of times in a season? How low do you want to go? I promise the state will go as low as you want to go, because another paragraph in the law books is just the extra weight they want to bonk you over the head with.

Sums up my thoughts. Super busy this weekend or I'd reply in my normal fashion...

How many tickets from folks who sell fish have been issued for over harvesting? Please tell me you have some sort of quantifiable data. How about tickets from just over harvesting perch by anyone from Seneca? Come on, don't tell me you haven't done your homework again and this is another knee-jerk no different than the Safe Act knee-jerk. No standards, but the double, again, I'm sure...

When I take a fish out of a lake it becomes mine and no longer a public resource. You pander like there is some big theft going on and there is not. Rather than the notion of lowering a daily limit on a given body of water you feel requires it for sustainability, which would be fair to all, you wish to target one select group and get into their private affairs by telling them what they can do with their property! When you say anecdotal, blanketed hogwash like ‘up until 50 years…’ without any data, I’m sorry, but you deserve deaf ears when it comes to big boy decisions that affect an entire community. The aim or philosophy of common property is to provide equal access and sustainability of important resources. What pollution in particular do you speak? What is the source and why is it not regulated? The Clean Water Act, surely has jurisdiction, why not track that down. The E.P.A. and its fines have real teeth. You wish to ignore the simple fact that big business can lobby for exemptions to pollute common property and at the same time root on a bunch of children to lobby the state to further dictate what a man can do with his own personal property. It’s crazy! You are a fabricator to cast doubt over the sustainability of statewide fisheries from hook and line selling. If my children are not allowed to go down to the creek each spring and catch a pal of bullheads, clean them and sell them, to save up for something they’d like, then I don’t know, what a stupid thing you’ve rooted for. Maybe they ought to learn to bully, rob and be deceitful to just keep up.

Good luck Billy

Remember, the premise of this thread is a statewide ban to solve one lake's perceived issue. I don't understand the empirical issues of Seneca Lake, but hypothetically, I would employ an educational campaign to stimulate the use of best management practices within the watershed. A strong public backing reinforced with readily available scientific literature could bring economic pressure upon large operations that do not implement sound land practices. Identifying significant sources of pollution is not that hard. Stabilizing the environment provides a cleaner canvas to then find understanding. I would utilize existing scientific studies that offer causal relations to perch declines and test if it is applicable to that body of water and rally public support around that, e.g., cormorant egg oiling. Can you promise me that outlawing the selling of fish will restore the fishery from 30 years ago? Of course not, that is a silly goal. Rather, tell me what the introduction of gobies on other perch waters has done to populations and behavior as a starting point for understanding this perceived decline. What is the relationship? On similar bodies of water where some science has stacked up, what can be learned, how can it be applied and what are the gaps of understanding. What has worked elsewhere and is it truly relevant? Upon finding a better understanding I would suggest Seneca Lake specific guidance if it is truly grounded in sound science.

Not true, just the only idea the LOU brain trust can propose, which is the lowliest, easiest, laziest hanging fruit.

What conservative concept am I holding near and dear that has been rebuked? A page ago you were trying to quote the Bible, nothing wrong with that, but then appear to side with the statist ideologues on this topic, which is counter intuitive to me. You see, statists, you know, Leninists, and Maoists take away religious freedom, free speech, dam near all Constitutional freedoms as a matter of business. They are not your friend. The change is an unnecessary law, one in a long line towards the dismantling of our inalienable rights as Americans.

When I was those kids age I didn't understand the concepts or trappings of the ideas presented here. I don't think many of the elder man posting to this thread do either. That's the main topic. For goodness sake, just look above; "The earth is flat" and "Perch for sale 25 bucks a pound". Maybe these kids learn to be flippant, vapid internet trolls who just accuse their debater of being on drugs, but my guess is that's it with flyrod at the helm.

Decent insult, actually, quite played out...what else you got?

So tired of this liberal strategy, Sk8man. This approach that completely dismisses lawful aggression as bad and therefore the opinions are not valid. An aggressive type of speech born out of the frustration of having to deal with emotional knee-jerk reactions like the one proposed by the original poster. It is an aggression born out of the individual having to deal with the collective, feel-good mob imposing its feelings all over the place. A tried and true tactic is the propaganda of saving some form of nature in order to control a behavior that hurts their collective feelings. Is this sort of passive aggression necessary Sk8man? If it is, than it is certainly necessary to demean and belittle these subjugators in debate. This teacher has rounded up a bunch of students, handed them sticks and instructed them to poke a sleeping bear. God forbid the bear acts like a bear. This is a discussion, not born out of your liberal fantasy that all viewpoints are true and equal, but that one side is right and the other is flat out wrong. You can pretend to respect differing viewpoints and the right to express those opinions, but you are supporting a statist ideology, which makes you a hypocrite. This is where politically correct speech comes from. A suppression of lawful, protected speech that is persuasive and powerful and a threat to the liberal strategy. The state is the biggest bully there is, but through the diversion or shield of passive aggression it seems like a facilitator of good. It seems to protect the weak, but it’s coddling only makes the weak dependent, defenseless and feeble, which only gives the state more power. All of this feel good talk about, oh it’s not just one problem, it’s a slew of problems, and everyone has a valid point of view and we all need to hold hands around Seneca Lake and sing the perch back to health weakens the entire debate. All it does is bring it back to the idea that here is a small slot of folks we can control, so let’s do that, while respecting everyone, but them, because they are just greedy, polluting, thiefs who steal our state given resources. I swear, if it weren’t for the double standard, liberals would have no standards at all.

I never attempted to pay taxes. I don't know tax law well enough to say it was illegal or legal. It probably has to do with a threshold of earnings. The idea of keeping track of bait, gas, vehicle repairs, shanty repairs, propane, fishing equipment etc for a write off really hurts my head to think about. I think someone earlier in the thread mentioned a ~10k salary for a federal tax reporting threshold, don't know state. The state gets way more than its share as it is with perch: sales tax, gas tax, license tax. I can't speak for the buyer who then distribute, but I assume they are taxed at that level of earning. Could be wrong, folks buying and selling perch aren't hardly getting by. It's like a guy doing charters, only does two charters all year, doubt he has to report at the level of earning. This is all a guess though.

For sure! You guys have taken this way too far.

Decent synopsis

Flies? Who's buying flies? I'll sell anything.

Yes, I've already received four paypal payments from Seneca Lake perch guys for lobbying on their behalf. This is going to affect my tax return next year. Hey, Seneca Lake perch pullers, no more checks over $600! My perchdreams are coming true!