Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Flathead Catfish' started by flathunter, Jul 6, 2008.
Nope, i doubt it. Thing is, when there license is revoked, they'll keep on fishin likely.
Fines that were amounting to the sell price of 3 fish is ridiculous. I don't know how much they're charging, but I'd imagine selling 5 would probably cover the cost of the fine. This is a cycle with criminals where they deal in consequences. If the cost of the consequences only encourages more of the crime then I find that very inadequate. Coming from a fisherman who has never even tasted flathead meat, since the only ones around here are catch and release by program management, or go to the missourri, and get one to eat, but that's a long drive to kill a fish that you could of let go.
well we cant toss folks in jail longer for selling fish than rape. but after a couple offenses its should tripple and include more peneties including permanent suspention of fishing rights. and if they keep doing it then the jail term lengthens untill prizon.
but ya cant excecute a guy for selling fish. :cool2:
i agree if its against the law they should be punished. but selling fish. a $250 fine and 30 days i would think is stiff enough to keep me from it for sure.
i aint going to jail over a fish.
but when a drunk driver hits a family of four killing 1 and injuring 3 and gets 6 years. we cant justify 5 years for selling fish. can we?oooh:
Fines that were amounting to the sell price of 3 fish is ridiculous. QUOTE
and they get $80 for a fish in ohio? dang. :crazy:
since the law knows who it is now they will probaly keep an eye on them for a while
When this happens they should list the names and city they live in and thier crime on the dnr site. So everyone knows who they are and can watch them so it can not happen again.:angry:
Actually it depends on if they are going to charge the fine per incident (like $250 for each illegal fish).
They made way more profit than that on each trip!
Thnik they'll ever spend a day in jail? I doubt it.
I also hope they confiscated all boats, tanks, haulers, tackle and everything else form these jerks.
$250.00 each fish. i could relate to that. i also agree with a $75 fine each fish taken under the size limit, or over creel limit. so ya. i think that would help stop it from being worth while.
sounds reasonable too. :wink:
I understand what you are saying, and I agree that they don't compare, but I have an issue here.
The drunk is guilty of criminal negligence and should be punished, but he did not intend to kill anyone. He is guilty of poor judgment and very bad luck. Thousands of people drive drunk every day and don't get sent to prison for it. Having an accident and killing someone were not intended. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying drunk driving is OK, but the poor idiot never meant any harm. Let's be honest. We all are guilty of poor judgment at some point in life.
The guys taking and selling the fish knew what they were doing was illegal and did it anyway. They intentionally went outside the law for their own profit. I know the results are not the same, but morally I think they are the lower life form.
Seeing the time involved with the investigation, are there multiple charges being filed against some. If so, this could amount to guiet a hefty fine.
As far as the fine itself, it is set due to the rating of the crime. All fourth degree misdemeanors carry the same maximum punishment.
This will be considered a serious crime on by a small percentage of the population. What is unfortunate is that the Judge(s) hearing the cases will most likely be in the majority of people that could care less.
Just curious! Why do you think that illegal fishing is morally worse than drunk driving?
You can probably fine them $150,000 and it still hasn't hurt them. They have been doing it for years and have profitted many times.
getting behind the wheel drunk is taking everyones life on the road in your hands. by far worse in my book.
i agree they need stiffer penalties. but if so we need to rethink other laws too. theres murderers walking free on parole. so i cant see sending these guys to prizon unless there caught repeted times.
but fines for each fish to stop any profits. sure. i see that being no problem at all. revoking commercial and sport liscense too. and if caught fishing on no lisc a bigger fine and maybe a lil jail. remember. repete offenders usually get stiffer penalties. if there not and still making money then wrong or not. you have to blame the legislators not the guy doung it.
its like oil co dumping waste in oceans. they can only get fined a certain amount per day. and it would = less than 1/2 of 1 % of the profits they make in a day. so they still do it. wrong? yes. but its because they are still allowed to make money.
i would write to legislators and judges about this if its a big problem. and ohio seems to have a paylake abundance. we dont have as many in my area.
"Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying drunk driving is OK, but the poor idiot never meant any harm. Let's be honest. We all are guilty of poor judgment at some point in life.
The guys taking and selling the fish knew what they were doing was illegal and did it anyway. They intentionally went outside the law for their own profit. I know the results are not the same, but morally I think they are the lower life form."
Are you kidding me, so if you kill someone because you were drunk driving
it's not morally as bad as illegally catching catfish. I'm sure the family of the victims would disagree with that. Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
OK, one more time then I'm going to sign off this topic. I should have know enough to keep my mouth shut.
My point has to do with the difference between driving drunk and killing someone and driving drunk and being lucky enough to not have an accident. The drunk driver that has an accident and kills someone did not do it intentionally. He exercised bad judgment and broke the law with tragic consequences, but he did not intentionally do harm.
Let's be 100% honest here: If you can say that you have never gotten behind the wheel after a drink or two, then you are a better man than I am. I am not a drunk and have been smart enough not to drive after drinking for many many years, but there were times as a teen when I drove after having a few beers, etc. Thousands of people drive after drinking on a daily basis, and by the grace of God they get away with it without tragic consequences. Can you honestly say you never did the same? Should I (and everyone else who has ever driven under the influence) face the same penalty as someone who was not as lucky and had a tragic accident? Maybe we should.
I guess the law is not based on intent, but morality is. If you want to debate the morality of intent, I will happily continue, but not here. I don't think this is the place.
I agree that many people have driven under the influence, including myself. My point was, that I don't think intentions really matter to the victims or their family. It really doesn't matter if a person was killed by a remorseful drunk driver, or gunned down in the parking lot, the result is still the same.
i disagree. the guy that gets drunk KNOWS it is wrong to drink and drive, yet he still does it. i have no mercy for that driver. my wife lost a sister and niece to one of those , as you would say, "idiots that never mean no harm ".dont get me wrong i drink some times myself, but when i have been drinking , wife drives.:angry: