Date: November 12, 2001
To: PFIC Message Board
From: aafrench
Subject: Crabs/invertebrates
Crabs are Crustaceans not invertebrates
Name: stinkyfingers
One is part of the other... from DFG: “To take mollusks, crustaceans, OR OTHER INVERTEBRATE for commercial purposes in any...” blah blah blah. That’s from Section 123. Crustaceans ARE invertebrate. Just like Mollusks. That’s why the DFG says this one, that one, or “other” invertebrate. The only difference you should point out is that mollusks and such are included in that category, NOT that crabs are excluded.
Name: gyozadude
Frenchy: No offense, but that last post on crustaceans! = invertebrates was pretty embarrassing, if not for you, at least for me. If I was caught making some statement like that, I might as well tear up my high school diploma and shoot me.
. For those youths who are interested in how life is classified, you can do a web search on “taxonomy of life” or “kingdom phylum class order family genus species.” Having a fundamental understanding of marine wildlife (flora and fauna) is really a responsibility of each American who cares about the environment and the diversity of life. IMO, you can't claim you're a credible environmentalist unless you understand and arm yourself with truth, and since most truth is obtained through science, you need to understand the lexicon science for yourself.
Name: aafrench
That just goes to show everyone makes mistakes! Does that mean I should not have the privilege of posting?
Name: gyozadude
Post all you want... I’m just giving you a hard time. Usually, I love reading your posts, so it was a big surprise to see you make a basic blunder like that. For a second, I thought some of those so. cal. angling limits zone folks had hijacked your email address and you were turning schizo.
Name: aafrench
Subject: Scorpionfish is a family of poisonous fishes! (in response to previous posts).
Nobody is dead wrong! You should check your facts, too. The fish that was caught - Sculpin (California scorpionfish) family Scorpaenidae, Genus and Species: (Scorpaena guttata) are poisonous, as are most, if not all of the Scorpaenidae (Scorpionfishes)
A Cabezon, Family: (Cottidae) Genus and Species: (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) is not it poisonous because is in the Cottidae family. Which is sometimes commonly called Sculpin family. Again it is just a mix up of common names Vs. Scientific names. But again all fish in the scorpionfish family ARE poisonous in some degree, so care SHOULD be taken when they are handled!
Name: Leapin Bass
A cabezon is poisonous - sort of... It’s eggs are poisonous if eaten!
Name: BankShot
Monday kicking in. I guess it's supposed to be some sort of holiday today. Sure doesn’t feel like it. Maybe, if we were all out fishing things would be different. People take this regulation stuff very seriously. The dedicated ones that make such an effort and try so hard to follow everything to the DFG book and improve upon our fishery deserve credit. It just isn’t fair to let those that don’t bother ruin it for everybody that does. It’s very frustrating to deal with to say the least. All we can do on our part is offer true accurate information and friendly advise, confront those that we witness bending the rules, keep an eye out, speak out, let them know. This is also an internet forum (shared information for all), lots of this content here is opinionated or reported by another...we all can make our own judgments and observations on what really took place, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to make the person feel bad about it.
Name: Songslinger
Inmates In Charge Of The Asylum. Okay, that’s it: those of you who don’t have a copy of Pacific Coast Fishes, go out and buy one before you make another post. Same thing for those of you who don’t have a DFG regulation booklet (which costs you nada). IQs will surely rise in the meantime. This weekend has seen some truly risible threads based on uninformed posts, illogical reactions, and ill-conceived posts.
FOR THE RECORD: A scorpionfish may be called a sculpin but it is not a member of the Sculpin family. So all this crap about dangerous sculpins is misleading where it isn’t dead wrong. The guy caught a sculpin: it could not be more obvious by his picture. He caught a bunch of them and they were smallish. So it’s probably not a cabezon. I would place a wager that it is a smoothhead. Prove me wrong with facts, not these bizarre opinions. Word up: all cabezons are sculpins but not all sculpins are cabezons. And so on.
Everyone has assumed that Kaster knew what he was talking about when he said he used rockfish for bait. Bad mistake. No offense, Kaster, but you need to verify your data. Were they rockfish? How can you tell? Describe the skin: scales or no? The fins: what did the dorsal and lateral fins look like? To the others: how do you know this guy didn't pick up a bunch of bullheads (or similar sculpins)? Or, shudder, small perch that he thought were rockfish? A lot of controversy was generated perhaps for no reason other than rapid assumption. True, there is no excuse for dumb behavior and there are no “honest mistakes” when the regs are there for everyone to see. NO EXCUSES. Couldn’t agree more. Assuming, that is (heh heh), people know what the hell they are talking about in a given circumstance.
Regulars: don't be telling someone there is no limit on a given invertebrate species just because it isn't cited in the regs. It's 35 (unless sand crab). I think it sucks if someone comes to this board for help and winds up getting a ticket. Poor advice is worse than none.
Subject: Name: aafrench
I was just wondering when Ken died... and made slinger moderator? Relax and get over yourself! Andrew
Name: stinkyfingers
Moderator? Nobody made him moderator.Thank God that some people care about their community - real or virtual.
1) Do you think Ken would side with or against what Slinger has just put?
2) Do you not agree with the things stated by Slinger? If you do not agree, please address each item with merit and logic, to promote an intelligent debate. Otherwise, if you agree - there should be no issue.
Name: baitfish
I agree, everything that Slinger said hit the mark, the whole point of his statement was to make sure you are giving accurate information. If someone gives out incorrect information, that does not help anyone. The point is make sure your information is accurate and you have done some research before you post something that is hypothesized, if someone disagrees with that, I'd like to know why. Adam
Name: aafrench
Disagree - those of you who don’t have a copy of Pacific Coast Fishes, go out and buy one before you make another post. Same thing for those of you who don’t have a DFG regulation booklet.
NOYB! Disagree - all this crap about dangerous sculpins is misleading where it isn't dead wrong. The fish that was caught - Sculpin (California scorpionfish) family Scorpaenidae, Genus and Species: (Scorpaena guttata) are poisionous, as are most, if not all of the Scorpaenidae (Scorpionfishes). True, fish of the Family:Cottidae (Sculpins) may not be dangerous. But we were talking about the FISH Sculpin, not the FAMILY Sculpin. Disagree - Everyone has assumed that Kaster knew what he was talking about when he said he used rockfish for bait. I didn't respond to the most, as most people didn’t, so don't include me in this statement! Disagree - there are no “honest mistakes.” People make honest mistakes everyday. He didn’t know the regulation, so it was indeed an honest mistake that he learned from. Maybe he didn’t know about the regulations, or where to get a copy. Again, an honest mistake. Just like my dumb invertebrate comment. It was just an honest mistake. Andrew
Subject: Name: baitfish
ONE WORD.... RELAX!
Name: Ed
I'm with ya Slinger! My personal favorite is the post from yesterday describing catching 8” stripers and using them for bait. Ed Burns
Name: stinkyfingers
8” stripers. I think he meant to say that he starting using whole ANCHOVIES for bait after catching 8 small stripers... and the small stripers about 8 inches or so hit the anchovies the minute the bait hit the bottom. I caught 8 and them put on some whole ones to try for bigger. See, I think he meant to say “I caught 8 and then put on some whole (chovies) ones to try for bigger bass.” Anybody else have an opinion one way or the other?
Name: EdTam
I agree with Stinkyfingers. When I originally read it, I assumed he was referring to the anchovies, and not the striped bass that he caught. It makes more sense to me too, catch small ones on chunks of anchovy, then try for bigger fish using bigger bait. And, you'd want to keep using the same bait since they were biting on that in the first place. I will also agree that the wording was a bit confusing, and I can understand how people could interpret it differently. Of course, only MrTuna knows what he really did.
Name: rock it man
I’m with you Songslinger. I agree with your statement on no innocent mistakes. I was trying to form a “what if” to illustrate, but it always sounded like a PETA “argument”...except... Most everyone knows that winter run Salmon are as good as gone from our fisheries. The only ones I know of are in a tank north of Bodega Bay, and the biologists are so scared of screwing up, that they won't simulate conditions for mating...no second chances there. Now “what if” they got brave and tried to re-introduce some winter run salmon to gain a “foot-hold” in the wild. Some “innocent” catches buckets of fingerlings out of ignorance. The rest of us pay for this mistake. The bottom line is, poaching (informed or ignorant) hurts us all. You think that these guys that keep 20 inch Lings will care if the size limit goes to 30 inches? NO. But we will. Something like that happens and I guarantee the same people who defend ignorance today, will be screaming bloody murder tomorrow.
Name: aafrench
Look at it this way - you are driving down a certain freeway for the first time doing a legal 65 MPH, you pass a sign that lowers the speed to 55 MPH, but for some reason you did not notice it. Is this an honest mistake or are you speeding purpose? It is an honest mistake! Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but even in your scenario it is an honest mistake, being the person is unaware of the law. If you were unaware of the regulation, or the regulations in whole, you are still liable if the DFG busts you. You get a ticket, and in the end you learned from your honest mistake. If it wasn’t a mistake, then the only alternative is that the poaching was done on purpose. If I keep a short Halibut because I have never heard that there is a size limit, then I have made an honest mistake. I had not intention of breaking the law. It does not make it right, it is still wrong, but it is still an honest mistake.
Name: stinkyfingers
Ignorance. So, with that “honest mistake” being ok mindset - IF I’m a hunter, and I got a shotgun and I'm walking through the woods and see an animal - any animal, and I shoot and kill it, only to find out it’s the last of the near extinct Condor - is that ok with you? It is technically an honest mistake (by your definition), but nevertheless - the damage has been done because of ignorance. I think we should agree that it is NOT ok. It is wrong, even though it is an honest mistake - is it not wrong?
Name: rock it man
That's exactly the point; it is a mistake (as in your last paragraph), but if I KNOW I am ignorant and choose to act anyway; that's a stupid mistake not an honest one. That’s where your analogy fails. When using a gun, a fishing pole or a motor vehicle, your RESPONSIBILITY is to know what you are doing. The extension of that is to know what effect you have on those around you. If you keep a halibut because you don’t KNOW the size limit, you are actively choosing to make a mistake. I blow my neighbor's head off; hey! why is every one so upset? I didn't know the gun was loaded, it was an honest mistake! In that case I CHOOSE ignorance because I did something stupid without checking first. Your “honest” mistakes are just an excuse to stay ignorant. If the information is freely and easily available, but I make a DECISION to turn my eyes away from it; and I make a DECISION to keep fish when I have no idea what they are, what size they should be and what numbers I can keep, I am enforcing my own ignorance for personal gain and can continue forever making “honest” mistakes. The fine doesn't make up for the damage my voluntary ignorance has done.
Assume there are 10 basic sections in the Ocean fishing Regs with 3 subsections each. The are 50,000 “honest,” ignorant “fisherman.” They each “learn” the regs one at a time, one fine at a time by keeping 300% of the limit, except for undersize, which, since they are so small, they “honestly” think they should be able to keep 1500% on average. That”s 67.5 MILLION fish. Assuming they get caught for every infraction.
Name: aafrench
Maybe we should look at the definition of mistake: An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness and honest: Not deceptive or fraudulent. Being that this was not done intentionally to break the law (not deceptive or fraudulent), and done with deficient knowledge of the regulations, it makes it an honest mistake no matter what you say, or how you try to twist it!
I also never said that they should not be responsible for their actions. Maybe you should read my post again. I said “If you were unaware of the regulation, or the regulations in whole, you are still liable if the DFG busts you. You get a ticket, and in the end you learned from your honest mistake.” and “Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.” Still it is an honest mistake, and there is no two ways about it. Andrew
Name: rock it man
I read your posts. I know you said ignorance is no excuse. I even agree with a lot of what you said. Honest is also defined as Fair and just in character or behavior. Stupid is slow to understand and lacking in sensibility. I think calling it a stupid mistake is far more accurate than calling it an honest mistake.
Name: aafrench
I agree with that!
Name: aafrench
How about an Honest but Stupid mistake? =) Andrew
Name: rock it man
I don't know...maybe. The problem with that is the “honest” part almost sounds noble. If you are aware of your ignorance, or just don’t care how ignorant you are, that hardly seems to qualify as fair and just in character or behavior. But, in the interest of fair exchange of ideas and the spirit of compromise.. I'll give it to ya (this time ;-)
To: PFIC Message Board
From: aafrench
Subject: Crabs/invertebrates
Crabs are Crustaceans not invertebrates
Name: stinkyfingers
One is part of the other... from DFG: “To take mollusks, crustaceans, OR OTHER INVERTEBRATE for commercial purposes in any...” blah blah blah. That’s from Section 123. Crustaceans ARE invertebrate. Just like Mollusks. That’s why the DFG says this one, that one, or “other” invertebrate. The only difference you should point out is that mollusks and such are included in that category, NOT that crabs are excluded.
Name: gyozadude
Frenchy: No offense, but that last post on crustaceans! = invertebrates was pretty embarrassing, if not for you, at least for me. If I was caught making some statement like that, I might as well tear up my high school diploma and shoot me.
. For those youths who are interested in how life is classified, you can do a web search on “taxonomy of life” or “kingdom phylum class order family genus species.” Having a fundamental understanding of marine wildlife (flora and fauna) is really a responsibility of each American who cares about the environment and the diversity of life. IMO, you can't claim you're a credible environmentalist unless you understand and arm yourself with truth, and since most truth is obtained through science, you need to understand the lexicon science for yourself.Name: aafrench
That just goes to show everyone makes mistakes! Does that mean I should not have the privilege of posting?
Name: gyozadude
Post all you want... I’m just giving you a hard time. Usually, I love reading your posts, so it was a big surprise to see you make a basic blunder like that. For a second, I thought some of those so. cal. angling limits zone folks had hijacked your email address and you were turning schizo.
Name: aafrench
Subject: Scorpionfish is a family of poisonous fishes! (in response to previous posts).
Nobody is dead wrong! You should check your facts, too. The fish that was caught - Sculpin (California scorpionfish) family Scorpaenidae, Genus and Species: (Scorpaena guttata) are poisonous, as are most, if not all of the Scorpaenidae (Scorpionfishes)
A Cabezon, Family: (Cottidae) Genus and Species: (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) is not it poisonous because is in the Cottidae family. Which is sometimes commonly called Sculpin family. Again it is just a mix up of common names Vs. Scientific names. But again all fish in the scorpionfish family ARE poisonous in some degree, so care SHOULD be taken when they are handled!
Name: Leapin Bass
A cabezon is poisonous - sort of... It’s eggs are poisonous if eaten!
Name: BankShot
Monday kicking in. I guess it's supposed to be some sort of holiday today. Sure doesn’t feel like it. Maybe, if we were all out fishing things would be different. People take this regulation stuff very seriously. The dedicated ones that make such an effort and try so hard to follow everything to the DFG book and improve upon our fishery deserve credit. It just isn’t fair to let those that don’t bother ruin it for everybody that does. It’s very frustrating to deal with to say the least. All we can do on our part is offer true accurate information and friendly advise, confront those that we witness bending the rules, keep an eye out, speak out, let them know. This is also an internet forum (shared information for all), lots of this content here is opinionated or reported by another...we all can make our own judgments and observations on what really took place, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to make the person feel bad about it.
Name: Songslinger
Inmates In Charge Of The Asylum. Okay, that’s it: those of you who don’t have a copy of Pacific Coast Fishes, go out and buy one before you make another post. Same thing for those of you who don’t have a DFG regulation booklet (which costs you nada). IQs will surely rise in the meantime. This weekend has seen some truly risible threads based on uninformed posts, illogical reactions, and ill-conceived posts.
FOR THE RECORD: A scorpionfish may be called a sculpin but it is not a member of the Sculpin family. So all this crap about dangerous sculpins is misleading where it isn’t dead wrong. The guy caught a sculpin: it could not be more obvious by his picture. He caught a bunch of them and they were smallish. So it’s probably not a cabezon. I would place a wager that it is a smoothhead. Prove me wrong with facts, not these bizarre opinions. Word up: all cabezons are sculpins but not all sculpins are cabezons. And so on.
Everyone has assumed that Kaster knew what he was talking about when he said he used rockfish for bait. Bad mistake. No offense, Kaster, but you need to verify your data. Were they rockfish? How can you tell? Describe the skin: scales or no? The fins: what did the dorsal and lateral fins look like? To the others: how do you know this guy didn't pick up a bunch of bullheads (or similar sculpins)? Or, shudder, small perch that he thought were rockfish? A lot of controversy was generated perhaps for no reason other than rapid assumption. True, there is no excuse for dumb behavior and there are no “honest mistakes” when the regs are there for everyone to see. NO EXCUSES. Couldn’t agree more. Assuming, that is (heh heh), people know what the hell they are talking about in a given circumstance.
Regulars: don't be telling someone there is no limit on a given invertebrate species just because it isn't cited in the regs. It's 35 (unless sand crab). I think it sucks if someone comes to this board for help and winds up getting a ticket. Poor advice is worse than none.
Subject: Name: aafrench
I was just wondering when Ken died... and made slinger moderator? Relax and get over yourself! Andrew
Name: stinkyfingers
Moderator? Nobody made him moderator.Thank God that some people care about their community - real or virtual.
1) Do you think Ken would side with or against what Slinger has just put?
2) Do you not agree with the things stated by Slinger? If you do not agree, please address each item with merit and logic, to promote an intelligent debate. Otherwise, if you agree - there should be no issue.
Name: baitfish
I agree, everything that Slinger said hit the mark, the whole point of his statement was to make sure you are giving accurate information. If someone gives out incorrect information, that does not help anyone. The point is make sure your information is accurate and you have done some research before you post something that is hypothesized, if someone disagrees with that, I'd like to know why. Adam
Name: aafrench
Disagree - those of you who don’t have a copy of Pacific Coast Fishes, go out and buy one before you make another post. Same thing for those of you who don’t have a DFG regulation booklet.
NOYB! Disagree - all this crap about dangerous sculpins is misleading where it isn't dead wrong. The fish that was caught - Sculpin (California scorpionfish) family Scorpaenidae, Genus and Species: (Scorpaena guttata) are poisionous, as are most, if not all of the Scorpaenidae (Scorpionfishes). True, fish of the Family:Cottidae (Sculpins) may not be dangerous. But we were talking about the FISH Sculpin, not the FAMILY Sculpin. Disagree - Everyone has assumed that Kaster knew what he was talking about when he said he used rockfish for bait. I didn't respond to the most, as most people didn’t, so don't include me in this statement! Disagree - there are no “honest mistakes.” People make honest mistakes everyday. He didn’t know the regulation, so it was indeed an honest mistake that he learned from. Maybe he didn’t know about the regulations, or where to get a copy. Again, an honest mistake. Just like my dumb invertebrate comment. It was just an honest mistake. Andrew
Subject: Name: baitfish
ONE WORD.... RELAX!
Name: Ed
I'm with ya Slinger! My personal favorite is the post from yesterday describing catching 8” stripers and using them for bait. Ed Burns
Name: stinkyfingers
8” stripers. I think he meant to say that he starting using whole ANCHOVIES for bait after catching 8 small stripers... and the small stripers about 8 inches or so hit the anchovies the minute the bait hit the bottom. I caught 8 and them put on some whole ones to try for bigger. See, I think he meant to say “I caught 8 and then put on some whole (chovies) ones to try for bigger bass.” Anybody else have an opinion one way or the other?
Name: EdTam
I agree with Stinkyfingers. When I originally read it, I assumed he was referring to the anchovies, and not the striped bass that he caught. It makes more sense to me too, catch small ones on chunks of anchovy, then try for bigger fish using bigger bait. And, you'd want to keep using the same bait since they were biting on that in the first place. I will also agree that the wording was a bit confusing, and I can understand how people could interpret it differently. Of course, only MrTuna knows what he really did.
Name: rock it man
I’m with you Songslinger. I agree with your statement on no innocent mistakes. I was trying to form a “what if” to illustrate, but it always sounded like a PETA “argument”...except... Most everyone knows that winter run Salmon are as good as gone from our fisheries. The only ones I know of are in a tank north of Bodega Bay, and the biologists are so scared of screwing up, that they won't simulate conditions for mating...no second chances there. Now “what if” they got brave and tried to re-introduce some winter run salmon to gain a “foot-hold” in the wild. Some “innocent” catches buckets of fingerlings out of ignorance. The rest of us pay for this mistake. The bottom line is, poaching (informed or ignorant) hurts us all. You think that these guys that keep 20 inch Lings will care if the size limit goes to 30 inches? NO. But we will. Something like that happens and I guarantee the same people who defend ignorance today, will be screaming bloody murder tomorrow.
Name: aafrench
Look at it this way - you are driving down a certain freeway for the first time doing a legal 65 MPH, you pass a sign that lowers the speed to 55 MPH, but for some reason you did not notice it. Is this an honest mistake or are you speeding purpose? It is an honest mistake! Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but even in your scenario it is an honest mistake, being the person is unaware of the law. If you were unaware of the regulation, or the regulations in whole, you are still liable if the DFG busts you. You get a ticket, and in the end you learned from your honest mistake. If it wasn’t a mistake, then the only alternative is that the poaching was done on purpose. If I keep a short Halibut because I have never heard that there is a size limit, then I have made an honest mistake. I had not intention of breaking the law. It does not make it right, it is still wrong, but it is still an honest mistake.
Name: stinkyfingers
Ignorance. So, with that “honest mistake” being ok mindset - IF I’m a hunter, and I got a shotgun and I'm walking through the woods and see an animal - any animal, and I shoot and kill it, only to find out it’s the last of the near extinct Condor - is that ok with you? It is technically an honest mistake (by your definition), but nevertheless - the damage has been done because of ignorance. I think we should agree that it is NOT ok. It is wrong, even though it is an honest mistake - is it not wrong?
Name: rock it man
That's exactly the point; it is a mistake (as in your last paragraph), but if I KNOW I am ignorant and choose to act anyway; that's a stupid mistake not an honest one. That’s where your analogy fails. When using a gun, a fishing pole or a motor vehicle, your RESPONSIBILITY is to know what you are doing. The extension of that is to know what effect you have on those around you. If you keep a halibut because you don’t KNOW the size limit, you are actively choosing to make a mistake. I blow my neighbor's head off; hey! why is every one so upset? I didn't know the gun was loaded, it was an honest mistake! In that case I CHOOSE ignorance because I did something stupid without checking first. Your “honest” mistakes are just an excuse to stay ignorant. If the information is freely and easily available, but I make a DECISION to turn my eyes away from it; and I make a DECISION to keep fish when I have no idea what they are, what size they should be and what numbers I can keep, I am enforcing my own ignorance for personal gain and can continue forever making “honest” mistakes. The fine doesn't make up for the damage my voluntary ignorance has done.
Assume there are 10 basic sections in the Ocean fishing Regs with 3 subsections each. The are 50,000 “honest,” ignorant “fisherman.” They each “learn” the regs one at a time, one fine at a time by keeping 300% of the limit, except for undersize, which, since they are so small, they “honestly” think they should be able to keep 1500% on average. That”s 67.5 MILLION fish. Assuming they get caught for every infraction.
Name: aafrench
Maybe we should look at the definition of mistake: An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness and honest: Not deceptive or fraudulent. Being that this was not done intentionally to break the law (not deceptive or fraudulent), and done with deficient knowledge of the regulations, it makes it an honest mistake no matter what you say, or how you try to twist it!
I also never said that they should not be responsible for their actions. Maybe you should read my post again. I said “If you were unaware of the regulation, or the regulations in whole, you are still liable if the DFG busts you. You get a ticket, and in the end you learned from your honest mistake.” and “Ignorance of the law is never an excuse.” Still it is an honest mistake, and there is no two ways about it. Andrew
Name: rock it man
I read your posts. I know you said ignorance is no excuse. I even agree with a lot of what you said. Honest is also defined as Fair and just in character or behavior. Stupid is slow to understand and lacking in sensibility. I think calling it a stupid mistake is far more accurate than calling it an honest mistake.
Name: aafrench
I agree with that!
Name: aafrench
How about an Honest but Stupid mistake? =) Andrew
Name: rock it man
I don't know...maybe. The problem with that is the “honest” part almost sounds noble. If you are aware of your ignorance, or just don’t care how ignorant you are, that hardly seems to qualify as fair and just in character or behavior. But, in the interest of fair exchange of ideas and the spirit of compromise.. I'll give it to ya (this time ;-)