Wednesday, November 23, 2011

An F'd up federal fish story.

How much more are we going to take?

A Massachusetts fisherman catches the mother lode of all tuna--891 pounds--only to have it seized by the feds because he didn't catch it right.

The giant tuna became inadvertently snared in a net. Our "we're here to help you" government geniuses told the fisherman, Carlos Rafael, that tuna had to be caught by rod and reel.

Really?

So all those "Sorry Charlie" tunas that are packaged and consumed in various little round cans all over the country were all caught on rod and reel?

I don't believe that.

What I do believe, though, is that this fish Mr. Rafael caught is worth almost $400,000 and that probably explains the feds' sudden "interest" in this big fish.

And why they seized it and will sell it and keep the money.

Just how much more blatant highway robbery are we going to tolerate from this miserable asshat existence of a government?

November 2012. Send the Chicago thugs home packing, disinfect the White House--oh, and while we're at it, let's clean house in Congress as well. Send exactly one-third of incumbent Senators home, and send every stinking incumbent Representative home.

Then disinfect the whole (expletive deleted) town.

6 comments:

Shiroi Doma said...

While certainly not disagreeing with your sentiment overall (how much do I dislike government and Obama ROFL!), more details are required. Tuna and particularly bluefin are heavily regulated nationally and internationally. Generally speaking, recreational anglers need permits and must use rod and reel. This incident seems on its face to be a commercial bycatch, which is subject to a HYOOOOOGE and often conflicting set of regs. BTW, the catch likely will be destroyed not sold or otherwise utilized.

*sigh* Government intrusion is just one of the many reasons I don't fish like I used to. Poaching is another.

fuzzys dad said...

Too many regulations that are BS.

Happy Thanksgiving

kx59 said...

That guy purchased Bluefin permits, which tells me he knew the laws concerned. If I keep more fish than the allowed limit, or fish that are smaller than the minimum size, the fish get confiscated and I get fined for each illegal fish. We abide by the rule of law or not. Don't like the law, change it. I call bullshit on that guy. He knew better. He's lucky they just took the fish. By definition, he's a poacher.

Southern Belle said...

Unless I'm mistaken, the 'sorry Charlie' tuna in the cans are yellowfin tuna which have different regulations.

Bluefin are more rare of a fish.

An Ordinary American said...

I don't know a tuna from a tarpin from a tapia.

Also don't know anything about the maze of rules and regs and other BS that goes with catching fish.

Slot limits, speckled trout fuzz spots, over/under on the mallards' beak teeth, etc etc.

I know what a dove looks like, a quail, a pheasant, deer, elk and hogs--and I shoot 'em and eat 'em.

If I catch it and keep it, I eat it.

Too damned many laws and too damned many armed pinheads looking for us to stumble and bust a toe--while elsewhere, there are scores of Bernie Madoffs running around, women can't walk the streets without fear of being assaulted, drug dealers have taken over entire neighborhoods, etc etc.

And we're worried about a goddamn fish?

--AOA

Southern Belle said...

The issue is, AOA that years ago, especially in the Texas Gulf Coast, there was a real danger of the area becoming fished out. Meaning, people were keeping everything that they caught so that the fish didn't grow, mature and reproduce.

While I understand your sentiments, the laws and limits are there for a reason. If everything becomes hunted or fished out, then there is no more food source should the time come that we can't simply go to the market and buy meat to eat.

This is one area where I disagree with you, which is cool. No, I don't like too much government intrusion, however when it comes to fish and game, the reason isn't to preserve fish and game breeds simply to stop mankind from being more productive (such as outlawing a building project to protect some obscure rodent) but to ensure that wildlife meat is available and to ensure that they don't get depleted which in the natural course of things would be a bad thing for many reasons.

While there are those of us who are good stewards of wildlife and we only keep/kill what we are going to eat; there are many who are not. I know that's just the way the government justifies regulating many things, but when it comes to fish and game, I can certainly understand it.

Since the State of Texas has implemented it's size and number limits it has gone a long way in the good eating fish making a come back, which to an angler like me, is a good thing.

I realize that this particular incident happened elsewhere, but the principle is the same.