Should underwater hunters use this site????

[BamaCaveDiver]

Let them post and point out that they are possibly damaging the population by taking the breeders (unless of coure they have found a secret honey-hole that has nothing but these large breeding monsters.) I know some guys who go after these beasts and while I do disagree with their taking the largest fish (and most prolific breeders) from the population I commend them for eating the entire fish. If it is being speared just for a trophy status then that is wrong on so many counts (I feel the same about game animals such as elk, deer, moose, sheep, and all the others that "horn" collectors go after.) Sometimes if you enter into an intelligent conversation with these guys and point out the breeding habits of fish species they will listen, and sometimes they may even become more selective in their targeting. Just telling them that it is wrong usually accomplishes little more than making them more defensive of their actions.

[dmay]

Actually in California, you can use a hoop net to ensnare lobster while diving, you aren't limited to using just your hands.

California FISH AND GAME CODE
SECTION 7256

7256. Spiny lobster may not be taken under a sport fishing license
except by use of a hoop net or by hand.


Funny thing is, even the DFG wardens don't know their own laws and falsely tell people you can only take lobster by hand, but as usual, the government agents have no idea what they are talking about.

You cannot use a hoopnet while diving, if you're in the water you can only use your hands. Hoopnetting can only be done aboard a vessel (boat,kayak) or on jetties and piers that allow it.

CA DFG REGS: 29.80 (3)(g) "Diving for crustaceans: In all ocean waters, except as provided in Section 29.05, skin and
SCUBA divers may take crustaceans by the use of the HANDS ONLY. Divers may not possess any
hooked device while diving or attempting to dive."

[hbh2oguard]

dmay that's exactly what I thought. It would be too easy to catch them by net, making it no fun. If you want to use a net retire to flordia.

[Sarah]

Personally what I find offensive to common sense is the F&G Code and the DFG allows one to take pregnant females with eggs. This is biological foolishness.

In Western societies we live in a gynocentric, matriarchal system where women are given special power and privilege (sinking ship-women and children first) that is rooted in out deepest anthropological survival mechanism: you only need a couple of males to ensure the survival of the species, whereas you need a vast quantiy of females to carry that to its conclusion. That is why taking female lobsters and especially pregant female lobsters should be illegal. But can you imagine the value to the lobster population if they outlawed commercial lobstering? Same goes for purse seining Bluefin Tuna.

But getting back to replying to dmay's astute post, the problem with the "DFG Regulations" is they are regulations promulgated by a committee, they're not signed into a Code, whereas the Fish and Game Code is a California Code signed by the Governor of the State, which is why from a legal standpoint, two rules on the books, one signed by the elected Governor, the other not, the one signed by the Governor into Code takes precedence.

And that is from just a statutory standpoint. Once you add the Constitutions requirement that no law be vague as enumerated by the 5th and 14th Amendments, here you have an unsigned regulation prohibiting a conduct allowed by a law signed by the Governor of the State, thus ensuring the law is unconstitutionally vague.

This is the sort of offense (taking lobster by means other than one's hand) that any trial lawyer who slept through law school should be able get such unmeritorious charges dismissed once it gets out of the hands of the shakedown artists and into a Court of Law:

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS—CRIMINAL
The Elements of Due Process

Clarity in Criminal Statutes: The Void–for–Vagueness Doctrine.— “Legislation may run afoul of the Due Process Clause because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law–abiding, to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged, or to guide courts in trying those who are accused.”1 Acts which are made criminal “must be defined with appropriate definiteness.”2 “There must be ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required to guess at the meaning of the enactment. The vagueness may be from uncertainty in regard to persons within the scope of the act . . . or in regard to the applicable tests to ascertain guilt.”3 Statutes which lack the requisite definiteness or specificity are commonly held “void for vagueness.” Such a statute may be pronounced wholly unconstitutional (unconstitutional “on its face”),[/b]4[/b] or, if the statute could be applied to both prohibitable and to protected conduct and its valuable effects outweigh its potential general harm, it could be held unconstitutional as applied.5 Generally, a vague statute that regulates in the area of First Amendment guarantees will be pronounced wholly void,6 while one that does not reach such protected conduct will either be upheld because it is applied to clearly proscribable conduct, or voided as applied when the conduct is marginal and the proscription is unclear.7



1 Musser v. Utah, 333 U.S. 95, 97 (1948) . “Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warnings. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory applications.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108–09 (1972) , quoted in Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 498 (1982) .
2 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308 (1940) .
3 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 515–16 (1948) . Cf. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 110 (1972) .
4 Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972) ; Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974) .
5 Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U.S. 544 (1971) ; Village of Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 494–95 (1982) .
6 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 509–10 (1948) ; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (1940) .
7 E.g., United States v. National Dairy Corp., 372 U.S. 29 (1963) .

[drdiver]

Certain species have possibly been made extinct by spearfishing. The Brazilian rainbow parrotfish comes to mind. In the big picture of killing fish, spearfishing is a miniscule part of the destruction of fish by man. As we continue to raise unshirted h*** on fish populations worldwide, the few fish taken by spearfishing are insignificant. It's an anachronistic sport in a world where technology destroys huge fish populations relentlessly. An exception might be large grouper. I have been in no take areas in the Keys and it is remarkable what a reef looks like with its large groupers intact and not on someone's dinner plate. I think killing a grouper is like killing a dog and eating it. But I don't think it should be banned. Some people rely on it for their seafood. I don't agree with spearfishing, but we so casually surrender our personal liberties for really trivial reasons and it should be allowed.

[hbh2oguard]

First a fish and a dog cannot be compared, plus many more dogs and cats are killed every day due to overpopulation of shelters. So to all the idiots that buy designer dogs, please go adopt!

[Sarah]

I think fish might take exception to that statement!

[WreckDiver]

I fully agree with catch-to-eat, and I realise that spear-fishing is more selective than line or net.
Its the choice of target that I'm questioning, and that thr photos are posted on a SCUBA site. The biggest possible fish to be a trophy, rather than dinner. good meal.One of the photos in question has many fish, more than a good meal.

I'm sure that the shark-finners in Asia would say that they'd kill a whaleshark for a good meal (shark fin soup).
Or what about Japanese and Icelandic whaling? They're eating the meat, and claim to be selective... so that makes it ok?
I've seen more dead sharks in restaurants in Egypt than I have in 500+ dives there.....should they post photos of their shark trophies here too?

I just think the photos are bad taste (pardon the pun) for nature lovers.

You are missing the point.
In fact when you pack for a hunting trip that will take you about 100 miles from shore for a few days and the weather window allows this only a few times a year you dont shoot just for dinner you try and fill your limit that is set by the state, then you can pack the freezer until the next trip is planned.
This is not shooting rabbits out the kitchen window this takes a bit of planning and a bunch of money so shooting your limit is the plan.


Dago.

[drdiver]

First a fish and a dog cannot be compared, plus many more dogs and cats are killed every day due to overpopulation of shelters.

I personally prefer fish to dogs and many, many more fish are killed every day than dogs and cats. I tend to agree about the designer dogs.

[BamaCaveDiver]

You are missing the point.
In fact when you pack for a hunting trip that will take you about 100 miles from shore for a few days and the weather window allows this only a few times a year you dont shoot just for dinner you try and fill your limit that is set by the state, then you can pack the freezer until the next trip is planned.
This is not shooting rabbits out the kitchen window this takes a bit of planning and a bunch of money so shooting your limit is the plan.


Dago.

Well said Dago. Most folks who hunt, whether it be for fish or other game species, will tell you that when you add in all the costs (liscences, equipment, travel, etc.) the meat they bring home usually runs more than what they would pay for domestic offerings at the local market. However, the satisfaction of being self suficient and enjoying what you are doing is priceless.