|
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The idea that people shouldn't express opinions about legal activities that they don't agree with not what "free speech" is all about.'
No one has said anyone shouldn't object to the fish being harvested. It was simply suggested that HOW you object could directly effect the success of your objection's placement here and on other media in changing public opinion for the better. 'Free speech' has absolutely nothing to do with it. the actual text? {Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. } Nothing that happens here in the process of publishing MuskieFIRST or any other copyrighted publication has a thing to do with constitutionally protected free speech, and the Supreme Court has upheld that concept multiple times.
Links:
http://whatswrongaroundus.blogspot.com/2008/01/freedom-of-speechlet...
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_09/b3670155.htm ---read this one before you blast a person or company online
http://blog.grantneufeld.ca/2007/06/free-speech-on-message-boards.h... --related to abusing someone here who is operating within their rights/privileges
There's lots more...Google it.
Define 'PC' John...apparently your definition differs from others, and that... is the rub. If you want to be more abrasive than is allowed on an internet forum about muskie regulations in MN, get yourself a soap box, go to the local DNR office, and holler all you want out in front of the building. Letting you in to disrupt business in the actual offices...they don't have to, and probably won't.
In response to the last entry-
Abuse or block this person's privileges or rights, libel them, and you may end up in court defending yourself, and OFM will be the bearer of that bad news, unfortunately. There are far more legal land mines in operating a publication like this than the casual observer may realize. I'm sure neither of us has the time or inclination to end up there....and we'd both lose, spectacularly. So we recommend (and if need be enforce) you take reasonable care how much you try to 'embarrass any poor fool' at the risk of finding yourself in that category for lack of knowledge of the legal landscape involved in this process.
my only point was:
There's a line that shouldn't be crossed in the attempt to influence public opinion to win the day, and one that shouldn't be crossed that all but guarantees losing.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Steve, I think you need to research the meaning of Slander and libel yourself and then look into how many times a internet sites as been sued for it...
I would like to see you explain to our Vets sometime that free speech is for "soap boxes" and the "blog o sphere", maybe you can do a little deal at operation Muskie....
Edited by thescottith 7/18/2011 1:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Sometimes you "hardcore" musky guys get so caught up in this catch vs. keep debate. Its called reproduction. Big fish are going to die. Younger fish replace them. Thats why they set size limits so these younger fish can become the big fish. Its pretty obvious 99% of the musky population will never grow to anything over 60 inches. I for one, a northern wisconsin musky nut have never caught a 50 inch fish. When that day happens or should I say if that day happens that beast is goin in the boat. Way to much time, money and sleepless nights spent on this species to not harvest a true trophy. But i've been more then fine releasing those sub 50 inch fish hoping they grow bigger. Boys relax. Its just a fish. Even if you guide and you depend on this resource for your income we are never going to run out of "muskies". Let the strong survive. And why not leave this kid alone. He legally kept the fish. End of story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1150
| Guest - 7/18/2011 1:58 PM
Sometimes you "hardcore" musky guys get so caught up in this catch vs. keep debate. Its called reproduction. Big fish are going to die. Younger fish replace them. Thats why they set size limits so these younger fish can become the big fish. Its pretty obvious 99% of the musky population will never grow to anything over 60 inches. I for one, a northern wisconsin musky nut have never caught a 50 inch fish. When that day happens or should I say if that day happens that beast is goin in the boat. Way to much time, money and sleepless nights spent on this species to not harvest a true trophy. But i've been more then fine releasing those sub 50 inch fish hoping they grow bigger. Boys relax. Its just a fish. Even if you guide and you depend on this resource for your income we are never going to run out of "muskies". Let the strong survive. And why not leave this kid alone. He legally kept the fish. End of story.
If every "hardcore" musky angler decided to keep 4 trophy fish... I have to believe the fishery would be depleted rather quickly.
Imagine if Jerry Sondag harvested every big fish he's caught in that area with his clients.
There is no doubt the angler has the right to keep the fish. But for a self proclaimed "hardcore" musky guy. Where are the ethics? Granted, the kid said the fish died after eating a bulldawg, but then again he also claimed that he "tried to revive the fish for 6 hours." That's absurd. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would like to see you explain to our Vets sometime that free speech is for "soap boxes" and the "blog o sphere", maybe you can do a little deal at operation Muskie'
Seriously? Actually take a look at the links I provided before you accuse me of not displaying proper patriotism or grasping Constitutional Rights properly.
And ask lambeau how much money the MuskieFIRST community has provided to the Operation Muskie organization through the auction held in the MuskieFIRST Chat room over the last three years through our venue.
My son is a veteran. Navy Corpsman, if that matters to you, and for the Marines as well.
I have clear understanding what the terms mean and what the issues related are to a web based publication. You obviously do not, but why would you, really? By the way, this isn't a blog.
Excerpt from the above Bloomberg article:
'The dispute raises tough policy issues--and they are arising all over the Internet. Angry about the flowering of lies, self-serving day-trader rumors, and other types of mischief on Web message boards, Corporate America is cracking down. In recent months, Raytheon (RTN.B), Varian Medical Systems (VAR), and more than 100 other companies have sued over statements made anonymously online. Targets include employees and nonemployees alike, and the offending postings are appearing everywhere from tiny sites such as Griffin's to the teeming financial message boards run by Yahoo! (YHOO), America Online (AOL), and Microsoft (MSFT). '
Sometimes I'm tempted....but Slamr keeps me in check.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| Come on guys, questioning anothers partiotism all because of disagreements about C&R ethics?
The beauty of living in the US is that we CAN say these things without being killed, but lets not get so bent out of shape over it. There are FAR more serious things to get our blood boiling like making sure our men and women of the armed forces return, after all, if it weren't for them we wouldnt have the privileges we do.
Steve, just a side note, JS was having "spirited" conversation on another fishing board recently on this very same topic (at least I believe it is him) so I think it may be a phase right now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | one less muskie to eat all my perch and walleyes ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 437
| jonnysled - 7/18/2011 3:04 PM
one less muskie to eat all my perch and walleyes ... The clock is ticking to the person who references muskies dont eat walleyes.
1.2.3.... LOL |
|
| |
|
| opining about a subject is no substitute for actually going out and doing something. ironically there's a great editorial about it published on CNN today. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/18/obeidallah.laziest.generation/index.html?hpt=hp_c2 But here is my growing concern: Are we becoming the laziest generation? Is social media becoming our opiate of the masses seducing us into being slacktivists, believing that simply because we make a cyber comment, we are somehow actually affecting our world? Will our generation leave a lasting legacy or just millions of snarky tweets? the people who rant about dead fish are just "millions of snarky tweets." the folks who are working to educate others in person, raise size limits, volunteer to help run conservation clubs, etc. are the ones "actually affecting our world." also, is it possible to make your points (on either side) without dragging Operation Muskie into it? to some of us that's sacred ground...one of those "leaving a lasting legacy" efforts, so let's please agree to leave it out of this kind of discussion.
Edited by lambeau 7/18/2011 4:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I mentioned operation Muskie because it is a group of Vets, anyway, My point is, I would love to see the look on any group of Vets face when you tell them free speech and the first amendment is for I quote " soap boxes and blogs"
|
|
| |
|
| Steve I read through your links. Prolly not closely enough to ace an exam, but I think I'd pass. Anywho.....
From what I can gather, its not so much the speech itself, its the location....or rather HOW the website is set up, that is what is getting people into trouble. That, or what they were doing and/or talking about was illegal. Correct? Or at least generally accurate?
Just trying to clarify.
-Eric |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | couple thoughts
1. great context use of the word "opining"!!
2. what was the thread about?
3. one side needs to punt ... i'll let everyone guess which one |
|
| |
|
Posts: 123
| "Imagine if Jerry Sondag harvested every big fish he's caught in that area with his clients".- MartinTD
I bet Jerry has probably killed many more than 5 fish, simply due to the numbers he has caught and a belief I have in delayed mortality. In reality, there's very good chance that Jerry and quite a few others here have caused the demise of more than 5 muskies in their angling carreers. It's almost a certain probability.
By the way, I only mention Jerry because he was named in an earlier post. I know Jerry and I'm sure his release practices are top notch. I'm just saying I know guys that have caught hundreds of muskies over the years and I'd bet anything that they caused the early demise of more than just five fish, even if the number of delayed mortality deaths was at the very low end. Just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
| http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/2011/07/was-lake-sallie-muskie...
just thought you guys would like to read his latest account of this supposed record |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Eric,
Not necessarily 'illegal', no, but some activities online may have been, as was the case with the Union mentioned.
Corporate and private companies in an environment increasingly intolerant of irresponsible online behavior are filing suit to defend themselves.
-----------------------------------
'when you tell them free speech and the first amendment is for I quote " soap boxes and blogs" '
That ain't no quote and isn't even close to what was said.
Interestingly, the angler told me in a telephone conversation the fish weighed between 50 and 51 pounds. The media seems to be all over the place on it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | I decided to go back in my log book and see just how many "Hard releases" I've had. I have kept an accurate journal of catches since I started guiding in '05. I have averaged 188 "Legal" catches per MN season (June-Nov) out of the boat since 2005. I mark a tough one with HR (Hard Release) and out of all those fish the highlighted number is 8. Plus, I'm proud to say I have never had a fish go belly up or do a death spiral when trying to release. Yes, I have had 3 or 4 of the HR's make me wonder if she survived. One 51 incher in 2007 really sticks out in my mind as one that probably ended up as turtle food after it ate a sucker with a loose treble off a quickset that ended up with some gill damage.
And of course just because a fish swims away quickly doesn't mean it will survive the stresses of a human encounter. If we were so hell bent on the safety of the fish we wouldn't fish them at all. I agree, accidents happen, fish die, etc.
But we can spread the word on better handling and technique. I've been in the boat many times where even experience fisherman land a fish look at the way she's hooked and say "This one looks like she's gonna be a goner".... No, all we need to do is cut the hook, not grip and rip and forego the glamour shot, drop the net and let her swim.
Like it's been stated a million times, our sport of musky fishing is very ego driven. Many of us, myself included search for accolades and pat on the back from a good catch. It's why we take pictures, buy replicas, lunge log, etc. A great catch is a special thing to celebrate, just use common sense when doing so.
Also, side note as I'm sure everyone is as tired reading all about this kid and his "Whopper" of a story... I mean fish. As I understand it an angler putting a 1 bag limit fish in the boat and transporting it is considered a harvested fish in MN regulations, and once it is harvested it is illegal to release. Plus, no camera???? What 22 year old doesn't have his cel phone glued to his hand 24/7? Surely he needed to tweet, text, facebook or something those few hours he was out? 
Well, enough for me - Now I have to go to a child birthing class with my wife called Breast feeding 101. I'll see if i can get some good horizontal hold pics for you boys!!! GIGGITY |
|
| |
|
| http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/2011/07/was-lake-sallie-muskie...
interesting side of the story. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2076
| whynot - 7/18/2011 11:43 AM
IAJustin - 7/18/2011 11:30 AM
Whynot, You could keep a 48"+ every day of open season
No, you can't. Possession limit for muskies is 1 in MN, same as your daily limit. Just like for walleyes it is 6. That number doesn't get reset until the fish are eaten or otherwised used up. I'm wondering if mounting a fish resets that to 0? Never seen it in the regs, but I'm guessing when you drop the fish off at the taxidermist it resets.
So..Like I said you "could" keep a 48"+ every day... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | "...wife called Breast feeding 101. I'll see if i can get some good horizontal hold pics for you boys!!! GIGGITY"
I don't care who ya are, that right there is funny |
|
| |
|
| Hi Guys
I understand that some are sensitive when it comes to the issue of keeping a fish. I've released every muskie in my life except for one and I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. I am an ethical angler who loves the sport, but if we look at the big picture, how many people do you know that keep four muskie in a lifetime? This is one person out of thousands, on the positive side how many people do we know that treat this sport with respect and try to enhance it. That's what is really important. We all share a love for muskie fishing yet there is so much negativity directed at one another, and I really think that's a shame. Just my thoughts. |
|
| |
|
| Everyone pays for a license that allows you to keep certain species of fish.... and MUSKIE is one of them................ The best thing we can do as an angling commuity is just do our best to educate people on how tough these resources are to maintain. Hopefully by just education we can increase the number of fish that get CPR.
But the bottom line is MN as well as every other state does allow a person to keep legal muskies. Until that changes people need not get mad at someone who does keep a giant fish.
Lets just all keep doing our best to teach people how vital this resource is!
Now everyone get off here and go catch some monsters! Im going fishing! |
|
| |
|
| Steve you have turned this post from meaningful conversation to soap box material it was fine until you chimed in. Secondly, it is not the media that is blowing this up it is the person who caught the fish. He was interviewed on the radio and after the radio host said 52 lbs he quickly corrected him with 54 lbs. This goes back to my original post, which you slammed me for, not everyone on here is mad because he kept it they are mad because of the circus it has become for a fish that is no state record. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin |
Challenges and answers from many points of view. I don't much care if you like mine or not, they are what they are...and yours are too. I didn't 'slam' you, I asked you what complaining here would do; your wording that you 'have a problem' with it, so I asked you what resolution you suggest. Was a challenge, not a slam.
I talked to the anglers on the phone, and my notes say one scale 50#, the second 51#, just looked at my notes again. I read two stories with different weights. It's up to the media at hand to get the facts, and not just the 'story'. Seems the story keeps changing.
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Winther...great post..The point of this thread was to start a discussion about how we could clear up confusion regarding the MN record. It had nothing to do with first amendment rights...let's all calm down!
Mr. Crawford, I started this post by clearly stating that I didn't have a problem with this guy keeping the fish in question.
The only intended target(if there was one) was the press. I've contacted several media outlets over the past few seasons regarding inaccurate info and poor fact checking. While they usually respond, it's always after the damage has been done.
They seem to love a big fish story so, we all should share them any chance we get and remember to include our conservation ideals!
Lastly, Mr. Worall, please try to stay on topic! (teasing)
Good Luck! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wish I knew which topic in this thread to stick to, Ben.
Sled...
Rock Stars? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 692
Location: Pelican Rapids, MN | Ben, it's funny. When this fish was caught, I was contacted by the 1st reporter to get wind of it. Made some calls got the accurate dimensions and told the journalist not to run this story as it is a total farce and the story will be hearsay. It still ran originally through the Pioneer Press and a wildfire ensued. It has been unbelievable and disgusting as well. Stories are still being pumped out with varied sizes, weights, blah, blah. The guy from the paper later told me that the angler and his dad wanted to put it on this forum to get "Validation" from the musky world. I told him, this too was a bad idea. I told him you could put a photo of a blind kid with no legs holding a 50 pounder and it will still be tore up by someone.
After a bit more communication, I told him again, not to run the story about a "Supposed" record because it would start an absolute $h!& storm. It has, and the emails and texts about it have kept on pouring in. If anything for me, it has sold a few guide trips for people looking to catch the next world record.... out of Lake Sallie.... Uh yeah... What a load of crap the modern media is! I think this thread needs to die like a 57 in the bottom of a boat! WHoops! Sorry, hope that doesn't cross the line! SOrry had to insert emoticon to show my sick sense of humor.
Edited by Jsondag 7/19/2011 10:54 PM
|
|
| |
|
| You got a tough job there, Steve! It must be excruciating to "bite your tongue" sometimes! We feel your pain and most of us really appreciate having this forum available.
Everyone should reread the original post. It was a call to action; not a call for anyone's head! |
|
| |
|
| Amen |
|
| |
|
| How about that Tiger Muskie this weekend! |
|
| |
