Fishy toxins need protection!

This sign is posted on a tree in front of a creek a few miles from where I live:

troutWarning.jpg

Fish advisories are one thing. But if I have a legitimate fishing license and want to take my chances with the fish I catch, should it be the government's business to protect me against my wishes by making it a crime? I'm also wondering whether the "law" criminalizing possession of fish on this creek was in fact passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature (as it should have been), or whether they simply allow bureaucrats to write the laws as they see fit -- based on whatever criteria they please.

And the criteria may be highly suspect. According to this article, the dangers of mercury in fish are wildly overstated, and they vary from state to state, so if you live on one side of a river flowing between two states, the fish you catch may be more dangerous than if you caught the same fish on the other side.

There are several big lobbying organizations which are out to stop fish consumption -- some of which are anti-mercury activists, others of which are anti-fishing groups. (I'm reminded of lead.)

I have no way to evaluate the data or the decision to post these signs in my area, and no way to know whether it's based on accurate information.

I'm puzzled over the "No fish may be killed or had in possession on this stream" part too. I'm wondering why it doesn't just say "NO FISHING."

Isn't catch and release a form of possession during the time the fish is caught? And if the fish are in fact dangerous, why are they making it illegal to kill them? Do deadly fish merit protection or something?

If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that anti-fishing activists were working with anti-mercury environmentalists to enact laws never specifically passed by the legislature.

(Sounds like a conflict of interest in there somewhere....)

Hmmmmm....

Isn't "fishermen" sexist?

posted by Eric on 09.11.05 at 07:38 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/2764






Comments

The elaborate wording is probably to deter people from engaging in "catch and release" fishing. Postmodernist fishermen might argue that this is not a form of fishing.

I blame Derrida.

John   ·  September 11, 2005 09:53 PM

The sign would appear to prohibit possession of ANY fish, by anyone, "on" that stream. Impermissibly vague, I'd say. For it could be interpreted as prohibiting the possession of a fish caught somewhere else -- or, for that matter, a tuna sandwich.

Eric Scheie   ·  September 11, 2005 10:20 PM

I love eating fish. I admire the men* who catch the fish for me or for themselves to eat, or who fish just to fish and enjoy a sunny day out at the creek. I love the style of such men*.

*I know, I know, that's Transcendental Science, but I have always seen men fishing, I associate it with men. That's just the way it is.

Women are superior in other ways, transcending Transcendental Science. HAIL TO MY MOST HIGH GODDESS, THE QUEEN OF HEAVEN!!!!

I hate anti-fishing activists and all other activists in that quadrant of a spectrum. I have had with Political Correctness. I hate Political Correctness, the Politically Correct, subversive CommuNazi rats, and the raping murdering scum they support, "the Religion of Peace". Like Todd Beamer and all the heroes of Flight 93, I, for one, will never surrender. Right now, I hate anybody to "the Left" (i.e., to the Soft) of Little Green Footballs. Today is September 11. I'm trying to control myself, to control my rage. LET'S ROLL!



March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits