friend of mine just flushed 10K down the toilet

[Blessed]

When I used to hunt white tail deer in PA...all of us would have a 1 buck license and 1 doe license. A lot of times one person would shoot 2 deer at a time, both could be doe, both could be buck. We would just have a friend claim the deer to use up his doe/buck tag. What we used to do sounds a lot like what your friends were doing. I never really thought about that being illegal.

Im a hunter so I can relate...I just dont see the problem..whether one person was doing the work or not..as long as they both werent over their limit, I personally do not see a problem.

Our family does that all the time hunting. There are 12 of us on the 40 acres. I never thought about it being illegal either. They have been doing it for as long as I can remember. Lots of the area hunting groups do it.

Fishing the four of us combine for our limit also.

[FrugalSensei]

I love fishing and hunting and want future generations to enjoy the experience if they choose. I am actually happy at the way the law is set up because it shows that the agency cares more about sustaining the stock than generating cash. If it were just about buying a license/tag but not actually taking part in the fishing/hunting then people could just gather a group and drop some cash then kill like crazy. Like what was said earlier, what would stop someone from having 10 people kick back with beers while one proficient person takes the limit for all of them?

There are lots of people who like to eat abalone or deer (for example), but there are far fewer who are capable of getting it themselves. I am grateful for the rule because I think it helps to ensure that all the fishermen/hunters are on the same footing, at least as far as catch limits go. At the very minimum it makes all of us buy the equipment, get out into the environment, and learn the activity.

As for the penalties in California, they are indeed brutal and relentlessly enforced but I am glad for that as well. I lived in an area with hardly any rules and even fewer game wardens and frankly the stocks were devastated, as was the environment. The basic result was that people who don't respect either were allowed to rampage until there was really nothing left.

I believe in regulations and enforcement though reason and logic should always play a part (like with the guy whose line was snagged). I'm sorry your friends had such a financially painful lesson but I agree with the rules and I'm glad that my license fees and taxes are actually being put to work via the warden getting into the field and doing his job.

[snafu]

I neither hunt nor fish but it all sounds like entrapment to me. The warden sat and watched the process and after a period of time, went over and wrote out tickets etc. I used to get so peeved when police cars hid out on my driveway to tag speeders on a road where the speed limit sign was w-a-y down the road and totally unexpected. It was just a point of revenue for officers who had not yet made their 'quota' for the month.

The one saving grace was officers rarely appear in court so if you fight the ticket/hire that firm that appears for you, the ticket and fine is cancelled.

[shaggy]

He broke the law, pure and simple. Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine.

I love fishing and hunting and want future generations to enjoy the experience if they choose. I am actually happy at the way the law is set up because it shows that the agency cares more about sustaining the stock than generating cash. If it were just about buying a license/tag but not actually taking part in the fishing/hunting then people could just gather a group and drop some cash then kill like crazy. Like what was said earlier, what would stop someone from having 10 people kick back with beers while one proficient person takes the limit for all of them?

There are lots of people who like to eat abalone or deer (for example), but there are far fewer who are capable of getting it themselves. I am grateful for the rule because I think it helps to ensure that all the fishermen/hunters are on the same footing, at least as far as catch limits go. At the very minimum it makes all of us buy the equipment, get out into the environment, and learn the activity.

As for the penalties in California, they are indeed brutal and relentlessly enforced but I am glad for that as well. I lived in an area with hardly any rules and even fewer game wardens and frankly the stocks were devastated, as was the environment. The basic result was that people who don't respect either were allowed to rampage until there was really nothing left.

I believe in regulations and enforcement though reason and logic should always play a part (like with the guy whose line was snagged). I'm sorry your friends had such a financially painful lesson but I agree with the rules and I'm glad that my license fees and taxes are actually being put to work via the warden getting into the field and doing his job.

You said that very nicely. Thank you.

[GREENBACK]

I neither hunt nor fish but it all sounds like entrapment to me. The warden sat and watched the process and after a period of time, went over and wrote out tickets etc. I used to get so peeved when police cars hid out on my driveway to tag speeders on a road where the speed limit sign was w-a-y down the road and totally unexpected. It was just a point of revenue for officers who had not yet made their 'quota' for the month.

The one saving grace was officers rarely appear in court so if you fight the ticket/hire that firm that appears for you, the ticket and fine is cancelled.

You're nowhere near entrapment here. They simply sat and watched somebody commit an illegal act. They played no role in their decision to break the law. You can't bend laws to suit your own moral code. They should have Read and understood how and why these laws are in place and followed them. It could've saved a few thousand bucks.