Blue Stew :p , I went over there just now and replied. It wasn't the greatest verbage used, but I'd like some of his insight and wit to be directed at someone like myself and DanS. I've been too busy lately to slow down to read, and then reply.
The guy just likes tooting his horn about legalities. Remember, lawyers don't give a **** about morals. It's all about their clients' money. Since he's a civil lawyer, I'd probably bet that the majority of his clients are gillnetters, but they pay him with the money earned from their day jobs.
How anyone can defend a gillnet as a livelihood and a source of income really has to throw some BS, oops "propaganda", in people's faces.
I agree with whomever said that it's not about who gets the resource, but rather the welfare of the fish, granted, they are taking a public resource and making a profit off of it. Their profit, in turn, affects the entire community's profit because sports angling generates revenue gillnetters could only spank it to. Pissed off sportsanglers, or no fish, = businesses going under, unemployment going up, etc.
See, I can toot my horn too.
Heywood, granted he defended himself in a manner that's acceptable in forms of debate, etc. but that's what this guy is trained to do. Put me in a debate with Killertraylor about building websites, and I'd sound really professional as well
He's a lawyer, so his job is to argue in a certain manner.
DUH!Stew, I still say to go test your swimming ability, but I'd bet the guy would just stand there instead of climbing into his boat. His mentality would be "touch me and I'll sue." Not because it's the right thing to do, but because it's LEGAL to do so. I remember when I was kid, how laws were constructed with morality involved. Now laws are just words with loopholes.