I went out fishing and after a full day of releasing small fish that were undersized I finally caught a desent sized fish that I measured out to be 63 centimeters long which is the minimum length allowed to keep so I kept it so that I could eat it for supper. On the way back though a gamewarden stops to inspect my inflatable boat and gives me a 120 fine due to him measuring the fish to be 61 cm or 2 cm under the limit. Now sometimes when the fish is stressed or dies it tends to shrink a little but generally should I have gotten the fine or should the laws allow for a small margine of error.
The law is the law, no matter how ridiculous it is.
Now, why is this proviso not included in the law? Problem is, if they allowed you that couple of cm, what would stop others from pushing the envelope a bit more until the practice quite defferent from that of the written law has been established? It’s like the maximum speed limit. It is true that a lot of times, the police do not ticket if you stay within 10 miles above the max allowable. But why? Why are there double-standards? One written, and another convention or actual practice?
Thats exactly my point though. Most people allow a margin for error. Imagine the outrage if you got 20 photo radar tickets in a month for going a km over the speed limit on the same road on your way to work. Now technically you broke the law but is it fair. I think the law is to be interpreted by the officers inforcing it. If I had other small fish on board then yeah I must have done it intentionally and then he should go and charge for each fish even if it is only a cm or two under. But having one fish under by 2 cm during stormy conditions most would have just given a warning. What gets me mad is that I posted on a fishing forum asking if I could get the fine reduced and was condemned by 2 people. One person said that I post this garbage on the forum about how I break the law and expect to advise on how to reduce the fine. What a hypocrite. How many times a day does he break the law through speeding 1 or 2 km over the limit here or there by accident or even 10 or 20 on purpose and then he has the nerve to condemn me. I hate hypocrites like that who think its ok that they break the law but as soon as someone else breaks the law in some way they jump at the chance to condemn them and act all righteous.
law is law. If you don’t like it, use the law to fix it.
Marie writes:
(italics mine)
Is that a slippery slope argument?
I would say one reason for the hiatus between theory and practice is that the law can not possibly cover every conceivable circumstance. There will always be cases in which speeding is justified.
Next time make a snapshot of the fish laid against a ruler.
You could easily fashion your own slightly miniature ruler for that purpose, Mr. McDaniel.
That was one expensive fish you caught there. It’s humorous to me that thats what it equates into. If your fish would’ve been larger, it would have been free, excusing the costs of the fishing gear. The law is the law, however, and it’s too bad you were stuck with that fine.
I don’t fish. I’m from Illinois. Our fish have Vitamin Mercury, and the last I heard they haven’t established a neccessary daily value for that one.
iZach
Maybe. But in this case why would it be objectionable to say this? I’m going off-topic, but let’s use the example of television. The coming of television age has changed tremendously our politics, for one. There were people who said it will change the minds of everyone–children who haven’t formed reasoned opinions became the most affectd of all, but adults, no doubt—just look at the way spending and personal debt have risen.
Marie said:
I think where the slippery slope argument may attain some credibility is in the fact that i previously mentioned:
The best use of the slippery slope argument is that it tends to indicate that we will not know every possible consequence or ramification of our actions. The worst use is when we try to decide beforehand exactly what those consequences will be. Some times we do know through statistics and other viable means generally what those consequences will be and at other times it is used to justify a plethora of ill-founded fears. Like a fish, it is slippery at best.
and you ask
In this case i would say that you are right. No new laws should be made, but that if the scenario has been described correctly, the game warden should have taken shrinkage into account if that actually happens. He should have used all of the knowledge at his disposal to make a good decision.
Marshall, I agree on all points. Thanks.
I’m glad you used the slippery slope argument, it made me consider a few things.