shorts

I see no issue as long as the fish are released

I respectfully disagree. We all know what baby fish look like. The longer they are kept out of the water, or dragged up a sandy beach to be unhooked, and then have to be included in a photo, the more likely they will not survive.

Us not posting them will not stop that from happening

Nor will pix of graffiti swastikas prevent hatred and bigotry. But why all but support it ? I guess we can just make fun of those posting any baby fish pix. I wonder how the general pop of this website would feel ?

I know our intentions on this are good, especially regarding dragging the fish up along the sand, but I'm with Cany on this. It eliminates a very specialized photo set, young kids with fish. Since this may be their "first" fish or "PB", and you have to teach them to carefully and quickly release fish to respect the resource, all you get is a quick photo to show family and friends this milestone.

And I always post a picture of my first bass of the year, invariably a short, just to document the landmark. Of course, I'm NOT in the photo so you couldn't draw Groucho glasses on me...

What I would like to ban, and NEVER miss an opportunity to shame the perpetrators for said infractions, are the "full arm extensions" with or without holding the fish out headfirst. Do they actually think we don't know they're playing the perspective game?

On a final note, who are we to question what size the fish was. If they post a picture and say it was a keeper bass, without a ruler in the photo, how do we know if it was 26 or 28"?? You really can't "police" this?

I promise I will make fun of your baby fish. That's all I catch as well, but you will never see me taking a pic !

>
I promise I will make fun of your baby fish. That's all I catch as well, but you will never see me taking a pic !


Like I said, 1st one of the year and I usually only send that along to fishing friends. After that, only "Keepahs".

>
I haven't seen it on NYAnglers.com yet, but the other all but defunct website certainly has them, posting pics of shorts, usually stripers but not always. Can we consider prohibiting posting of 23" schoolies and 15" fluke. I don't care if its mommy's first fish, whatever. IMHO, it simply sends the wrong message and such photos should be deleted.


There's just now way to know what you're looking at. The last thing I want is for mods to question a user. Now if someone outright says they're keeping a short is another story

Now last year with the new Mako regs I did tell some to pull down a 125 lb Mako at the other site since it was obviously a "new reg short." He profusely apologized for doing it, but he was ignorant of the rule change.

I do think that photos of bass getting dragged out of the wash should be commented on, but not by Mods as that would be inappropriate.

But I will post my granddaughter holding a bass this year IF I can get her close enough. Last year as soon as I grabbed the leader she dropped the rod and ran into the cabin...

You better bring your granddaughter down here for a keeper :) It's best to take down an admitted short when people don't realize it. About 10-years ago an angler took in a white thinking it was a mako, posted it on the site, and was then tracked down and cited. I had numerous calls from enforcement in those days trying to find them. One poor bastard was bagged for posting a sturgeon, that he released! He was written up for taking an endangered species out of the water.

I rest my case.

>
You better bring your granddaughter down here for a keeper :) It's best to take down an admitted short when people don't realize it. About 10-years ago an angler took in a white thinking it was a mako, posted it on the site, and was then tracked down and cited. I had numerous calls from enforcement in those days trying to find them. One poor bastard was bagged for posting a sturgeon, that he released! He was written up for taking an endangered species out of the water.


It's amazing how few people can ID even "easy" fish. On the old site a MA 6-pack captain posted a photo of a then legal 150ish lb "Mako", that had the distinct white patch on the trailing base of its dorsal fin. I IM'd him and said that's a porbeagle and sent a photo of the jaws of a porbeagle for him to compare, to which he replied that it was in fact a porbeagle. That one happens very commonly around here. AAMOF a "Boothbay Harbor Mako" is a porbeagle that some tourist caught and told everyone they caught a mako.

A better shark story was back in my working days. One of my employees was being fired for circulating obscene photos on the company email system. I asked the investigator, a former FBI guy, if he would show me an example. Well he shows me a photo of a whale shark and says, "Look, this whale's penis is sticking out!" I started laughing and said, "Well we certainly can't fire Joe for that!!" The investigator goes ape chit and demands to know why. I calmly go "#1 that's a whale SHARK, not a whale, #2 That's a female shark, and #3 Male sharks have claspers, not penises. What you're seeing is its intestines eviscerated!" Guy left in a huff, but did have enough human anatomy photos that we had to fire the person...

Just found the photo...


>
You better bring your granddaughter down here for a keeper :) It's best to take down an admitted short when people don't realize it. About 10-years ago an angler took in a white thinking it was a mako, posted it on the site, and was then tracked down and cited. I had numerous calls from enforcement in those days trying to find them. One poor bastard was bagged for posting a sturgeon, that he released! He was written up for taking an endangered species out of the water.



Admitted shorts I get Ive taken plenty down on NE then let them know why. But a simple pic of a short without knowing if it was kept or not I let it fly