to his rods? For any rule change to work it is imperative that it be "angler friendly" and enforceable. In the third paragraph of the "Resolution", it is also said, "the attending angler must be able to view all of his rods without obstruction at all times". Again, while this sounds good in text, upon review questions arise as to such simple items as going for a walk along the shore or needing to answer the "call of mother nature" during angling. The last sentence of the "Resolution" states, "regardless of the time of year, failure to immediately respond to a rod upon indication of a bite shall be prima facie evidence that the rod is unattended". Again, as in the 400-foot rule, this sounds more enforceable, but is actually just as ambiguous as the current laws. What deems the "immediate response" term in the statement? Without a designated time limit given the immediate response statement is totally left up to the discretion of the wardens, and I believe this is what we are trying to eliminate by making a more "black and white" law. What I asked of the members of the conservation board and attendees is to view the proposed law changes with the "average" angler in mind and ease of enforcing said changes. We do not want to be lead into any law changes by any biased or elite group of anglers with hidden agendas. Below I have the proposal that I submitted at the conservation hearings. PROPOSAL: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODA4MA==