K
kaimuki49
I like your style, Kaimuki49. You play the devils advocate. You just like to get people riled up...lol
actually chumming is defined as: "depositing in the water any substance, not attached to a hook, which may attract fish."
BEAVFAN - Something that you must understand when interpreting laws: the law IS what the words of the law say. One reads the actual wording of the law then gives that wording its plain and common meaning. You make a common error right out of the gate: in your mind chumming means feeding frenzy. Additionally, you impute to this discussion that the only way to get a feeding frenzy is by using "plenty of food". That is part of what the law prohibits indeed, but it also bans a lot more.
You quoted the definition of chumming earlier - Depositing in the water ANY SUBSTANCE, not attached to a hook, which MAY ATTRACT FISH. General Regulation #13 then prohibits fishing with the aid of chum. Pretty simple - the law tells us that chumming is banned and the law tells us precisely what chumming consists of. Using scents on swivels, leader, the body of the lure, and so on is prohibited. IF the substance "may attract fish" and it is not on the hook, then it is clearly chumming. As I said earlier, using lures with body cavities which are loaded with herring or similar, is clearly chumming. Injecting scent oils into a trolled herring, to leave a stronger scent trail, is chumming. Putting scent on terminal gear other than the hook, is chumming.
You may have a picture in your mind of what "chumming is", but the law has the definitive say on what practices are illegal as chumming. I repeat, I am not opposed to a broad range of chumming practices, but I am opposed to people who get all self righteous about how low life chumming is, THEN go out and troll baits and gear which are loaded, slathered, covered, etc in attractant scent! ok, big kahuna kai gotta nap now. be safe.
This train of thought seems to be a matter of semantic legalese. If you attach Power Eggs, for example, to a hook and then add scent...are you not putting the scent on the hook, by way of the bait? While pondering that conundrum, let's explore our philosophical approach; even further into the deep dark recesses of legality.
Could we not also apply this same theoretical axiom in a myriad of ways & means (sorry, had to go there...tis the season of political pundits and telephone robo ads). For example, those who integrate the usage of Kwikfish (and similar "lures") to entice their favorite prey. Would additional flavoring & the associated odorization--in the form of strapped on slivers of smaller marine life--also not be "attached to the hook"?
Are both of these forms of fish intoxication, merely all of forms of the same violation of the law?
Please stay tuned...
Film at 11:00.
alohabig kahuna sez: Ohh you making my head sore with all this screeching and jabbering! "semantic legalese . . . Pondering that conundrum . . . Associated odorization . . . Theoretical axiom . . ." and on and on. Oh, poor kahuna only follow the law and ask simple question bruddah.
If you see my post #12 again, then you will note i only used and gave words their simple, intended meaning - that probably doesn't qualify as semantic manipulation ya? And i just quoted the law in question - uhmm dat not "legalese". Just plain speaking ya?
Coastaldweller where you stay when i need your ballast???? T kai kahuna
aloha