Callmefish

You can stretch out a little longer if you want to head into Brooklyn/ staten island areas. I usually do a hard stop Dec 1 just because. i pick it up again March/April

Oh so it isn’t a speed thing. Got it. even on a true lefty bailless, a bailed non- true lefty is just as quick which is why I was wondering.

Being a lefty my-self, whats the benifit of havei g a bailess? i have a visser gen 2 (line roller bearings are shot, only real complaint) it’s not a true lefty reel, but with the opposite rotation of the reel I can thumb the bail closed quicker then I can swing the line over on a bailess. Is the benifit on setting up for the cast?

How about I just do what I want, i’m over there every weekend.

We haven’t been talking about his point since the second post on this thread. if his point wasn’t poorly worded maybe it wouldn’t have gone off the rails. that was MY point. yes file a complaint with DEC and tobay, then hire an editor

Well it became relevant in this post about three or four pages ago. Thier decent would have mattered much less if it were never brought up in the first place. I never accused the guy of being a racist. I did kind of sort of accuse him of being a NIMBY wanting to keep his towns beach pristine and free of common folk. But I guess that just pertains to the parking lots and my gripe about access around long island

No @TimS I said this.

No I ‘m literally not pretending that them being from South America imled that they were fishing illegally. Do not twist my words. let me be clear, he assumed they were from South America, then he implied they were fishing illegally. where in all this mess did you get that I said they were fishing illegally because they were from south america. I do not think the OP was being racist, I do think the OP had a poor choice of words, so much so, that he literally had to state that it was irrelevant and had nothing to do with it. so why bring it up in the first place when you can clearly convey the issue with out doing so. again, do not twist my words he assumed they were from south america. Then he implied they were fishing illegally. He literally assumed people from south america were fishing illegally. an assumption or origin followed up by an accusation of them fishing illegally. I did not, will not, and have not said they were fishing illegally because they did not speak english and were from south america and I’m not entirely sure how your coming to that. It’s ridiculous.

No I did not tie the two together. He said they were from south america, he said they were fishing illegally. Literally part 1 and part 2. he could have said they did not speak english. And then that they were fishing illegally. the negative conotation was them fishing illegally. in example 1 you have south americans fishing illegally in example 2 you have people who don’t speak english fishing illegally. heck if he just didn’t understand them them. you could have people he didn’t understand how they spoke fishing illegally as a third example. the later two, just like the first are clear as day. it did nothing to help reader and he could have worded it a million different ways to deliver his message, which he chose not to do. I don’t understand how to me more clear. maybe you could make a suggestion of a better choice of words? Thats what I was doing.

Maybe he could have simply not mentioned it. Which was the point. We both agree that it doesn’t matter. I still haven’t tied thier potentially not being licensed to thier race or language. Your assumption is that I am. I’m saying thier race doesn’t matter. I’m saying that he brought race up anyways, i’m saying that he could have chosen to leave race out it. I’m sayng that he did not leave race out it. I’m saying that if he left race out of it they could be speaking one millions of different languages other then English presumably. I’m saying that if race was so unimportant why was it brought up. He absolutely did Imply that group of individuals were doing something wrong. It just came right after he said they didn’t speak english and assumed they were from south america.

Your correct in what you said. He absolutely did not imply that they were fishing illegally because of thier ethnicity or a language barrier. He implied that people from south america with a language barrier were fishing illegally. He also did not state the ethnicity or primary language of the implied legal fishermen, but I’m assuming they spoke english for all I know he could have been speaking to the legal fisherman in yiddish. him assuming they were from south america is not relevant to his complaint and he could have left it out just like he chose to do with the other assumed legal fisherman he had spoken with. just as I did when I called DEC about a couple of cast netters at jones beach field 10. The group were cast netting all sorts bait fish and stuffing em in trash bags to take them home. DEC showed up, checked em out and they were totally legal to my surprise. The DEC officer then approached me and checked me too. After I was all good, i told him I called. He educated me that all the species they were retaining were unregulated species in new york and they were totally within the confines of the law. I definitely didn’t tell DEC that they were three english speaking presumed americans cast netting all sorts of bait fish at field 10 potentially illegally but the language they speak and country origin doesn’t matter.

I thought spring and summer were off limits as well

Please point out in this post where I assumed any of those things. I simply did not. I did point out what he was implying. I assumed nothing about the poster, your actually assuming I did. I quite literally said he could have worded his statementment differently, eliminating any race or nationality from his original statement would have prevented this discussion entirely. implications lead to assumptions, hence the response’s to this post. it was relevant to the original post to point out nationality or origin upon realizing they didn’t speak english. why wasn’t it relevant to include why he felt they were fishing illegally as well. being non-English speaking and from south america, does not bar them from fishing and recreating but fishing illegally is absolutely a reason for them to not to be there.

I’d agree with you if that were it was left at, but he also said they were fishing illegally while providing no proof/evidence/resaon for speculating that they were actually fishing illegally. He also then compared that group to the other licensed that go there all the time without stating any form race/creed/primary language or how he actually knew they were in fact legally fishing. he inferred that the foreigners where there fishing illegally, attaching a negative connotation to thier actions. They could have been residents with just as much right to be there as himself or any other legal fisherman and resident of oyster bay. i’m pretty sure if I were to be fishing there, I would be trespassing because I’m not a redisent.