Is it a skunk?

[Pete]

Very nice rebuttal gentlemen. I say bravo to Castaway. The intent was there. And by the defendant's own admission he did make an attempt to defraud an unsuspecting victim. I ask you, which would be better? To get skunked on an occasional basis or be known as a fisherman who didn't research the waters in question?

It all comes down to intent. Did the defendant wet a line with the intent of catching a fish? Yes or no? All the evidence points to intent. Defendant possesed a rod, reel, line, fly and license. Was the fly was cast onto the water?

Dr. Creek,
If your client was intentionally fishing in barren water, is he even competent to have a license to operate a fly rod? Sounds like we need to have a competency hearing before the trial continues

[rayfound]

We know about skunks personally because we dare to grab our bigger rods and hit real rivers, not just little creeks with over-eager fish

We don't. Someday I'll catch big trout(maybe)... but it will be in a small creek.

[Papasequoia]

May a comment be made from the Peanut Gallery? (How many old farts got that reference?)

I would return to your baseball analogy, Pete. When a batter steps into the batter's box and takes a few warm-up swings, do those count as strikes? No! Why not? Because no baseball was present! Thus the same analogy holds true for the fishing. No baseball-no strike/No fish-no skunk. Bada bing!

PS The Red Sox are the best team in baseball, win or lose.
PPS The report is now posted in the Sierra section (although technically this area may not actually be in the Sierra)

[castaway]

BLASPHAMY!!

THE DEFENDANT IS CLEARLY NOT FIT TO STAND TRIAL!

He fishes naked in trout-less waters!! and he thinks the Red sox are the best!

He has clearly lost his mind!

[Pete]

Papa, sounds like selective reading to me . I said swings at a pitch. Thus implying the ball was pitched to the catcher. A practice swing would be the equivalent to a false cast. You presented a fly via a cast onto the water, hence you swung at the pitch.

I predict this debate may rage until all concerned parties meet at a neutral site, such as the Brewery, to debate until the wee hours.

[Papasequoia]

BLASPHAMY!!

THE DEFENDANT IS CLEARLY NOT FIT TO STAND TRIAL!

He fishes naked in trout-less waters!! and he thinks the Red sox are the best!

He has clearly lost his mind!

You may be right about that.

I predict this debate may rage until all concerned parties meet at a neutral site, such as the Brewery, to debate until the wee hours.

Pete, it's a deal!

[NorcalBob]

Sorry Pete, you're dead wrong!!!!!
Batter swings at pitch and misses and umpire rules "No pitch" that batter did not hear (for a variety of infractions such as balk call, debris on field, etc), No strike is recorded even though batter intended and attempted to hit said pitch!!!!!
Sorry, tain't no fish, tain't no skunk.
Although I do agree with the insanity defense since any old man who wades nekkid in cold water up to his 'nads is clearly insane!!!!

[castaway]

There is no umpires on the water... only a man and a fly rod.... and no fish!

[BradW]

There is no umpires on the water... only a man and a fly rod.... and no fish!

I'm going to have to help the prosecution out. Let's introduce another scenario;

In golf, if a player attempts to hit his/her ball and completely misses he/she is still charged a stroke because he/she showed intent. I think your client showed intent on trying to catch a fish. No hit= Stroke, No fish = Skunk

[rayfound]

I think it comes down to intent. The way I read the question: Jon fished the water a bit, in order to determine if fish were present in the given watershed. He said he "Scouted" water. If that was TRULY his intent, than he was successful.


He successfully determined if fish were present. They weren't, but he reached a successful conclusion to the question he was seeking answers to.

Its a successful scouting mission... there just aren't any fish.

[castaway]

Only Jons past actions can tell us his true intent...

When he goes to the river with a fly rod... any river.. is his intent to catch fish?

So with out the knowledge of knowing if there are fish in the body of water or not... his intentions MUST have been to catch fish?

How many flies did he bring? How many times did he change flies? How much did the fishing gear weigh in comparison to the rest of his gear? why take the effort to pack in so much gear if your not fishing, only scouting? cant scouting be done by observing the water? (as he admits he did)

As he admits... even after seeing no evidence of fish... he still fished.. Meaning that although he probably knew there were no fish... he still had the intention of catching a fish (although impossible).

Holly crap... I need to either have a drink or go fishing!
(I am at work and its a boring job so I have a good excuse to think about such pointless banter! - its this or watching Star-wars on youtube)

[Pete]

The weak defense of the defendant clearly shows they have no case. By avoiding the situation and applying spin on said senarios clearly shows no true evidence in their defense.

It is a glaring example of today's no responsibiliy for our actions lifestyle . In todays world there is no loser, nobody is accountable for their actions and there are no repercussions to said actions.

Papa, please stop the insanity and step to the plate. Somebody needs to show this mad,mad, mad, world that somebody is still willing to do the right thing. It is a chance to start mentoring the younger generation about accepting responsibility for their actions.

[Papasequoia]

Ah, Doc, we know that the prosecution's argument went down in flames.



They were on the ropes, dancing, trying to stay upright, and they had to call for a time out. Something about retiring to a bar and continuing the debate over beers. I suggest we let them bow out gracefully and join them for one of these. We can even let them buy the first round ...and the second...and the third...



On the other hand, we're at three pages now...can it go four?

[Pete]

It is plain to me that much as the alcoholic lives in denial so to, the defendant in this case lives in denial as to the skunking he took. As much as I would like to continue this case with the overwhelming evidence for the proscution I can see no benefit to continung. Living in the shame of denial will be punishment enough.

The proscution has nothing but pity for fishermen who live in denial. When the defendant is willing to admit to being skunked he will be welcomed with open arms to " The Brotherhood of the Skunk" . In parting I would like to say there is nothing wrong with being skunked, it shows that you were out fishing. I would rather be skunked 70 times in a row than miss out on the opportunity. And yes, I have fished barren water and I consider it as a good old fashion skunking. But, then again I am secure enough in my abilities to live with a skunking. Walk toward the light Papa. Separate yourself from the evil influences who partook in your defense and walk toward the light.

Pete
President of "The Brotherhood of the Skunk"
All are welcomed, none are judged.

[Papasequoia]

It is plain to me that much as the alcoholic lives in denial so to, the defendant in this case lives in denial as to the skunking he took. As much as I would like to continue this case with the overwhelming evidence for the proscution I can see no benefit to continung. Living in the shame of denial will be punishment enough.

The proscution has nothing but pity for fishermen who live in denial. When the defendant is willing to admit to being skunked he will be welcomed with open arms to " The Brotherhood of the Skunk" . In parting I would like to say there is nothing wrong with being skunked, it shows that you were out fishing. I would rather be skunked 70 times in a row than miss out on the opportunity. And yes, I have fished barren water and I consider it as a good old fashion skunking. But, then again I am secure enough in my abilities to live with a skunking. Walk toward the light Papa. Separate yourself from the evil influences who partook in your defense and walk toward the light.

Pete
President of "The Brotherhood of the Skunk"
All are welcomed, none are judged.

Actually Pete, I started the thread half jokingly and half just to see what others thought. It seems to have taken on a life of its own though, and I've tried to go along in a more humorous vein. Nevertheless, I do tend to side more with those who feel that you get skunked by the fish outwitting you not by barren water (the baseball has to be present for it to be a strike, just swinging the bat doesn't count), but really it's just semantics. The truth is, if you read my report and can make it all the way to the last paragraph you'll see what my real feelings on the subject are. I'll still take you up on the beers at the pub though!