WTF is wrong with people?

[Hawkmoon]

That's a rhetorical question. The answer is that no one wants to take responsibility ... for anything. Case in point:

https://www.the-express.com/news/us-news/138446/Pismo-Beach-clam-family-fined-88k

California mother takes kids to beach. Kids dig up a bunch of [highly regulated] clams without a clamming license. They get caught, and hit with a substantial fine. The fine is reduced from $88,000 to just $500 ... and the mother is complaining.

Nearly 60 citations were issued in 2023 for illegal clam-gathering in San Luis Obispo. Charlotte says that while there are signs posted, she would like there to be more - because they were not something her family, who were keen to have fun in the sun and on the sand, paid attention to.

So, because she and her spawn ignored the existing signs, they think the state or the county should erect MORE signs for them to ignore. Isn't that just spayshul?

And how the [bleep] do you get as old as the kids in that photo without knowing the difference between a seashell and a live clam?

[230RN]

Geeze, I wonder if that's the case on Long Island Sound nowadays.  I used to live on the North Shore of Long Island and go "clamming" on the shores of the Sound a lot.

You walk along in knee-deep water and when you see a "clam hole" in the sand at the bottom, you dug it up, shucked it open, and ate the clam.  I'd skip the shells across the water.

Hopefully, if there are suchlike signs out there now, I'd see one and respect it, but if I were just plunked down on the beach with my knife, I wouldn't think to look for a sign... Clamming would seem to me to be a natural human right.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

The solution is obvious.  Purchase 2.3 million new signs and install them all over the beach and out in the water.  Make sure they are big enough to read from a reasonable distance.   

[230RN]

The solution is obvious.  Purchase 2.3 million new signs and install them all over the beach and out in the water.  Make sure they are big enough to read from a reasonable distance.   

Actually, the huge fine accomplished that purpose:  to publicize that clamming was regulated and apparently, a fishing license is required and only four inch+ clams could be harvested.  (That seems like a rather large clam, to me.)

Aas was pointed out, that picture of their clams kinda shoots down their claim that they thought they were just "shells."  Mmmmkay, if you say so.

It's been a while (1950s-1960s) since I've even seen any salt water, but I seem to recall that individual salt water fishing in the Atlantic was unregulated unless it was commercial.  But that was California, where I would expect just breathing the air would require licensing and regulation.

Terry, 230RN

Correction:  I went back to NY for my mother's funeral in 1982 and two of my nieces and I took a walk along Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island.

[dogmush]

It's been a while (1950s-1960s) since I've even seen any salt water, but I seem to recall that individual salt water fishing in the Atlantic was unregulated unless it was commercial.  But that was California, where I would expect just breathing the air would require licensing and regulation.

Terry, 230RN

Correction:  I went back to NY for my mother's funeral in 1982 and two of my nieces and I took a walk along Jones Beach on the south shore of Long Island.

I think that is no longer the case pretty much anywhere on the Atlantic Seaboard.  I know FL Requires a Saltwater License for fishing.  From a quick Google it looks like NY requires you to register (for free at least) for fish in saltwater, but you need a license for other marine life.  State Waters extend out to 9 NM from Mean Low Water, and past that you are in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone.  I have no idea if there are recreational fishing regs for that zone, but there definitely are commercial ones.

[230RN]

I think that is no longer the case pretty much anywhere on the Atlantic Seaboard.  I know FL Requires a Saltwater License for fishing.  From a quick Google it looks like NY requires you to register (for free at least) for fish in saltwater, but you need a license for other marine life.  State Waters extend out to 9 NM from Mean Low Water, and past that you are in the Federal Exclusive Economic Zone.  I have no idea if there are recreational fishing regs for that zone, but there definitely are commercial ones.

Yeah, it figures. TNX fer the update.  It once again seems to illustrate that legislators tend to copycat legislation in other States.

You send them "upstate" to make laws, and son of a bitch, that's what they do.

I'm not challenging the possibly legitimate necessity for tighter regulation (with our expanding population), but rather their pouncing on the opportunity to make laws "because 'X' State does it" and they can thereby point to their "own" legislative accomplishments.

Truly it is said, the essential function of any government is to progressively limit freedoms.  Case in point.

I have often wisecracked that to pass any law, they should be required to repeal two others.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

Yeah, it figures. TNX fer the update.  It once again seems to illustrate that legislators tend to copycat legislation in other States.

You send them "upstate" to make laws, and son of a bitch, that's what they do.

I'm not challenging the possibly legitimate necessity for tighter regulation (with our expanding population), but rather their pouncing on the opportunity to make laws "because 'X' State does it" and they can thereby point to their "own" legislative accomplishments.

Truly it is said, the essential function of any government is to progressively limit freedoms.  Case in point.

I have often wisecracked that to pass any law, they should be required to repeal two others.

Terry, 230RN

I think I still prefer that all laws have an automatic expiration of 10 years or so.  No exceptions.  If the Congress or legislatures cannot be troubled to renew them, they expire.  Neither is fool proof as it seems our Govt and our Society has gotten a lot more legalistic.  If there is a loophole, people will use it no matter what the right thing to do is.

[HankB]

. . . I know FL Requires a Saltwater License for fishing. . . .

That must be relatively new. I know during two consecutive Florida vacations when I was a youngster, they made a point of saying no license was required to fish in the ocean.

As for the current story, it warms my heart to know that in this day of defunding the police or having them stand down during violent riots  mostly peaceful protests we still have clam cops on duty.

[cordex]

I think I still prefer that all laws have an automatic expiration of 10 years or so.  No exceptions.  If the Congress or legislatures cannot be troubled to renew them, they expire.  Neither is fool proof as it seems our Govt and our Society has gotten a lot more legalistic.  If there is a loophole, people will use it no matter what the right thing to do is.

Within a year there would be an "Omnibus Decade Expiration Bill" that automatically renewed all expiring laws that both parties would overwhelmingly pass.

[230RN]

Well, while the "all laws having an expiration date, no exceptions" concept is appealing, that itself has pitfalls if you remember that the highest law of the land, that is, the Constitution as adopted, would have to be excepted.

Of course, that particular set of laws --the Constitution --is generally ignored anyway because it represents a roadblock to how the various legislators would like to control you.

(I'm disappointed to hear about salt water [non-commercial] fishing licenses being required now.  I always had the notion that the oceans were kind of bastions of freedom,  like National Forests used to be and are now more like National Parks.  Oh well --case in point again.)

It is the essential function of any government to limit freedom.

It is the essential function of the U.S. Constitution to limit the limitations on freedom imposed by the government.

Those old coots wrote that thing hoping to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.

Terry, 230RN

[MechAg94]

Well, while the "all laws having an expiration date, no exceptions" concept is appealing, that itself has pitfalls if you remember that the highest law of the land, that is, the Constitution as adopted, would have to be excepted.

Of course, that particular set of laws --the Constitution --is generally ignored anyway because it represents a roadblock to how the various legislators would like to control you.

(I'm disappointed to hear about salt water [non-commercial] fishing licenses being required now.  I always had the notion that the oceans were kind of bastions of freedom,  like National Forests used to be and are now more like National Parks.  Oh well --case in point again.)

It is the essential function of any government to limit freedom.

It is the essential function of the U.S. Constitution to limit the limitations on freedom imposed by the government.

Those old coots wrote that thing hoping to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.

Terry, 230RN

The expiration would essentially be an amendment.  No need to make the Constitution an exception.  There might be a way to prevent renewal by omnibus bill, but I am not sure how that would be done or worded. 

Of course, these days the law only means what the judges say it means. 

[Tuco]

Oh boy! Fresh clams.
Oh boy! Clam chowder.
https://youtu.be/72F0nuZFaV0?feature=shared

[230RN]

The expiration would essentially be an amendment.  No need to make the Constitution an exception.  There might be a way to prevent renewal by omnibus bill, but I am not sure how that would be done or worded. 

Of course, these days the law only means what the judges say it means. 

Thinking thereon,  mostly agree.

Oh boy! Fresh clams.
Oh boy! Clam chowder.
https://youtu.be/72F0nuZFaV0?feature=shared

Thinking thereon.  One hundred percent agree.

[K Frame]

"WTF is wrong with people?"

How much time you got for an explanation?

[230RN]

^
I tried to boil it down to three pages but I boiled over.

Upshot was we are no longer evolving; we are devolving back to our primal beginnings with no sense of the future.  Hunger¹ and individual need for top-dogness has become our primary motivation. (Except for me and thee, since our outlook is completely noble.)

That took the first three pages.

The rest, on which I gave up, was related to a very strong "herd" instinct involved in my WTF is wrong with people? analysis.  Normally herding in the natural world is  a survival mechanism, but it has developed to a counterproductive stage in humans since it counteracts the rational thinking we had developed in our prior upward evolution.  This lack of future concern is the biggest casualty.

Hence, "devolution."

Terry, 230RN

1.  Hunger here is meant to include more than mere growling in the belly.

[Perd Hapley]

^
I tried to boil it down to three pages but I boiled over.

Upshot was we are no longer evolving; we are devolving back to our primal beginnings with no sense of the future.  Hunger¹ and individual need for top-dogness has become our primary motivation. (Except for me and thee, since our outlook is completely noble.)

That took the first three pages.

The rest, on which I gave up, was related to a very strong "herd" instinct involved in my WTF is wrong with people? analysis.  Normally herding in the natural world is  a survival mechanism, but it has developed to a counterproductive stage in humans since it counteracts the rational thinking we had developed in our prior upward evolution.  This lack of future concern is the biggest casualty.

Hence, "devolution."

Terry, 230RN

1.  Hunger here is meant to include more than mere growling in the belly.

Post-Christian civilization.

[230RN]

Post-Christian civilization.

Excellent point.  I often knock religion generally, but it (all) does serve a purpose, which is to provide "higher" behavioral regulation.  (With a somewhat tenuous reward / punishment scheme in the afterlife.)

Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe people need "higher power" regulation i.e., to be ruled.

"G-d'll getcha for that, Walter."

I personally operate on the assumption that the highest code of ethics has to be internal, rather than imposed externally, and fundamentally based on sympathy and empathy for others.

A ridiculous assumption, of course.

Terry, 230RN

[dogmush]

I personally operate on the assumption that the highest code of ethics has to be internal, rather than imposed externally, and fundamentally based on sympathy and empathy for others.

A ridiculous assumption, of course.

Terry, 230RN

I don't disagree with that philosophy, and it might be ideal.  History has shown us however that at population level numbers, Humans don't work that way.  Or at least not enough of them to make a workable society.