Sorry, there was some kind of technical problem and the following post from Victor Kernus isn't showing up (randomly flagged as spam though it isn't). The following text is his and not mine:
I have been giving this matter a lot of thought lately. Looking at the language in the statute, it would seem that prohibited actions are all related to one activity, i.e. swimming. That is entering the water to Bathe, swim, or wade are all activities that can fall under the general heading of swimming. I believe that a strong argument can be made that the term "wade" relates to the swimming definition of the term, not the use we apply as fisherman. As is known in law, ambiguity in a statute goes against the drafter, I think that an argument can be made that the statute is ambiguous. Remick might want to consider arguing that he did not interpret the statute to cover wading in the fishing sense, but rather the statute only covered wading in the swimming sense. Just a thought.
Moving forward, we may want to enter into discussions with the Park Service to see how we may be able to wade safely. The purpose of the statute would seem to be safety related. The Park Service can cite to the number of fisherman that drown every year to support why wading should be prohibited. We could propose that fisherman should wear a PFD when entering the water to fish.
--
http://www.tpfr.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Tidal Potomac Fly Rodders" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to tidal-potomac-fly-rodders@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tidal-potomac-fly-rodders/b91befda-e22c-4c70-a56f-e31ab99523f5%40googlegroups.com?hl=en-US.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
No comments:
Post a Comment