Fluke Compromise idea - lower the fines (win-win)

[Arbutis]

How about this for a compromise (I don't think this has been proposed):
Agree to the 19" 3 bag limit with shortened season,
but reduce the penalty for keeping smaller fish, more fish, or out of season fish to $10 per violation.

Create the law to keep things "official" in the eyes of the state. That way they can feel like they did their jobs and got something passed. But on the flip side make the penalty relatively low with the anglers knowing there is a 'fish at your own risk' ordinance in place. Make the state work for their extra money in the form of fines but make the fines not so bad as to be detrimental to all fishermen - especially those people who only get a handful of chances to go out fishing each season (like me). I am certainly not putting a dent in the overall fish population as to affect the quota - but on the rare times I go fishing, I wouldn't mind risking $10 per fish (should I be checked by the state) if it meant being able to take home a little more fish for my family to eat and enjoy. The state might even find that they make some money this way and people won't mind paying as long as it's not overly excessive. After all, a fluke at the seafood market costs at least 10 bucks.

They could even regulate the fines on a scale that increases after 5 fish or after a certain date - that way they could have slightly more control.

I'm sure this idea is falling on deaf ears because it's so hard to make a dent through the bureaucratic BS unless you are a high ranking official. But you never know. So I thought I'd throw it out there.

Make the law say whatever you want to satisfy the bureaucrats, then bury the fines and implementation of said laws somewhere in the fine print.