Indie, you're right. If people paint up an idea enough people will start to believe it. There is no true protection of the wildlife if one is STILL allowed to fish BUT with a license. If that were the case and only those who could afford a license could fish and disturb the wild life, that would be a case of classicism. Which in America, isn't shocking.

Most state licenses (fishing, hunting, guns, even drivers and ID's) cost the consumer money that goes straight to the state. Now, that money isn't used to increase the fish or wildlife population. It is used to increase advertising for tourism, maintaining government or affiliated buildings, etc. That is why when your state has a sudden influx of, for example, deer, they say hunting is open to those with or willing to get a license. Because that means money. And nothing else.

Deer for example are extremely respectful of their environment. They are compassionate about it, you barely hear them walk on the under brush because they are aware that is where their food sources grow from. Soooo would opening a second season to "protect the wildlife and land" really make sense here? No. But since that's the way it is painted, in such a lovely way, that is what people believe.

This man basically did what a lot of us forget we CAN do which is run our own cases legally and do so with precision and knowledge. What he really did was stomp on corporate legal America and made perfect sense while doing so.