Poacher Busted...

[arima arima]

I was told by a dfo friend that the only place they need a warrant for is your place of residence IE. the cuddy of the boat in this circumstance. Had the fish been in there he could have refused a search but fish hatches are fair game. Maybe its changed since i talked with him about it last summer though not sure.

 

[trendsetter]

Kind of curious what you or anyone thinks their limit of rods is-I think if you have a non-licensed person on the boat then the max is one per licensed person. I don't sox fish but I understand its a many "splendid rod" thing-is that illegal. Can't find it in the regs anywhere-used to be listed.

From the sport fishing guide:

"There is no limit to the number of fishing rods a licensed angler may use in tidal waters, except in the tidal portion of any stream or river where the limit is one. Refer to the map and description of Fraser River tidal boundaries inside the front cover of this Guide."

 

[Hookin'up]

I think its no limit as long as everyone on board is licensed, if theres 1 person without a licence then its 1 per license

 

[bigbruce]

I think its no limit as long as everyone on board is licensed, if theres 1 person without a licence then its 1 per license

There is nothing in the regs to this effect. Licensed anglers may have as many rods as they wish. Unlicensed anglers may have none, and better not be caught handling a rod belonging to a licensed angler. In other words, if you'e licensed and are out with an unlicensed buddy, have two rods down and get a double header, buddy cannot legally touch the either of the rods...you're on your own.

 

[Rum Buddies]

I think its no limit as long as everyone on board is licensed, if theres 1 person without a licence then its 1 per license

no limit at all, if there is an unlicensed angler on board he simply can't run gear or reel in fish. But if there is one guy with a license and he feels he can run 8 rods all by himself then he's free to do so.

 

[Sculpin]

I will tell you what. you look into it and if your right I will buy a beverage. all I was saying i that the RCMP can enforce. i am not saying they would and i am sure they would rarely do so. I am sure the RCMP are being paid to check for drug smugglers, impaired drivers and life jackets. the dfo has specific officers paid to enforce the fisheries act. of course the DFO would lead any investigation. same goes with conservation, CBSA and so forth. this is my last post on the matter.

Well I just finished talking with a family friend who is an RCMP officer and you don't have to buy me that beverage lol. He said they are all about the same now except CBSA has a little more power in that you have two choices. Either let them search your vehicle or boat or turn around lol. Anyways maybe it was long ago when they had more power.

 

[Big Green Machine]

Thanks for posting that seawolf, I stand corrected.
but now the way I read that is once they found the Chinooks onboard it switched from routine inspection to an investigation and at that point they better have applied for a search warrant or all the evidence can be thrown out and all items were illegally seized.
does this sound correct or am I off base again? , and how does that work? obtaining a search warrant after the fact I sure there are lawyers that will eat that up and spit it out
seems like our legal systems are developed with loop holes inplace to help the criminals at times

And how long does it take to get a search warrant? Maybe they had one, convinced the judge that it might be needed in case it went from routine inspection to investigation. Does surveillance count as routine? THAT is the question.

 

[Jacob's Ladder]

Well I just finished talking with a family friend who is an RCMP officer and you don't have to buy me that beverage lol. He said they are all about the same now except CBSA has a little more power in that you have two choices. Either let them search your vehicle or boat or turn around lol. Anyways maybe it was long ago when they had more power.

I will have a bud.

JL

 

[Englishman]

There is nothing in the regs to this effect. Licensed anglers may have as many rods as they wish. Unlicensed anglers may have none, and better not be caught handling a rod belonging to a licensed angler. In other words, if you'e licensed and are out with an unlicensed buddy, have two rods down and get a double header, buddy cannot legally touch the either of the rods...you're on your own.

Kind of odd rule that. It ought not to matter provided the number of fish taken do not exceed the number allowed per license on board. Usually an unlicensed person on board is a non-fisher or newbie so from a conservation perspective they should be allowed to use the gear as they will probably lose the fish!! LOL
And if by some miracle they get the fish in so long as it forms part of the licensed anglers limit, I cannot see the problem. But no logic in bureaucracy I suppose....LOL

 

[lastcast]

southern star dont know where you get your info from but your a little out, maybe you need to get your facts alittle straighter first. Hes a retired commercial fisherman to start and did you ever ask yoursel why he didnt just dump those fish overboard, no more evidence. He definitley deserves what he got , but its not upto you to be posting pictures on here. Hes 83 years and just lost his wife a couple years ago, he lives for fishing and I would hope this teaches him a lesson. His biggest mistake was avoiding the officer at french creek. Dont get me wrong he deserves everything he got and the meatline comment is out to lunch

 

[Sitkaspruce]

I heard/read a while back that DFO is not allowed to search without your given permission, their powers to do that were stripped by the courts, they now pose it as a question to you that they are going to search but if you disagree then they cannot. kind of a trick question of sorts?
cbsa, rcmp, and BCCO's can search tho without given permission,
I may be way off base here, but I think there was a thread on this a while back
but feel free to correct me I need a good slapping once and a while

Same as for any LEO, there is no "Fishing Trip" at a routine stop. They can ask all the want, but they need probable cause to search your vehicle, boat etc. Example, you are coming back from camping and there is a stop, they ask if you have any firearms because you have a camper, if you you don't, they cannot search. However, if they see a couple gun cases in the back seat and you say no, they have probably cause. DFO does have the right to search if you are out fishing, but at the same time, they do need a reason, like a RAPP report or past experiences.

Thanks for posting that seawolf, I stand corrected.
but now the way I read that is once they found the Chinooks onboard it switched from routine inspection to an investigation and at that point they better have applied for a search warrant or all the evidence can be thrown out and all items were illegally seized.
does this sound correct or am I off base again? , and how does that work? obtaining a search warrant after the fact I sure there are lawyers that will eat that up and spit it out
seems like our legal systems are developed with loop holes inplace to help the criminals at times

They will not need a search warrant, all the evidence will be on the boat and they can search and seize from any vehicle used in the act. However, if they need to search your home, cabin etc, they will need a SW. What is confusing in the what SeaWolf posted was they will need a warrant if they are in investigation, that may be true in large cases, but I just cannot see it when they seize an undersize chinook or too many fish etc....I believe what was posted was for commercial fishing. At least in the past DFO nor the CO's needed a warrant to seize something taken illegaly and I know the CO's still don't.

So how do we know exactly what happened?? The same post is on HBC.

Cheers

SS

 

[J-GLOBAL]

southern star dont know where you get your info from but your a little out, maybe you need to get your facts alittle straighter first. Hes a retired commercial fisherman to start and did you ever ask yoursel why he didnt just dump those fish overboard, no more evidence. He definitley deserves what he got , but its not upto you to be posting pictures on here. Hes 83 years and just lost his wife a couple years ago, he lives for fishing and I would hope this teaches him a lesson. His biggest mistake was avoiding the officer at french creek. Dont get me wrong he deserves everything he got and the meatline comment is out to lunch

Why is it not up to him to be posting pictures on here? Why not post what you did/saw, etc.?
Why is it a problem to post "this is what I saw, this is what the RCMP told me"?
As long as its true, I don't see the issue.

Ex commie and 83, if true (came from a 1st time poster?) he should know better.
I'd suggest his biggest mistake was acting as if the regulations did not apply to him.

 

[jeffywestcoast]

Regardless weather or not he was running meatlines, i stated what i though could be the case, the facts are the facts, he must have been reported for doing some sort of illegal fishing activity,i dont care if he is the pope ,people taking illegal limits is one of the reasons wild stocks are the way they are. And as a retired commercial fisherman he should know this first hand. In my opinion that is worse then if he was a retired RCMP.

 

[Aces]

southern star dont know where you get your info from but your a little out, maybe you need to get your facts alittle straighter first. Hes a retired commercial fisherman to start and did you ever ask yoursel why he didnt just dump those fish overboard, no more evidence. He definitley deserves what he got , but its not upto you to be posting pictures on here. Hes 83 years and just lost his wife a couple years ago, he lives for fishing and I would hope this teaches him a lesson. His biggest mistake was avoiding the officer at french creek. Dont get me wrong he deserves everything he got and the meatline comment is out to lunch

You're not winning any awards sticking up for him. He deserves to lose his boat and truck as well and i don't care how old he is or his sad story, that is immaterial in this situation. There has to be a deterrent to this kind of behavior.

 

[FishNazi]

You're not winning any awards sticking up for him. He deserves to lose his boat and truck as well and i don't care how old he is or his sad story, that is immaterial in this situation. There has to be a deterrent to this kind of behavior.

X2! Hang 'em high! There is absolutely no excuse for him. That old-man sob story is weak. I'm a sore old ******* myself and my dog died a few years ago ...y'all don't mind if I go and grab a 1/2 dozen hali's today do ya? There should be a sticky for poachers pics. Anyone you see poaching, take pics, take video, post 'em. Because at the end of the day, it really is up to us to observe, record, report. DFO simply doesn't have the resources to patrol everywhere.

Just so's you know, RCMP are federal officers. They can search anywhere, anytime if they have suspicion of an unlawful act or where life is in danger. SW's are for specific searches.

Kudos Southern Star!

 

[Cuba Libre]

Has he been proven guilty in a Court yet? Put the rope away until he has been convicted..... If for some reason he is found not guilty , then some of you will be wearing a whole lot of egg on your faces.

 

[Chromepowder]

I don't believe "last cast" was sticking up for the guy. I think he was just setting the story straight. I know he knows this individual personally and was hoping he would get caught sooner or later. The fact that he is NOT ex rcmp and is in fact ex commercial fisherman and that he WASN'T using meatlines is what he was getting at. I HATE poachers and agree that as law abiding fisherman we have to be the secondary eyes and ears for dfo.

 

[GDW]

Some of you guys are brutal. Let he without sin cast the last stone - or however it goes.

This guy has probably been poaching for more years then ive been alive. Yes he needs to take some responsibility but how many times in his commercial and rec years has he been caught and what were the consequences? I'm guessing not caught at all or not much of consequence happened when he was. For that the blame falls on the government and its agencies. Hopefully he learns his lesson we ALL have had to learn some lessons the hard way even those guys calling for his boat.

If he can afford a lawyer the lawyer will say he is old and confused, they went out overnight (in a big boat like that its possible) and got their two day limit. DFO and RCMP go ahead and prove otherwise. Maybe they can (launch receipt from the day of the crime) or maybe they didn't think that far ahead and they won't able to.

This guy deffinetly knew he was doing wrong but does DFO expect other 80 year olds to check their website for the various reg updates? Good luck with that its not reasonable.

Not happy to be sticking up for a poacher but he will have to deal with it through the proper channels and that's good enough for me a which hunt here isn't required. Posting pics and public shaking like this is not acceptable people have committed suicide over stuff like this and that's not a joke. If public shaming is in order the judge will decide that after he has heard the evidence.

 

[FishNazi]

Has he been proven guilty in a Court yet? Put the rope away until he has been convicted..... If for some reason he is found not guilty , then some of you will be wearing a whole lot of egg on your faces.

Oh please, stop it. They took his fish, riggers, and tackle. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck. He's a piece of sh__. How many fish do you think this guy has poached over the years until one of his friends finally had seen enough to report him? Guys like that are the reason the blue backs disappeared from the inside and the coho fishery collapsed. People taking 20, 30 a day. People just like him. Sociopaths. Don't give a sh__ about anyone else or the damage they do to the resources. This thread is perfect. Not only does it expose this poacher, it is raising awareness to this problem. Hopefully it'll make a few people think twice before going over their (OUR) limit.

Again, Kudos to Southern Star.

 

[Seafever]

GDW:- if he's 83 and a retired ex-com you would think he would pretty savvy on fishlore and regs........

You don't need a computer to check regs....you can phone.

He probably (I'm guessing) knows a lot of people that would be glad to update him on what's happening regwise at any given time.

At the end of the day it is up to the individual to to find out and be compliant with law and regs.

Ignorance is no excuse.