Sports Fishing Guide gets off charges.

[OldBlackDog]

A sport fishing guide slipped off the hook on charges of illegally fishing for salmon in an area known as The Hump in the Strait of Georgia.

Courtenay provincial court Judge Barbara Flewelling said in a written ruling that federal fisheries officers boarded the fishing vessel of guide Gilbert Dicesare and his Alberta clients for a random inspection on July 8, 2015.

Dicesare pulled up his gear, which consisted of a downrigger and line on each side of the boat. Officers charged him with fishing for salmon with prohibited gear — barbed hooks.

Dicesare argued in court that he was actually fishing for Pacific cod at depths of close to 100 metres — much deeper than he would have fished for salmon — and that barbed hooks are legal for cod.

The officers testified that Dicesare was trolling in the shallower area of The Hump at the time they boarded, but they did not check the depth of his fishing lines or the depth sounder on his boat.

One officer recalled Dicesare telling him they were fishing for salmon, but Dicesare testified that the officers never asked him what he was fishing for and that they only assumed he was fishing for salmon.

“In the final analysis, I am unable to make a determination about who to believe,” said the judge.

She acquitted Dicesare of the charge, despite finding the guide was “likely” fishing in the Hump and “possibly” for salmon.

Flewelling also noted that numerous species of fish, including salmon, can be caught at different depths and in various areas of the ocean.

“With respect, to follow the submission of Crown would mean that in any location where there was a substantial risk or probability or likelihood that salmon could be caught, fishing with a barbed hook would be illegal even if the individual was fishing for a species that legally could be caught with a barbed hook. If that was the intent of the legislation and the legislators, barbed hooks would simply be prohibited from all tidal areas and not just when ‘fishing for salmon.’ ”

Dicesare had no prior record. He has been a sport fishing guide for 26 years.

 

[fishingbc]

How to give local guides a bad name. What a knucklehead. Im sure thats great for business.

The crown and dfo wants everyone to believe that you can't fish with barbed hooks when targeting bottom fish WHETHER YOUR TROLLING OR NOT
The law is simple and straight forward. If you hook a salmon while fishing with babrbed hooks you MUST release it. The crown stated "you can't fish anywhere in BC tidal waters with barbed hooks where salmon may be present".
That's laughable as salmon may be present anywhere along the coast , meaning you couldn't jig for cod , rock fish or even use a spreader bar for halibut ANYWHERE IN BC TIIDAL WATERS WITH BARBED HOOKS.

All three dfo officers lied under oath to try and prove this case. They never once asked if the guide was fishing for salmon , ONLY IF HE HAD ANY FISH ONBOARD. As they always do when coming alongside sportfishing boats.

They were all shown the one pink salmon caught in the first hour of an eight hour charter as well as three pacific cod , but all failed to remember any of that. They also lied about the area in which this incident happened and had no prof to back up their lies even tho they had , as we all do a working GPS system on board
During the last hour of this eight hour charter the clients simply asked to target pacific cod in an area some 3-4 miles away from the "Kitty Coleman Hump" that the guide changed up his gear and targeted pacific cod at 300 and 320 ft
Not one law was broken and the judges decision reflects that even in a failed attempt by three DFO officers to lie about the whole encounter.
Asked several times if it's illegal to troll for bottomfish with barbed hooks all three dfo officiers stated "NO". But if you happen to hook a salmon it must be released.
NOT GUILTY.

 

[fishingbc]

Follow the rules if you're a commercial charter boat. Its that easy.

No laws were broken end of story.

 

[profisher]

I would side with the guide as he did have 3 Pacific Cod on board so there must have been some effort to target them. Would have thought differently if he had 3 salmon on board and no cod.

 

[Fish Camp]

If stopped trolling the first line up for inspection is the salmon line. The other lines are at stop and of no action,and therfore still fishin ,but for cod.But not even fishing because you under the care of the govenment.Freashwater addoped one line per person may years ago.How has tackle tinkering "fewer than most fisherman", improved our chances to fish our battle of 10 years.

 

[fishingbc]

I would side with the guide as he did have 3 Pacific Cod on board so there must have been some effort to target them. Would have thought differently if he had 3 salmon on board and no cod.

Doesn't matter really they have to have proof of you hooking and landing a salmon on barbed gear. Look at the law. See judges words.

 

[fishingbc]

Guess he's just an awesome guide then.Trolling with barbed hooks where everyone fishes for salmon.Then saying he was trolling for pacific cod when he was caught.Of course. Cause thats was everyone wants to pay big money for on a paid charter. Awesome business model.

Read the reply.
The guide wasn't ANYWHERE NEAR WHERE DFO SAID HE WAS , 3-4 miles away in 600 ft of water. The hump comes up to around 160 ft.
Lots of guys jig for halibut right on top of the hump and lots are caught trolling. Barbed or not it's LEGAL


They did nothing to record his or their position ON EITHER GPS and just thought they'd come up with some random BS story to tell the judge. The judge scolded all three DFO officers for their unprofessionism. They had the capability to not only video the whole encounter , take photographs of both their gps and the guides , the downriggers counters , etc etc thus there would have been a clear and legal road map showing that the guide was telling the truth. Besides that there was NO LAWS BROKEN.
YOU CAN FISH FOR BOTTOM FISH WITH BARBED HOOKS ANYWHERE ( not in RCA or any other closed area ) IN BC TIDAL WATERS. IF YOU HOOK A SALMON IT MUST BE RELEASED.

 

[profisher]

All I said was that I would think differently..I'm not a judge.

 

[AlK]

Kudo's to the judge. Common sense prevailed.

 

[sly_karma]

I hope the guide had his legal costs paid. And what did it cost us taxpayers for this mess? Trials cost plenty.

 

[fishin solo]

Never even should have seen a date in court. Way to go DFO keep wasting $$$

 

[fishingbc]

I hope the guide had his legal costs paid. And what did it cost us taxpayers for this mess? Trials cost plenty.

I represented myself so no worries there. It was cut and dry from my point of view from the get go.
Three DFO officers from POWELL River came over to comox and spent the whole day in court. You do the math.

 

[california]

Probably the real cost of this is the opportunity cost of 3 DFO officers taking all the time it would take to prepare for this, doing the paperwork, and taking the time to go to Comox . All the while they could have been out doing some useful enforcement work.

 

[OldBlackDog]

So, DFO in future must prove via video that you caught a salmon with barbed hooks.
They will need to show the hook in the salmons mouth and a dead fish to prove their point?

Guess they will need a new law?

 

[california]

So, DFO in future must prove via video that you caught a salmon with barbed hooks.
They will need to show the hook in the salmons mouth and a dead fish to prove their point?

Guess they will need a new law?

Yes, that is exactly how the legal system works. 1 you are presumed innocent until proven guilty 2. You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The law allows fishing for non-salmon species with barbed hooks. It seems there was reasonable doubt that he was targeting salmon just from the fact he had cod in the boat. Now if he had only 4 salmon in the boat, and DFO had seen him with his net out landing one and then went over it probably would have been a different outcome as the doubt would have been less. If they want an iron clad law they will need to change it to no fishing with barbs in saltwater, period. The law as it is likely accomplishes what it was designed to do in 99% of the cases. Most people are fishing barbless, I tend to believe fishingbc's story and think its unlikely he would risk his guide business and fish salmon with barbs. Maybe DFO just takes some of these BS cases to court knowing they will lose but as some visibility and free PR that they are out there "enforcing" the rules. Certainly this case was reported in the news, makes it to fishing forums. Maybe it was mission accomplished for them just getting it out there that they do check and may prosecute as a deterrent.

 

[GLG]

Targeting bottom fish in 600 feet of water with the downrigger at 300. Yea the judge has issue with math but I don't.

 

[saltydawg]

Well after reading all of this I,m thinking "where there is smoke. there is usually fire". Too bad the DFO boys have to now keep quiet and we only hear one side.
The fact is there is significant abuse of the resource out there.
I,m one of the guys who is always asking "Why doesn't someone do something about it.!!"
I,m hoping that if this is a case of some young inexperienced DFO guys trying to get the word out on fishing regs, that they learn how to tighten up their game. We do want DFO checks and we do want to get the cheaters off the water.

 

[ziggy]

An old saying was, people are found, "not guilty, not innocent". The emphasis is on the Crown to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So as I read it the original article the Judge ruled she thought the accused was likely fishing illegally, but DFO failed to prove it. Wonder if the clients were asked to testify?

 

[halimark]

I lived in Comox for 5 years, fished the hump hundreds of times. Never targeted Pee Cod, as I caught tons when fishing salmon, east of the hump in 600ft of water at 300ft was good for the hake and lots of small rock cod species?? Always tried for salmon and welcomed a cod, if I was targeting cod I would use a piece of herring down in the mud, closer to shore at 220ft.

Not judging anyone as I have no verified specifics, must state; I have never had a bad run in with any DFO officer, not so with RCMP. Dam shame laws, people, he said she said, respect on both sides and huge amounts of wasted better spent money lead to cases like this. With todays tech no reason DFO would not have set SOP's or checklists to follow. Maybe cases like this will force DFO to change the rules for us all??? I foresee barbless hooks coast wide for all species in the future.

HM

 

[california]

saltydawg Member
New Well after reading all of this I,m thinking "where there is smoke. there is usually fire". Too bad the DFO boys have to now keep quiet and we only hear one side.

You did read there was trial right? "DFO boys" had their say, and the judge didn't believe them, or at least not to the degree needed to convict. You can go read the details from the trial, its public domain. I doubt DFO left any part of their case out.