10 hp restriction on the Stamp River

[steeler]

Funny how you think being a new member means ****. guarantee I fish more and know more than you ever will the hatchery is what 30 or 40 years old yeah that probably pre dates wild fish. Keep repeating the same garbage and eventually it becomes true at least to you.

 

[Fishmyster]

Funny how you think being a new member means ****. guarantee I fish more and know more than you ever will the hatchery is what 30 or 40 years old yeah that probably pre dates wild fish. Keep repeating the same garbage and eventually it becomes true at least to you.

Looks like the Pastifarian is now posting under a new alias.lol
Who are you? Don't be ashamed that you have different views on boat usage. You don't need to hide behind the computer because you opinion is different. Be a man [unless you are a woman sorry] and stand up to your views.

 

[Aces]

Funny how you think being a new member means ****. guarantee I fish more and know more than you ever will the hatchery is what 30 or 40 years old yeah that probably pre dates wild fish. Keep repeating the same garbage and eventually it becomes true at least to you.

 

[steeler]

Not ashamed that I have a different view on boat usage because its the right view not hiding behind a computer just using a forum and responding to posts like the forum is intended why don't you respond with proof that jet boats on a small river are harmless instead of making it personal to distract from the fact you cant defend the facts. It doesn't matter who I am or who you areyou clearly feel threatened by anyone questioning your opinions because they are wrong and you cant back it up with anything. Next fall I will get some drone footage from over the grounds when you go ripping over spawners and pre spawners and see if you can defend that.

 

[Aces]

Not ashamed that I have a different view on boat usage because its the right view not hiding behind a computer just using a forum and responding to posts like the forum is intended why don't you respond with proof that jet boats on a small river are harmless instead of making it personal to distract from the fact you cant defend the facts. It doesn't matter who I am or who you areyou clearly feel threatened by anyone questioning your opinions because they are wrong and you cant back it up with anything. Next fall I will get some drone footage from over the grounds when you go ripping over spawners and pre spawners and see if you can defend that.

You’re also the king of fishing

 

[Pastafarian]

Do you know what exemption means? Did you read my last post?
1000 anglers support the jet boat guide service annually on the Stamp so says the guide reports. Operating drift boats is not as safe and there are not suitable launch sites on the river for drifting.
I can see you have a burning hatred for the boats. So what makes you personal desire more important than the 1000 other friendly people who help stimulate the local economy by hiring jet boats??

Listen, we're obviously both very passionate about this subject but we're on different sides of the fence.
You are a guide that enjoys taking people fishing no matter what the cost is to the river system.
I am an angler with a concern for the protection of both: a declining species and a sensitive ecosystem.
There is a way to meet in the middle.
The guides should continue to operate on the river - I have no problem with guided trips. They should simply do this from a drift boat.
Now, you say that drift boats aren't as safe as jets and that there isn't a suitable launch / recovery site.
C'mon! Really???
Spend more time in one. You'll see its perfectly safe and as far as a launch site well, the murphys have lots of money; I'm sure they could find a way.
Now there's sustainability!
Whether guides are piggy backing on murphy or not, they should all recognize the harm that they are inflicting upon an ecosystem.
Pastafarian

 

[Aces]

Awesome numbers coming in

Jet boats slaying

 

[chevyshaulass]

wow Ive been away for a while but looks like Courtney is up to his old tricks under yet another name! i'll never forget the time he asked to take a pic with a steelhead I had just caught, seemed weird but ok, month later there he is in island angler posing with my fish passing it off as his own.

 

[Whitebuck]

What was the final outcome of Courtneys fisheries charges?

 

[Dave H]

Please explain how the guides are bending the rules?
Just so you know, I am a guide that operates the Stamp with a zodiac. I operate with a greater than 10hp engine. I was in court the day David Murphy won his case because he fell under the exemption of "one whose lifelyhood and or sustenance is depending upon fishing". So precedence has been set and anyone else who falls under that criteria would also be exempt. Kind of like why fisheries don't bother to charge and make every FN food fisher prove they are native in a court of law. It is an obvious waist of time and money for a case that would most likely loose.
Your comment of "they venture into any place they can find a steelhead", do you mean that in a negative way? Is this not what you do to catch a fish? How are they bending the rules? If there are laws being broken then by who or which guide?

Close but no cigar there Ken.


Just for fun I'll share with you what the problem with Dave's case really was and how a slow Prosecutor allowed a naïve Judge to make a decision that would be overturned in a heart-beat were it ever challenged in court. IMHO

There are four clear exemptions to this FEDERAL law that was designed to accommodate almost every possible situation that may arise across the country. Let's show and eliminate the first three so we can look at what happened with the fourth.

Note I'm not reading this stuff as I can't be bothered to dig it out so this may have a word out of place but it's true to the documents.

1..You are exempt if you live on the waterway in question and can only reach your home by boat. Doesn't apply here.

2..You are exempt if you are involved in a Search and Rescue event. Doesn't apply here.

3..You are exempt if you are engaged in bona fide scientific research. Doesn't apply here although they tried to show that collecting broodstock for the Province might apply. (It doesn't)

4..You are exempt if you have a Provincial Fishing PERMIT and make your living from fishing. This is where the wacky decisions were made.

To understand this you must be aware that there are Provincially managed commercial fisheries in a couple of Provinces, Manitoba and Ontario come to mind. These provinces issue PERMITS to people who commercial fish in some of the larger lakes and make their living from fishing insofar as they catch fish and sell fish in order to make a living.

There are no Provincially managed freshwater commercial fisheries in BC that I or others are aware of, therefore there is no such thing in existence as a "Provincial Fishing PERMIT" in BC....period.

In the Murphy case, despite the fact the law in question was designed to basically eliminate more than 10 HP engines, Murphy's Lawyer argued that given there is no such thing as a Provincial Fishing Permit in BC, could an ordinary Fishing License replace it?

The Judge then decided that an ordinary Fishing LICENSE, something a couple of hundred thousand people buy every year, could replace the Provincial Fishing PERMIT, of which none exist in BC for obvious reasons.

So from basically eliminating any actual exemptions in BC the Judge has now allowed basically anyone who buys a Fishing License to be halfway exempt in the #4 shown above.

The second half, "makes his living from fishing" was designed to apply as noted above, to commercial freshwater fishermen who catch and sell their catch for money, or "make a living".

Dave testified he sometimes killed a marked steelhead, took it home and ate it, thus got "sustenance" from it as part of his "living".

The Judge allowed that also, even though I don't recall the word "sustenance" as actually being part of the #4 exemption. That word was suggested by someone and accepted as being a part of making a living, incorrectly IMHO. Dave Murphy makes his living as a guide, not a commercial fisherman.

It would fail completely if the first decision to allow an ordinary fishing license to replace a clearly identified "Provincial Fishing Permit" was overturned as the second half of the exemption would then become moot.

Finally, it is NOT incumbent upon the Province to provide a replacement for something that doesn't exist, as is what happened here, so one wonders just why the Judge made such a transparently incorrect decision in this case and why the Prosecutor didn't realize what was going on and object on the spot. The Provincial Judge essentially negated a Federal Law designed to severely limit the number of people who would be exempt.

Dave "won" his case on two rather nebulous decisions, again IMHO, and only he is currently exempt as a result.

As Cronkite used to end with: "And that's the way it is."




Take care.

 

[Aces]

Close but no cigar there Ken.


Just for fun I'll share with you what the problem with Dave's case really was and how a slow Prosecutor allowed a naïve Judge to make a decision that would be overturned in a heart-beat were it ever challenged in court. IMHO

There are four clear exemptions to this FEDERAL law that was designed to accommodate almost every possible situation that may arise across the country. Let's show and eliminate the first three so we can look at what happened with the fourth.

Note I'm not reading this stuff as I can't be bothered to dig it out so this may have a word out of place but it's true to the documents.

1..You are exempt if you live on the waterway in question and can only reach your home by boat. Doesn't apply here.

2..You are exempt if you are involved in a Search and Rescue event. Doesn't apply here.

3..You are exempt if you are engaged in bona fide scientific research. Doesn't apply here although they tried to show that collecting broodstock for the Province might apply. (It doesn't)

4..You are exempt if you have a Provincial Fishing PERMIT and make your living from fishing. This is where the wacky decisions were made.

To understand this you must be aware that there are Provincially managed commercial fisheries in a couple of Provinces, Manitoba and Ontario come to mind. These provinces issue PERMITS to people who commercial fish in some of the larger lakes and make their living from fishing insofar as they catch fish and sell fish in order to make a living.

There are no Provincially managed freshwater commercial fisheries in BC that I or others are aware of, therefore there is no such thing in existence as a "Provincial Fishing PERMIT" in BC....period.

In the Murphy case, despite the fact the law in question was designed to basically eliminate more than 10 HP engines, Murphy's Lawyer argued that given there is no such thing as a Provincial Fishing Permit in BC, could an ordinary Fishing License replace it?

The Judge then decided that an ordinary Fishing LICENSE, something a couple of hundred thousand people buy every year, could replace the Provincial Fishing PERMIT, of which none exist in BC for obvious reasons.

So from basically eliminating any actual exemptions in BC the Judge has now allowed basically anyone who buys a Fishing License to be halfway exempt in the #4 shown above.

The second half, "makes his living from fishing" was designed to apply as noted above, to commercial freshwater fishermen who catch and sell their catch for money, or "make a living".

Dave testified he sometimes killed a marked steelhead, took it home and ate it, thus got "sustenance" from it as part of his "living".

The Judge allowed that also, even though I don't recall the word "sustenance" as actually being part of the #4 exemption. That word was suggested by someone and accepted as being a part of making a living, incorrectly IMHO. Dave Murphy makes his living as a guide, not a commercial fisherman.

It would fail completely if the first decision to allow an ordinary fishing license to replace a clearly identified "Provincial Fishing Permit" was overturned as the second half of the exemption would then become moot.

Finally, it is NOT incumbent upon the Province to provide a replacement for something that doesn't exist, as is what happened here, so one wonders just why the Judge made such a transparently incorrect decision in this case and why the Prosecutor didn't realize what was going on and object on the spot. The Provincial Judge essentially negated a Federal Law designed to severely limit the number of people who would be exempt.

Dave "won" his case on two rather nebulous decisions, again IMHO, and only he is currently exempt as a result.

As Cronkite used to end with: "And that's the way it is."




Take care.

Well I ran a guide her boat on the Somass for 11 years and spoke with DOT as well as well as Ministry of Environment and they had no issue with me.

 

[Pastafarian]

Well I ran a guide her boat on the Somass for 11 years and spoke with DOT as well as well as Ministry of Environment and they had no issue with me.

Well case closed then bud!
Nice work.
You've cleared this entire issue.
I should mention that the somass is the tidal portion of that river system - not so much in question here and your grammar is top notch.
Pastafarian

 

[Pastafarian]

Close but no cigar there Ken.


Just for fun I'll share with you what the problem with Dave's case really was and how a slow Prosecutor allowed a naïve Judge to make a decision that would be overturned in a heart-beat were it ever challenged in court. IMHO

There are four clear exemptions to this FEDERAL law that was designed to accommodate almost every possible situation that may arise across the country. Let's show and eliminate the first three so we can look at what happened with the fourth.

Note I'm not reading this stuff as I can't be bothered to dig it out so this may have a word out of place but it's true to the documents.

1..You are exempt if you live on the waterway in question and can only reach your home by boat. Doesn't apply here.

2..You are exempt if you are involved in a Search and Rescue event. Doesn't apply here.

3..You are exempt if you are engaged in bona fide scientific research. Doesn't apply here although they tried to show that collecting broodstock for the Province might apply. (It doesn't)

4..You are exempt if you have a Provincial Fishing PERMIT and make your living from fishing. This is where the wacky decisions were made.

To understand this you must be aware that there are Provincially managed commercial fisheries in a couple of Provinces, Manitoba and Ontario come to mind. These provinces issue PERMITS to people who commercial fish in some of the larger lakes and make their living from fishing insofar as they catch fish and sell fish in order to make a living.

There are no Provincially managed freshwater commercial fisheries in BC that I or others are aware of, therefore there is no such thing in existence as a "Provincial Fishing PERMIT" in BC....period.

In the Murphy case, despite the fact the law in question was designed to basically eliminate more than 10 HP engines, Murphy's Lawyer argued that given there is no such thing as a Provincial Fishing Permit in BC, could an ordinary Fishing License replace it?

The Judge then decided that an ordinary Fishing LICENSE, something a couple of hundred thousand people buy every year, could replace the Provincial Fishing PERMIT, of which none exist in BC for obvious reasons.

So from basically eliminating any actual exemptions in BC the Judge has now allowed basically anyone who buys a Fishing License to be halfway exempt in the #4 shown above.

The second half, "makes his living from fishing" was designed to apply as noted above, to commercial freshwater fishermen who catch and sell their catch for money, or "make a living".

Dave testified he sometimes killed a marked steelhead, took it home and ate it, thus got "sustenance" from it as part of his "living".

The Judge allowed that also, even though I don't recall the word "sustenance" as actually being part of the #4 exemption. That word was suggested by someone and accepted as being a part of making a living, incorrectly IMHO. Dave Murphy makes his living as a guide, not a commercial fisherman.

It would fail completely if the first decision to allow an ordinary fishing license to replace a clearly identified "Provincial Fishing Permit" was overturned as the second half of the exemption would then become moot.

Finally, it is NOT incumbent upon the Province to provide a replacement for something that doesn't exist, as is what happened here, so one wonders just why the Judge made such a transparently incorrect decision in this case and why the Prosecutor didn't realize what was going on and object on the spot. The Provincial Judge essentially negated a Federal Law designed to severely limit the number of people who would be exempt.

Dave "won" his case on two rather nebulous decisions, again IMHO, and only he is currently exempt as a result.

As Cronkite used to end with: "And that's the way it is."




Take care.

Very informative.
Thank you for taking the time to write this.
Pastafarian

 

[Aces]

Well case closed then bud!
Nice work.
You've cleared this entire issue.
I should mention that the somass is the tidal portion of that river system - not so much in question here and your grammar is top notch.
Pastafarian

Wow. Attacking my phones spell checking. What a hero!

By the way the locals call the whole system below the fall the Somass.

Got it Pisstafarian?

 

[Fishmyster]

Close but no cigar there Ken.


Just for fun I'll share with you what the problem with Dave's case really was and how a slow Prosecutor allowed a naïve Judge to make a decision that would be overturned in a heart-beat were it ever challenged in court. IMHO

There are four clear exemptions to this FEDERAL law that was designed to accommodate almost every possible situation that may arise across the country. Let's show and eliminate the first three so we can look at what happened with the fourth.

Note I'm not reading this stuff as I can't be bothered to dig it out so this may have a word out of place but it's true to the documents.

1..You are exempt if you live on the waterway in question and can only reach your home by boat. Doesn't apply here.

2..You are exempt if you are involved in a Search and Rescue event. Doesn't apply here.

3..You are exempt if you are engaged in bona fide scientific research. Doesn't apply here although they tried to show that collecting broodstock for the Province might apply. (It doesn't)

4..You are exempt if you have a Provincial Fishing PERMIT and make your living from fishing. This is where the wacky decisions were made.

To understand this you must be aware that there are Provincially managed commercial fisheries in a couple of Provinces, Manitoba and Ontario come to mind. These provinces issue PERMITS to people who commercial fish in some of the larger lakes and make their living from fishing insofar as they catch fish and sell fish in order to make a living.

There are no Provincially managed freshwater commercial fisheries in BC that I or others are aware of, therefore there is no such thing in existence as a "Provincial Fishing PERMIT" in BC....period.

In the Murphy case, despite the fact the law in question was designed to basically eliminate more than 10 HP engines, Murphy's Lawyer argued that given there is no such thing as a Provincial Fishing Permit in BC, could an ordinary Fishing License replace it?

The Judge then decided that an ordinary Fishing LICENSE, something a couple of hundred thousand people buy every year, could replace the Provincial Fishing PERMIT, of which none exist in BC for obvious reasons.

So from basically eliminating any actual exemptions in BC the Judge has now allowed basically anyone who buys a Fishing License to be halfway exempt in the #4 shown above.

The second half, "makes his living from fishing" was designed to apply as noted above, to commercial freshwater fishermen who catch and sell their catch for money, or "make a living".

Dave testified he sometimes killed a marked steelhead, took it home and ate it, thus got "sustenance" from it as part of his "living".

The Judge allowed that also, even though I don't recall the word "sustenance" as actually being part of the #4 exemption. That word was suggested by someone and accepted as being a part of making a living, incorrectly IMHO. Dave Murphy makes his living as a guide, not a commercial fisherman.

It would fail completely if the first decision to allow an ordinary fishing license to replace a clearly identified "Provincial Fishing Permit" was overturned as the second half of the exemption would then become moot.

Finally, it is NOT incumbent upon the Province to provide a replacement for something that doesn't exist, as is what happened here, so one wonders just why the Judge made such a transparently incorrect decision in this case and why the Prosecutor didn't realize what was going on and object on the spot. The Provincial Judge essentially negated a Federal Law designed to severely limit the number of people who would be exempt.

Dave "won" his case on two rather nebulous decisions, again IMHO, and only he is currently exempt as a result.

As Cronkite used to end with: "And that's the way it is."




Take care.

So Dave In you humble opinion, how is fishing on the Gold river for you now? There has not been a jet on that river for 20 years now so all the environmental damage should have let the ecology and steelhead population boom. You must be enjoying it all now??

Take care.

 

[Whitebuck]

Great point Kenny...I was waiting for that!

 

[Tail-chaser]

Yup the bait and jet boat ban fixed things right up on the Gold!! Daves got the circus pool all to himself now!! Enjoy!!

 

[Fish Camp]

stamp riv as i read from regs.no fishing between signs abovr below stamp fallsjune-nov.no fishing between ashriv and gcl jan -apr. bait ban up stream of bc .an engine power restriction on parts .the wording is "on parts".i would like 10 hp or less. your resonsible for you wake and if that disturbs staging fish small &larger , it is wrong.just like the beach bully fishin coho and a boat comes in and desturbs .perhaps we should leave the redds alone .

 

[Fishmyster]

stamp riv as i read from regs.no fishing between signs abovr below stamp fallsjune-nov.no fishing between ashriv and gcl jan -apr. bait ban up stream of bc .an engine power restriction on parts .the wording is "on parts".i would like 10 hp or less. your resonsible for you wake and if that disturbs staging fish small &larger , it is wrong.just like the beach bully fishin coho and a boat comes in and desturbs .perhaps we should leave the redds alone .

Perhaps we should all quit fishing because it hurts fish?

 

[wildmanyeah]

Honestly IF I was a judge I would remove the 10hp restriction as their does not seem to be any consistent Provencal wide rules as to why its even their in the first place.