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.
You’re also the king of fishingNot 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.
Listen, we're obviously both very passionate about this subject but we're on different sides of the fence.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??
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?
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.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 case closed then bud!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.
Very informative.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.
Wow. Attacking my phones spell checking. What a hero!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
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.
Perhaps we should all quit fishing because it hurts fish?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 .