Sports Fishing Guide gets off charges.

[Gear'n'beer!]

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

You saying you won't pick up p-cod at 300 in 600 off the hump?
Not trying to pick a fight but I know from personal experience you will pick them up shallower than that off the hump

 

[fishin solo]

Sure will pick them up here shallow ,couple years ago we were getting them at 70' on this side and they were everywhere. When I was checked this year at sandheads first thing they asked was what kind of fish I was targeting and then checked my lines. Saw them hand out shitloads of tickets to people for barbed hooks I even asked a guy how much his ticket was and he said $350 for barbed hooks.

 

[GLG]

You saying you won't pick up p-cod at 300 in 600 off the hump?
Not trying to pick a fight but I know from personal experience you will pick them up shallower than that off the hump

I don't know how shallow you can pickup p-cod at, as I only fish between 220 and 300 when I fish for salmon. It seems to me that Dicesare keeps going on about bottom fish and if that's the case then he is doing it wrong. Yes I have caught plenty of p-cod but I target salmon and I have found that you don't need barbs for p-cod. I find his excuse just plain lame and it sets a bad precedent here in BC and our local fishing spot.

 

[GLG]

Interesting read......
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2016/2016bcpc409/2016bcpc409.html

 

[Gong Show]

Interesting read......
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2016/2016bcpc409/2016bcpc409.html

Pretty good decision. Judge Flewelling is a new(ish) judge and to the area.
She does a good job of distinguishing this case from another that had a different result.

Remember that the federal crowns in these cases are private lawyers that act as agents of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada.
Some of them have zero experience with boats or fish or ....
Some of them have spent their lives on the water and may have been commercial and recreational fishermen.

The PPSC will review this decision and most likely new directions will be provided to agents in approving charges of this type.
Whenever a judge says to a crown that certain evidence would be helpful to the court, the officers are basically being called negligent and to get their **** together.

My advice is if you are fishing with barb hooks on gear that could be called salmon gear, you should be able to back up the claim with more than just talk.

 

[wildthing]

since we have a bunch of experts here
whats the survival rate of a fish hooked with 6/0-3/0 barbless hook
which has come out the side of the things poor head its bleeding and not much bigger
than the spoon or lure your using and you have to chuck it back in only for it to be food for the bird life or crabs.
how when so many fish are lost due to barbless hooks coming adrift
do we know if that fish is going to be healthy or now become part of the food chain ...
yes we can catch fish bring to the boat and release if all signs that the fish is healthy...
but if its stressed bleeding from the gills or damaged in other ways is it not better just to count that fish as part of the catch
i pose this question how many have hooked into fish that have had chucks taken out of them by seals
are these fish going to make it???????
i wish we could target a size where we only hooked into legal sized fish
and have suggested to several parties about using barbless circle hooks
for salmon trolling only to be told they don't or wont work??
no disrepect to DFO or anyone who supports barbless but its a fake rule
all hooks cause damage big or small
barbless have more of a tendency to come adrift due to the slack line from the flasher and fish being able to run faster than the angler can keep up getting line back in on the reel to keep tension on the line .

but back on topic what a waste of funds

go after real poachers please DFO not soft targets
and one rule for all on the water

hurts when you see illegal harvesting /crabbing/netting /fishing/stealing going on and its reported and no one shows up...

but the DFO throw the book at a sportie ......
my rant over

 

[fishin_magician]

What the standard is of guilt is in a court of law and burden of proof is one thing, what actually happened is another. The OJ Simpson trial seems to come to mind when I review this case. The presentations of the DFO staff were clearly insufficient and gave rise to "reasonable doubt". I am sure that DFO twits got slapped back at the office for their poor documentation and how they conducted their duties. I haven't read all the submissions by all parties in this case but from what I have read based on the preponderance of probabilities... I disagree with what most have said on this thread, however, the justice did his duty and applied the standard well.

A few other things in this case don't pass the smell test however.

 

[fishin_magician]

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?

Actually the Crown failed to prove it's case based on the DFO's poor documentation of evidence and the judge cites that. If an official documents evidence correctly and his evidence has no reasonable doubt which undermines it, their training and performance lends to their credibility. Having testified at Arbitrations, if someone who is a professional verbally testifies and is credible, the accused is immediately at a disadvantage. A police officer doesn't need a radar gun to document you and prove that you were speeding, he only needs credibility and experience. For example, if an officer saw you speeding doing 100 in a 50 zone and he cites you, you're toast in court as his professionalism and credibility speak to your motive to lie.

 

[Gear'n'beer!]

Couldn't they have just asked the clients what they were targetting? Perhaps it was p-cod? I have had guests when I guided that really wanted to fish for rock cod.............

 

[albernifisher]

Late August in Bamfield, looks like I'll be fishing for "cod" 37'deep with anchovies and a 6' leader

 

[albernifisher]

Whole thing sounds pretty fishy. You'd think that the guide would pinch the barbs in the chance you might hook a salmon as a by catch, at least that's what I would do. When those cod are on there it seems like they never come off anyways

 

[fishingbc]

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.

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.

they ALL LIED UNDER OATH
their "story" was just BS.
The judge called them on it

 

[halimark]

.

Thanks GLG, you totally understood what I wanted to say, No GNB you misunderstood. From my experience better places and depths of Comox to TARGET P-Cod.

I am no guide and I only have what I read here. All I was saying is if I was targeting P-Cod I would not be in 600 ft of water dragging gear at 300ft. From my experience we caught more when our gear was in the mud, 220 ft and closer to shore, especially after the cannon ball created a mud cloud from hitting bottom, yes accidently got them on barbless hooks at most depths when we fished for salmon. No B.S when you catch a cod on barbless, salmon on barbed hook while guiding for P-Cod????

HM

 

[advTHXance]

The simple solution would be to make all saltwater fishing in bc single barbless only, then its cut and dry with no room for misinterpretation or abuse. Seems obvious to me what species was being targeted here.

 

[GLG]

The simple solution would be to make all saltwater fishing in bc single barbless only, then its cut and dry with no room for misinterpretation or abuse.

And that's the logical conclusion, as it is impossible to prove what you're fishing for when stopped by dfo. We could all say that we are fishing for cod just like what fishingbc claimed. How is dfo to know what your intent is, do they need to be able to read your mind? I can tell you one thing.... When you are fishing for lings or halibut and have to go barbless you're not going to be happy.

 

[bigdogeh]

I actually prefer to fish bottom fish barbless. it's the incidental small fish that that you catch, (rockfish, etc) that suffer and probably often die from the trauma of trying to remove a barbed treble. just doesn't make sense to me. I know most will disagree with me but you can hook and retain halibut and ling just as easy as salmon (probably easier) on barbless. just keep the tension on.
When fishing with my buddies I don't tell them what to use (barbed or barbless) when targetting bottom fish but after watching me easily release 2 or 3 fish sometimes in the time it takes while they're struggling to release one that's got 3 barbs embedded, they'll often switch up gear. and if you do happen to hook into a salmon it's perfectly legal to keep.

 

[Dogbreath]

While fishing for P-Cod @ 300' in 600' of water might seem a little 'off' consider that the guests might want it that way, it's all about Pleasing the clients and the guide might figure these people will like fishing deep for species they don't often target.

Babysitting it's sometime called.

 

[fishingbc]

Couldn't they have just asked the clients what they were targetting? Perhaps it was p-cod? I have had guests when I guided that really wanted to fish for rock cod.............

Exactly EXACTLY
If any of the THREE DFO OFICIERS had bothered to record the whole interaction on the iPhone which they used to take a photo and asked my clients "on the record" what we were fishing for then this case probably wouldn't have made it to court and no tickets would have been written.
All three DFO officers DID NOT ASK ANY OF US WHAT WE WERE FISHING FOR
THEY LIED UNDER OATH AND THE CROWN EXPECTED THE JUDGE TO BELIEVE HER BS THAT ANYONE COULD NOT FISH ANYWHERE IN TIDAL WATERS WITH BARBED HOOKS WHERE SALMON MAY BE PRESENT. THAT WOULD MEAN NO SPREADER BARS , JIGS ETC ANYWHERE ON THE BC COAST WHICH SIMPLY ISNT THE CASE.

 

[fishingbc]

Thanks GLG, you totally understood what I wanted to say, No GNB you misunderstood. From my experience better places and depths of Comox to TARGET P-Cod.

I am no guide and I only have what I read here. All I was saying is if I was targeting P-Cod I would not be in 600 ft of water dragging gear at 300ft. From my experience we caught more when our gear was in the mud, 220 ft and closer to shore, especially after the cannon ball created a mud cloud from hitting bottom, yes accidently got them on barbless hooks at most depths when we fished for salmon. No B.S when you catch a cod on barbless, salmon on barbed hook while guiding for P-Cod????

HM

There was cloud of krill at 300-320 ft and every time we trolled through the bait we hooked one or two cod.
What's so unbelievable about that.

 

[ziggy]

they ALL LIED UNDER OATH
their "story" was just BS.
The judge called them on it

Wouldn't the Judge discipline them for perjury if they all lied under oath? I mean that's a pretty serious allegation!