Sports Fishing Guide gets off charges.

[fishingbc]

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

Well it's more of the same he said she said.
I know what happened and when 3 others say the exact different thing word for word it's obvious to me what the "plan" was.

 

[cracked_ribs]

From the decision:

[11] ...Mr. Dicesare gave evidence that at the time the DFO officers checked his vessel, he was fishing three or four miles away from The Hump in deeper waters and he points to this as evidence that supports his assertion that he was not fishing for salmon.

[13] In contrast, DFO Officers Mott and Conley testified that Mr. Dicesare was trolling in The Hump when they observed his vessel.

[16] I do not accept that DFO officers would have gone three or four miles away from the large recreational fleet they observed fishing The Hump to investigate Mr. Dicesare. As Mr. Dicesare testified, boats troll back and forth over this area which is about 2 to 4 football fields in size. The DFO officers were checking compliance for salmon fishing regulations and in this instance were focused on that particular area.


[23] In the final analysis, I am unable to make a determination about who to believe. I acknowledge that there are aspects of Mr. Dicesare’s evidence that are troublesome.

[24] I think it is likely that he was fishing in the general area known as The Hump and it is possible that he was fishing for salmon, but that is not the standard of proof required of the Crown.

[25] After a careful consideration of all the evidence, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Dicesare was fishing for salmon with a barbed hook.


Essentially..."pretty sure what was going on here, but the DFO guys didn't supply enough evidence to satisfy the burden of proof."

 

[halimark]

Nothing unbelievable for a predatory fish to be where the feed is, be it worms in the mud or krill at 300 ft. I never read the krill part in any earlier posts, maybe you went out there earlier to get the first cod's you had?? but I do still wonder how YOUR clients knew the krill and cod were out there?? As you state earlier, "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". Not sure if these knowledgeable clients testified or provided affidavits as to the where, what, and with what gear?

Thanks cracked_ribs and a couple others, last line sums up my beliefs, DFO should have had their act together, tracks, plotter data, GPS boat position when boarded, not gave non verified testimony and then we would be reading/writing about a different post.

HM

 

[Kildonan]

Am I missing something? Did this colossal waste of court money occur because somebody used a hook with a barb on it when maybe they shouldn't have? Holy Christ! How can that get to court?

 

[salmonkiller01]

Am I missing something? Did this colossal waste of court money occur because somebody used a hook with a barb on it when maybe they shouldn't have? Holy Christ! How can that get to court?

Not missing anything!

 

[GLG]

Am I missing something? Did this colossal waste of court money occur because somebody used a hook with a barb on it when maybe they shouldn't have? Holy Christ! How can that get to court?

Everyone has their right for their day in court. That's something that we all need to protect as if we let that one go then where are we as a country, I may not agree with Fishingbc but I will defend his right to his day in court.

 

[Peahead]

Am I missing something? Did this colossal waste of court money occur because somebody used a hook with a barb on it when maybe they shouldn't have? Holy Christ! How can that get to court?

The only part you might be missing is if the fisher in question knows he's guilty then HE is waisting tax payers money challenging in court. I could be wrong but if the fisher had paid the fine for fishing with barbed hooks , then as I understand there would have been no court.

Instead the fisher challenged the fine. This may be because the fisher was well aware the regulation itself allows 'room' for those that want to play the 'barbed game' out there (say to DFO they are fishing for "cod" ). The reg itself would seem to make it very difficult for DFO to be successful at charging anyone in this sort of situation. The reg needs to be changed/reworded. If anything good came out of this court expense it may be that it expidites that particular regulation to be changed to prevent this in the future.

 

[happy hooker]

Got off on a technicality. Happens all the time.

 

[Prairie Locked]

When specifically targeting them, I've never lost a P-Cod by using a barbless hook.

To play the devil's advocate, I frequently will target P-Cod on bottom in a couple of places that distance from the hump. That being said, it' never in 300' of water though and I don't troll for them, I jig. My most consistent location and producer is just beyond the second 'hump' that is S.E of the Kitty hump.

To me it sounds like both sides are stretching the truth and all that is needed is reasonable doubt to be found 'not guilty'. A finding of not guilty seldom = innocence.

That being said, the burden of conviction lies with the investigators. If they are unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then it's on them and they deserve a bit of a whack for their actions or lack there of. Due process needs to be followed at every level of law enforcement otherwise it becomes an abuse of authority. I'm not saying that is the case here though.

 

[bones]

Am I missing something? Did this colossal waste of court money occur because somebody used a hook with a barb on it when maybe they shouldn't have? Holy Christ! How can that get to court?

i had to go to court when i was goat hunting and did not or could not produce a "Lifejacket". court date was set within 15 mins on the water. showed up pleaded guilty. judge asked for advise on penalty to which he discovered it was a 21.00 fine. he laugh and couldn't believe how much $$$ they just wasted in the last hour. federal law is funny sometimes

 

[sly_karma]

The minutiae of the case and our opinions are irrelevant. Again, as taxpayers, there is but one clear question we should all be asking: why was this taken to court when clearly there was insufficient evidence?

 

[Cabezon1]

So the fisher in question is not guilty in the eyes of the law but seems he is guilty in the opinion of his peers. Isn't that worth anything? I bet he will probably never use barb hooks to troll for pacific cod again because he is on the radar of the DFO. Smart people learn from their own mistakes; really intelligent people learn from others mistakes. The lesson we can all take from this case is if you have to troll for cods it is probably a good idea to use barbless hooks.

 

[scott craven]

I think it goes to prove there are loopholes in the law.
If it is legal to use barbed hooks for bottom fish, a person can always use that excuse
as long as they have no salmon on board.
Even then, unless caught in the act it would be hard to prove where and how they were caught.
A simple fix, barbless only in salt water.

 

[Bear]

There are 3 sides to every story. My version,their version and the truth. Without knowing the truth, you decide what you are going to believe.

That is what this really boils down to.

 

[KV1]

Barber hooks should be banned. No need for them whatsoever. Shouldn't even be sold. Done

 

[Dogbreath]

Barber hooks should be banned. No need for them whatsoever. Shouldn't even be sold. Done

That will never happen in the lifetime of anyone posting here.

 

[vic-tory]

Had his day in court, found innocent, let it go. Don't get me wrong, it's unbelievably suspicious (and he could of been using targeting salmon) but the court had all the info and innocent, no need to keyboard warrior slander someone on here after the court ruled IMO. Way worse things done on the water than that (tens and tens of rockfish caught daily by certain boats in Vancouver or even on the island) so let it go...

 

[Peahead]

The minutiae of the case and our opinions are irrelevant. Again, as taxpayers, there is but one clear question we should all be asking: why was this taken to court when clearly there was insufficient evidence?

Opinions irrelevant?! What? :0 ....on an open forum? lol ....... kidding aside , do you mean [more specifically] that one should ask themselves "why did DFO even bother to hand out a ticket/fine in this case (when they should have known they didn't have enough proof or evidence to get a guilty charge )?

If so, I think I can offer some likely answers - but just a somewhat educated opinion.....

 

[GLG]

The minutiae of the case and our opinions are irrelevant. Again, as taxpayers, there is but one clear question we should all be asking: why was this taken to court when clearly there was insufficient evidence?

I think that the only way to decide what is "clearly sufficient evidence" is to go to court and find out. That's how the system works. I myself would not want some low level bureaucrat to decide what should be sufficient evidence. Going forward dfo now knows that they will have to pickup their game as an angler can say "I was only trolling for cod" and have to take their word on the deal.

It would have been very helpful to have evidence from the DFO officers about the depth of Mr. Dicesare’s lines which could have been ascertained from the downriggers or from their own equipment on board the DFO vessel. There was also no evidence either in examination in chief or in reply of the actual location or coordinates of the DFO vessel when it was alongside Mr. Dicesare. That also would have been helpful to the Court.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/2016/2016bcpc409/2016bcpc409.html

 

[fishin_magician]

Well, it sounds like it was the first rodeo and/or amateur hour for the folks on the DFO boat playing odds they weren't going to get called on it in court. The judge decided to side with the guide in this case and give him "benefit of reasonable doubt". Could have been the other way and the judge could have decided to explore the evidence a bit more instead of a taking the easy way out. A conviction would have required 5x the writing anyways. Either way, IMHO, the guide got lucky and he's innocent. I don't think they will be leaving much more to chance next time they do their checks. Notice has been served

I know a few DFO folks read this forum and trust me, next time they will ensure their integrity is upheld in court and in the field as opposed to being called liars on an open forum and being accused of perjury.