Sports Fishing Guide gets off charges.
- Thread starter OldBlackDog
- Start date
- Status
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Google is your friend, look it up.
You should use Google my friend
Laying Charges. In British Columbia, it is Crown counsel who makes the decision about whethercharges will be laid or not. Crown reviews the police investigation report and decides, based on the evidence , case law, and their experience, if there is a strong likelihood of getting a conviction .
No one said you can't dispute the ticket. But prior to going to court this is the process. It has nothing to do with you or your case. Perhaps you watch too much TV?
fishingbc
Active Member
There are tons of anglers who troll for Hali's and other bottom fish with gear and techniques they have found that works much better than other techniques. (Jigging , anchoring , drifting etc ). I asked one of the DFO officers ( one that worked in Haida Gwaii for I believe 6 years ) about this in detail and he totally agreed that different anglers including guides have developed very effective teichniques to catch bottom fish and when pressed further on that topic regarding bottom fish he agreed that yes these techniques often involved the use of barbed hooks.
There's no doubt that salmon may be encountered doing this but like the law is written they must be released.
I also asked them whether it was illegal to fish anywhere in tidal waters with barbed hooks (other than closed areas) and they all agreeed as did the judge that it was not.
Change the law if they want to see 100% barbeless while under power
Sounds good to me
fishingbc
Active Member
bigbruce
Crew Member
I did.
http://www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/tickets/docs/vt_brochure.pdf
"Most violation tickets are issued by enforcement officers for offences against the Motor Vehicle Act and Motor Vehicle Regulation offences.
Violation tickets can also be issued under any provincial statute included in the Offence Act, such as the Commercial Transport Act , Fisheries Act, Forest Act, Liquor Control and Licensing Act, Litter Act, Park Act and Wildlife Act.
What do I do if I was issued a violation ticket?
You have 30 days, from the date of service shown on the front of the violation ticket, to either pay the ne indicated or dispute the charge."
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Well first off it isn't, traffic tickets are Provincial and are heard in special traffic courts where the ticket issuer, cop or whatever, is the prosecutor. You got a "FEDERAL" ticket and got an actual prosecutor! I have never , repeat never, said you can't have your day in court, not once. What I have said and you are unable to hoist in is that, a Prosecutor reviews the recommended charge and decides whether or not to proceed. If the Prosecutor decides it isn't worth going to court over, there is no reason to go to court! I guess you could go and have your day in court, but you'd be lonely!
fishingbc
Active Member
SEE ABOVE
gungadin
Well-Known Member
To keep everyone honest, the regulations need changing to eliminate the use of barbed hooks when trolling. That would eliminate the "not fishing for salmon" reason for using barbed hooks. There would be no grey area, if your trolling you must use barbless hooks.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Well done! And if you dispute a Federal ticket a prosecutor is assigned and the procedure I detailed takes place. You have to read it all!
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I wrote it?
Peahead
Well-Known Member
"not fishing for salmon" excuse could still be able to be used though when mooching, jigging or casting for salmon. I think the cleanest, most absolute way to eliminate the loophole would be to have barbless required for all species. The only other way would be to keep it the way it is but have the rule/reg specifically state that you cannot have a salmon in the box if you are found using barbed hooks. You would have to get your bottom fishing done first(barbed) then switch to salmon fishing (barbless) or just use barbless for both. In other words NO TICKET given for barbed hook use if there is no salmon bonked and in your box. The DFO officers would then have absolutely no viable reason to hand out a ticket if no dead salmon was found on board . Unfortuneatly for Fishingbc had a regulation like that been in place then he would have had to pay the fine and likely not bothered to fight it in court as it would have been clear he fished illegally due to the Pink salmon on board. A new reg like the examples above would make it clearer and most certainly save a ton of $ for taxpayers (in unnecessary court expenses)
Last edited:
Cuba Libre
Well-Known Member
Well- who are these nasty folks??? Name them ! Is it the officers that did their job? Ottawa ? Well-- WHO in Ottawa ? Is it GameChanger who works with the SFAB and SFI to work out fishing plans that recognize our legitimate right to Canada fish??? Or maybe the DFO types that work on behalf of all sectors to make sure that Canada gets a fair share of IPHC controlled halibut. Your broad brush statements are not fair to the VAST majority of DFO employees who dont deserve to get crapped on because they try to do their job. It also doesnt make you look good either... My take as an ex DFO Community Advisor that worked for 29 years with DFO staff from all sectors, and hundreds of dedicated volunteers who worked to stave off the damage from uncaring politicians and others that just dont give a **** about our fisheries resources.
bigbruce
Crew Member
Ziggy - I think we're having a violent agreement here. Doesn't matter if it's a violation against the Fisheries Act or the Motor Vehicle Act. Once the ticket is issued, the charge is laid - without the influence of a Crown Prosecutor. Payment of the fine by the alleged violator is essentially a guilty plea and the case is closed. Filing a Notice of Dispute by the alleged violator kicks the case back to the Crown who must then decide whether to proceed to trial or withdraw the charge. Obviously in this case, the Crown felt there was sufficient evidence to proceed to trial. The Judge disagreed and dismissed the charge.
Regretably, this decision could have far reaching implications in that it may well severely limit the DFO's ability to charge anyone with fishing for salmon with barbed hooks unless they happen to find a fisher with a salmon with a barbed hook in its mouth. Hopefully, as I suggested in an earlier post, we can rely on people's ethics to abide by the intent and spirit of the barbless hook regulation and the damage will be restricted to a few unethical, unscrupulous folks who don't really give a **** about the resource - and who choose to go with the "I was fishing for cod" defence to flout the rules.
Regretably, this decision could have far reaching implications in that it may well severely limit the DFO's ability to charge anyone with fishing for salmon with barbed hooks unless they happen to find a fisher with a salmon with a barbed hook in its mouth. Hopefully, as I suggested in an earlier post, we can rely on people's ethics to abide by the intent and spirit of the barbless hook regulation and the damage will be restricted to a few unethical, unscrupulous folks who don't really give a **** about the resource - and who choose to go with the "I was fishing for cod" defence to flout the rules.
fishingbc
Active Member
Unscrupulous , poaching , don't give a **** etc etc etc
Having been checked by DFO countless times (prob 2-3 per year ) pretty much always when working on the water over the past 27 years and never had ONE violation it's too funny seeing all this crap being posted here.
All my interactions with DFO on the water have been positive regardless of where these licence and gear checks have happened. I know several personally in the comox CAMPBELL river area and they know me.
We've talked about how they pick and choose which boats to board and check. Mostly those that they see any angler quickly pulling lines when they are spotted. We've all seen it enough times to know what I'm talking about.
Funny not one comment on that **** here , all Goody two shoes on here
I was fully aware of the dfo zodiac in the area on the day this incident happened. I watched them through my binoculars as did two of my clients. from where we were fishing
When they made there way over to us there was no rush to pull lines or any thought of doing so although it could have easily been done in the 25-30 minutes that it took them to arrive to check for licences and gear.
Like I said before. Not once did any of the three DFO officers ask what we were fishing for ONLY IF WE HAD ANY FISH ONBOARD.
The reply was yes we do have fish not only me but by the two male anglers onboard followed by showing them all what we had. The conversation for the next minute or two while my port side downrigger was coming up revolved around how slow the salmon fishing was that day for all boats they had checked. They heard the same from us.
The gear was checked , showing my gear , asked to bring up my other line , and immediately following that they confiscated both rods with gear broke away from the boat saying ONLY we will be back. Some 45 min later they returned , passed two tickets to me , took a photo and left. No point in arguing then as both tickets had already been written
If they had asked what I was fishing for and or asked for an explanation I porobaly wouldn't be writing this or maybe not who knows.
All three DFO officers had the exact same story in court. Failing to remember key details of the encounter many of which seemed odd as they reclalled many other small details that backed up their version of the incident.
The crowns postion was backed up by a previous charge laid in Nanaimo which resulted in a guilty verdict but it was obvious to me and the judge that the two cases were quite different. The crowns assumption that any angler can not fish in any tidal waters where salmon my be present was ridiculous and had huge implications for those anglers who fish for bottom fish with barbed hooks. For those at least this decision solidifies the fact that it is completely LEGAL no matter what your personal preference is.
Poaching , hardly , isn't that when you do something illegal like shoot a moose out of season , or retain ten chinooks in a day , or keep 500 prawns , no salmon were hooked , landed , retained with barbed hooks that day.
We were not ANYWHERE near either Kitty Coleman humps as stated falsely by the DFO officers. In fact I went into detail with the judge regarding that area and why we fish for salmon there. She asked me quite a few questions regarding that , how the tides affect bait , structure , depths we fish there , how deep the water is there. Etc etc.
I explained about large increase in recent years of pacific cod in the area and that anglers actually are targeting them now as they make half decent table fair.
None of the DFO officers were familiar with that area and knew nothing about the presence of pacific cod there and the fact that they are fished for there. They were based out of POWELL river and not one had ever fished in that area. So it doesn't surprise me they thought we were fishing at or near the "hump". They gave no evidence about either boats loaction other than " the kitty Coleman or hump area". I explained tonthe judge that the hump is about the size of several football fields and saying I was directly in that area was completely inaccurate.
The main DFO officer handling to "incident" was on the job for just four days I believe (Mott) and seemed to be left in charge of all the interactions that day. He took the gear , wrote the tickets etc. Stating that we were in a grouping of boats is not the case. Another story I found hard to believe and was left to argue that point.
Their zodiac was barely visible with 10x50 binoculars from our postion while they were checking the two or three other boats we could see. They passed within I'd say 1/2 to 3/4 of a mile of us while heading up that direction past the comox / POWELL river ferry terminal. They back tracked to check us quite a time after being up that way. The rest is history.
fishingbc
Active Member
Let's do an online poll
Who's got the balls to step up and say they've been issued a fisheries violation ticket for using barbed hook ???
If it's zero blah blah blah .......
bigbruce
Crew Member
Don't get so freaking defensive. I said nothing about you or your particular case. You say you were targeting P-cod - so be it. However, my point was, as you well know, these decisions set precedents and now we have a precedent that suggests that DFO officers better have ironclad evidence that the person caught fishing with barbed hooks was using these hooks to catch salmon rather than some other species. Otherwise some unscrupulous fisher might try to use the precedent set by this case and use the "I was targeting cod" defence.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I guess where we disagree is whether a ticket is a recommendation of a charge, or the actual laying of a charge. I'm sure it's the latter, with the possible exception of traffic court (do they even have a prosecutor)you seem sure they are the same thing. All references I see indicate only Crown Prosecutors can lay Charges in BC. Cops can write tickets and recommend a charge but they can't lay that charge. You may notice in this case a Prosecutor had been assigned, unlike traffic court.
Unless there is a link that states Police and or DFO enforcement officers have been granted new power to lay Charges, I think we will remain in disagreement.
fishingbc
Active Member
Not getting defensive and don't know how to post without a reply just picked yours lol
Well they should have been doing that anyway. Said that all along. Simply ask what we are fishing for , check the gear if it is questionable then issue a violation ticket and have your day in court and let a judge decide.
You can catch salmon on a bare hook (sockeye) or a spreader bar with a herring and a barbed hook. I've seen some pretty creative setups over the years for all kinds of bottom fishing whether it's trolling or not. There are as many ways to catch fish as there are boats on the water and DFO should understand that and enforce the law equally across the board. If your trolling for halis on the bottom bouncing along with flasher and 250lb leader with a big hootchie skirt and a barbed hook then leave us alone. Ask what we are fishing for. If we have one line down with a 3.5 " coyote spoon and flasher for salmon and the above mentioned setup up on the other side this should be complelty acceptable.
Or not as seen here.
- Status
Similar threads
