Guest gbfisher Posted March 8, 2010 Report Share Posted March 8, 2010 How is it defined regarding C&R, Conservation Musky, Charters, Slot limits and Size limits. I know it's been talked about but. I got off the phone today after yapping with a CO for two hours on regulation ambiguities. I got nothing from it. I'm not sure about you but I like to know when I'm doing something wrong. The only thing different from me and a charter is that I don't get paid... I don't expect every person I have on board my boat to have the equipment to fish for what ever I happen to be targeting that day...... It's friggin frustrating as hell to know that things can be interpreted two different ways by the same CO and that I could end up paying to prove them wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 it is hopeless I find the best thing to do is email MNR employees till you get someone that gives you the answer you want ,then print it and take it with you, if stopped they would have a hard time fining you when the MNR told you it's OK well that's my theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 thats just it..they will not give you a direct answer being the one who has to enforce a regulation. Thats where you'll end up having to pay ......... Im tryin to do exactly that Terry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 ..you know better than to call Bruce.. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 one by one till they all know me by name........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Try Rick next.. he has a head between his ears ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 he'll probably wish he didnt after Im finished talking with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) U got his number?? I do... Great guy.. Edited March 9, 2010 by irishfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinnimon Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 How is it defined regarding C&R, Conservation Musky, Charters, Slot limits and Size limits. I know it's been talked about but. I got off the phone today after yapping with a CO for two hours on regulation ambiguities. I got nothing from it. I'm not sure about you but I like to know when I'm doing something wrong. The only thing different from me and a charter is that I don't get paid... I don't expect every person I have on board my boat to have the equipment to fish for what ever I happen to be targeting that day...... It's friggin frustrating as hell to know that things can be interpreted two different ways by the same CO and that I could end up paying to prove them wrong. Give the guelph office a shout and ask for the supervisor.Im not sure where your from but this guy makes things happen quickly.Lets just say when a CO in his area goofs up, he quickly disciplines them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptackle Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 A buddy of mine is a life long career CO and we had this discussion one time. Even he saw this as ambiguous. If he sees a fish being returned without any delay, he does not feel charges are warranted or sustainable. However, if he sees any kind of "pause" in the effort to return, he feels compelled by his training that charges are warranted and would be sustainable in court. I pushed on this and brought up the CPR (catch photo release) practice. His response was that chances are the delay for a photo might be viewed as a delay, hence not immediate. In his personal view he would be hesitant to charge unless it was obvious that the delay was unreasonable, i.e. minutes instead of seconds. He then pointed out that the letter of the law would be no delay in the effort to release the fish, but as always subject to the interpretation of the attending office to determine if the delay caused an other than immediate release. I guess if the fish swims away to fight another day you'd probably be ok, but if the release was unsuccessful and any delay observed by a CO, you might/could be charged. It all depends on the individual circumstances (all of them) and what a CO might feel warranted at the time. I thanked him for clearing the matter up not at all and he apologized for the lack of clarity (at times) of the laws he must enforce. He did add that if he saw an honest effort being made for a quick release with a quick photo (no time taken for staging etc) that he'd be more compelled in favour of the angler than against. We're still friends, even fish together from time to time. I don't envy him his job at times - or any enforcement officer, when they have to decide on the spot who's offended and who hasn't. They can all be persecuted themselves if the make a wrong call. If the laws were much different, I guess more "bad guys" would get away with things than with the way they are now. Unfortunately, sometimes the good do get caught in with the bad. There are just too many variables involved with seasons, species, targeting and intent to always be able to separate the two. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xeon Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 I personally don't worry about what the governments definition of immediately is, its very easily arguable in court and to a peace officer. So long as you show due diligence in releasing the fish (even after a quick photo) you're not likely to get charged, or have charges stick. And plus if the fish swims off fine, no harm no foul. Floating out of season fish are likely to draw that charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 .. and I hold a letter from all involoved in the North Bay MNR office (2 co's, manager and biologist) and they would never consider laying a charge for taking photos of an OOS fish.. so scratch your head some more... I requested that "interpretation" after people were entering OOS Lakers in the Temagami Stewardships Photo contest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptackle Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Irishfield, I think that probably best exemplifies what the MNR stance might or even should be. Quick photo & release, fish survives, no harm no foul as xeon said. But hang 'em on a stringer or tote 'em around in a pail or livewell even, or spend 5 to 10 minutes taking pictures would be where this aspect of the law would (should) come down like a hammer! Along with outright keeping them too, of course. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) Their reasoning Michael.. is that if they charged people with taking pictures of OOS fish.. they would have to charge people with taking a picture of their 5th pickeral of the day! Edited March 9, 2010 by irishfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptackle Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Agreed! My buddy & I only discussed the OOS aspect. It came up as a result of a Hawg I tied into in May. I didn't have a camera with me but wondered after if I had taken a shot what the repercussions might be. This was many years ago I might add, but that particular law hasn't been altered that I can see in the regs since then. I have to wonder if he signed your letter (obvious reason), must ask him next time we're chatting! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishfield Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Came from Peter... cc'd to Mike, Richard and Chuck. None of which added to or disputed what Pete typed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jigger Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 For the most part, I think it would be a call in the moment. They've seen it all. They know how long it takes to get a quick pic, where you are fishing in relation to OOS fish/crossover species in same area, HOW you are fishing, etc. They aren't dummies. You hold a big OOS bass up for 10pics, or Muskie, they will probably decide you are handling the fish exessively and may approach you. 20 seconds out, probably not. I maintain that unless its a release shot, theres no other need for a pic of an OOS fish than to feed an ego. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJL Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Here's one interpretation about the issue from the MNR (From the Ask A CO MNR web-site) http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html Question 186: Hi, if an angler has incidental catches of any species (out of season) & has a posed picture taken with the fish out of the water prior to being released, is it unethical, against the regulations etc, or perfectly fine, providing care was given to the fish? Asked August 25, 2003 Answer from the MNR This is very technically a violation because the fish is not immediately released to the water. Of course, the actions of the angler in their handling of the fish will determine whether a charge is warranted and would be laid by a Conservation Officer. Think of it this way. The speed limit on the 401 is 100km/hr. Very few drivers will be charged with driving 101km/hr, but given the right set of circumstances, there may be perfectly legitimate reasons why an officer might write a ticket for doing 101km/hr in a 100km/hr zone. The only way to be 100% sure that you will not be charged is to immediately return any incidentally caught fish to the water and to release it in a manner that causes the least harm to the fish. I personally don't take pics of OOS fish but that's just me. Get them in quick, pop the hook (usually while they're still in the water), revive if necessary and let 'em swim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptackle Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Came from Peter... cc'd to Mike, Richard and Chuck. None of which added to or disputed what Pete typed. Not my buddy, he's a "J", same office though (for the last few years anyhow). I personally have to agree with the Ask the MNR quotes and other views, the law is there and technicalities exist such as my buddy & discussed, but intent & surrounding circumstances are what should dictate. One clear thought is that a photo of an OOS could be construed as evidence as well, IF the circumstances warranted. I think all have said though, that if the intent is a quick release there should be no issue, and it seems the indicated MNR input sides with this position. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 The fact that in each scenario each person here has portrayed so far can get any one of us charged is just wrong. You can now cull fish. This means you can have your limit and still let a small fish go and keep a larger one. There for you have gone over your limit and let one fish go. The idea of releasing a fish immediately doesn't exists in this instance. What's the difference? If say I was fishing with two people on my boat. I had three lines out. The regs state each can use one line. If only one line is catching fish and each person reels a fish in on that line. Does it not mean that one of them can be charged for using more than one line? If it happens to be Musky fishing, can't one person be charged after the other person uses the only line working that day? Not to mention get a fine for taking a picture of a fish under the size limit that should be released immediately? This needs to be fixed...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptackle Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 GB - the regs seem pretty clear on culling, specifying a live well must be used, kept (held) fish must be legal, license limits etc. Used to be that your daily limit was your "catch" as opposed to your "keep". Now, if you can't successfully release a cull, it counts toward your keep limit, meaning another must be culled. The 3 line circumstance you mention "2 anglers and yourself" seems to be in line as well. 3 anglers, 3 lines (this assumes all are licensed). Rotating use of the lines doesn't seem to me to be an issue as opposed to "more than one line per angler". As for the undersized muskie, I'd think that would be treated the same as any OOS would, get it back quickly and no foul seems to be the guiding rule. We're fishing, we may target a species but have no control over incidental catches. I'm just flipping through the regs as I type this. As in any publication, one COULD get more than one definition out of the printed words. Not sure what exactly you would be put at ease hearing, but I'm getting the idea from all this that as long as one's efforts and intent is to comply there would be little to no expectation for any repercussions. It's like shooting the messenger, it would be a punishment for doing his job (delivering), or beating a dog who comes when you call it so you CAN beat it, the dog complied but got rebuke for the action, never mind what angered you in the first place. I don't think any MNR CO is about to ticket anyone who is making their best effort to comply, doesn't give one much reason to comply if they do, right? I hope you'll feel more at ease from all that's been offered here. I was especially comforted myself by Irishfield's mention of the letter he has, it was good to see there was some committment from the Ministry in open format. The laws exist for use when NEEDED, if their application is being abused there's avenues for that as well as was stated earlier. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) I was told if there were three lines out with three guys fishing and they each used the same rod and were being watched by a CO that he could in fact charge one of them for using more than one line as that line was designated to the first person who reeled in the first fish. .................. Still leaves us with the fact that we can be charged if the officer sees fit...... Needs to be fixed. Also...the section on C&R tips are not regulations. The part where it says to net, unhook and take a picture are not regs only suggestions.....that part really through me for a loop. Why give tips that can and do get people charged? Edited March 9, 2010 by gbfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheaptackle Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 Not knowing who told you makes it kind of hard to put any weight on the statement. I can only say that if you trust the source as being authoritative then you can only follow your own conscience as a result. If such a circumstance were to occur (I think it unlikely) I would suspect it would be combined with other issues (circumstances) as opposed to the sole & only reason. How many times have any of us set the hook then passed the rod to a newbie, child, or a fellow angler for whatever number of reasons? As for being charged as the CO sees fit, I think a great deal of motivation on the CO's part would be required as in something far beyond a whim. A singular exception I might be convinced to see would be it one of applying a lesser or minimal charge as a spanking for a greater offence, but that again would be dependant on circumstances, intent and perhaps even a known history. In short, COULD does not mean WOULD. Just like any individual COULD break a law, does that mean that they WOULD? I don't think so and I have to wonder if fixing the law as you suggest WOULD open yet another can of worms... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gbfisher Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) Johnson, Gord E. (MNR) Unlikely or not...I do not want to be charged doing something that can be interpreted two ways by two different people. If they can interpret it two ways, we should be able to as well. I'd rather not have it that way and know full well I am within my rights. Edited March 9, 2010 by gbfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Posted March 9, 2010 Report Share Posted March 9, 2010 (edited) and having a badge does not mean they have common sense I had a pair of them tell me I was going to be charged for fishing for bass OOS reason being was 1 I was fishing where bass spawn and 2 I was in a bass boat, and they really pushed the fact that I was in a bass boat so I must be fishing bass but I was using 2lb test line and had micro baits only in the boat and had 8 crappie in the livewell they talked about me harassing spawning fish and that is when I blew up, called them out and called them every name in the book and told them they don't deserve to be COs... fact was water temp was under 50degs f and bass don't spawn till water is about 60, and it was the first week in May, bass in simcoe have never got it on that early if they don't know that much about fish and think people own a different boat for each type of fish they go after are too stupid to charge me with anything and should not be in a position of power and Edited March 9, 2010 by Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now