Cleaning fish - The reason for the post.

[Whopper]

Sorry you got pinched I think the CO's were really splitting hairs on this one.

 

I have a question. Let's take this one step further.

 

On a lot of trips that I have done with my buddies everyone pitches in a does a job, some cook, some clean, some maintain the boats and some clean fish. With that being said what if I was the designated fish cleaner for a group of say six guys and I am in the cleaning house with say twelve walleye. Since the twelve walleye are in my possession am I over my limit regardless of which license I carry? Can a CO then fine me for over limit possession?

 

I never really though about it before until this came up, but if one was splitting hairs that would make me a criminal.

 

Whopper

Edited June 29, 2007 by Whopper

[nomadfisher]

hey Fishnsled

 

please forgive me for my rant, but i will rant anyway.

 

your prediciment irks me somewhat extensively...

 

.... if this was me , and i had the time, i would take this one to court....

 

 

upon reading your post, i read and re - read the section regarding the storage and transportation

of fish,

 

 

it make me angry that the officers are not out to enforce the spirit of the law but are rather

at bes, showing how clever they can be or at worst, abusing their power.

 

the intent of the law is to ensure that people don't bag scads and scads of sportfish and try

to pass them off as other non sportfish, or otherwise exceed their limits.

 

the law is not meant to test peoples knowledge of the law for the sake of testing their knowledge, but

rather it is meant to protect the resource.

 

having said that, his proper procedure should have been to say not 'who cleaned these fish',

but rather ' who caught these fish' . he would then determine if anyone had actually exceeded

their limit.

 

 

considering the number of people in your party, for this section of water ( i am assuming it to

be division 19) the only way you could have possibly be over your limit is if they were sturgeon

or muskellunge. in that case he should have asked 'what kind of fish these were ' and then

indicated that he was concerned that these may have indeed been muskelunge or sturgeon

then asked you to prove otherwise.

 

if you could not then prove otherwise then and only then should he have laid such a serious charge.

 

secondly in the section of transporting of fish, it clearly says that there is an exception

for immediate consumption. the term ' immediate' in the dictionary means

"of or relating to the present time and place" meaning for this circumstance, the

fish would have to be intended to be eaten in the near forseeable future, maybe

one hour, maybe two hours, maybe overnight ?

 

the definition of immediate being 'the skin needs to be on until the oil is hot in the pan'

is his definition and his alone. in a court of law, this term immediate is clearly ambiguous

at best, and if they intend to enforce this, this amiguity must be clarified.

 

 

thirdly, the next circumstance would have been they were been prepared at an overnight

accomodation for storage.

 

from the sound of this post, they were clearly been prepared at an overnight accomodation.

and as such is an exception to having to keep the skin on.

 

 

 

the burden of proof would be on the crown to establish that their was a clear violation of the

law.

 

 

i hate the law being used as an excuse to generate revenues. that completly destroys the

point of the laws and seriously encourages people to 'get away' with breaking laws.

 

laws are meant to enable a just and stable society, not as a means of generating revenues.

financial punishments for breaking the law are meant as disincentives to commit the

same offence, and not to fund society in general.

 

taxes are meant to generate revenues.

 

 

i also agree strongly with lew on his point .

 

 

again in the circumstance with lew.. those conservation officer had NO RIGHT to

express his personal views that people from outside his arbitrary area cannot fish

there. i wish you did have the time and resource to fight this one, but having said

this, i know that i would be hard pressed to find the time for a trip back to fight this.

maybe at some time in the future a terse worded letter to the member of parliament

citing discrimination of non quebecers in quebec may be in order.

their actions i believe almost bordered on criminal police harrassment.

 

i'm very sorry that you have decided not to visit quebec for this reason, as i

believe it is our right, as long as it still part of this nation for us to visit in a law abiding

fashion. why should we as law abinding citizens of this nation be subjected to abuse

by those hired to protect the very ones who are going out of their way to maintain this society.

 

maybe as time progresses and we see that this is an ongoing and endemic problem we could

initiate some action..

 

having said all this, i am appalled at circumstances as some members have described

earlier of poachers on lake simcoe clearly and brazenly flouting the law by returning

time after time to catch quantities of whitefish in batches. these are clearly violations

of both the letter and spirits of both the regulations as well as the intent of preserving

the resource.

 

i believe there is are very strong principles involved in all these incidents.

 

i do not believe that these incidents should be serving as a 'lesson' to anyone.

from what i have read, no one here has done anything wrong.

 

 

 

i could rant on and on, but this is the holiday weekend and the lakes are calling...

 

 

... nomad....

[Greencoachdog]

Ok!

 

#1. Fish keep much better if they're just gutted with the skin and head left intact. A simple slit up the belly, jig the knife up and down around the gills, and cut the little throat piece where the gills and throat come together... grab both gill rakes and pull, gills organs and intestines come out with one motion. Scrape the main artery at the backbone and throw into a rock salt/ice brine solution for transport or multiple hour storage. They come out just like they went in!

 

#2. Short term storage. The whole (alive) fish is thrown in the cooler on ice. The fish will probably still be partially alive at cleaning time.

 

#3. I like my panfish cooked whole with the skin on (Crappie, Bluegill, Perch.......) sans the head of course.

 

#4. Larger thicker skinned fish are filleted with the skin on and put in the freezer or fridge, It's just a simple matter of running the fillet knife between the flesh and skin just before cooking. They also keep better and stay fresher that way.

 

Misfish... I also like to marinate my fish in buttermilk before cooking!

 

Whopper.. I pegged you as a criminal the first time I met you!!!

Edited June 29, 2007 by Greencoachdog

[gussser]

Do you not have the ability to "GO TO COURT" in Canada???? Challange the fine--if you lose you still owe if you win great. Maybe you could find a reasonable ear to listen to this. It's the only way to stop this intrusive "policing".

[fishindevil]

Sorry to hear that,i think thats getting carried away... rrrrrrrrr...why dont they concentrate on real problems,instead of harassing legitimate fisherman....why dont they go after the indians who openly break laws and illegally sell walleyes ,and crap like that,its a waste of time,and money,thats bullcrap.......

[fishnsled]

Thanks for the responses everyone.

 

After getting some legal advise (thanks Kirk) I will be sending off the money for the fine and be done with it. Lesson learned. I certainly agree that these charges could be fought and I think I would probably win. But as the busy season approaches for work, getting time off for this would be very difficult. This fine was a chance to train the rookie that came along on how to right out tickets and perhaps some court room training as well. I guess the ticket might pay for the gas in the plane

 

A firm warning in this case would have gone a lot further then a fine. I have a lot of respect for what the MNR do and have always been a supporter of their work. They have a tough job to do. So let my bad experience be a warning to all those out there to leave some skin on the fish and keep a few bucks in your pockets.

 

Good point Whopper,

On a lot of trips that I have done with my buddies everyone pitches in a does a job, some cook, some clean, some maintain the boats and some clean fish. With that being said what if I was the designated fish cleaner for a group of say six guys and I am in the cleaning house with say twelve walleye. Since the twelve walleye are in my possession am I over my limit regardless of which license I carry? Can a CO then fine me for over limit possession?

 

I never really though about it before until this came up, but if one was splitting hairs that would make me a criminal.

 

That is exactly what happened on our trip and I was the fish cleaning guy. I suppose that I would have been fined for over possession as well, the CO did mention that. Since we were claiming that we had 4 walleye (within my limit) and 1 whitefish, I was not charged with being over my limit. Even though the fish were caught by everyone in the group.

[Headhunter]

This entire situation is nothing more than a mockery of a travesty! Holy remote taxation! I understand what your doing, but honestly, if I had the time and the money to fight it, I would!

I can't help but think that this is going on all the time and exactly how much money is this sort of "enforcement" costing the good people of the north, in tourist dollars?! Ask yourself this question... if you were visiting our fine country, spent a ton of dough to get to a remote site and have the "local authorities" treat you like this.... would you come back and spend your hard earned dollars?

If I owned the camp you were staying at, I'd be raising cane to the local MNR office!

HH

[john vail]

Being from the states (ohio) where we don"t have to leave the skin on , I have a question What give them the right to check your camp as you are not fishing at the time, nor are those fish in your possession nor have they witnessed you in a vessel with them, I relize ignorance is no excuse but sometimes laws need to be updated to the current day, seems like the real problem is that the personnality of certain people needs to be realigned with reality of what is causing problems .

[Tdel]

chiefvail, this should answer your question:

 

"What give them the right to check your camp as you are not fishing at the time, nor are those fish in your possession nor have they witnessed you in a vessel with them"

 

This really says it all and are excerpts from The Fisheries Act.

 

POWERS OF FISHERY OFFICERS AND FISHERY GUARDIANS

 

Search:

 

49.1 (1) A fishery officer with a warrant issued under subsection (2) may enter and search any place, including any premises, vessel or vehicle, in which the officer believes on reasonable grounds there is

 

a: any work or undertaking that is being or has been carried on in contravention of this Act or the regulations;

 

b: any fish or other thing by means of or in relation to which this Act or the regulations have been contravened; or

 

c: any fish or other thing that will afford evidence in respect of a contravention of this Act or the regulations.

 

Authority to issue warrant:

 

(2) Where on ex parte application a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in any place referred to in subsection (1) any fish or other thing referred to in subsection (1), the justice may issue a warrant authorizing the fishery officer named in the warrant to enter and search the place for the thing subject to any conditions that may be specified in the warrant.

 

Where warrant not necessary:

 

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a fishery officer may exercise the power of search referred to in that subsection without a warrant issued under subsection (2) if the conditions for obtaining the warrant exist but by reason of exigent circumstances it would not be practical to obtain the warrant.

 

Exigent circumstances:

 

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), exigent circumstances include circumstances in which the delay necessary to obtain the warrant would result in danger to human life or safety or the loss or destruction of evidence.

 

Powers during search:

 

(5) In carrying out a search of a place under this section, a fishery officer may exercise any power mentioned in subsection 49(1), (1.1) or (1.3).

 

Entry by fishery officer:

 

52. In the discharge of his duties, any fishery officer, fishery guardian or other person accompanying him or authorized to such effect by the fishery officer may enter on and pass through or over private property without being liable for trespass.

 

R.S., c. F-14, s. 39.

 

 

Tom