Serious question about verbal harrasment while fishing

[Rizzo]

I wish I liked the taste of fish, then would definitely keep my share. Sadly I don't care for it so have no experience with run-ins like this.  As far as this clown goes, personally I would do the ol' ignore thing for now unless it gets to be quite threatening (not just insults). He sounds like a nutjob, and you never know what a nutjob might do if you take any action like filing a report.

[huzzsaba]

Thanks for the additional replies.  I agree the best option is to ignore him, but mostlikely I will avoid going to that spot if planning to keep.  Although I think I have kept my fair share for this year ( 2 bass lol).

There is enough stress in the world these days to be stressed while doing something to de-stress lol.  

[Rizzo]

next time you catch one, walk it down the pier and release it right beside him. 

[Snidley]

I notice that the original poster is from Oakville so I assume he is fishing at Bronte for bass. I used to live in Oakville and I fished , for bass from a pontoon rowboat, at Oakville Creek. I understand pier fishing is no longer allowed at Oakville Creek so I guess Bronte is the only option for pier anglers. There have NEVER been very many bass at Bronte. Tons of Salmon and Rainbows in the spring and fall but very few bass particularly as compared to Oakville Creek (some know it a 16 Mile Creek). In the old days at Oakville Creek I would regularly get from  a low of 10 to 15 bass to a high of 50 or 60 bass a day. My best days at Bronte for bass would be maybe 6 to10 fish with zip a distinct possibility. I must also state that because I fish from a Hobie I had the option to go up the creek to Rebecca street so I had much more water to cover. I  have not been limited to fishing piers for some time but if I was forced by circumstance to fish from piers and I lived in Oakville and the option was Bronte (and from the western pier only as I believe you can't fish from the eastern pier anymore) I would be furious with an angler for keeping a bass that I understand is in very short supply. I would never say anything but I would be fuming.  I would be mad because  following the law in this case would be abusing the opportunities of others and would illustrate the kind of ignorance that typifies angling in Ontario. This deliberate ignorance manifests itself in littering, egg collection, derbies, reckless boating, impatience and unpreparedness at the boat launch and internet bro's inferring they would be beating people up over fishing etiquette. I must also point out that just because the MNR allows the retention of bass does not mean it is a good idea in all cases. Falling back on the legality of it only facilitates a careless approach to HELPING to manage fish so there's a sport of fishing available to all  and not a free feed for people that are not in dire financial circumstances. 

[akaShag]

13 minutes ago, Snidley said:

I notice that the original poster is from Oakville so I assume he is fishing at Bronte for bass. I used to live in Oakville and I fished , for bass from a pontoon rowboat, at Oakville Creek. I understand pier fishing is no longer allowed at Oakville Creek so I guess Bronte is the only option for pier anglers. There have NEVER been very many bass at Bronte. Tons of Salmon and Rainbows in the spring and fall but very few bass particularly as compared to Oakville Creek (some know it a 16 Mile Creek). In the old days at Oakville Creek I would regularly get from  a low of 10 to 15 bass to a high of 50 or 60 bass a day. My best days at Bronte for bass would be maybe 6 to10 fish with zip a distinct possibility. I must also state that because I fish from a Hobie I had the option to go up the creek to Rebecca street so I had much more water to cover. I  have not been limited to fishing piers for some time but if I was forced by circumstance to fish from piers and I lived in Oakville and the option was Bronte (and from the western pier only as I believe you can't fish from the eastern pier anymore) I would be furious with an angler for keeping a bass that I understand is in very short supply. I would never say anything but I would be fuming.  I would be mad because  following the law in this case would be abusing the opportunities of others and would illustrate the kind of ignorance that typifies angling in Ontario. This deliberate ignorance manifests itself in littering, egg collection, derbies, reckless boating, impatience and unpreparedness at the boat launch and internet bro's inferring they would be beating people up over fishing etiquette. I must also point out that just because the MNR allows the retention of bass does not mean it is a good idea in all cases. Falling back on the legality of it only facilitates a careless approach to HELPING to manage fish so there's a sport of fishing available to all  and not a free feed for people that are not in dire financial circumstances. 

Hmmmm.......................a bit touchy today are we Snidley?  Or just looking to get a thread locked with a bunch of sanctimonius, holier-than-thou claptrap?  So from some historical (and perhaps hysterical) perspective, there were not a lot of bass in one of your fishing spots, but in the same general area you could catch 50 or 60 bass in a day.  Bass are not endangered in Ontario, and if a good habitat supports more fish than a poorer one, that happens to be basic ecology.  Probably why there are or were more bass in one spot than another, within the same general area and body of water.  Keeping a bass, or for that matter a limit of bass, once in a while does ZERO to a fish population, almost anywhere in this province.  And if the OP, or anybody else who wants to keep fish to EAT, chooses to do so, that just happens to be their right.  Even if it makes you FUME.

Rant off.  Just sayin'......................

[Rizzo]

22 minutes ago, Snidley said:

This deliberate ignorance manifests itself in littering, egg collection, derbies, reckless boating, impatience and unpreparedness at the boat launch

going from someone legally keeping a fish (from a lake with millions of bass) to this statement is pure nonsense. And I am a catch and release guy who would prefer everyone else do the same!  

[Snidley]

Like I said in the post I would not say anything to this angler. I would fume and the obvious fact that there's some fish in one spot and few in another motivates me and others to protect the spot that has few by not keeping fish even though the law allows it. It's sensible behavior that includes sportsmanship and thinking about the opportunities for others rather than taking what would never be necessary for sustinance.

[huzzsaba]

2 minutes ago, Snidley said:

Like I said in the post I would not say anything to this angler. I would fume and the obvious fact that there's some fish in one spot and few in another motivates me and others to protect the spot that has few by not keeping fish even though the law allows it. It's sensible behavior that includes sportsmanship and thinking about the opportunities for others rather than taking what would never be necessary for sustinance.

Thanks for your post, and I respect your opinion.  I am totally for conservation, which is why I always buy a conservation license.  I also guide people in my community about fishing ethics and rules etc and conservation.  Like I said, in all of 2021, I kept 2 bass from that spot.  I'd just like to fellow fisherman to not jump the gun and assume that someone keeping is filling buckets, and by that I mean the guy on the pier 😄.  I know some do that, and as long as its legal, I have no issue with it.  

Like I said before, one should not have to be stressed out when trying to de-stress.  Unfortunately, the city of Oakville closed down one of the better fishing spots, and it leaves a tiny spot for those interested in fishing to fish at.  Believe me, I try different bodies of water all the time, from Erie to Niagara river, but its cost a lot to go to these places even if not on a regular basis.

[Snidley]

Not to belabor the issue but knowing that restricted access is now a thing in Oakville and  the one spot available to people who don't have access to a boat was always almost devoid of bass I'm sure you can see why someone might take it upon themselves to voice their displeasure, wrong as it is.. Knowing what I do about Bronte the guy you are complaining about is an older guy with a name that starts with C and ends with F. He's gone apoplectic on me several times as well but for other angling related reasons. When our fall back position is that it's legal i think there's been a million posts here and elsewhere opining on the absurdly ineffectual way the government at all levels and the MNR specifically goes about their business. In many cases that something is legal  may also indicate that it's likely to be wrong headed at the minimum.

One last thing. The same people that make Ontario fisheries law, the MNR, are the same folks who brought you the gentrification of the shoreline especially at Oakville Creek pier and waterfront and soon at Bronte as well.( I live in St Catharines and they have done the same thing here). I was at both meetings they had on the subject and the claim at that time was that miles of rip rap and boulevard level path walks would enhance the Lake Ontario fishery immensely. They failed to mention the fact that these new Yorkville level enhancements would be sullied by some grubby old anglers so the city of Oakville took it upon itself to ban fishing from Oakville Creek pier and they also banned it at Bronte Pier(s) for a time. There were enough complaints that they did open up the western pier to shore angling provided the anglers fished only the lake side of the pier and not the harbour side. Caught many bass on the lake side of the pier? I would say NO.  It should be noted that the city's side of the argument for closing the fancy new pier facilities to fishing were litter, swearing, fish guts, and reckless casting off the pier when latte drinking dog walkers passed by.

As I said I would not have said anything 

[Snidley]

I posted some mis information in this post. Read Good News for shore anglers in Oakville for clarification

[jonasdry]

On 8/27/2021 at 3:15 PM, AKRISONER said:

you arent allowed to verbally harrass people or specifically intimated/threaten them.

 

If our guy Huz is adhering to the law and some guy begins to verbally harass them, swearing at them and intimidating them and carrying on, the guy is breaking the law.

The funny one here is that guys say that that they would walk up and beat his you know what in, but i can assure you they wouldnt. No one here is actually going to take an assault charge and go to court, serve time/pay a fine over someone talking ish. this isnt the 1970's, you fight in public you literally go to jail.

Which law? To stay where the guy was and say stuff is not harrassing. If the guy walked up to him and started talking crap sure, but it's not the interfering with fishing/hunting law.

In a court, what the guy did would be covered under the charter of rights. The guy is allowed to stay where he is and talk all the crap he wants. There was no mention of the guy moving away from where he is so I don't know where the intimidation part is coming from. There was no "hate" or "racism". The guy expressed his opinion, which we are allowed to do. Not once did the guy interfere with anything. The law was quoted in the thread already. If you have a half a brain you can clearly see that no law was broken.

I disagree with what the dude did and said but he didn't break the law. You need to use logic and not emotion Karen. Don't make stuff up.

Edited August 31, 2021 by jonasdry

[AKRISONER]

33 minutes ago, jonasdry said:

Which law? To stay where the guy was and say stuff is not harrassing. If the guy walked up to him and started talking crap sure, but it's not the interfering with fishing/hunting law.

In a court, what the guy did would be covered under the charter of rights. The guy is allowed to stay where he is and talk all the crap he wants. There was no mention of the guy moving away from where he is so I don't know where the intimidation part is coming from. There was no "hate" or "racism". The guy expressed his opinion, which we are allowed to do. Not once did the guy interfere with anything. The law was quoted in the thread already. If you have a half a brain you can clearly see that no law was broken.

its not very surprising coming from you, but if you chose to read what the OP said and considered his interpretation of the situation rather than blabbing on about what you personally are entitled to, you'd easily be able to figure it out yourself. So here I will do you a favour since you are seemingly struggling to use the internet

From the original post, "Needless to say, a fun experience became a stressfull one, since we had to wait for him to leave before we could leave ourselves as we didnt want any kind of additional harrasment from him."

Fairly blatantly implying that our member here Huz felt that if he were to walk past the individual a confrontation could occur. 

"Which Law?"

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=harassment+ontario+law

you will then find

the criminal code of canada, specifically the section on criminal harrassment! Heres the hyper link for you https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-264.html

 

Criminal harassment

• 264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

• (2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

•  

• (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

Edited August 31, 2021 by AKRISONER

[Dara]

I feel covid  and too many people living in one small area stressing this situation.

 

[Dara]

and I got 4 walleyes today...kept them all😘

[Rizzo]

jerk

😁

[jonasdry]

On 8/31/2021 at 3:37 PM, AKRISONER said:

its not very surprising coming from you, but if you chose to read what the OP said and considered his interpretation of the situation rather than blabbing on about what you personally are entitled to, you'd easily be able to figure it out yourself. So here I will do you a favour since you are seemingly struggling to use the internet

From the original post, "Needless to say, a fun experience became a stressfull one, since we had to wait for him to leave before we could leave ourselves as we didnt want any kind of additional harrasment from him."

Fairly blatantly implying that our member here Huz felt that if he were to walk past the individual a confrontation could occur. 

"Which Law?"

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=harassment+ontario+law

you will then find

the criminal code of canada, specifically the section on criminal harrassment! Heres the hyper link for you https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-264.html

 

Criminal harassment

• 264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

• (2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of

•  

• (b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;

Coming from me? I am not the one playing the internet lawyer or judge. Harrassment is a prolonged thing, not a one or two time thing. It has to be ongoing and the person harrassing needs to seemingly go out of their way to do it but you know that right?

 

Now if you read any of what you posted you will see that by definition nothing happened. Just because someone calls someone else name, which is protected via the charter of rights and that person doesn't feel comfortable doesn't make it a violation of the law.

 

You try to play the smart guy all the time but you aren't nearly as smart as you think. You can make stuff up pon the internet all you want but you are wrong most of the time. Your opinion on things are not gospel. Good luck with your legal career.

[manfish]

Where caught?  I'm hungry

[AKRISONER]

1 hour ago, jonasdry said:

Coming from me? I am not the one playing the internet lawyer or judge. Harrassment is a prolonged thing, not a one or two time thing. It has to be ongoing and the person harrassing needs to seemingly go out of their way to do it but you know that right?

 

Now if you read any of what you posted you will see that by definition nothing happened. Just because someone calls someone else name, which is protected via the charter of rights and that person doesn't feel comfortable doesn't make it a violation of the law.

 

You try to play the smart guy all the time but you aren't nearly as smart as you think. You can make stuff up pon the internet all you want but you are wrong most of the time. Your opinion on things are not gospel. Good luck with your legal career.

The fact that you consistently bring up your “charter rights” In this thread and others just screams “I’m an enlightened anti vaxxer, and you are all sheeple” is your legal name Chris Sky by chance?

I wasn’t aware that the law is only enforceable when someone commits a crime multiple times. I guess we should all go rob a bank because the first ones a freebie!

Funny you mention my career, I’m not a lawyer, but I have been working for a decade in regulatory compliance. So thanks for the encouragement for success in my actual career. 

[akaShag]

and now this meeting of the mutual admiration society is adjourned..................🙄

[dave524]

There are 2 laws defining harassment here, under the game and fish act they would actually have to impede your ability to fish or hunt, the one under the criminal code verbal harassment would probably count.

[Dara]

8 hours ago, manfish said:

Where caught?  I'm hungry

A couple rock piles in the North Channel.

They were tastey

[Garnet]

It would be a miracle to get a verbal hassement charge lay , proably bigger miracle to get police to show up at a fishing spot to witness verbal harrasment.

Think you need to stranded up for your self.

[Sinker]

23 hours ago, AKRISONER said:

The fact that you consistently bring up your “charter rights” In this thread and others just screams “I’m an enlightened anti vaxxer, and you are all sheeple” is your legal name Chris Sky by chance?

 

what the hell does this have to do with anything? All this says to me is that you are a holier than thou who doesn't care about peoples rights and freedoms. Your opinion doesn't mean squat to me, and I'm sure many, many others here too. 

S. 

[aplumma]

wayyyyy of subject. Back on track, stop bashing each other or it gets locked. 

 

 

Art

[John]

Ya know what. I think that this thread has run its course and then some.