Party fishing

I recently heard about a CO visiting a couple of people at a camp ground having a fish fry. They had four walleye that they were having for supper.They were American visitors so they were only allowed two each. The CO asked who caught the fish and one of the guys said he caught one and his buddy caught three. The one guy was charged for over limit by one. They were allowed four between the two of them and that's what they had. My question is this. Why can we party hunt, but can't party fish? Thanks.

anything you can party hunt is on a tag system, so there only will be so many animals killed regardless who kills them. thats my guess as to why it applies to some game and not others.

CO must have had a bad day !!! Pretty chincey charge ! That's one of the regs that are nearly impossible to enforce.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

CO must have had a bad day !!! Pretty chincey charge ! That's one of the regs that are nearly impossible to enforce.....

---

Not really. Asked the question, got the wrong answer.

CBSA does it all the time with people coming in with booze. I came back 3 years ago with two other guys, we knew collectively we were all under the required maximums, but when asked, we admitted whos liquor was whos. The agent knew a few mutual friends, and it wasn't a big deal.....but could have resulted in the overage for one guy being seized.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Snicka

. Why can we party hunt, but can't party fish? Thanks.

---

Because thems the rules. In general you can not party hunt. Its is only allowed under very specific conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

CO must have had a bad day !!! Pretty chincey charge ! That's one of the regs that are nearly impossible to enforce.....

---

Think the CO was having a good day caught someone confessing to over fishing. Curious to know how many fish over your limit would qualify as a righteous charge? Rules are rules and if you chose to ignore them accept the concequences but don't vilify those who have to enforce them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

CO must have had a bad day !!! Pretty chincey charge ! That's one of the regs that are nearly impossible to enforce.....

---

Exactly,then,they can't figure out why people won't be "co-operative". They just keep digging their hole deeper and deeper,don't they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Because thems the rules. In general you can not party hunt. Its is only allowed under very specific conditions.


Think the CO was having a good day caught someone confessing to over fishing. Curious to know how many fish over your limit would qualify as a righteous charge? Rules are rules and if you chose to ignore them accept the concequences but don't vilify those who have to enforce them.

---

That ranks right up there with getting a speeding ticket for 2 clicks over.....but then you would be ok with that ticket....cause thems the rules ....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

That ranks right up there with getting a speeding ticket for 2 clicks over.....but then you would be ok with that ticket....cause thems the rules ....

---

as I chose to speed than yup pay the fine and don't whine like a baby as its no ones else's fault that I ignored the rules. As the OP described it seems a bit over kill so applying the smell test I'm sure there is more to the story that would cause the Co to go from a simple caution to writing a ticket. In any case the one in the wrong is not the one enforcing the regs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

as I chose to speed than yup pay the fine and don't whine like a baby as its no ones else's fault that I ignored the rules. As the OP described it seems a bit over kill so applying the smell test I'm sure there is more to the story that would cause the Co to go from a simple caution to writing a ticket. In any case the one in the wrong is not the one enforcing the regs.

---

Precisely.

The OP is posting 2nd hand information, with the expectation that what he heard is the absolute truth.

Somehow I think there may be something slightly more afoot. But regardless whether the enforcement of the regs seems petty, there isn't a question that a charge could be laid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Not really. Asked the question, got the wrong answer.

CBSA does it all the time with people coming in with booze. I came back 3 years ago with two other guys, we knew collectively we were all under the required maximums, but when asked, we admitted whos liquor was whos. The agent knew a few mutual friends, and it wasn't a big deal.....but could have resulted in the overage for one guy being seized.

---

Agree.... the big difference here is that the Officer didn't seize and charge extra duty.
With the two guys fishing, they readily admitted who caught what. From their answer, one could think that they didn't know the "rule".
As you are aware, enforcement also includes a component of educating those the Officers contact.
IMHO, that's what should have happened here. Instead, you have two individuals with a very sour taste in their mouths where CO,s are concerned. Totally unnecessary !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Agree.... the big difference here is that the Officer didn't seize and charge extra duty.
With the two guys fishing, they readily admitted who caught what. From their answer, one could think that they didn't know the "rule".
As you are aware, enforcement also includes a component of educating those the Officers contact.
IMHO, that's what should have happened here. Instead, you have two individuals with a very sour taste in their mouths where CO,s are concerned. Totally unnecessary !!

---

Yes, but the OP is posting something he "heard"....

Who's to say the Yanks involved weren't being less than friendly....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Yes, but the OP is posting something he "heard"....

Who's to say the Yanks involved weren't being less than friendly....

---

We don't know that, and shouldn't draw any different conclusions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

We don't know that, and shouldn't draw any different conclusions.

---

LOL. Ok Rick.

Point out that the CO might have been petty in laying the charge, sure, fair enough. But it was his job, and at his discretion to do so. So with respect to the OP, no, you can't "party fish" period, full stop, since it is in fact illegal.

But this entire thread is based on the OPs " I heard a story where....", which we all know is not bona-fide facts, nor may have even happened.....so while we're spitballing, either go in for a penny, or in for a pound....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

LOL. Ok Rick.

Point out that the CO might have been petty in laying the charge, sure, fair enough. But it was his job, and at his discretion to do so. So with respect to the OP, no, you can't "party fish" period, full stop, since it is in fact illegal.

But this entire thread is based on the OPs " I heard a story where....", which we all know is not bona-fide facts, nor may have even happened.....so while we're spitballing, either go in for a penny, or in for a pound....

---

Fair enough....but I've seen too many things over the years that makes me think this story is somewhat credible.... I used to hear stuff like this and say, "no way, that can't happen"......not any more,
not specifically concerning CO's, but LEO's in general !!

what fishing zone only allows 2 walleye? Didnt know there was a difference between resident and non resident limits...Ill have to look this up....

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler

what fishing zone only allows 2 walleye? Didnt know there was a difference between resident and non resident limits...Ill have to look this up....

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

---

If you buy a conservation licence, then the limit is 2. Whether resident or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

If you buy a conservation licence, then the limit is 2. Whether resident or not.

---

I think nonresident limits up on Rainy is two.

ya i guess if conservation fishing

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler

ya i guess if conservation fishing

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

---

If you're a non-res, and cheap..the extra $20 on an 8 day license is a bit of beer....

Zone 5. NW Ontario, nonresident 2 fish limit certain times, on certain waters. Conservation licence is 1. Hardly worth the effort..

I like to think a CO uses reason when giving a charge like that. If it was adults they should have known better. If it was young kids it might have been treated differently.

When I was a kid in NB my Dad a friend of his who was retiring soon as a CO and my two brothers were out fishing for Browns and Landlock our first time. It was soon going to be dark and in NB you cannot fish after dark. We had no bites all evening, but then my youngest brother finally got a bit a nice eating size landlock salmon, but the minimum size was 14 inches I measured his fish and it was just over just under 13 or around there and I told him he would have to throw it back he didn't look very happy. My Dad's buddy ask my brother who was probably about 8 at the time if it was his first landlock and it was. I still remember the CO saying to US "Eh looks 14 inches to me".

Point is sometimes a law might be broken with good reason but other times people should no the rules. Those were adults and they should have read the regs they deserved to be charged.

There is no Party fishing in Ontario as well there is no Party hunting small game or migratory game.
I have heard people in the past (even on here, but they were corrected very fast) that they party hunt for ducks or grouse etc.

IMO....Should not have been charged....

Every fish you catch, is part of your bag limit, in Ontario. The law doesn't recognize 'live release' fishing.

Yes they do.

Conservation Fishing Licence Tag: A reduced catch and possession limit licence tag that is ideal for anglers who want to live-release the majority of fish caught. Under this licence tag, anglers must immediately release Muskellunge, Atlantic Salmon and Aurora Trout. In this summary, C - refers to limits under a Conservation Fishing Licence (e.g., C - 2 = catch and possession limit of 2).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

Every fish you catch, is part of your bag limit, in Ontario. The law doesn't recognize 'live release' fishing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

Yes they do.

Conservation Fishing Licence Tag: A reduced catch and possession limit licence tag that is ideal for anglers who want to live-release the majority of fish caught. Under this licence tag, anglers must immediately release Muskellunge, Atlantic Salmon and Aurora Trout. In this summary, C - refers to limits under a Conservation Fishing Licence (e.g., C - 2 = catch and possession limit of 2).

---

I stand corrected. Once you have caught your limit , you cannot continue to fish for that species.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

I stand corrected. Once you have caught your limit , you cannot continue to fish for that species.

---

I guess it should read "caught and keep-your limit" .....................catching and releasing fish is fair game.
I still believe he shouldn't have been charged....informed yes...charged no

Georgian Bay has a limit of 2 walleye as well.

I agree with Rick and Trimmer. Its as cheap a shot as you can get. I could expect that move from a rookie but not a seasoned officer.

In my limited experience with the law if you are courteous and polite they normally show respect and leeway most times if innocent enough and not grossly over the law...its when you disrespect them they are gonna get you and occasionally you run into a righteous holier than thou prickler who will lay it on you no matter what

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

I guess it should read "caught and keep-your limit" .....................catching and releasing fish is fair game.
I still believe he shouldn't have been charged....informed yes...charged no

---

Rick didn't answer me maybe you could Frati. How many fish over your limit would warrant a charge? This is not a case of ignorance is bliss. 2 rules really govern fishing 1. know your seasons and 2. know your limit. As for limits it clearly states your allowed X for what ever license type you purchase. It goes on to say if you catch anything above your limit it must be immediately released. So if your obligated to immediately release than you can not give it to another. There is no possible way an excuse oh I didn't know could possibly be credible. So if they didn't learn the easy way than sure a ticket will make them pay closer attention. Yes its a harsh lesson but if you let everything slide its a slippery slope down till it hits rock bottom and won't be long till we read another story similar to the Port Hope fiasco.

I have run into both type CO's and both types of Cops.

Some are good and nice and some are real Pricks and make a point of letting you know it.

To be honest the nicest CO's I ever met were in NB, Don't know much about them in NS as I never met even one there. In Ontario I met 1 real ahole in Bissett Creek and funny thing we both went to the same College and knew the same teachers and he only graduated a year before me. I don't know maybe I met him there and don't remember. Use to meet some nice CO's in Ottawa but don't see any now and met some nice ones around Sudbury. The biggest ahole Cop I ever met was here in Russell met him twice in 18 years and one in Mattawa.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deer Wrastler

In my limited experience with the law if you are courteous and polite they normally show respect and leeway most times if innocent enough and not grossly over the law...its when you disrespect them they are gonna get you and occasionally you run into a righteous holier than thou prickler who will lay it on you no matter what

Sent from my SM-G903W using Tapatalk

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greatwhite

I have run into both type CO's and both types of Cops.

Some are good and nice and some are real Pricks and make a point of letting you know it.

To be honest the nicest CO's I ever met were in NB, Don't know much about them in NS as I never met even one there. In Ontario I met 1 real ahole in Bissett Creek and funny thing we both went to the same College and knew the same teachers and he only graduated a year before me. I don't know maybe I met him there and don't remember. Use to meet some nice CO's in Ottawa but don't see any now and met some nice ones around Sudbury. The biggest ahole Cop I ever met was here in Russell met him twice in 18 years and one in Mattawa.

---

Don't forget, that CO's and Cops are just people , the same as the ones you meet every day and or work with , some are easy to get along with others can be a pain, that's all part of life and every day living.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Rick didn't answer me maybe you could Frati. How many fish over your limit would warrant a charge? This is not a case of ignorance is bliss. 2 rules really govern fishing 1. know your seasons and 2. know your limit. As for limits it clearly states your allowed X for what ever license type you purchase. It goes on to say if you catch anything above your limit it must be immediately released. So if your obligated to immediately release than you can not give it to another. There is no possible way an excuse oh I didn't know could possibly be credible. So if they didn't learn the easy way than sure a ticket will make them pay closer attention. Yes its a harsh lesson but if you let everything slide its a slippery slope down till it hits rock bottom and won't be long till we read another story similar to the Port Hope fiasco.

---

Not sure on what number if there is a magic number that will work... Every case is different, based on this information from the OP I think he should not have been given a fine...
No law should be cast in stone. (every law has some wiggle room)...
Did the CO have the law on his side when he gave the ticket .....yes.....
Is the law on the CO's side if he had given a verbal warning....yes....
So given tickets uphold the law, given warnings also upholds the law...either one would/could have been right... But I opt for the verbal warning (a good talk-information exchange with a CO would work better for me)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Rick didn't answer me maybe you could Frati. How many fish over your limit would warrant a charge? This is not a case of ignorance is bliss. 2 rules really govern fishing 1. know your seasons and 2. know your limit. As for limits it clearly states your allowed X for what ever license type you purchase. It goes on to say if you catch anything above your limit it must be immediately released. So if your obligated to immediately release than you can not give it to another. There is no possible way an excuse oh I didn't know could possibly be credible. So if they didn't learn the easy way than sure a ticket will make them pay closer attention. Yes its a harsh lesson but if you let everything slide its a slippery slope down till it hits rock bottom and won't be long till we read another story similar to the Port Hope fiasco.

---

I hope you turn yourself in every time your on the 407 guaranteed your over the limit everyone is :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rodbender

I hope you turn yourself in every time your on the 407 guaranteed your over the limit everyone is :D

---

Your probably right. But this is not about following the rules its about bashing the establishment for enforcing the rules. Sure the OPP may not bother with 10 over let it slide let it slide now there are yahoos blowing past me doing 150 plus. No amount of "education" would suffice to curb this action as some see it as no big deal to keep more than your catch limit. Knowing you may get a ticket now you are on notice. Don't be bashing the CO bash the guy who knowingly keeps more than his limit.

Lesson to be learned - next time a CO asks who caught the fish - don't say anything - down here you can take the 5th - don't know what you do up there - I guess you have the right to remain silence and not incriminate yourself - at least I hope so - if not just say that you don't remember who caught the fish you were eating - easy enough - some cops just write tickets so that they get a large number of hits so they look better on paper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Your probably right. But this is not about following the rules its about bashing the establishment for enforcing the rules. Sure the OPP may not bother with 10 over let it slide let it slide now there are yahoos blowing past me doing 150 plus. No amount of "education" would suffice to curb this action as some see it as no big deal to keep more than your catch limit. Knowing you may get a ticket now you are on notice. Don't be bashing the CO bash the guy who knowingly keeps more than his limit.

---

Like on this one :D

In NB we used to just offer them a beer and a bite to eat and sometimes they did. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoePa

Lesson to be learned - next time a CO asks who caught the fish - don't say anything - down here you can take the 5th - don't know what you do up there - I guess you have the right to remain silence and not incriminate yourself - at least I hope so - if not just say that you don't remember who caught the fish you were eating - easy enough - some cops just write tickets so that they get a large number of hits so they look better on paper

---

I find this whole story abit unbelievable , 2 guys, 4 fish, what's the problem?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jim

I stand corrected. Once you have caught your limit , you cannot continue to fish for that species.

---

Jim where are you getting this as you are completely wrong.
You can continue to fish a species you have caught & retained your daily limit (or have your possession limit) as long as you immediately release any fish caught.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

That ranks right up there with getting a speeding ticket for 2 clicks over.....but then you would be ok with that ticket....cause thems the rules ....

---

That isn't even a close comparison. The regulations are very specific as to what you can and cannot catch and keep. It is all laid out online and in the book. You can't compare speeding to this at all. it's a yes or no question. are you over fish limit or not. Done.

I get how people can see an issue with this, because I bet a lot of people do it all the time. But, in reality the rules are very clear and a CO's job is to enforce those rules.

as far as I am concerned Kudos to that CO for doing his job and enforcing the regulations. They are there to protect our resources, and I will support a CO when a proper decision is made. ( trust me I know there are difficult enforcement officers as well) but sounds like this was an easy decision to make for him.

Maybe a different CO would have given a warning, or educated these men. But who knows if they had attitude themselves. We were not there. Regardless, that is their job. IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kurtis1234

That isn't even a close comparison. The regulations are very specific as to what you can and cannot catch and keep. It is all laid out online and in the book. You can't compare speeding to this at all. it's a yes or no question. are you over fish limit or not. Done.

I get how people can see an issue with this, because I bet a lot of people do it all the time. But, in reality the rules are very clear and a CO's job is to enforce those rules.

as far as I am concerned Kudos to that CO for doing his job and enforcing the regulations. They are there to protect our resources, and I will support a CO when a proper decision is made. ( trust me I know there are difficult enforcement officers as well) but sounds like this was an easy decision to make for him.

Maybe a different CO would have given a warning, or educated these men. But who knows if they had attitude themselves. We were not there. Regardless, that is their job. IMO.

---

So are the speed limits!!!

Right speed limits are the law, but with technology to find said speed there is a degree of error which requires officer discretion. for example 2kmph over is sketchy ticket. so many factors at play. For fish its cut and dry, it's a physical catch is what I was trying to say. Didn't mean anything by it, more just saying there would be a better analogy.

Laws are established for many reasons but put simply they ensure society acts in a responsible manner. With game and fish laws their intent is to have people take game in a humane manner while ensuring the perpetuation of the species.
To this end a regulation exists so that an individual doesn't take more than what is acceptable so individual limits apply. One person may take or possess a limit of 2 while a group of 5 may take or possess their limit of 10. The intent of the law is met in both cases. Who catches them doesn't change the fact that the intent of the law is met because there is no over harvest.
In this case whether an officer is being hard #ss or going by the book or just having a bad day, he's done more harm than good when it comes to the long term by souring a group towards enforcement. Honest persons react more positively to a warning than they do to a chintzy charge such as this one is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

Laws are established for many reasons but put simply they ensure society acts in a responsible manner. With game and fish laws their intent is to have people take game in a humane manner while ensuring the perpetuation of the species.
To this end a regulation exists so that an individual doesn't take more than what is acceptable so individual limits apply. One person may take or possess a limit of 2 while a group of 5 may take or possess their limit of 10. The intent of the law is met in both cases. Who catches them doesn't change the fact that the intent of the law is met because there is no over harvest.
In this case whether an officer is being hard #ss or going by the book or just having a bad day, he's done more harm than good when it comes to the long term by souring a group towards enforcement. Honest persons react more positively to a warning than they do to a chintzy charge such as this one is.

---

In a prefect world your right. However in the real world people are self serving at best. I see this as a bigger picture message. Although in this case all seems in order the extreme end result would be the case where the lone angler catches limits of fish for all over and under age people they can think of. This lone ticket has generated over 1200 views educating sportspeople to know the rules and follow them. The only chintzy thing I see here is the general lack of personal responsibility by not saying yup I ignored my responsibility for my own self interest and got my knuckles wrap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

In a prefect world your right. However in the real world people are self serving at best. I see this as a bigger picture message. Although in this case all seems in order the extreme end result would be the case where the lone angler catches limits of fish for all over and under age people they can think of. This lone ticket has generated over 1200 views educating sportspeople to know the rules and follow them. The only chintzy thing I see here is the general lack of personal responsibility by not saying yup I ignored my responsibility for my own self interest and got my knuckles wrap.

---

You really don't have a clue .
Given your rationale, everyone should be charged with every violation......period ! Every person here has violated one law or another, without question. The facts with this case, not reading anything into them, are....two guys caught and kept 4 walleye. When contacted by a CO, they readily disclosed who caught what. A LEO using common sense would believe that these guys were not aware of the rules. If they intended on poaching, they would have kept a lot more that their limit of 4, and they certainly would not have readily admitted that they purposely broke the law.
There is no indication here that they "intended" to break the law, no intent!
A similar instance would be you getting stopped because your trailer lights were not working, but you had them hooked up properly when you left. There is no intent to break the law. I can just imagine the squawking if you were whacked for every breach of any law. But as you say, thems the rules !
Thankfully, LEO,s still have discretion where enforcement is concerned. The LEO in this case, did not use any discretion, and as Sawbill said, did more harm than good ! I would pretty much guarantee that any JP hearing this case would dismiss it. This was a bullchit charge.....period !

Actually Rick your the one without a clue. Right now there was an announcement by the OPP zero tolerance for distracted driving you' re on the phone for a second its 390 plus 3 points is that going to be as you say bullchit charge? They already announced a zero tolerance next week for speeding in school zones. Will that also be bullchit charges? You still contend they didn't know. How could they not? your allowed 2 you kept 3 end of story. Its your responsibility to know the most basic of rules not the CO's to play nanny.
Good for him to apply zero tolerance so the next guy might think twice about it. Time to give LEO their teeth back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Actually Rick your the one without a clue. Right now there was an announcement by the OPP zero tolerance for distracted driving you' re on the phone for a second its 390 plus 3 points is that going to be as you say bullchit charge? They already announced a zero tolerance next week for speeding in school zones. Will that also be bullchit charges? You still contend they didn't know. How could they not? your allowed 2 you kept 3 end of story. Its your responsibility to know the most basic of rules not the CO's to play nanny.
Good for him to apply zero tolerance so the next guy might think twice about it. Time to give LEO their teeth back.

---

Comparing an offence that is now the number one cause of traffic deaths, with one fish taken in all likelihood, in error, proves how out of touch with reality you really are !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Comparing an offence that is now the number one cause of traffic deaths, with one fish taken in all likelihood, in error, proves how out of touch with reality you really are !!

---

Again you got no clue.
I asked you earlier how many fish over before it becomes an offence. You haven't answered why? For me one over is like 100 over. I am comparing the fact people don't obey the rules because they are honest. It takes the rod to get the point across that no amount of education gets people to follow the rules. Zero tolerance is zero tolerance. Age old adage Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Again the bigger picture here is follow the rules and if you don't be prepared to suffer the consequences.

The big picture in the case of the fishery is to protect it from exploitation. Two anglers had 4 fish. Not only acceptable in the eyes of the law but legal as well. That's the big picture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

The big picture in the case of the fishery is to protect it from exploitation. Two anglers had 4 fish. Not only acceptable in the eyes of the law but legal as well. That's the big picture.

---

The ends justify the means? I don't think so. As a Mod I would hope that you would not be promoting illegal activity. The fish you catch over your daily limit must be released immediately not given away period.
Might want to edit your post as per forum rules.
COMMUNITY RULES:

The following rules will be enforced. Violation will lead to temporary or permanent expulsion from the site.

1. Any discussion and promotion of illegal actives or information that is deliberately misleading or any discussion of activities that are in violation of the Fish and Hunting regulations as set forth by the Ontario Ministry of Natural resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

The ends justify the means? I don't think so. As a Mod I would hope that you would not be promoting illegal activity. The fish you catch over your daily limit must be released immediately not given away period.
Might want to edit your post as per forum rules.
COMMUNITY RULES:

The following rules will be enforced. Violation will lead to temporary or permanent expulsion from the site.

1. Any discussion and promotion of illegal actives or information that is deliberately misleading or any discussion of activities that are in violation of the Fish and Hunting regulations as set forth by the Ontario Ministry of Natural resources.

---

You are truly beyond hope !!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

You are truly beyond hope !!!!

---

Instead of reporting him to the administration thought it best to educate him on the rules. What is the point to having rules Rick if not to follow them? Might as well throw out the book as it doesn't seem to matter, Guess anarchy rules.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

Than what is the point to having rules Rick? Might as well throw out the book as it doesn't matter, Guess anarchy rules.

---

Well, I guess we should all be thankful that the vast majority of LEO,s understand the principles behind the spirit, intent and the word of law, and how to recognize the differences. Those who take on your simplistic "black and white" interpretations don't tend to last very long, at least not maintaining that attitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

The ends justify the means? I don't think so. As a Mod I would hope that you would not be promoting illegal activity. The fish you catch over your daily limit must be released immediately not given away period.
Might want to edit your post as per forum rules.
COMMUNITY RULES:

The following rules will be enforced. Violation will lead to temporary or permanent expulsion from the site.

1. Any discussion and promotion of illegal actives or information that is deliberately misleading or any discussion of activities that are in violation of the Fish and Hunting regulations as set forth by the Ontario Ministry of Natural resources.

---

Once again, you are apparently reading, but not comprehending what has been posted. No one here has promoted or misled where illegal activity is concerned. We all have agreed that the offence was committed, as prescribed by regulation....period! How the enforcement was handled IS the discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sawbill

. Two anglers had 4 fish. Not only acceptable in the eyes of the law but legal as well.

---

How is this not read in any other way than condoning the illegal possession of one angler as testified by another? It is not legal by any definition to keep more than your daily limit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Once again, you are apparently reading, but not comprehending what has been posted. No one here has promoted or misled where illegal activity is concerned. We all have agreed that the offence was committed, as prescribed by regulation....period! How the enforcement was handled IS the discussion.

---

What is your comprehension of the statement? Your liberal attitude is what a lot of people use when the rules go contrary to their own self interest. The reason most do it is based on risk reward evaluation. Most feel the risk of being caught much less punished is low enough that the reward of being self indulgent is worth it. Why do we have to wait for a zero tolerance notice to adhere to the rules? Again kudos on the CO for reminding us there are consequences to not following the rules. There are always post on how people are not following the rules, Just waiting on Thursday for the first post of pre shooting and or post shooting. yet when the CO acts they are chastised for doing their job.
Put me down as ticket them all and let the judicial system sort it out as there is way to much leeway given on the water, in the field, and even on the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

How is this not read in any other way than condoning the illegal possession of one angler as testified by another? It is not legal by any definition to keep more than your daily limit.

What is your comprehension of the statement? Your liberal attitude is what a lot of people use when the rules go contrary to their own self interest. The reason most do it is based on risk reward evaluation. Most feel the risk of being caught much less punished is low enough that the reward of being self indulgent is worth it. Why do we have to wait for a zero tolerance notice to adhere to the rules? Again kudos on the CO for reminding us there are consequences to not following the rules. There are always post on how people are not following the rules, Just waiting on Thursday for the first post of pre shooting and or post shooting. yet when the CO acts they are chastised for doing their job.
Put me down as ticket them all and let the judicial system sort it out as there is way to much leeway given on the water, in the field, and even on the road.

---

Read post 54......again!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Once again, you are apparently reading, but not comprehending what has been posted. No one here has promoted or misled where illegal activity is concerned. We all have agreed that the offence was committed, as prescribed by regulation....period! How the enforcement was handled IS the discussion.

---

We both know that discretion is the sole domain of every LEO in Ontario whether it be Municipal, OPP or OMNRF CO's or MTO Inspectors. The OP describes an incident where a CO was unwilling (or unable) to use that discretion. Sawbill described that discretion perfectly, 2 anglers/4 fish,end of story. The CO was either a "probie" rookie or a sour old veteran trying to pad his ticket stats. Either way,he failed miserably on all counts,missing a golden opportunity to teach rather than write. There are posters here who think that every small violation or tricking some honest angler or hunter with a loaded question as in this example,then,using that answer to write a summons or ticket is how LEO's should be doing their job,but,you're right on the money that they don't last long on the job. Dime-a-dozen armchair critics that have never served in law enforcement a day in their lives really have no way of know what they're talking about. Just let them put their mouths in gear with their brains in neutral,then, ignore them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Read post 54......again!!

---

So I asked you 2 questions so far that you have given no response too.
1. how many fish over your limit would warrant a charge? and now
2. what is your comprehension of the statement?
Guess you have no good response for either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

We both know that discretion is the sole domain of every LEO in Ontario whether it be Municipal, OPP or OMNRF CO's or MTO Inspectors. The OP describes an incident where a CO was unwilling (or unable) to use that discretion. Sawbill described that discretion perfectly, 2 anglers/4 fish,end of story. The CO was either a "probie" rookie or a sour old veteran trying to pad his ticket stats. Either way,he failed miserably on all counts,missing a golden opportunity to teach rather than write. There are posters here who think that every small violation or tricking some honest angler or hunter with a loaded question as in this example,then,using that answer to write a summons or ticket is how LEO's should be doing their job,but,you're right on the money that they don't last long on the job. Dime-a-dozen armchair critics that have never served in law enforcement a day in their lives really have no way of know what they're talking about. Just let them put their mouths in gear with their brains in neutral,then, ignore them.

---

Yea, I guess you're right !!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

So I asked you 2 questions so far that you have given no response too.
1. how many fish over your limit would warrant a charge? and now
2. what is your comprehension of the statement?
Guess you have no good response for either.

---

Well, to try and answer your question, an experienced investigator, with any common sense at all would look at the entire picture. He/she wouldn't say, " One fish too many, get the pinch book out".
Here you have two non-resident anglers, who were cooking their 4 fish. They were within the "spirit" of the law. One, when asked the question, readily admitted that he caught three. For the sake of argument, as this info is not known, they both had the appropriate licences. There was no attempt to hide the fact of who caught what. They were honest and forthcoming. It is not a stretch to believe they did not know the party fishing rule, and in all likelyhood, articulated that to the CO. It would have been in order for the investigator to come to that conclusion.
Had they had 5 or more, then clearly they were in violation. The fact that they were within their legal possession limit, notwithstanding the party fishing rule, should tend to make an investigator believe they had no "intent" to violate their possession limits.
If you can't understand this concept of enforcement, I can't help you !!
To edit: You have heard terms like "spirit of the law", the "intent" and "the rule of law", every LEO understands very quickly the meaning of these terms where enforcement is concerned. The courts at trial also consider the same aspects of the legislation. A lot of new LEOs that subscribe to your "charge them all" mentality have had their arses handed to them in open court. That only serves to bring their credibility and judgment under scrutiny by the JP or Justice, whatever the case may be. As I said in an earlier post, a LEO that conducts himself or herself, with your mentality will not last long.

End result assumptions made on the conduct of the CO with the limited info of a hearsay story.
So food for thought on a verified story of what happens when you don't follow the rules.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunde...rout-1.2595692
On the up side like the response giving by the convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

End result assumptions made on the conduct of the CO with the limited info of a hearsay story.
So food for thought on a verified story of what happens when you don't follow the rules.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunde...rout-1.2595692
On the up side like the response giving by the convicted.

---

You got to know (I am sure you are aware) when the media gets involved in anything, public opinion comes into to play with any legal matter so not really a fair comparison...besides......it's only the OP story (post) that should be referred too.
CO's have the power to charge or to give warnings (inform)....lets leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

You got to know (I am sure you are aware) when the media gets involved in anything, public opinion comes into to play with any legal matter so not really a fair comparison...besides......it's only the OP story (post) that should be referred too.
CO's have the power to charge or to give warnings (inform)....lets leave it at that.

---

You are right however if they do decide to charge its for just reasons and should be applauded not berated based on third party hearsay story.

Conservation officers ( https://www.ontario.ca/page/conserva...nd-authorities )

In 2015, Ontario’s conservation officers:
•made over 220,000 enforcement contacts
•issued close to 7,000 warnings
•laid nearly 3,000 natural resource charges

On a personal note:
A few years back I called the MNR office to let them know that a snapping turtle was laying eggs on the shoulder of a road that was under construction. In a nutshell... I was told to leave them alone in the name of progress and if I moved the eggs (even though they were going to be run over-flattened with a big roller) I could be charged.... such silly talk makes you wonder about people in power.....
Anyway, I always believed............... it should be the intent of the law that should be followed, not the written law (words on paper). I guess that is what judges are for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

Conservation officers ( https://www.ontario.ca/page/conserva...nd-authorities )


Anyway, I always believed............... it should be the intent of the law that should be followed, not the written law (words on paper). I guess that is what judges are for.

---

Believe it or not so do I. Thing is most can not follow the spirit of the law especially if it goes against self interest. Also the more slack the enforcement the greater the amount of divergence. Rather see a bit more enforcement than out right drastic actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fratri

Conservation officers ( https://www.ontario.ca/page/conserva...nd-authorities )

In 2015, Ontario’s conservation officers:
•made over 220,000 enforcement contacts
•issued close to 7,000 warnings
•laid nearly 3,000 natural resource charges

On a personal note:
A few years back I called the MNR office to let them know that a snapping turtle was laying eggs on the shoulder of a road that was under construction. In a nutshell... I was told to leave them alone in the name of progress and if I moved the eggs (even though they were going to be run over-flattened with a big roller) I could be charged.... such silly talk makes you wonder about people in power.....
Anyway, I always believed............... it should be the intent of the law that should be followed, not the written law (words on paper). I guess that is what judges are for.

---

This is taken from the link you provided, I like this part ;arrest anyone who has committed, is committing or is about to commit an offence under many of the acts they are authorized to enforce
Updated: August 10, 2016
Published: July 18, 201

They can arrest you just because you intended to commit an offence , but haven't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

You really don't have a clue .
Given your rationale, everyone should be charged with every violation......period ! Every person here has violated one law or another, without question. The facts with this case, not reading anything into them, are....two guys caught and kept 4 walleye. When contacted by a CO, they readily disclosed who caught what. A LEO using common sense would believe that these guys were not aware of the rules. If they intended on poaching, they would have kept a lot more that their limit of 4, and they certainly would not have readily admitted that they purposely broke the law.
There is no indication here that they "intended" to break the law, no intent!
A similar instance would be you getting stopped because your trailer lights were not working, but you had them hooked up properly when you left. There is no intent to break the law. I can just imagine the squawking if you were whacked for every breach of any law. But as you say, thems the rules !
Thankfully, LEO,s still have discretion where enforcement is concerned. The LEO in this case, did not use any discretion, and as Sawbill said, did more harm than good ! I would pretty much guarantee that any JP hearing this case would dismiss it. This was a bullchit charge.....period !

---

ignorance of the law is not an excuse, bullchit charge, how so? You may not like the results as "party fishing" is practiced by so many but please don't tell me that the law was not broken and the case would be dismissed. Share your opinion but don't confuse it with fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

ignorance of the law is not an excuse, bullchit charge, how so? You may not like the results as "party fishing" is practiced by so many but please don't tell me that the law was not broken and the case would be dismissed. Share your opinion but don't confuse it with fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finsfurfeathers

End result assumptions made on the conduct of the CO with the limited info of a hearsay story.
So food for thought on a verified story of what happens when you don't follow the rules.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunde...rout-1.2595692
On the up side like the response giving by the convicted.

---

Reason I submitted the link to the article found it describes what actually may happen not what might happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

ignorance of the law is not an excuse, bullchit charge, how so? You may not like the results as "party fishing" is practiced by so many but please don't tell me that the law was not broken and the case would be dismissed. Share your opinion but don't confuse it with fact.

---

Question: How many years of enforcement experience do you have? How many hundreds of hours have you spent sitting in court being part of or listening to actual court disposition ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

Question: How many years of enforcement experience do you have? How many hundreds of hours have you spent sitting in court being part of or listening to actual court disposition ?

---

Non, what's your point ? I don't need a law degree to understand the hunting and fishing regulations however I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night


Why don't you make changes to the law if you don't like it and pull some data together and submit it for review.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

Non, what's your point ? I don't need a law degree to understand the hunting and fishing regulations however I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night


Why don't you make changes to the law if you don't like it and pull some data together and submit it for review.

---

What's my point? There's three posters here with probably 70 plus years of combined experience in enforcement, or more, that agree...this was a bullchit charge.... the law isn't being disputed, just the administration...but I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect !! Nuff said !! :goodstuff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

What's my point? There's three posters here with probably 70 plus years of combined experience in enforcement, or more, that agree...this was a bullchit charge.... the law isn't being disputed, just the administration...but I bow to your superior knowledge and intellect !! Nuff said !! :goodstuff:

---

Bow to my superior knowledge? You asked me a question about experience and I answered, guess you didn't like the answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bandwagon

Bow to my superior knowledge? You asked me a question about experience and I answered, guess you didn't like the answer?

---

Not only are you so wrong on this post, you don't even seem to recognize sarcasm. Go figure.

Wow. 8 pages of posts, and still the same old guys are hammering away on the deceased horse.

1. The OP was a hypothetical " I heard"...... Not confirmed, not given location / time.....

2. Absolutely nothing said about conduct of individuals charged. Because we all know that sometimes the BS charges are the ones that get laid when individuals are less than forthcoming.

Still.....8 pages......must have been a slow weekend. Most of us were busy getting ready for the opener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Wow. 8 pages of posts, and still the same old guys are hammering away on the deceased horse.

1. The OP was a hypothetical " I heard"...... Not confirmed, not given location / time.....

2. Absolutely nothing said about conduct of individuals charged. Because we all know that sometimes the BS charges are the ones that get laid when individuals are less than forthcoming.

Still.....8 pages......must have been a slow weekend. Most of us were busy getting ready for the opener.

---

And yet you give it another "kick".... lol..
Yea, slow weekend, the lake is throwing 3 footers plus.....
crappy weather !! What opener are you getting ready for ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

And yet you give it another "kick".... lol..
Yea, slow weekend, the lake is throwing 3 footers plus.....
crappy weather !! What opener are you getting ready for ?

---

Grouse and waterfowl Northern District next week, and Southern district the week following.

Between checking gear, getting mud motor squared away on the jon boat, touching up paint on dekes and checking rigs, plus deciding where to possibly build an additional blind next week....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Grouse and waterfowl Northern District next week, and Southern district the week following.

Between checking gear, getting mud motor squared away on the jon boat, touching up paint on dekes and checking rigs, plus deciding where to possibly build an additional blind next week....

---

The best time of the year !!! Good luck !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

The best time of the year !!! Good luck !

---

You know it pal. You too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bluebulldog

Grouse and waterfowl Northern District next week, and Southern district the week following.

Between checking gear, getting mud motor squared away on the jon boat, touching up paint on dekes and checking rigs, plus deciding where to possibly build an additional blind next week....

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick_iles

The best time of the year !!! Good luck !

---

I spent the weekend putting together a portable duck blind and bought new dekes from Cabelas on sale. I just need to string the dekes together and weights on the line and I'm ready to rock. Buddy called today looking for someone to go up to his cottage to help check damage from a Bear B&E overnight. Hopefully there's not much damage. We'll take Bear tags and rifles and if it's still hanging around,to quote Si Robertson "It's gonna be ON,Jack."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trimmer21

I spent the weekend putting together a portable duck blind and bought new dekes from Cabelas on sale. I just need to string the dekes together and weights on the line and I'm ready to rock. Buddy called today looking for someone to go up to his cottage to help check damage from a Bear B&E overnight. Hopefully there's not much damage. We'll take Bear tags and rifles and if it's still hanging around,to quote Si Robertson "It's gonna be ON,Jack."

---

Why would you waste a tag on that bear? If it comes around... you know the drill.

Shhhhhhhhhhhh. Toronto is watching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Why would you waste a tag on that bear? If it comes around... you know the drill.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bushmoose

Why would you waste a tag on that bear? If it comes around... you know the drill.

---

Oh,yeah,without doubt. If it's at the cottage when we get there,it's done. It's the one we run across that's NOT around the cottage that we'll need a tag for.