Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => General Discussion => Topic started by: Oilcruzer on September 20, 2011, 12:30:30 PM
-
Yesterday on the Ved, I saw no less than three major infractions.
Snagging. seriously... Lots.
Netting. fishing with a net... Yep. I told them It was illegal and they carried on tho.
Improper gutting. Although this guy just didn't know that you can't throw the heads off. I explained why after and advised I would vouch for him not fouling those fish. He was white with worry.
But, did I report anyone? No. I fish solo very often. If I report, and it's obvious I had to have made the report, that could be bad news if you reported the wrong weirdo and met him in the backwoods cleaning a fish two weeks later.
Where the heck are DFO? Or is it really as I suspect, mindless enforcement on the easist to catch?
-
i think its ok to cut the head off if without the head the fish is on or above the min.size limit for the river you are fishing ,you must leave the tail on for id.
-
Yesterday on the Ved, I saw no less than three major infractions.
Where the heck are DFO? Or is it really as I suspect, mindless enforcement on the easist to catch?
The same could probably be said with respect to the RCMP and speeding drivers......
-
i think its ok to cut the head off if without the head the fish is on or above the min.size limit for the river you are fishing ,you must leave the tail on for id.
X2, the tail is often enough to prove a species - but if the OP was referring to evidence the fish was hooked in the mouth and not snagged underneath or somewhere else, then yea, for sure leave it on
-
i think its ok to cut the head off if without the head the fish is on or above the min.size limit for the river you are fishing ,you must leave the tail on for id.
Exactly right.
Regarding avoding making a report for fear of repercussions, everyone has to make a personal decision about whether or not to report. I almost never report stuff unless it's really bad, because a) I'm selfish and I'm there to enjoy my day, not be an amateur fish cop, and b) it's seldom followed up on / acted upon. I feel that my personal responsibility ends with politely mentioning / educating the angler, and if they choose to ignore my info and keep breaking the law, that's their issue.
D$
-
i agree with you Dmoney - but feel the pain of Oilcruzer too. Hard to believe that DFO cannot send a regular officer through known problem areas during the month from Sept 15 - Oct 15 on the Vedder. Even if it was only that month, it would help greatly.
It is quite sad that I have fished the Vedder hard for over a decade - many, many days and have only been checked for license once.... and this on a quiet steelhead day when the yearly license expired the day before.
-
After fishing higher up river this weekend, I took my coffee and wondered down to the area under the mission bridge. It was jam packed with anglers of all sorts. A couple were catching, most weren't. The DFO showed up and I told them it was great seeing them out there.
They checked one pair of fishermen fishing together who had 7 on the beach. They checked their hooks and licenses. I think everything checked out. Then they drove off. It was a bit disappointing to see them come to the river where there were upwards of 100 anglers in a 500 - meter stretch of river, and make only one check. I get the impression that the majority of their work is not field work, and when working in the field, they don't conduct many checks. I suppose they know what they're doing, but it seemed like a good opportunity to do a bunch of license checks.
Personally, I have never been checked.
D$
-
When out there checking a few people they watch to see if anyone try to avoid them or take off and sometimes they leave one officer on behind to catch them. However yes they don't always check everyone and I am sure some people get away with things.
-
Same here. Ive only been checked for a license once, and that was at Green Timbers my second time fishing. Fully geared officers went around. On the river during Salmon Season, I havent even SEEN any officers. Although a guy I see that works at Berry's has pointed out a few and said they were "undercover" conservation officers, I guess looking for snagging or some such.
-
I've been checked three times - twice at hatchery holes and once when I was fishing alone on the Harrison for cutthroat. Each time they seemed most concerned about making sure my hooks were barbless.
-
I was checked last year on the Vedder, and this year at Furry Creek, by DFO. Good to see them out, and had a good chat with the officer. He wanted to know what flies were working. :D Seriously, please call it in. Sure, they can't be everywhere at once. But if they get enough complaints, maybe that will increase officer presence on the water! Last year we witnessed people giving chums the rock shampoo on the Stave when there was non-retention, and DFO did show up! You never know...
-
Just an FYI, using RAPP to report angling violations is only good if it concerns trout or steelhead. DFO are the guys that deal with salmon calls. Im not saying conservation officers dont ever answer to salmon calls because they do, but if you have noticed when you call RAPP they tell you to call the DFO radio room [i have done it and sadly I often get the answering machine]
nevertheless, things like snagging fish are hard to prove in a court of law unless you as the witness are willing to testify. Officers are looking to build a solid case that would do well in court and therefore respond to calls where they know they can take good evidence. for example, retaining wild coho or steelhead right now would be a great opportunity for DFO to come out, given that others witnessed and can identify the guy who did the poaching. It is not a question of where the fish is hooked just the fact that it was seen caught by mr. blue and the same species as reported is dead on the beach is evidence enough to charge mr. blue. If someone said mr. red snagged a pink, it is harder to prove unless there are videos or someone who is willing to testify, and because pinks are open they would have to give mr. red the benefit of the doubt, even if there were other wounds in the fish [the fish could have been injured, etc.]
this is what the officer told me first hand.
-
Yes and no. Using the RAPP line when reporting tidal waters and freshwater salmon offences, the dispatcher will transfer you to the appropriate DFO individual to file your report.
-
I was checked last year on the Vedder, and this year at Furry Creek, by DFO. Good to see them out, and had a good chat with the officer. He wanted to know what flies were working. :D Seriously, please call it in. Sure, they can't be everywhere at once. But if they get enough complaints, maybe that will increase officer presence on the water! Last year we witnessed people giving chums the rock shampoo on the Stave when there was non-retention, and DFO did show up! You never know...
I remember that. Pretty hard to plead ignorance when you get caught hiding the fish in the bushes!
-
I remember that. Pretty hard to plead ignorance when you get caught hiding the fish in the bushes!
;D ;D ;D
I see your point fishhunter. But even if there was a presence out there, it would deter poachers. Could the poachers just move somewhere else? Sure they could. But at least we're doing something to prevent the behaviour from occurring and it might make someone think twice about breaking the law in front of other people. Just knowing that there's a chance DFO could show up is a deterrent in itself. Is calling DFO going to stop all poaching? Of course not. People who want to poach will find a way to do it. But I believe it's our responsibility to do our part, and it starts with education like the OP indicated he tried to do (and I mean educate, don't berate or lecture). And yes, calling and having no body show up is frustrating. But I also find that when people post about poaching and don't do anything about - that's somewhat frustrating as well.
-
Although a guy I see that works at Berry's has pointed out a few and said they were "undercover" conservation officers, I guess looking for snagging or some such.
I forgot about the undercover guys, maybe they're out there more than I realize. I wonder if when they see a violation, do they write up the offender themselves or call in a uniformed officer?
D$
-
I forgot about the undercover guys, maybe they're out there more than I realize. I wonder if when they see a violation, do they write up the offender themselves or call in a uniformed officer?
D$
Wondering the same thing....I'm guessing probably both depending on the infraction.
-
they would have to write it up themselves despite breaking their cover. if they ignored it they would be violating their mandate as well as law and policy.
-
Jacked, that's my point- they could discretely radio / call a colleague, and stay undercover. But I think we might be over-thinking this- fish cops are not homicide detectives :)
D$
-
Jacked, that's my point- they could discretely radio / call a colleague, and stay undercover. But I think we might be over-thinking this- fish cops are not homicide detectives :)
D$
New tv reality show.....DFO/RAPP The Vedder/Fraser Bars Squad ;D
-
They are out there, even off duty. Two buddies of mine were bb'ing Spaghetti Bar last year and buddy #1 lands a spring. Guy fishing beside him says "Better make sure you mark that on your license" "Doesn't matter", buddy #1 replies as he marks his tag "you never see DFO out here anyways" "Oh..." says guy.
Buddy #2 tells Buddy #1 "I know that guy. He is a DFO Fisheries Officer and fishes here on his days off" :)
-
clarki- the DFO snags fish? Say it ain't so :o :o :( :-\ :-[
Well if their field officers snag sockeye that explains their stance on bottom bouncing :)
D$
-
clarki- the DFO snags fish? Say it ain't so :o :o :( :-\ :-[
Well if their field officers snag sockeye that explains their stance on bottom bouncing :)
D$
Because field officers set policy?
-
clarki- the DFO snags fish? Say it ain't so :o :o :( :-\ :-[
Well if their field officers snag sockeye that explains their stance on bottom bouncing :)
D$
Typhoon - please note this little guy above: -----> :) <-------
D$