Don't be poochin' round here!

Gotta agree with Mike here - if someone puts a gill net across the river but doesn't get any salmon should we look at impact?  Or intent?  Surely it's intent.

But, again, intent with a barbed hook and no report card is hardly more than just sportfishing by the rules.

You're both right!   

If a guy is on the river this time of year with drift gear and a spin and glow what do you think he's targeting?  The town is full of folks like this, that knows there is no warden in town anymore, and I for one, APPLAUD Mahi for getting out of his car and helping the resource.

I'll second this statement right here.  Good stuff Mahi.  They should have this bust in the newspaper there.  Right on man.

Nope the courts already provide for that.

So you agree that the current system does take impact into consideration? And to do so is indeed just?

Here's another scenario for you:

I've read a first person account of a flyfisherman appearing before a judge, on a barbed hook citation. Now, the hook was indeed barbed, and the angler was in a barbless area. But the angler had taken the time to flatten out the barb, but didn't get it completely removed. Should the judge take this fact into into consideration? If not, then why not?

Regards,
Scott

P.S. - regarding repeat offenses, the government has been keeping track of these things for a while, so if you are a repeat offender, the judge and DA will know. The judge and DA also know that first offenders are statistically less likely to repeat a particular offense, than repeat offenders, regardless of the amount of the fine. Thus, many first time offenders do get a "slap on the wrist", relative to punishments doled out to repeat offenders.

If I remember correctly, the F&G code for barbless hooks does say "barbless", and not "pinched barb".

(just trying to add fuel to the fire)

 

Way to go Dan, you've got my support!!

I can't believe this thread is still going, seems like someone is trying hard not to let it die.

So you agree that the current system does take impact into consideration? And to do so is indeed just?

I think everybody does, the crime we are talking had no impact so let me make it simple for you if he is fishing for Steelhead without a punch card and the fine is $100 and he pleads Guilty, No Contest or is convicted he should pay the $ 100 plus Court Charges if it goes to trial. If he had caught a fish that would be a differant crime and he should pay more.

I've read a first person account of a flyfisherman appearing before a judge, on a barbed hook citation. Now, the hook was indeed barbed, and the angler was in a barbless area. But the angler had taken the time to flatten out the barb, but didn't get it completely removed. Should the judge take this fact into into consideration? If not, then why not?

In this case I think the Judge should double the fines because Fly Fisherman are much more intellagent than the rest of us and if he couldn't figure out the barbed thingy he has no business fishing in the first place. 

In this case I think the Judge should double the fines because Fly Fisherman are much more intellagent than the rest of us and if he couldn't figure out the barbed thingy he has no business fishing in the first place. 

If I remember correctly, the F&G code for barbless hooks does say "barbless", and not "pinched barb".

(just trying to add fuel to the fire)

 

Haha, Fuel noted Dan! BTW, THE book reads:

Barbless Hook. A fish hook from which the barb or barbs have been removed or completely bent closed, or which is manufactured without barbs.

semantics...... 

John