Round 1—Bluefin Tuna—Poacher?
A guy on the East Coast catches a 80-pound bluefin tuna from the surf.
It’s illegal, but unexpected, and the catch of a lifetime. What should he do?
A guy on the East Coast catches a 80-pound bluefin tuna from the surf.
It’s illegal, but unexpected, and the catch of a lifetime. What should he do?
Date: October 1, 2002To: PFIC Message Board
From: corbinaman1
Subject: 80# Bluefin Tuna From Shore!!!
Saw this on allcoast ... didn't believe it until I read the newspaper article. Truly a catch of a lifetime from shore!!!
Posted by OB Pier Rat
Wow!!! Incredible story...Thanks corbinaman! Makes ya think anything is possible.
Posted by COPENHAGEN_FLU
Makes me wanna break out the surf rods again!!!!!
Posted by SD Fisherman
Speechless.... Now that is a great catch!!! Now wouldn't that be something if a CALIFORNIA angler landed one of those bad boys from the beach! I can only imagine. An epic catch indeed. Tuna from shore is almost out of this galaxy. Thanks for the info Corbinaman! I'm psyched up for my next outing for sure! ~Don aka SDF~
Posted by mmmmfiiiish
How intense would that be?
Posted by Sinker
Big Surprise. Now wouldn’t that just make your day. Talk about a catch of a lifetime.
Posted by pEsCaDoR5312
And I just bought my surf rod!!! let's do this!!!
Posted by break_the_bank
He is a poacher. He needed a special license to keep that bluefin tuna. He is no different than people who keep greenling and cabs illegally.
Posted by BigUnInDaBoat
BS dude, yes I read it. But the law is there FOR COMMERICAL fisherman, so they cannot illegally sell their catch. I for one would like to see you release that fish if you had caught it in the same manner pal, not to mention the fish exhausted itself during the fight and it would of NEVER been able to survive. "Gee I caught a fish of a lifetime, its dead and won’t live if I release it...oh well let the beautiful creature rot in the surf" Is that what should of happened? AWESOME CATCH STRIPERMIKE!!!!!!!!!! You are the KING! BUIDB
Posted by break_the_bank
You are wrong! He is a POACHER! Read the story again! Pay attention to this paragraph: “Brad McHale, a fishery management specialist for the Highly Migratory Species Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service, said landing the fish was a violation of the law” If I land a 20-pound cabezon after fighting it for a long time and the cab is about to die, can I keep the fish just because it's the biggest cab I’ve ever caught and it's about to die? You think if a F&G warden sees me he would let me go after I tell him that I kept it because it was about to die?
Posted by pescare
But, But, But...There's always a but when someone wants to justify poaching. He poached. Period. From the article: “But there is a slight catch to this catch: A person needs a license from the National Marine Fisheries Service to catch bluefin tuna. Brad McHale, a fishery management specialist for the Highly Migratory Species Division of the National Marine Fisheries Service, said landing the fish was a violation of the law ... The licenses are meant mostly for commercial fishermen or those who fish off boats ... Bluefin tuna caught accidentally are supposed to (be) returned to the ocean. McHale said the (NMFS) or the Massachusetts Environmental Police will decide whether Cragin should be penalized.” The license is clearly NOT only for commercial fishermen. If so, why would the organizations be considering charges? What else could, “Bluefin tuna caught accidentally are supposed to (be) returned to the ocean.” possibly mean? It's just like taking stripers here without a stamp, or abalone without a card. He poached. Period. Doesn't matter how extraordinary the fish was. Ed
Posted by Red Fish
Question for you Pescare ... since you are well informed on the regs. A few more buts here. If you fight a fish and the line snaps right near the shore as you are lifting it up and you step into the water and grab the fish, is that violation. Second scenario. You have a “hitch-hiker” and you net the fish, is that a “fair catch.”
Posted by pescare
I'm not any better informed than most that use this board probably. I'm just more vocal than most about the violations we see discussed here, I think. To completely explain why would take far too long to be practical, but it boils down to two main reasons. I have always been a staunch protector of our environment and resources and I believe poaching is a direct assault on a valuable and fragile resource. Also, I'm a very straight-forward type of guy and I like to look at things simply and clearly when possible. I get very p****d off when I see people try to make poaching seem acceptable by confusing the situation with lame excuses and questionable details. If the limit on salmon, stripers and lings is two each, how many can you take? Pretty simple question, but we've seen many cases here where people try to make it complex. Think of the many times over-limit fishing on boats has come up here. Lots of lame excuses brought up every time it's mentioned. We'll talk more about it while fishing someday.
“If you a fight a fish and the line snaps right near the shore as you are lifting it up and you step into the water and grab the fish, is that violation?”
I can't think of a reason it would be illegal. There are only a few regulations regarding how you land a fish and I don't think "Hand-Landing" would be a problem. It's just like reaching into the water to lift a fish that is still on your line, right?
“You have a "hitch-hiker” and you net the fish, is that a “fair catch?”
Tough one here. Don't think there is a specific regulation against this, but of course, the fish didn't voluntarily take the bait or lure (YOUR bait or lure) either. I believe the law is in place to protect against snagging though and seriously doubt that anyone would get nailed for this.
What are your thoughts on these two Red? Ed
Posted by Red Fish
I think both are stretching the law... “It's just like reaching into the water to lift a fish that is still on your line, right?” O.K., it's like reaching into the water to lift a fish that is still on your line, but the difference is that know the fish is no longer attached to your line. On the second one, I am reading into exactly as the fish did not voluntarily take the hook. When a fish is snagged in the head while plugging, it did not voluntarily take the hook. Is one offense lesser than another? In many cases, it would be considered so. Something for all good anglers to think about.
Posted by pescare
Red, we don't have to read too deeply between the lines to see what you are getting at here but I think it's a bit of a stretch. “O.K., it's like reaching into the water to lift a fish that is still on your line, but the difference is that know the fish is no longer attached to your line.” Yeah, but I still don't see how this could be considered a violation. What regs do you have in mind here? Say you hook a perch and just as you are lifting your line over the rail, it shakes off your hook and lands on the deck. If you had intended to keep the fish are you now going to release it because you didn't physically remove the hook? Don't think anyone would. “On the second one, I am reading into exactly as the fish did not voluntarily take the hook. When a fish is snagged in the head while plugging, it did not voluntarily take the hook.” Well, you'd have to look at specific regulations and species to use that argument. It is not illegal to keep a foul-hooked fish of most species. Ed
Posted by Red Fish
The terminology landed ... to me that means the fish touched land first. True, certain fish can be “foul-hooked” legally. True, just as snagging is perfectly legal of certain types of fish in saltwater. But still, a “hitch-hiker” is not voluntarily taking the hook.
Posted by Predator
So, what's the point? “But still, a ‘hitch-hiker’ is not voluntarily taking the hook.” And???? So what? Does the “voluntarily” verbiage apply to the fish in question? If not, case closed. I think you already know the case is closed. People often start a sentence with “But still” when they know themselves that the facts are out and the case is closed. “Landing a fish to me that means the fish touched land first.” REALLY RED? Come on, now, buddy. Think about what you just said.
#1: Now, think about salmon fishing and wading in the water up to your chest. Think of catching a salmon and “LANDING” it while you're still waist deep in water. It never “touched land.”
#2: How about on a boat, you get the fish to the side of the boat and you net it. It never “touched land.”
#3: You're fishing for stripers at Crockett, off the rocks. You reel in a striper, and without a net - are you going to swing him up by the line? Heck no, you're going to reach into the water and lift him out of the water. Then, you may take the hook out and set him free. He never “touched land.”
I've said enough - I think if anyone here wanted to be a judge, they could pass verdict right now.
So, Red. I think I've given YOU something to think about this time, no? “PREDATOR, a man of many words.”
Posted by baitfish
Angling definition is not applicable. The whole argument is based on the definition of “angling” This definition does not apply to shore fishing, only pier fishing, and that will be removed in 2003 anyway. The term used is “take”, and therefore voluntarily taking the hook does not apply. The catch was legal. Adam
Posted by Red Fish
What method of take is applicable...netting fish? Fishing with your hands?
Posted by baitfish
Take is the method
1.80. Take. Hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill fish, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or invertebrates or attempting to do so. It is legal to catch fish by hand, or to hand net a fish, but there are restrictions on net size of course. Sport licenses allow spearing as well, hooking a fish is not the only method allowed when fishing in saltwater. Hitchhiking fish are 100% legal. Adam
I fish therefore I... spend too much money on gear.
Posted by Red Fish
O.K., I will remember to bring my spear with me the next time I go fishing and my nets. Agreed.
Posted by Predator
Fishing with hands....Gunni Gu Gu
Posted by Predator
Good thoughts, RED!! I love it. Stimulate the mind and make us think. Thank you. Now if I may comment since I'm the center of attention with both of these "scenarios"(as they are BOTH the exact situations that I have personally been in.)
The first situation Red is referring to is my sturgeon that broke off at the very end, snapping the line and I went in after him. To truly take a stance on the legality of this, we'd have to liken it to other situations and verify if we feel they are the same. Is my situation the same as when someone nets a fish, and it spits hook while in the net? Or how about when someone gaffs a fish, and the line snaps after, but they get it in? Gaff/Net/Hand - what's the difference? I'll tell you what the difference is right now—a gaff or net WILL hurt the fish, for sure 100% no doubt about it. A hand may not hurt the fish. So—the handjob (pardon my French) should be the favored method.
Second: Hitchhiker fish vs. snagging. You ask “Is one offense lesser than another?” The answer is a very easy and solid YES. My fish, the hitchhiker, is taken out of the water and measured. He does not have a scratch on him, not even a hook hole in the lip!(LOL) So, if he came up short, I could release him in 99% perfect condition. However, anytime you snag a fish, you damage it—sometimes in a way that may cause death later on. So I think that one is a no brainer: SNAGGING is a MUCH GREATER offense, IF hitchhiking is even an offense to begin with even. “PREDATOR, a man of many words.”
Posted by lucy
Stupid and stupider. Stupid to poach...and DOUBLE stupid to go bragging about to the point that you get your picture in the paper and splattered all over the Internet.
Posted by pescare
The Testosterone Thing Again. The idiot is okay with being labeled a poacher as long as he can show how big it was. Ed
Posted by lucy
Oh, don't go blaming the poor hormone. Got nothing to do with hormones, and everything to do with stupid beliefs and attitudes.
Posted by prometheus
I doubt he knew the regulations on tuna considering he was shore fishing. Too bad he wasn't from a pier where licenses are not required.
Posted by break_the_bank
If you shore fish in Southern California, do you know that Giant Black Sea Bass have to be released?
Posted by baitfish
Black (giant) sea bass must be released no matter what, not just from shore...Adam
Posted by BigUnInDaBoat
Ok But...this is still in PLAY: I for one would like to see you release that fish if you had caught it in the same manner pal, not to mention the fish exhausted itself during the fight and it would of NEVER been able to survive. “Gee I caught a fish of a lifetime, it’s dead and won’t live if I release it....oh well let the beautiful creature rot in the surf.” Is that what should of happened? AWESOME CATCH STRIPERMIKE!!!!!!!!!! You are the KING! (whether he released it or not it’s still one helluva catch and the skill it took to land that fish is more then most here have). BUIDB
Posted by break_the_bank
Last Sunday you were complaining about Asians keeping all the trash fish they catch and not knowing the F&G regulations. But today all the sudden you feel it's okay for this guy to break the law by keeping the tuna. Come on BUIDB, let's keep it consistent. Try not to pick and choose who you want to blame.
Posted by pescare
“I for one would like to see you release that fish if you had caught it in the same manner pal,”
Would have done it without a second thought. You HAVE to if you care about your integrity.
“not to mention the fish exhausted itself during the fight and it would of NEVER been able to survive.” We only have the angler's word on that, don't we? ""Gee I caught a fish of a lifetime, it’s dead and won’t live if I release it...oh well let the beautiful creature rot in the surf." Is that what should have happened?" Yes. Isn't that what the regs state? “AWESOME CATCH STRIPERMIKE!!!!!!!!!! You are the KING! (whether he released it or not its still on helluva catch and the skill it took to land that fish is more then most here have).” Sounds like FishSniffer stuff again. Ed
Posted by BigUnInDaBoat
Please you had to try and troll me with the Fishsniffer comment eh? What a guy. Trash fish? I never once said trash fish, I said they were keeping undersized lings and over limits of perch.
The regs back there do say he was supposed to release it, I have seen big fish die of exhaustion when you try to release them from trout to salmon...that fish would of died.
There has to be a medium here, the regs were not written for shore anglers (although it does state blah blah blah). He thought it was a massive striper or shark. I personally would not let a creature of its size and awe lay in the surf to become an 80-lb rotting piece of flesh. Poacher or not.
The problem I have is with the people who abuse the resources, like keeping 40 3-5 inch barred perch or under size lings when the regs are printed two feet away on the side of the skiff.
“Pescare and BTB you both seem to hound me and my every post.....if you have a problem with me email me..this is not the place.” The fishsniffer comment was juvenile. FYI, not everything written over on Fishsniffer and Anglernet under BUIDB was written by me...no I wasn’t an angel. But I know of one of you that writes here that is trying to do whatever he can to tarnish my image. And his website proves it. Dude will not email me and talk it out like men though. That’s ok I am sure I’ll bump into him one day and then we can talk. Keep it civil not juvenile. BUIDB
And you still wouldn’t of let that fish go....say what you want. You, like him, would of never read that deep into the regs to know that a bluefin (a species not targeted by shore anglers) would be illegal. You can say YES I WOULD HAVE, but innocent ignorance must be excused.
Posted by pescare
“Pescare and BTB you both seem to hound me and my every post...if you have a problem with me email me, this is not the place.” This quote made me think because I really didn't know what you were talking about. I went through the archives and only found three times that I responded to something you posted. Those include this thread, a question I asked about your recent Santa Cruz report, and a thread where you repeatedly accused many of us of calling the guy that caught the record salmon a liar. You ignored that fact that NOBODY questioned whether or not he caught the fish and repeatedly posted messages claiming that we did. Yeah, I got on you for that one. I think your quote may be just a bit of an overstatement. "And you still wouldn’t of let that fish go....say what you want." I like this one even more. You have never met me and know nothing about me personally. Do you really feel qualified to call me a liar? Do you know me better than I do? Ed
Posted by Predator
BigUn, a quick perspective for you. You listen to me, and then you make up your mind, ok? Pescare: He's not the "type." He won't hound you due to some hangup, and sit there and TRY to find something wrong with you to make you look bad. TRUST ME - because I have had my fair share of people that have done that with me. Plenty of folks here can vouch for that! Pescare is focused on the TOPIC at hand. You are a variable. Please understand that anytime you're discussing regulations and poaching Pescare will be there. And ask me what I think? I'm GLAD he's in every thread. Why? He's a great guy, and he has a very good interpretation of the regs. He's a man of honor and principles. Morally correct and firm in his judgement, swayed not by emotional pleas of circumstance. THAT is why I like the guy, and THAT is also why you should take his comments as though you're two adults discussing something, not fighting. Break the Bank: Seems to me this is the guy that's "hounding" you, but just barely, because he does have a bit of a point. Notice I say "bit" because there is a difference between filling buckets with fish and not caring vs. landing one fish, being overwhelmed and making the wrong decision. Am I excusing the guy? Nope. But I'm defending your original post below about poachers. Now, BreaktheBank is he Asian? Probably. Did he take it personally? Probably. He probably felt like many liberals do when they TRY to get offended. They hear a buzzword of race, and immediately think you're labeling 100% of that race as poachers. Additionally, he tried to rationalize it by saying that if there is an emotional circumstance, that it may be used as an excuse for poaching. No, no, no - on both counts. You merely made an observation. I stand by you on that. He got pis..., and now you're feeling the burn from that. Good luck, keep it cool, and everything will flow smooth again soon enough. “PREDATOR, a man of many words.”
Posted by BigUnInDaBoat
OK your right and I am sorry Pescare. It’s just when things get out of hand (I think this thread is done and we are not going to agree) I get ruffled. Pescare, you are a smart guy and I agree with you a lot. I really got pis... at the Fishsniffer comment, you knew that would incite me bro.
BTB whatever, why comment.... Predator said it right. AND FYI Asians didn’t kill the buffalo...it was the white man. (tongue in cheek) Things are not always said here straight across and I have a bad habit or good (depending on how you look at it) of reading in between the lines. I love to fish and I like my fellow fisherman. Only the guy who caught that fish knew if he made a honest mistake or not, if he did the good for him. If it turns out he knew the reg and disobeyed it then that different. I don’t believe that though. Thanks for making me realize the errors I made predator...your a good guy. BUIDB
Posted by pescare
No worries! Not a big problem.
Posted by johnr
Spirit of the law vs. letter of the law....Most of what I describe below is just things to consider and think about...no need to respond back. It's not directed at anyone and certainly not intended to start anything. I think what Big Un is referring to is "the spirit of the law".
Some background. There are white, grey, and black areas of the law.
white: clearly within the law
grey: unsure
black; clearly unlawful
Some interesting examples...is a person allowed to harm another person...Usually No (in the black)... BUT what if he is defending himself or another person. Then it is allowed (in the white). In this case a “BUT” changes the law.
As opposed to the “Letter of the Law” the “Spirit Of the Law” usually refers to when a person is in the grey or black but their act does not violate what the law was intended. Example if someone is going 67 in a 65. Most people including law enforcement officials would consider this not breaking the “spirit of the law.” Law enforcement does consider "the spirit of the law" especially for minor offenses. That is why many times there is inconsistency in enforcing some laws.
Going over the speed limit, jay walking, drinking under the age of 21, etc... (in the black) clearly against the law but most consider minor offenses and law enforcement takes into consideration the “spirt of the law” whether or not to enforce these laws.
Speaking of BigUn's position, BigUns was assuming the fish was dead...so anyone considering his position needs to also assume this fact. It appears to be within the “letter of the law” (black area) that an infraction occurred however is there a “BUT” that could make it a grey or white area? Is there any case law or interpretation of the law suggesting one way or another if the fish is clearly dead, what should the person do? What is the reason for a law that requires a fish be returned? Some consider that usually it is because the species numbers are down. Does returning a dead fish extend the species numbers? Most would consider no....impossible that a dead fish could reproduce...therefore the "spirit of the law" is considered not broken.
Another person may consider that other people could make the same argument when they catch a similar fish AND it is not dead and they kill it and claim that is was previously dead, therefore the “letter of the law” needs to be enforced to prevent and discourage similar events from occurring.
There is a difference between the two...in some cases the" letter of the law" will be enforced and in others the "spirit of the law" it depends on the circumstances and the people making the judgments and the person involved. Prior acts or the person's character is also considered.
Some interesting food for thought not related to anything in particular but more of an ethics question:
Should a person be given a negative label (like poacher) before all the facts are known?
If we are technically violating any laws be it a minor one like the speeding example I mentioned, is it fair to label someone else a violator or Poacher? Would that be a double standard? Do we only get louder when laws we are most interested in are broken? I'll have to admit I do. What if poaching or environmental laws are broken but in other parts of the world? Would one be as eager to condemn as opposed to in one's back yard? If no, is it a double standard? If one has had a child killed from a speeding driver, can this person label all others (including me) who exceed the speed limit a "criminal" or violator? Again I had some very rare free time on my hands and this is not intended at anyone.... wish I was fishing... just some things to ponder on. John
Posted by Predator
Good question: “What if poaching or environmental laws are broken but in other parts of the world? Would one be as eager to condemn as opposed to in one's back yard? If no, is it a double standard?” Well now. Personally, I would not. Why? Because you are right, it does not affect me, my country, or anything that I or my country have power over. You see, you can only get upset about the things under your control. We, all of us, in one way or another “control” our country, so to speak. SECOND: Influence. Most people get “into” things when they will have an influence on them. Most of the stuff going on outside our borders—we have no influence on. But, here in US, we've got influence. therefore we get upset. It's pointless to get upset and heated over something if you have no influence or control over it. “PREDATOR, a man of many words.”
Posted by surfstriper
Re: 80# Bluefin Tuna From Shore!!! OK I think this is the time for the Common Sense to kick in. I don't disagree with the fact that yes it was technically illegal to keep this fish. Listening to the Fish and Game people it sounds like they will using some common sense and not try to prosecute this guy. I would not be adverse to having this guy buy the necessary license after the fact. I think if the guy has been fishing for as long as he has and it turns out he has been following the laws in the past then common sense should prevail. This is an extremely rare occurrence!!!!!!! Treat it as such. This is very different situation from poachers who are trying to catch fish or crabs knowing it is illegal and then keep coming back and do it again. If you can't see the difference, that is too bad. Bottom line is that either you are trying to do the right thing or you aren't. If you are, good for you and if you aren't, you can start now. See you in the Surf SurfStriper
Posted by BigUnInDaBoat
Right on the $ SURFSTRIPER..you said it better.
Posted by Ken Jones
My 2 Cents Worth...It sounds pretty simple to me. You catch a huge fish that is illegal. Yes you should be proud of the great catch. But as soon as you've landed it you know you have to let it go. Maybe it's a once in a lifetime fish but you have to let it go. Did he try to hook it? No! But it's still illegal. If you were to bring in a huge black sea bass out here on the West Coast it would be a great shore/surf catch but as soon as landed it should be released. The guy back there on the East Coast also had a great surf catch but he should have known it was illegal and released it. There really isn't any gray area, it's pretty much black and white. What makes it tough is the fact that it was a great catch and I'm sure he wanted to show it to his friends, get credit for it, etc. But no matter if he knew or didn't know it was illegal he is responsible for his actions and since he didn't release the fish he deserves a ticket. We discuss this all the time and I thought everyone agreed that ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law. Would it be tough to let such a fish go, especially if it may not survive the long fight? You bet! But it is always the tough decisions like this that determine the true character of a person. I do not think he deserves a ticket for catching the fish (and he probably wouldn't get one) but he does deserve a ticket for keeping the fish once he saw what it was. And, I imagine he will get one.
Posted by baitfish
My 2 cents...I think they should ticket him, and he should fight it in court. If he loses then he is a poacher, if he wins, then he is INNOCENT. The man is still innocent until proven guilty.
People are screaming poacher, poacher, poacher. They are not ticketing him so far, because that would be bad PR, but even if they did, it would most likely be thrown out. From the article the extra permit is in regards to commercial fishing, to prevent the sale of bluefin without a commercial license. The spirit of the law is very important here, this one fish will not effect the fishery, and this will not be a common occurrence creating the argument well if he caught and kept then everyone should be able to. You could probably count on one hand the number of times this has happened in the last 50 years. Black sea bass is different, because these fish were caught with some regularity in previous years, they are not migratory and they take numerous years to grow, while bluefin are highly migratory, grow extremely fast and weren't caught from shore with regularity in the past. So, ticket him and let him have his day in court, or realize the inevitable and leave it as a freak occurrence, and be amazed at the guy’s ability to land this fish. Adam
Posted by pescare
Adam, are you on medication? Man, that post really doesn't sound like you. There is a big difference between being innocent and not being convicted. The guy caught the fish, he KEPT the fish, and he did not have the required license to do so. How do you see that as being innocent? The article makes it clear that the license is NOT just for commercial fishermen. As I said before, it that was the case why would the agencies involved be considering charges??? They can't just make up laws. Ed
Posted by baitfish
Adam, are you on medication? I know, I know. But sometimes there are special circumstances, and this is one of them. That is the reason judges are there, to decide whether this person was in violation of the laws intent. Like I said the guy should be ticketed, because he did break the law. But I think he should fight it because it is really not violating the intent of the law. This is only in regards to this particular species, which is where the judge comes in.
I just am annoyed that people seem so eager to scream POACHER!!!!!! Somebody said it was jealousy, it is not jealousy. This board follows the regs very closely, and that is good, but I get annoyed by all the postings that take somebody and feed him to the starving mob. I know you don't see a difference between this guy and someone who snags 20 salmon, but there is a difference. There are different degrees and extenuating circumstances, which is where the spirit of the law comes in.
All I'm saying is let the guy have his day in court, and if he is proven guilty, then label him poacher and hang him from the nearest tree etc... But this is a pretty weak offense. It would be like me catching a striper down here. I really can't think of a proper analogy for it, because of the species. The only thing I can think of is if I caught a striper here and kept it even though I did not have a striper stamp, (although I do have one). Personally, I would release it because I would want it to live and make more stripers way more than because I didn't have the stamp. BFT's are not endangered or rare in that area, it was just in shallow water rather than deep. On a scale of 1-10, I would rate the offense as a 1, and if I was the judge I would either dismiss it or give the guy a measly fine of maybe $25. Adam I fish therefore I... spend too much money on gear:
Posted by Predator
Spirit of the law—Pescare. That's Baitfish's medicine. And he does have a point, I think. Not a winning argument, but definitely a valid point that should not be swept under the carpet. (I noticed you didn't address his concept of the "spirit of the law" and how it pertains to the focus on the commercial guys selling these fish.) CLEAR AS DAY—the article does say that the licenses are “MEANT MOSTLY” for commercial guys on boats.
Please, if you would consider this comparison of the law about loitering. “LOITERING”—it is meant mostly for homeless people, to give us a law to get them off our property if we own a business (bum sitting at table meant for my customers). However, imagine if you and your little daughters merely stopped for a minute and sat at one of the tables. Most likely, you wouldn't get kicked out like the bum would. But technically, you loitered! This is sort of a "selective" law, like “we have the right to refuse service” type of a thing. But still, I think it helps add light in respect to the concept of “meant mostly” for. Let me remind everyone that I am not sticking up for the guy with the tuna, but rather trying to aid in putting forth the perspective that I feel my friend, Baifish, is coming from. “PREDATOR, a man of many words.”
Posted by baitfish
I am not saying the guy is not a poacher, I am just saying that he is not this "evil-doer" that this thread has made him out to be. When you look at the whole picture, which a day in court would do, I think it would either be thrown out, or a measly fine would be given as a gesture of nice fish, but don't do it again. Adam
Posted by Red Fish
Label him poacher and hang him from the nearest tree, etc.. Wow, you sure do take fishing serious baitfish, LOL
Posted by baitfish
Well that's what has happened here...
Posted by pescare
That's worth more than 2 cents! Thanks for trying as I did, to keep this issue as simple as it really is.
Posted by Red Fish
Ken, It would nice if we had a knowledgeable representative of the D.F..G to field questions instead of people making their own interpretations of the "letter of the law." Misinformation can be a real shot in the foot. It seems like Rick Powers is going to have some company. Integrity does seem to be the question. Things like keeping an over-sized fish, an unfair catch or rounding a fishes weight up to the nearest placeholder.
Posted by Ken Jones
My assumptions...
(1) No matter what area, East Coast or West Coast, anglers are supposed to follow the rules.
(2) Even though I primarily fish from piers I know what the other species are and their limits—size and number. I assume most pier and surf fishermen are the same, they have a fairly wide knowledge of the different species and of the rules.
(3) This angler appears to be an experienced surf fisherman.
(4) As such, he should know and follow the rules.
I never called him a poacher. I think he hooked a fish of a lifetime and decided to keep it. He may or may not have considered the consequences of his actions. However, he SHOULD have considered the consequences.
In addition, the blurring of the lines between recreational and commercial has been a problem for years on the East Coast. For many years it was a common practice for "sportsmen" to catch a large quantity of fish and then sell them. States over the past twenty or so years have been trying to change the situation but have not totally stopped the practice. I do not know how this catch relates to that issue but I can see the Fish and Game of that state being concerned.
Posted by Hyok
I think you put it well, Ken. It does take a lot of character, and it would be very tough to let the fish go. What I object to is the Puritanical, holier-than-thou condemnation of this guy as a poacher, because he did not do something that we all agree is very difficult to do. If one is to be castigated for being less than 100% courageous and gutsy in life, well... then we all are guilty sometimes.
Posted by corbinaman1
Let's End This “Poacher” Witch Hunt! I didn't expect this thread to morph into some sort of "poacher witch-hunt" on this guy!? While technically, he may have “poached.” when I think of poachers, what comes to mind is people who knowingly and willingly take mass quantities of illegal sea life (ex...buckets of undersized abalone, many undersized bocaccio, numerous short halibut, etc.) and will repeat the process MANY TIMES AGAIN in the future. This is different in that he hooked one highly "freak" migratory fish, and will NEVER catch one from shore again in his lifetime due to the rarity of this catch. He will get a slap on the wrist for his catch if even that...truly a lifetime catch from shore!