So you're suggesting it's better to step in, save a fishes life and give the perpetrator a stern talking to..... and as soon as the officer turns his back he'll do it all over again.....
as opposed to letting the perpetrator complete his violation so that they have evidence that he can be charged with in court??
If it saves even one Chilcotin/Thompson Steelhead or Interior bound Coho, along with anything else that is not opened for retention, then yes by all means.
Like you said, their gonna do it again, so in the mean time why not save the ones they can. By all means fine them if they have already killed the fish, but if it's possible to save the fish, then the warning and/or lesson from the Co should be given instead.
Let me ask you this..... hypothetically speaking of course..... If you were to catch a steelhead when fishing sockeye and didn't know the difference, would you rather have a CO tell you that it was a steelhead and that you should let it go as they are not open for retention ?? Or would you want them to let you kill it and then give you a hefty fine and possibly take your fishing gear and truck too ??
See where I'm going with this??
It's not all about giving people fines {even though we all know some DO need to be slapped with one} , it's about teaching them the legal way of sports fishing {if you want to call it that
}while still saving what precious fish we have left. You can not be prejudice when talking about certain species of salmon and/or steelhead, all are just as equal IMO, but when it comes to the interior steelhead and coho, it seems to ruffle my feathers more so than others, but that's just my feelings.
Gee, maybe I am being prejudice, but oh well
Some people {the ones taking too many } just need to get with the program, but there will always be the morons who are nothing but greedy buggers who don't give a damn and keep on practicing their debauchery.
Just my 0.02 for what it's worth