Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sandy]

Sandman, I think you've pointed out the glaring difference between the letter of the law and the actual intent. I had never remotely considered that intent would be a consideration in the application of the regs. They may as well put a caveat saying you that may come across what appears to be a malformed adipose fin, if so you can keep the fish as it probably is a mis-clip.
not fair to those who return the fish and worse so if it was a prize fish, not fair to those who have not had the benefit of a CO's input on what is and what is not. also not fair to those who were in the know, but are placed under a cloud by others ( me included )who thought they were in the right.

 Unfortunately hard fought for budgets will have to pay for bureaucrats to sort this out, with definitive wording.

Mind Boggling

edit

and Skaha , I agree, I think this will have far wider implications than the Vedder fishery.

[blaydRnr]

Thanks Sandy for taking the time to communicate with DFO...at least now members of this forum have a reference and record of a written request for information pertaining to this topic.

After looking into other jurisdictions, ie. Oregan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Washington State, it is noted that fishermen there also have had debates over miss clipped fish...in some cases the regulations were reworded so no confusion arose. "hatchery fish is the absence of the adipose fin in it's entirety".

other states have adopted the Adipose Fin Clip Recognition which refers to the process as a simple way to identify hatchery-reared fish...included in their regulation booklet is a diagram chart which show in detail what is deemed legal vs illegal and the different scenarios of acceptable miss clipped identification markings.

[Sandman]

Sandman, I think you've pointed out the glaring difference between the letter of the law and the actual intent. I had never remotely considered that intent would be a consideration in the application of the regs. They may as well put a caveat saying you that may come across what appears to be a malformed adipose fin, if so you can keep the fish as it probably is a mis-clip.
not fair to those who return the fish and worse so if it was a prize fish, not fair to those who have not had the benefit of a CO's input on what is and what is not. also not fair to those who were in the know, but are placed under a cloud by others ( me included )who thought they were in the right.

 Unfortunately hard fought for budgets will have to pay for bureaucrats to sort this out, with definitive wording.

Mind Boggling

edit

and Skaha , I agree, I think this will have far wider implications than the Vedder fishery.

Yes, I am definitely not advocating you kill the fish (especially if you are a guide) as there is no guarantee how the judge will rule it with the wording the way it stands.  I personally would not mind you release it, so that I might catch it the next day. What I am saying is that you need not feel bad if you choose to kill it, as the partially clipped fin is still an indication that it originated in a hatchery and was put in the river for you to kill.

[skaha]

Yes, I am definitely not advocating you kill the fish (especially if you are a guide) as there is no guarantee how the judge will rule it with the wording the way it stands.  I personally would not mind you release it, so that I might catch it the next day. What I am saying is that you need not feel bad if you choose to kill it, as the partially clipped fin is still an indication that it originated in a hatchery and was put in the river for you to kill.

--Same for me.. the intent was to mark hatchery fish.. thus something that looks like mis-clipped.. probably is hatchery. Just saying it is bad PR if as a professional in the business you are charged even if you win the case in court ( or doesn't even make it to court)  there is a cloud of suspicion on your activities. The old if there's smoke there's fire... others have mentioned the perception of conflict.. that is fisheries or hatchery or volunteer staff feel they can identify with confidence a mis-clipped hatchery fish which is intended to be retained.
--Government workers especially cannot be perceived to benefit from their knowledge of the system.

[blacktail2]

The CO service will be attending show, so maybe someone going might pose this question to a CO, better yet maybe Rodney can show the CO his photo and get the word from the man either writing he ticket or saying nice fish.

[Sandman]

The CO service will be attending show, so maybe someone going might pose this question to a CO, better yet maybe Rodney can show the CO his photo and get the word from the man either writing he ticket or saying nice fish.

Damn! I totally forgot to ask.

[skaha]

--What if the guys says no and puts the cuff on him with the evidence presented.

[Sandy]

I'm told (OFR) that a clarification and a directive is going to be issued by Victoria in near future after the legal begals give their say. No preview of content was given.

Rod was in the right to keep the fish as he was told it was local practice to keep what appears to be a miss-clipped fish. I think the problem may be that others in other jurisdictions may have been charged and or convicted for the same.


 

[blacktail2]

Well guys, i am going to mention another scenario as presented by a CO i came across while fishing the river. He point out a "Missing Adipose Fin" is just that "Missing" not partially missing but entirely missing with a healed scar in place of the fin. He mentioned that in past years there were cases of fishermen cutting off the adipose fin with a knife in one quick swish and then releasing the fish back into the river. Now we all know these fish spawn and return again the next year, so what happens to the cut off adipose fin? It scars over CO states, now what happens if the entire fin was not removed with the swipe of the unethical fishers blade?

I would not be keeping any fish unless the entire adipose fin was missing and a healed scar was in its place. I cannot remember which post had the definition in about a hatchery fish. It reads a missing adipose fin and a healed scar in its place not two thirds or three quarters missing.

We need some major clarification on this so it is very clear for all to understand in black and white.. Just my humble opinion..
I have run into the odd over zealous CO while out fishing and i would not want to be the guy he makes an example of ! 
                                                             Happy fishing guys

[blaydRnr]

Well guys, i am going to mention another scenario as presented by a CO i came across while fishing the river. He point out a "Missing Adipose Fin" is just that "Missing" not partially missing but entirely missing with a healed scar in place of the fin. He mentioned that in past years there were cases of fishermen cutting off the adipose fin with a knife in one quick swish and then releasing the fish back into the river. Now we all know these fish spawn and return again the next year, so what happens to the cut off adipose fin? It scars over CO states, now what happens if the entire fin was not removed with the swipe of the unethical fishers blade?

 

sorry to tell you this, but you can't correlate an obvious criminal offense with an act of good faith or intent, based on the premise of "what could be" as a result of "what might have happened".
just like having a person illegally introduce a ferrel species of fish into a local body of water then have some unsuspecting fishermen catch it only to release it because he/she could not identify the fish...then having DFO charge them with the very same crime.

if it's black and white you're looking for then "a healed scar in place of an adipose fin" is exactly what it says...where a digit was once in place no longer exist, but in it's stead the markings or 'scar' showing where it was removed.

Judicial Interpretation

The Plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts.[1] The other two are the “mischief rule” and the “golden rule.”

The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute, unless a statute explicitly defines some of its terms otherwise. In other words, the law is to be read word for word and should not divert from its ordinary meaning

if a scar is in existence where a fin should be then it is an identification that indicates a hatchery reared fish...."a scar in place"... doesn't say "in part" nor "in whole" or "in it's entirety".... just the existence of a scar to identify the fish.

[blacktail2]

No need to be sorry blade! I was out fishing on the weekend and ran across a CO so i thought i would ask. His response was the regs state a hatchery fish has its adipose fin missing and a healed scar in its place period. He states a fish with a partial adipose fin is not considered a hatchery fish and is considered wild and goes on to explain a deformed fin etc, it was quite a lecture. He stated exactly what the rules say in the regs and that is what he enforces. I suppose it depends on the CO , what kind of day he is having etc as to whether he writes a ticket or not.
It is clearly written in black and white, missing adipose and a healed scar. There is no in between written in the regs. So as i mentioned earlier there needs to be some work done on this and i think we all know which way its going to end up when the legal beagles get ahold of this, the rules will probably stay the same or even enhanced saying the whole fin must be removed and a healed scar in its place. It cant get any clearer than that.
you say this (if it's black and white you're looking for then "a healed scar in place of an adipose fin" is exactly what it says...where a digit was once in place no longer exist, but in it's stead the markings or 'scar' showing where it was removed. ) We are talking about a partial fin in place and the balance a scar, you are sounding like the whole fin is missing here. I think a judge would say that if there was a partial fin there the fin is not missing it is partially missing just like cutting the tip of ones finger off.

Just wanted to share the CO'S opinon, not mine. So i would nt be bonking one, really how much risk is one willing to take for a fish its not worth it to me to lose all my gear and get a ticket..  

[blaydRnr]

don't get me wrong. i release more than i bonk. i'm merely stating what is written in the legislation and it's up to the individual to decide what's right for them.

hopefully in the near future, they will make amends with the wording of the regulations.

[blaydRnr]

He states a fish with a partial adipose fin is not considered a hatchery fish and is considered wild and goes on to explain a deformed fin etc, it was quite a lecture. He stated exactly what the rules say in the regs and that is what he enforces. I suppose it depends on the CO , what kind of day he is having etc as to whether he writes a ticket or not.

deformity of the adipose fin? with all the report of miss clips... is this CO suggesting there's a genetic abnormality running through our steelhead stock? maybe this guy needs to talk with his colleagues because as stated on page 3 they can't seem to agree on the definition and interpretation of their own regulation.
 
 










 

[Sandman]

No need to be sorry blade! I was out fishing on the weekend and ran across a CO so i thought i would ask. His response was the regs state a hatchery fish has its adipose fin missing and a healed scar in its place period. He states a fish with a partial adipose fin is not considered a hatchery fish and is considered wild and goes on to explain a deformed fin etc, it was quite a lecture. He stated exactly what the rules say in the regs and that is what he enforces. I suppose it depends on the CO , what kind of day he is having etc as to whether he writes a ticket or not.
It is clearly written in black and white, missing adipose and a healed scar. There is no in between written in the regs. So as i mentioned earlier there needs to be some work done on this and i think we all know which way its going to end up when the legal beagles get ahold of this, the rules will probably stay the same or even enhanced saying the whole fin must be removed and a healed scar in its place. It cant get any clearer than that.
you say this (if it's black and white you're looking for then "a healed scar in place of an adipose fin" is exactly what it says...where a digit was once in place no longer exist, but in it's stead the markings or 'scar' showing where it was removed. ) We are talking about a partial fin in place and the balance a scar, you are sounding like the whole fin is missing here. I think a judge would say that if there was a partial fin there the fin is not missing it is partially missing just like cutting the tip of ones finger off.

Just wanted to share the CO'S opinon, not mine. So i would nt be bonking one, really how much risk is one willing to take for a fish its not worth it to me to lose all my gear and get a ticket.. 

The point blaydRnr was making regarding the "plain meaning" rule is that just as the regulations do not say a "partially removed fin" neither does it say an "entirely removed fin."  It refers to the presence of a healed scar in the place of a fin.  If you look at Rod's photo, even though the fin is not entirely removed, the part that is removed is replaced by a healed scar.  To suggest that a partially removed fin with a healed scar (this is NOT a deformity, it is a scar), is not a hatchery fish is just trying to make an excuse to write a ticket (they get to write so few of them). Once again, I assert that the mis-clipped fish is indeed a hatchery fish and so you need not feel bad if you kill it (it was bred for you to do so), however, I would not suggest you do so, as you could find yourself having to defend your decision in front of a judge who may or may not agree with you.  What we really need is someone to be charged and take it to the Supreme Court to have the precedent set.  If you are ever charged, I would be happy to act as your defense council.  My will to continue teaching is being drained these days. 

[Sandy]

and as I was told yesterday, "don't let me catch you with one" and if you are having difficulty understanding the written stuff ,there are a couple of diagrams to look at. I got the feeling this very nice fella  was tired of the question. I for one will be glad when a clarification comes forth, whatever it is.