Print

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

[Fish Assassin]

I posed this question to a CO about 7-8 years ago when fishing near Kamloops. His reply was whomever kills the fish, has assumed possession of it and counts against your limit, regardless if you are only helping your fishing buddy. He also mentioned that there is some leeway and case by case basis in enforcing or not enforcing. For example, humanely killing a fish that your younger child caught, assisting a disabled person etc.

I was told by a CO that whoever lands the fish.

[Steelhawk]

I posed this question to a CO about 7-8 years ago when fishing near Kamloops. His reply was whomever kills the fish, has assumed possession of it and counts against your limit, regardless if you are only helping your fishing buddy. He also mentioned that there is some leeway and case by case basis in enforcing or not enforcing. For example, humanely killing a fish that your younger child caught, assisting a disabled person etc.

That sounds reasonable until you look at the killing of fish by a guide who may be guiding some ladies. Don't expect the ladies (with some exception) to be willing to bonk their landed fish The guides are the netters and final executioners in most cases. So how many tickets he will get if he tells a CO the truth. LOL.

[blaydRnr]

Its about possession and when the possession occurs.  It pretty cut and dry that when you land a fish with your hands and kill it that you have now assumed possession for it. Also why bother fighting the pinch in court just pay it. You're gonna have to rely on how the judge rules and that's always a crap shoot.

Now if they were not watching and only saw it in the back of your truck tottle different story.

Now here lies the problem with semantics vs. intent.  If it's imperative to follow the letter of the law, then there can be no exceptions therefore, guides can't help dispatch fish for squeamish customers, the disabled are on there own, and children can not be aided by there parents regardless of situation or possible endangerment to the child.

No such thing as cut and dry...only the level of intelligence on the part of the CO to decipher the intent of a person regarding the rules of fair play.

[halcyonguitars]

Well, if it's the netter/bonker that is technically the retainer, the same angler could catch an unlimited amount of fish as long as there was a queue of licensed anglers willing to net and bonk them.

Somehow I doubt it's like that...

[blaydRnr]

Could you imagine the response you would get if you started calling the RAPP line every time you reported someone bonking a fish for a friend...really people, how about using common sense and not bowing down to stupidity.

Here are some fine laws that I bet most people didn't know still existed in Canada.

http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/international/canada

[DanL]

Whomever dispatches it is considered to have retained it? That sounds bogus IMHO.

I often offer to help bonk and bleed fish for strangers as I cant stand watching people feebly try to bash a fish ten times with a rock as its flopping around, or have them just rip out the gills and let it slowly expire on the bank. A few sharp quick blows and a knife to the gills dispatches them the most humanely, and if they want to write me up for that, I'll be seeing them in court.

[halcyonguitars]

I feel a bit perturbed when I see folk just letting them flop around until they die. And watching them rip out the gills while they're still alive...

[wildmanyeah]

Whomever dispatches it is considered to have retained it? That sounds bogus IMHO.

I often offer to help bonk and bleed fish for strangers as I cant stand watching people feebly try to bash a fish ten times with a rock as its flopping around, or have them just rip out the gills and let it slowly expire on the bank. A few sharp quick blows and a knife to the gills dispatches them the most humanely, and if they want to write me up for that, I'll be seeing them in court.

But they won't and you know that because what you are doing is being a reasonable human being. You also probably don't do it after you have limited out ether most cases. There gonna pinch you when known offender or have done something else against the law. Also there gonna use it in cases of fish abuse like killing fish and dumping them back in the river.

lol I don't no why you took such offence, you haven't been doing anything wrong.

[DanL]

You also probably don't do it after you have limited out ether most cases.

I would absolutely continue offer to dispatch/bleed other peoples fish even after having retained my daily limit, which to be honest rarely ever happens

[wildmanyeah]

Well, if it's the netter/bonker that is technically the retainer, the same angler could catch an unlimited amount of fish as long as there was a queue of licensed anglers willing to net and bonk them.

Somehow I doubt it's like that...

Yeah that would be legal as long as the netter.bonkers retained them and took them home.

Also you can catch an an unlimited amount of fish its called catch and releases. You just can't have more in your possession then your licensed for.

[Birkenhead]

I probably worded my post incorrectly yesterday. I'll see if I can contact a CO today and get their opinion on this subject.

[NothingToSnagAbout]

Also you can catch an an unlimited amount of fish its called catch and releases. You just can't have more in your possession then your licensed for.

Not true with Steelhead.