Too many walleye

[emma17]

[QUOTE=NP4ME;4812362]Seriously?? He was caught with 25 more than the legal limit...[/QUOTE]

I think I understand LOW1's point. I don't think he's saying the guy wasn't wrong and doesn't deserve punishment for having too many fish in his possession. However, from a "protecting the fishery" perspective, which is what most concerns me anyway, many fisherman catch and kill the same number of fish in a week, but it's legal for them because they eat or give away enough so they never have more than four in possession.
It's possible this guy didn't eat a single fish the entire trip, and in effect, saved all his catches for one large fish fry, rather than a daily fish fry.

Mistake on his part for sure, but not enough information to know if he had any more impact on the fishery than fisherman that eat their possession every day.

[LOW1]

[QUOTE=NP4ME;4812362]Seriously?? He was caught with 25 more than the legal limit...[/QUOTE]

But we don't know if he did any more harm to the resource than a law abiding angler. If this guy was there 8 days and kept 3 or 4 per day and ate these fish he committed no crime but if he fails to eat them he gets whacked for $4000 and a 5 year ban. Under either scenario the resource has been affected to the exact same extent.

From what we know it may not even be accurate to call him a poacher.

The penalty for any crime should be proportionate to the harm caused and should be based on the individual circumstances.

[bigwillies]

[QUOTE=LOW1;4812738]But we don't know if he did any more harm to the resource than a law abiding angler. If this guy was there 8 days and kept 3 or 4 per day and ate these fish he committed no crime but if he fails to eat them he gets whacked for $4000 and a 5 year ban. Under either scenario the resource has been affected to the exact same extent.

From what we know it may not even be accurate to call him a poacher.

The penalty for any crime should be proportionate to the harm caused and should be based on the individual circumstances.[/QUOTE]

In Ontario possession limit is 4. Doesn't matter how long he was there.

[NP4ME]

emma17 and LOW1,

I think the Ontario laws are pretty clear that possession is 4. Nowhere can you confuse it with being able to be in possession of that many fish. And feel free to assume this poor gentlemen was a victim of circumstance (or a victim of society) and never ate or killed another walleye the entire time he was there. I have some ocean front property for sale too...

NP

[pjshorthorn]

[QUOTE=LOW1;4812738]
The penalty for any crime should be proportionate to the harm caused and should be based on the individual circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Unless I have missed something, it seems this is exactly what the MNR has done. :huh:

PjShorthorn :rock-on:

[That Minnesota guy]

Poaching is poaching. I think in the spirit of good will both countries should support the others game laws.

[emma17]

[QUOTE=NP4ME;4813402]emma17 and LOW1,

I think the Ontario laws are pretty clear that possession is 4. Nowhere can you confuse it with being able to be in possession of that many fish. And feel free to assume this poor gentlemen was a victim of circumstance (or a victim of society) and never ate or killed another walleye the entire time he was there. I have some ocean front property for sale too...

NP[/QUOTE]

I think you're missing the point.
I won't speak for LOW1. I get it, the possession limit is 4, and he is 100% guilty of violating that law, and should be punished.

I'm simply stating, from the perspective of damage to the fishery, neither you, nor any poster on this thread, knows if the 27 or 29 fish he had were the total he caught that week or not. If that was the total, the damage to the fishery is no different than all those fisherman that catch their limit and eat them each day, and then go and catch their limit the next day, and on and on. That's all I'm saying and I believe that's all LOW1 is saying.

[Ver88]

[QUOTE=LOW1;4812738]But we don't know if he did any more harm to the resource than a law abiding angler. If this guy was there 8 days and kept 3 or 4 per day and ate these fish he committed no crime but if he fails to eat them he gets whacked for $4000 and a 5 year ban. Under either scenario the resource has been affected to the exact same extent.

From what we know it may not even be accurate to call him a poacher.

The penalty for any crime should be proportionate to the harm caused and should be based on the individual circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Poaching is the illegal taking of fish or game and from the sounds of it that is what this person did. So I think it is completely accurate to call him a poacher. If I was a Canadian I would not want him in my country either. He got what he deserved.

[LOW1]

[QUOTE=Ver88;4814306]Poaching is the illegal taking of fish or game and from the sounds of it that is what this person did. So I think it is completely accurate to call him a poacher. If I was a Canadian I would not want him in my country either. He got what he deserved.[/QUOTE]

As you say, poaching is the illegal taking of game. All what we know is that the violator in this case illegally possessed fish. We do not know if he illegally took this fish. Therefore, whether he is or is not a poacher is unknown.

And do you all realize that anyone who catches a walleye (even if it is later released) while having yesterday's limit of four walleye in the freezer back at the cabin commits the same crime that this guy did? Why? because the fifth fish was in your possession while you were releasing it.

A five year ban for that?

[Golden Eagle]

....................and we haven't even discussed:

1. Catching and eating a shore lunch on Friday, then catching and freezing a limit to take home, flying out of camp at 5:30 a.m. Saturday morning.

2. One guy butchers 8 walleyes in the fish house while his partner is 200 feet away, in the cabin, having a drink while peeling taters.