Fisherman Caught With 40 Extra Trout In Maragree! - Page 2 - Fishing in the News - Nova Scotia Fishing

Jump to content


Photo

Fisherman Caught With 40 Extra Trout In Maragree!


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#21 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 09 October 2013 - 08:32 AM

As the owner of a fishing tackle shop i can tell you that my experience in dealing with the fishing public on a daily basis is the complete opposite of what you experience. Far and away the majority of the people i talk to everyday are conservation minded anglers who keep the odd fish for a feed but are mostly C & R anglers. 

I can only tell you what I hear and see.

And you're probably right, the people that frequent your store probably put more thought into the resource (or at least provide lip service), but the other 20 that bought their rod, reel and a few spinners at CT or HH might think and act differently.


  • 0

#22 -----

-----

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1040 posts
  • LocationAnywhere that fish are and people are not

Posted 09 October 2013 - 09:20 AM

I can only tell you what I hear and see.

And you're probably right, the people that frequent your store probably put more thought into the resource (or at least provide lip service), but the other 20 that bought their rod, reel and a few spinners at CT or HH might think and act differently.

Scott, I respect your opinion on almost everything you post, not this particular situation however. Therefore this will be my last post in the convoluted thread.
Although I fish with very few folks, I do have a fishing bud, who at this time is out of the province. He as well I buy our gear, mostly at CT. I can assure you that neither he nor I poach. We have a ball Troutin. Maybe he will take home three/four Trout when we go out, maybe me as well. We catch, literally hundreds. Therefore your thought that somehow, folks who Trout Fish, or shop at CT are poachers meets with great resistance from me.
Do not tar all with the same brush, that would be inaccurate.
Again, I respect most of your posts, but as a die hard Trout Fisher I do take offence to your stand on this one.

 


  • 0
I keep my head held high and smile, because there are people who will kill to see me fall.

#23 beancounter

beancounter

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • LocationCape Breton, NS

Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:31 AM

Scott, I respect your opinion on almost everything you post, not this particular situation however. Therefore this will be my last post in the convoluted thread.
Although I fish with very few folks, I do have a fishing bud, who at this time is out of the province. He as well I buy our gear, mostly at CT. I can assure you that neither he nor I poach. We have a ball Troutin. Maybe he will take home three/four Trout when we go out, maybe me as well. We catch, literally hundreds. Therefore your thought that somehow, folks who Trout Fish, or shop at CT are poachers meets with great resistance from me.
Do not tar all with the same brush, that would be inaccurate.
Again, I respect most of your posts, but as a die hard Trout Fisher I do take offence to your stand on this one.

 

I agree with you on this one Guest. I buy the majority of my gear and tackle at CT or Walmart because one - the cost of spinners is significantly cheaper and two - there isn't a local tackle shop closer than 45 mins from home. I have days were I can catch 50+ trout in two hours and I kept a total of 4 or 5 trout all season. These were the first trout I retained in about 15 years. It's simply not true that trout anglers or people who choose not to shop at tackle shops should all be lumped in together with poachers.     


  • 0

#24 902

902

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:45 AM

Ooook I think his point was just that people (unless they are exceptionally stupid) rarely walk into a FISHING store and run their mouth about breaking fishing laws to the owner, and that his (owner's) experience may not encompass all anglers, let a lone the majority. 

 

Nothing wrong with canadian tire, or any other store for that matter.


  • 0

#25 Bass_Slayer

Bass_Slayer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 211 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 10:59 AM

I gotta say, I fish for trout close to a hundred days a year, all up and down the north shore, in all the rivers, and all the good spots :) and I've never watched a fishermen take more than his limit. In my opinion, I thought it was an outstanding year for lots of trout and a good number or large fish. Probly the best year in my 25 years of fishing.Most people I see on the rivers are C&R or like myself don't eat trout, or fish at all. I think most of this eledged MASS poaching if anywhere is happening in the small backwater streams and stills. Can they be managed really? I think trout managment has come a long way in 25 years and although its not good enough yet its heading in a positive not a negitive direction. There are going to be casualties along the way.As the human population grows, more and more land is developed and often small ecosystems are lost forever. At the end of the day we do what we can, we support where support is needed, and spread the word of conservation. I say Give him the fine and take his pole for life. Its not just the right thing to do for the fishery, Its a step towards changing the defintion of fishing.


  • 0

#26 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 09 October 2013 - 02:39 PM

I won't argue it anymore, I can just repeat what I've seen and heard.

Everyone remembers the old black-and-white bragging pictures with the stringers of trout hanging between the trees. That still happens.

Maybe I just work with the wrong crowd, or grew up with the wrong crowd. Maybe the vast majority don't catch and keep more than five, but perhaps that's just a paradigm when viewed through rose-colored-glasses.


  • 0

#27 StripperGuide

StripperGuide

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 405 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:11 PM

I won't argue it anymore, I can just repeat what I've seen and heard.

Everyone remembers the old black-and-white bragging pictures with the stringers of trout hanging between the trees. That still happens.

Maybe I just work with the wrong crowd, or grew up with the wrong crowd. Maybe the vast majority don't catch and keep more than five, but perhaps that's just a paradigm when viewed through rose-colored-glasses.

Sounds like you fit right in ScottW.....you are the problem as well watching these trout get slaughtered ... good for you ....I bet your friends say the sam about you ....or why would you go


  • 0

#28 Edward

Edward

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • LocationCape Breton

Posted 09 October 2013 - 04:55 PM

Man what is wrong with everyone why do things have  to get mean. :(

 

In my experience its a generation thing with regards to eat everything you catch and c&r people. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. ;) Hows that for a broad swipe of the pen....

 

I find the older generations grew up with a eat what you catch mentality because that's what they needed to do and the stocks could support it. Unfortunately they cannot support that now and we need to share the resource. Just like many would like to see the bag limit raised I would like to see more waters managed for a trophy fishery. I was kind of hoping that this could happen in my lifetime but at this rate its not looking good. lol!

 

Anyways the judges decision was supposed to be handed down yesterday. Anyone hear anything?


  • 1

#29 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 09 October 2013 - 06:51 PM

Man what is wrong with everyone why do things have  to get mean. :(

 

In my experience its a generation thing with regards to eat everything you catch and c&r people. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. ;) Hows that for a broad swipe of the pen....

 

I find the older generations grew up with a eat what you catch mentality because that's what they needed to do and the stocks could support it. Unfortunately they cannot support that now and we need to share the resource. Just like many would like to see the bag limit raised I would like to see more waters managed for a trophy fishery. I was kind of hoping that this could happen in my lifetime but at this rate its not looking good. lol!

 

Anyways the judges decision was supposed to be handed down yesterday. Anyone hear anything?

 

Exactly!

And who takes the younger people fishing and shows them how to fish, and what's acceptable practices? The older generation.

Despite what's being posted here, the majority of those buying a fishing license don't even know what C&R and managing stocks is. Don't assume because you are a responsible fisherman that the majority of people are. That's just so naive.


  • 0

#30 reg

reg

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 09 October 2013 - 07:58 PM

The fine should be 100 dollars a fish like it is in New Brunswick. It would make people who
take all that they can catch think twice about what they are taking home.
  • 0

#31 nsvalley

nsvalley

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Locationkings county

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:11 AM

The two brothers were caught with 50 trout. One brother claimed five and the other had 45 in his bag. This was just a ploy that avoided two charges. A question for me is the bag limit a conservation effort or a shareing of the resource. Thinking that fifty dead trout is putting the trout resource in danger would suggest the bag limit is a conservation effort. Allowing 10 anglers to keep their bag limit that total 50 trout and that is legal suggests the bag limit is a sharing of the resource. Our outrage would then be a matter of greed and taking more than his share. Remember he could come back ten times with his brother keep their limit each day and be legal. Trout resource is fragile in some waters and not in others but the bag limit is the same with a few exceptions. I believe the trout resource in watersheds that are accessable to average anglers that are in decline is a death by a thousand cuts not one!

All that said throw the book at him!

well spoken Perry... I still feel fishing is or should be a C&R sport. though we must recognize the fact, that to some... its a food source. Still there is some put and take stocking going on and room for more in lakes near those fellows and others like them if the govt wished. Still the law being what it is I feel we need to through the book at them, if for example if nothing else.

native stocks and the habitat they exist in is for the benefit of all. C&R is the only way to grow a resource.  I have had the great fortune to fish the crow's-nest in albt... which I must say run parallel to the #3 highway which crosses the Rockies so it is highly accessible.  above lundbreck fall is catch and release only. I can attest to the fabulous fishing this has resulted in 5+ lb rainbows in a river generally small than the margy.

I can not help but say this behavior is exactly the point I was trying to make when I suggested the use of guides for non res NS. now I no you will all say " these were local guys" but I think none can deny they (as well as non res'er) would have been spotted may days if not seasons before they were if guides with vested interest patrolling our rivers  


  • 0

#32 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:11 AM

The fine should be 100 dollars a fish like it is in New Brunswick. It would make people who
take all that they can catch think twice about what they are taking home.

That is actually a good idea. It removes the obscurity from penalties and fines. Ask anyone what would happen if they get caught over the limit, and the response is "slap on the wrist" or "small fine" or "don't know".  $100 per fish is clear, and everyone would take note.


  • 0

#33 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 10 October 2013 - 09:58 AM

I'm scratching my head here. Why do you want this guy's fine lowered to $4000 (i.e., 40 trout @ $100)? According to the article, the minimum fine in this instance is $4820.


  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#34 fivepoundtrout

fivepoundtrout

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • LocationDartmouth

Posted 10 October 2013 - 11:35 AM

I'm scratching my head here. Why do you want this guy's fine lowered to $4000 (i.e., 40 trout @ $100)? According to the article, the minimum fine in this instance is $4820.

I'm with you, i dont think people thought that through first. Maybe something like the minimum whch is 4820 PLUS 100 dollars a fish would be good. 8820 would make some yahoos think differently.


  • 0

#35 902

902

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 319 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 02:57 PM

They're more focused on the idea that if a dollar amount per fish law existed, this type of thing would be less likely. 

 

side note: what happens to those extra 40 trout that he caught? I mean... does he get to keep them? are they.. evidence..?


  • 0

#36 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 10 October 2013 - 03:34 PM

I'm scratching my head here. Why do you want this guy's fine lowered to $4000 (i.e., 40 trout @ $100)? According to the article, the minimum fine in this instance is $4820.

We're not considering the current case before the courts; we're looking forward to the future.

As I posted earlier, the vast majority of people don't know what the penalty is for being over the limit; most probably think it's not much more than a slap on the wrist if you have a couple of extra fish in the creel. Having an actual dollar amount that would be printed on the front of the handbook and on posters at vendors that sell licenses would create a much bigger, longer lasting impression.


  • 0

#37 pmorris

pmorris

    Levity Consultant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1787 posts
  • LocationBedford, NS

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:00 PM

We're not considering the current case before the courts; we're looking forward to the future.

As I posted earlier, the vast majority of people don't know what the penalty is for being over the limit; most probably think it's not much more than a slap on the wrist if you have a couple of extra fish in the creel. Having an actual dollar amount that would be printed on the front of the handbook and on posters at vendors that sell licenses would create a much bigger, longer lasting impression.

 

Isn't the proposed fine in the current case before the courts based on this schedule (i.e., $200 plus $100 per fish over quota, presumably adjusted upward for the cumulative impact of inflation since the fines were set)? http://laws-lois.jus...313/page-8.html

 

I agree totally with publicizing the fine amounts in the Angler's Handbook and elsewhere, but I'd hate to see them reset to only $100 per fish with no flat amount like the existing "$200 plus..." system. 


  • 0

I started reading a book about anti-gravity and I just couldn't put it down.


#38 Edward

Edward

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • LocationCape Breton

Posted 10 October 2013 - 04:11 PM

The decision should have been handed down on Tuesday. I don't like this media blackout or whatever is going on behind the scenes. 


  • 0

#39 scottw

scottw

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 641 posts
  • LocationBridgewater, NS

Posted 10 October 2013 - 06:20 PM

Isn't the proposed fine in the current case before the courts based on this schedule (i.e., $200 plus $100 per fish over quota, presumably adjusted upward for the cumulative impact of inflation since the fines were set)? http://laws-lois.jus...313/page-8.html

 

I agree totally with publicizing the fine amounts in the Angler's Handbook and elsewhere, but I'd hate to see them reset to only $100 per fish with no flat amount like the existing "$200 plus..." system. 

I wasn't aware that the N.S. fines were based on anything like this.

If that's the case, all they need to do now is advertise it.


  • 0

#40 S Jollymore

S Jollymore

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1062 posts
  • LocationHants County

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:20 PM

I hope they make it so he can't get a lic for a very longtime, or a total ban. Mind you if someone kept that many they don't care about rules and laws sadly enough.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users