So as long as I see the fishery boys coming and dump any fish overboard, they cant prove it was undersized you are okay. Is that right?
Spears, the bloke who booked him would be a moderate in doctrine for sure and probably did 103km/h at some stage on the way home and as a result if the blue lights got turned on him he would be disgusted to near outrage - as is stereo-typical of this personality type. The sophistication needed is sad to the point of transparency, what you going to do....complain??
cheers fnq
I have a little inside info here. It's reasonable to see that a person has absolutely no control over what sized fish takes a lure or bait, however if the angler does not immediately release the undersized fish, he or she should be fair game. Ignorance is no excuse for having undersized fish in posession.Originally Posted by spears
Putting an undersized fish into a bucket and not back into the water, would in my view be asking for trouble... it's not rocket science.
cheers roz.
GO THE CRUISER UTES!
....OH WHAT A FEELING!
Nagg, i know for a fact fisheries will be going through the monduran campground this year looking for barra in possession.Also a bloke was caught prawning in a green zone up here with excessive prawns.Was taken to his home where anoher 15kg were found.He will go,though as stated in another post he was known for this. In possession is something that will be targeted more and more these days. To simplify all the different limits,an easy way for the fisheries would be to allot a total fish kg limit.eg you can have no more than 15??kg of fillets regardless of what species,therefore making it easy to see if you areover the limit.Just my thoughts.
Spears, if a person was to walk into a shop and place an object in their pocket and knowingly proceeded to walk out have they not shoplifted??? But if you were to repeat this but before leaving the store they were approached by security that seen the person place the object into their pocket (freely available to be returned undamaged) would you be so reluctant to let the offender off with a warning and think they just didn't mean to do it??? It is just up to each person, what are you comfortable doing? just my thoughts
G'day!Spears, if a person was to walk into a shop and place an object in their pocket and knowingly proceeded to walk out have they not shoplifted??? But if you were to repeat this but before leaving the store they were approached by security that seen the person place the object into their pocket (freely available to be returned undamaged) would you be so reluctant to let the offender off with a warning and think they just didn't mean to do it??? It is just up to each person, what are you comfortable doing? just my thoughts
To my knowledge security will not approach you until you leave the store or end up on the otherside of the checkouts without paying for an article. There is no law that you cannot carry articles around the store in your pocket or any bag including a handbag. The video of you concealing the item or testimony of the security or other staff member will be of interst to the arresting police and the court. However, the crime is not paying for the item.
I guess you could try to argue but I was slowing down sir when you stopped me. Or you should have seen what I would have blown two hours ago, I am sobering up.
However there is an "in possession " rule about illegal fish.
Ray de R
So we all agree that the question is 'how did it get into the bucket without being identified and measured?' Hes gooone....
While we are on possession, I spoke to Fisheries last week about barra closed season, and releasing IMMEDIALTELY. They said that its NOT ok to take a pic before releasing an illegal fish. The extra time out of the water will harm the fishes chance of survival. Closed season fish must be released immedialtely.
Then they said that if they saw a camera being used, they could confiscate it, check it for pics of illegal fish, and CHARGE you with not releasing immediatley, IF they wanted.
Just another trick for the memory banks. I would have taken a pic before releasing, so I thought Id post this to let you all know.
Andrew
ignorance of the law is no excuses for anything
OK so I threw some different angles out at ya all to see where the answers go.
I have seen some really bad things happen over the years re..over fishing and undersized fish.
So what is the penalty $$$ and fine for an undersized fish?
There are a couple of concepts here.
In posesion.....there are some interesting complications here.
Two blokes go fishing, they put both their legal catces in the one esky, upon reaching the ramp, the esky stays in the boat, one bloke thakes the boat home the other goes to work with the intention of picking up his share after work.
Are the fish in the esky "in posession" of the bloke with the boat?
I aregue we would be wise to use two eskies with our names on them...even then???
Taken..... means seperated from the fishes natural environment. now where do you draw the line....when the pot or landing net is in the water nothing has yet been taken... but is it when you take the fish or whatever out of the net or off the hook,...... it is unreasonable to call it taken till it has been measured.
but if you motor off with crabs still in the pot....the crab has been taken away from where it lives.........the case with the canoe......I'd like to see how that one stood up in court.
which brings me to the point of standing up in court..... in the hypothetical case that started the thread.....unless fisheries can positively identify and measure said live fish....I would be very suppriesd if it would stand up in court......unless the person in question makes some sort of verbal admission.
Remember every question ( every word that comes out of ) a law enforcement officer asks is contrived to give you the oportunity of incriminating yourself.
There are quite a few things about fisheries regulation that are bordering on unmanageable.
the best one is noxcious fish, you cant keep it, you cant return it to the water, you cant place it in a container.....the letter of the law is unmanagable.
So you have a talapia in your hook.... what do you do with it. kill it of course but, you cant put it in a bucket, you cant throw it over the side, you cant chuck it on the bank....so you have to leave it lying arround in the bottom of the boat....when you get back to the ramp.....is the rubbish bin a container?
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
Some good points there Oldboot...... the letter of the law indeed. In court however it is the officers word against yours. Unless you have photographic evidence to back you up I think that you would be really screwed.
I had a look at the DPI website last night and I believe that on the spot fines up to $750 could be given. If the case went to court however I believe the judge could award fines up to $75 000 under extenuating circumstances.
I also found out of interest that if you are caught damaging marine plants a fine up to $225 000 can be imposed.
Straight from the DPI website......
What do I do if I catch a tilapia or carp?
If you catch a noxious fish, kill the fish as quickly and humanely as possible. Methods include freezing the fish, cutting through the gills with a sharp knife or applying a quick, hard blow to the head. It is an offence to have noxious fish (such as carp and tilapia) in your possession, dead or alive (except dead Nile perch). You must therefore dispose of the fish as soon as practicable after killing. It is recommended that you do this by burying it a suitable distance from the waterway where it was caught or disposing it in a rubbish bin.
Cheers
Its quite a situation you're cooking up. And as has been said already, if will come down to the parties concerned. If the fisherman or woman, is genuine about not knowing that the catch was illegal and can prove and actively show that he/she is trying to rectify the situation by releasing that undersize fish in the bucket then chances are they'll get off with a warning. If you are a pr!ck to the officers, swearing and abusing, chances are you'll get stuck with 2 or 3 fines instead of the simple warning that could be achieved through rational conversation. But in saying that, I'm sure you will get the bad egg occasionally who is only out for a power trip to take your money!
The unfortunate thing with NSW fisheries is that out of all the illegal fishing instances they came across in the last year, only 5.5% of them were fined. The other 94.5% were issued warnings or had their gear partially (either the rod that was directly attributed to the fish or worst case scenario all their gear, car/boat/rods/spearguns/wetsuits etc) confiscated. Is this a good thing? I personally don't agree with the confiscation of gear as the level of ignorance to the law would be higher, the cheaper the gear is (supposedly). The once a year fisherman having his $50 rod and reel combo confiscated because he thought he had a record catch of undersize bream would hardly bat an eyelid at the fine, whereas the bloke with the stella and Egrel rod would be much more devastated and effected (but should be more likely to have a full comprehension of the law). Different convictions for the same offence?
Another interesting note, that comes straight from the horses mouth, is that the fish measuring devices issued by fisheries such as lobster measurers, stickers and such, are 'to be used as a guide only' and as such can not be used as evidence should a case arise. Fisheries can, use either a micrometer or a set of Vernier calipers to check size limits. So that fish that was JUST legal when you bent it in the right way becomes .1 of a mm undersize and as such is an illegal catch. This has been used recently in a court case against a Pro lobster fisherman in NSW who has been charged over having a lobster that was 0.3mm undersize!
Basically, what it comes down to, is fish using the CYA principle. COVER YOUR A$$! Don't keep a fish if it is just on legal, don't keep that extra fish over your bag limit in the bucket alive, and most of all KEEP UP TO DATE ON THE REGS!
Its not (but it bloody should be) up to fisheries officers to come around to your house, politely sit you down over a coffee and update you on each and every change in the regulations.
Some very good points raised. The lad with the canoe, whilst by the writing in is breach, what self respecting judge is going to award that? If he did it would make for great A current Affair show and the judge would cop it through the public at least
On the issue of the one word or another, i would have thought that the onus of proof would be on the officer to proove that the said fish was actually undersise. If the officer had himself measured the fish then sure the officers word would be taken, but if it was only assumed that the fish was undersize by visual judgement then i would think that the onus would be on the officer to prove that in fact the fish was under size.
On the 'in possession' it is my understanding that this law was designed for those guys that did a once a year fishing trip over a few weeks and brought back tucker box freezers full of fillets. I like that law purely because it allows the authorities to really nail those that go overboard in doing the wrong thing.
Another hypothetical the fisheries guy is having a bad day and catches you with your mates catch i the esky as described earlier and demands to inspect your fridge at home.....'who said that the fillets in the fridge weren't paid for'? Surely the laws are for personally caught fish and there is no proof there that any wrong doing was done?????
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Its a bit hard to keep up with the rules when they are being changed regularly and not being clearly passed on to the public. Does the poor old Dad who just wants to wet a line with his son have to search the internet and download all he can find and digest it everytime he wants to go out.
Geez just look at estuary cod that anyone can catch in a creek , its is now or will soon be a coral reef fin fish, so if you catch him during the three 9 day closures north of bundaberg you have to release him but if you catch it south of bundaberg where there isnt any closure you dont need to worry about it.
I bet most people couldnt tell an oversize poddy mullet from an undersize sea mullet. Geez, I had a fisheries guy carefully scutinize a large poddy I had one day just to make sure it wasnt a sea mullet. And he took ages before he was sure it wasnt and he reckoned that if it had been a sea mullet he would have booked me. Learn all the rules
Strewth, turn it up
THE POOR MAN ALWAYS PAYS TWICE
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
