Poaching?

[Streamside88]

So where do we draw the line for poaching?

As far as im concerned "poaching fish or animals is the act of purposely going out to hunt/fish a specific out of season species with the intention of killing and/or eating the intended animal/fish or being in possession of said species "

Example me and 3 other buddy's are shore fishing a particular spot that has pretty much everything from carp to musky and everything in between including bait fish.... that being said were using baits that would normally catch walleye and pike. I land a descent sized small mouth BASS witch is out of season , we snapped a picture and released it within a few seconds the same as we did with the walleye and pike we caught....

so Where did i become a poacher?

- Is it when i decided to go fishing period?( some people think i shouldn't be fishing because a certain species is out of season)
- Is it when i hooked into it? ( like i control what species hits my bait, witch was a Williams silver rippled spoon)
- is it when i pulled him out of the water? ( have to unhook em some how to release it )
- OR was is when i decided to take a PICTURE and post it to show my catch of the day? ( got harassed and called a poacher after doing so)

The funniest thing is i know some people who go out fishing and catch bass but wont admit it and save those pictures for Bass opener?

What im getting at is.. as a responsible fishermen who doesn't keep out of season fish, should I be worried about posting pictures of them? or do we have to stay in this mentality that if someone catches a fish and takes a picture hes obviously going to kill and keep it?

[TheMaverick]

In regards to the pictures.....

viewtopic.php?f=101&t=11759

For everything else....

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=45524

[lape0019]

In your scenario, I do not beleive you have ever technically became a poacher. There was no intent to keep the fish so poaching is a little harsh of a term.

Taking a picture of an OOS fish though can get you in some hot water not only here, but if an conservation officer was to look through your camera and see that pic, you would more than likely get fined...

As Mav pointed out, FH does not allow pics of OOS fish. The only exception would be if you caught the fish in an area with an open season while most other areas are closed.

[banjo]

It's a touchy subject. The "no picture" thingy is something that a CO would have to interpret at the time to determine whether he thought you were breaking any laws.
Not quoting anything, but my interpretation of the law is that any fish that is not in season or proper size or possession limit has to be released "immediately" back to the water. It is against the law to target species that are OOS, but if caught... released immediately. It is OK to target in season walleye... but if you catch one above/ below the slot, it must be released "immediately". There is the question... everyone's idea of "immediately" will always be different. If people really want to be strict and say that pictures of OOS fish are a no-no because of the Law... then pictures of musky below the size restriction, walleye out of the slot etc.... would also be a no-no. That seems a bit ridiculous, imagine not being allowed to take or post a picture of a 10 pound walleye. Taking a picture is not against the Law (posting it on a website might break some website rules). But keeping a fish in a livewell or out of water or possibly even in the net while the camera gets ready etc, might not be considered "immediately released". As far as websites not allowing posting OOS fish, I get it... if people were posting pics it might seem as if they were promoting the fishing of OOS fish. But if you wanted to take a picture for yourself... where's the harm?
That said... if you "feel" like you might be poaching, then simple ... don't do it.

[reefhawg]

Personal choice all around. No law broken in all your examples. Just upsetting people on the forums would be your only concern. Some people get a bit touchy on the subject.
Taking a picture of an OOS fish is not stated as being against the law. It states immediate release. If a picture is taken of me releasing an OOS fish and I turn my head and smile,. so what. The fish was released immediately. For a CO to charge based on a picture there would need to be other circumstances in that scenario. Like keeping the fish until your buddy in the other boat shows up with the camera.
FYI all my OOS bass this year (there have been 4) were water released with a few shakes of the pliers. One may have been a PB. If I needed to take it out of the water to get the hooks out I would have had my boat partner snap a pic.
Cheers,

[BigC]

Can't prove they were fishing out of season, the $95 is for fishing without a licence.

http://www.chextv.com/2014/05/16/8886/

[Streamside88]

fair enough so the picture thing is only on websites and i understand it would promote it...so fair enough on that point but this was on my facebook and i talked to friend a of mine whos brother is a C.O. and he said there's nothing wrong with catching bass by incident. especially in rivers where bass reside in the same habitats as other fish species and feed on the same food, and the picture thing is fine as long as its a quick thing.. so my questions have been answered thanks everyone for the input.

[almontefisher]

Hey Streamside. Just a heads up though....Not all C.O.'s look at things the same. Some have little man syndrome where they need to prove a point every encounter with a fisherman and some try to educate and inform. So if one C.O. says his interpretation is this another one my see it different. Do what you feel you need to do but don't expect the same response from different C.O's

[RJ]

Poaching is such a nasty term...

I can tell you one thing about the photo deal. It is 100% being used as a tool to fine people. It comes in very handy when folks are targetting fish OOS and rather than try to make that charge stick they'll ask to see their cameras or phones. If the evidence of photos is there those folks will get fined for not immediate release. It's brilliant really and it's not a $95 fine, it's near triple that. It's irrefutable. I support this move 100% to have someone get that fine than to see our CO's dragged into court to have Billy Bob say his Daddy always caught Pike on Senkos.

RJ

[smitty55]

I support this move 100% to have someone get that fine than to see our CO's dragged into court to have Billy Bob say his Daddy always caught Pike on Senkos.

Totally agree RJ. Anything that will act as a deterrent is good in my books. My questions to that would be, can they force you to hand over your camera or phone? What would happen if the angler refused? Would they have to get a warrant? Just wondering.

Cheers

[reefhawg]

"If the evidence of photos is there those folks will get fined for not immediate release."

This is not true,.. A photo would be one of many items (a tool) of evidence using to convict. If someone was targeting OOS fish and had a bunch of photos of all those fish then sure, the photos (perhaps just the number of them) plus other evidence of wrong doing would be relevant. By itself it would be a tough sell. Sure a CO can charge you on the spot but if this ever happened to you and you really did release the fish immediately go to court and fight. (I'm not sure it's even legal to look at your photos without a warrant). The charge COs dishes out on the spot is not the end of the story just like getting a traffic ticket. You can fight it. Until the MNR actually puts verbage about cameras, photos pics etc., "immediate release" will always be the key term debated.
If there was wrong doing then I would hope a photo helped towards the conviction.
cheers

[zippyfx]

CO's don't need warrants... They have more authority than the police do to inspect you, and your property (car, house, cabin).

You do not have the right to refuse a request from a CO.

[RJ]

"If the evidence of photos is there those folks will get fined for not immediate release."

This is not true,.. A photo would be one of many items (a tool) of evidence using to convict. If someone was targeting OOS fish and had a bunch of photos of all those fish then sure, the photos (perhaps just the number of them) plus other evidence of wrong doing would be relevant. By itself it would be a tough sell. Sure a CO can charge you on the spot but if this ever happened to you and you really did release the fish immediately go to court and fight. (I'm not sure it's even legal to look at your photos without a warrant). The charge COs dishes out on the spot is not the end of the story just like getting a traffic ticket. You can fight it. Until the MNR actually puts verbage about cameras, photos pics etc., "immediate release" will always be the key term debated.
If there was wrong doing then I would hope a photo helped towards the conviction.
cheers

I guess the 30 year veteran CO who explained to me how they use this law is lying.. There is nothing to debate here really. If you have taken the time to snap a pic you did not immediately release the fish. Like you said it's a "tool" they use to get a conviction of folks targetting OOS fish because they know the OOS fishing charge is a tough one to stick in court. They stick em with that charge to save the hassle of going to court over it.

Does that mean every person who has ever taken a photo of a fish OOS is going to be subject to a fine? No, it's a grey area but if you are catching fish after fish OOS and snapping pics of them all you may not like the souvenir you go home with...

RJ

[bradford2]

I wish they would change the wording in the regs then.

As far as the regs are concerned, there is no difference in taking a picture of an OOS fish then there is a 28" walleye from the miss, or a muskie with a conservation license. All must be released immediately.

[RJ]

I wish they would change the wording in the regs then.

As far as the regs are concerned, there is no difference in taking a picture of an OOS fish then there is a 28" walleye from the miss, or a muskie with a conservation license. All must be released immediately.

Agreed Brad, though the fella I spoke to doesn't want it changed anytime soon. He likes that "tool" to use when he needs to.

RJ