jpinkster Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 The story from CBC this morning: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-anglers-protest-fish-poachers-1.3250170 Love the picture they used of me. Quote
qhk Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Good work jpinkster. I agree with your assessment of the outcome. Steeper penalties would have been nice but this is a PR win. Would more signage help, if this is just a matter of education? Of course the limits and closures change every year, but at the very least there could be signage indicating that if you don't know the take limits - with the website URL - then take limit is zero, and that you must have knowledge of the rules for the stream in question before you fish it. That sort of thing. Quote
jgib01 Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 what a joke, do we have the name of the judge? I'd like to send him some feedback He was in fact a she, from the sounds of the media report. Judge Oishi was presiding, correct? Not that knowing this will help. Judges rarely ever respond to feedback from the public; they are meant to be impartial, and not influenced by political or public pressures outside the courtroom. I doubt that if you sent a letter, that it would ever even reach her. They are guided in their decisions by legislation, so if you want to make changes, that is where to start, not with the judiciary. I know that this will not be popular opinion to express here... I completely understand the anger expressed, but regardless of the case, judges always consider the personal circumstances of the convicted when sentencing. It is a cornerstone of our justice system. For whatever the reasons, in this case the judge felt that the $1000 fines in these circumstances were onerous enough for these individuals, and commensurate with the offence. We may disagree, but sentencing is decided after arguments are presented from both sides in the courtroom, and not up for debate by the public. (Edit: and if they think the decision/sentence was not appropriate, the Crown Prosecutor has a right to bring an appeal) On another note, I want to offer a huge thanks to those who attended, and especially to Jordan for organizing. That is the good news part of this story. I agree that this has garnered a lot of media attention thanks to their efforts, that would not have occurred otherwise. Kudos for sitting through what was likely a very long 6 hours to get to this case on the docket. 4 Quote
jpinkster Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 He was in fact a she, from the sounds of the media report. Judge Oishi was presiding, correct? Not that knowing this will help. Judges rarely ever respond to feedback from the public; they are meant to be impartial, and not influenced by political or public pressures outside the courtroom. I doubt that if you sent a letter, that it would ever even reach her. They are guided in their decisions by legislation, so if you want to make changes, that is where to start, not with the judiciary. I know that this will not be popular opinion to express here... I completely understand the anger expressed, but regardless of the case, judges always consider the personal circumstances of the convicted when sentencing. It is a cornerstone of our justice system. For whatever the reasons, in this case the judge felt that the $1000 fines in these circumstances were onerous enough for these individuals, and commensurate with the offence. We may disagree, but sentencing is decided after arguments are presented from both sides in the courtroom, and not up for debate by the public. (Edit: and if they think the decision/sentence was not appropriate, the Crown Prosecutor has a right to bring an appeal) On another note, I want to offer a huge thanks to those who attended, and especially to Jordan for organizing. That is the good news part of this story. I agree that this has garnered a lot of media attention thanks to their efforts, that would not have occurred otherwise. Kudos for sitting through what was likely a very long 6 hours to get to this case on the docket. I think you hit the nail on the head here. This has nothing to do with the judge. If you want change and stiffer penalties, the legislation needs to get some more teeth. If you really want to make a difference write the Environment Minister. This is headline news at the moment and she will certainly be paying attention (if she knows what's best for her politically). Quote
Jayhad Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 I think you hit the nail on the head here. This has nothing to do with the judge. How can you say it has nothing to do with the judge.... she is the one that decided the sentence, the option for a harsher sentence was there, the legislation has teeth, it was asked for by the crown, and clearly supported by the populace. The judge thought any further fines would be a hardship..... well that's the idea 1 Quote
WyomingGeorge Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Was it $1,000 each? If so, that does strike me as substantial. If one is truly fishing for sustenance, then saving on $25 worth of store-bought salmon at the cost of a $1,000 fine is a poor economic trade-off and not something one is likely to repeat. If one is killing out of sheer cruelty and bloodlust, or hunting for a record trophy rack or a huge bearskin, that emotional desire is disconnected from economics and a mere fine is unlikely to deter. I know most of you wanted far, far more, but does that view make sense? Do you think the cost will prevent a repeat, or just make them more wily? Quote
jgib01 Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 How can you say it has nothing to do with the judge.... she is the one that decided the sentence, the option for a harsher sentence was there, the legislation has teeth, it was asked for by the crown, and clearly supported by the populace. The judge thought any further fines would be a hardship..... well that's the idea My point was that the judiciary is not the route to impact here. You simply have no way of getting an audience with judges. The "solution" you are looking for is a political (legislative) one through changed minimum fines/penalties. Just because the Crown asked for stiffer penalties does not mean that the legislation has the teeth you are looking for. I don't think I have been in court (save those rare ones where sentencing agreement was reached as part of a package prior to the hearing) where 1) the Crown and Defense agreed completely on sentencing, and 2) the judge didn't end up taking a position somewhere on the continuum in between. Quote
bcubed Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 For whatever the reasons, in this case the judge felt that the $1000 fines in these circumstances were onerous enough for these individuals, and commensurate with the offence. We may disagree, but sentencing is decided after arguments are presented from both sides in the courtroom, and not up for debate by the public. Ok, that's fine. But why give their equipment back, or not continue a ban on fishing for more then 6 months? Seems like that would have been good punishment that would not have cost them a dollar. I feel fines like these should really set a precedent for the general public to look at, and go 'well *hit, probably should think twice about poaching'. If they're so broke, guess they shouldn't be driving to the Oldman to go fishing. Plead the 'woe is me' card at court is BS. Would love to have seen their freezers... 29 fish doesn't seem like the work of first-timers 3 Quote
BurningChrome Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 The "solution" you are looking for is a political (legislative) one through changed minimum fines/penalties. I agree with you on everything, though I think the better solutions would be education and more enforcement out there so that we can stop poaching before it even happens. Too easy to walk into a Walmart and buy a license, rod, reel, powerbait, and start fishing. I'll bet there are a lot of folks out there fishing illegally who don't even realize it because nobody made them look at the regs when they bought their license. I'm not saying that's the case here, but it could be a possibility. Quote
jpinkster Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 They were busted where the Racehorse dumps into the Oldman. You kind of need to know a thing or two about the area to get yourself to that spot. Quote
jpinkster Posted September 30, 2015 Author Posted September 30, 2015 Here is the audio this morning from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/episode/2015/09/30/fish-poaching-in-the-oldman-river/ 2 Quote
Jayhad Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 If judges choose to value poached fish at $207 each, that's what the public will value those fish at, and that's a bloody shame. This case was a failure of justice, and it set a precedent. 1 Quote
jgib01 Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Here is the audio this morning from CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/episode/2015/09/30/fish-poaching-in-the-oldman-river/ Just listened. Excellent job on presenting a balanced approach to the issue, and on educating folks at the same time. Quote
Jayhad Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Jordan thanks for your work on this, good opening tag on the CBC. You interview was great 2 Quote
aaa Posted September 30, 2015 Posted September 30, 2015 Jordan, top notch job. Great work, and thank you. One thing, you can rest assured this was not the perpetrators first outing to the area, nor their first poaching adventure. My guess is a couple of them went out once, scouted, threw bait, filled thier boots and came home full of information for future 'adventures'. They then told their buddies about their mother load of free fish and then things went from there. And, one at least, or all of them, must of known what they were doing was wrong and illegal. Quote
Conor Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I see this as a win. What Jordan did brought significant media attention to a case that would have not been reported on outside of Lethbrige. A $1000 is a lot of money for a lot of people. I think it has some bite in this case. I do feel they should have lost license privledges for longer. It is important to understand that other cultures would have a difficult time understanding catch and release regulations. Even in Europe, catch and keep only is more common than catch and release. If you had emigrated there and were busted for releasing fish, wouldn't you argue for some consideration? 1 Quote
jpinkster Posted October 1, 2015 Author Posted October 1, 2015 I was talking to a woman at my work about the entire situation today. She has nothing to do with fishing in any way. When I told her the story and explained the significance she started to tear up. Again, this is someone who has no relationship with fishing. This is powerful stuff that we can certainly capitalize on. Quote
brokentippet Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I see this as a win. What Jordan did brought significant media attention to a case that would have not been reported on outside of Lethbrige. A $1000 is a lot of money for a lot of people. I think it has some bite in this case. I do feel they should have lost license privledges for longer. It is important to understand that other cultures would have a difficult time understanding catch and release regulations. Even in Europe, catch and keep only is more common than catch and release. If you had emigrated there and were busted for releasing fish, wouldn't you argue for some consideration? Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. If you make a decision to imagrate to a new country, purchase a sport fishing license and choose not to read the regulation associated with the activity or blaintantly disregard them, then you should be held accountable for your actions...period. I agree that 1000 is a lot of money for some but the fine definitely does not match the crime; a cop doesn't give you a discount on a speeding ticket because your low income, you broke the law, you pay the fine, regardless of financial status. 6 Quote
PAV Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 Perhaps this is the publicity needed to lobby the government to do a classified waters system for the Oldman. Create more awareness that the fish in this system need to be protected and the extra funds can go to enforcement. 4 Quote
BurningChrome Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 I'm sure if it were up to some people on this forum these guys would've gotten life in prison without any chance of parole. What they did was bad and it was wrong, but if you fine them so excessively that they can no longer afford to put a roof over their heads or food on their plates then what? Oh, and cops do have some discretion over the fine to give you on a speeding ticket. I've had a cop tell me he had me going X km/h over the speed limit but he wrote the ticket for only Y km/h to bump me down to the lower fine bracket. From there you can easily take the ticket to court and get the fine reduced by the judge or talk to the prosecutor to get the demerits reduced. It happens all the time. Quote
brokentippet Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 And I'm sure the officer did it because of your annual income right? I don't believe in fining someone to the point of bankruptcy and the fine may have been sufficient based on there financial situation but there were other penaltys that could have been inforced to set a proper precedence for future offenders. In this paticular case a proper precidence was not set 3 Quote
BurningChrome Posted October 1, 2015 Posted October 1, 2015 And I'm sure the officer did it because of your annual income right? Nope, but there was one years ago where the judge reduced it when I explained that I was a university student and needed a bit of extra time to pay the ticket. Quote
jpinkster Posted October 1, 2015 Author Posted October 1, 2015 I checked with F&W to see if they searched the freezers of these individuals. Looks like they did not: Quote
adams Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 Sorry, but a number of things don't add up here and I totally disagree with the light sentences. I think the plea is a weakly concocted cop-out and I am disappointed the court fell for it. (1) These guys knew enough to buy licences (and somehow afforded them). (2) The articles mention "license plates" (plural) of the offender's vehicles (again plural) being taken down when reporting them. So they obviously not only could afford multiple vehicles, but also the gas money to drive multiple vehicles all the way from Lethbridge. My understanding is that the plea was based on financial/sustenance needs........doesn't seem to make financial sense to spend all that money for a few dinners, plus wouldn't you all crowd into one single vehicle to minimize the expenses if that was the case? (3) This really worries me because either they are lying about the sustenance angle or they've actually done this enough times to make it worth their while financially. Either way, a life-time ban on fishing along with proper restitution (doesn't have to be money.... clean up the river) would have been more appropriate to go along with that fine. I wasn't at the trial so If I've misinterpreted the newspaper articles in any way I apologize. Adams Quote
DonAndersen Posted October 6, 2015 Posted October 6, 2015 What must be remembered is judges are named by the AG's office whose thoughts & direction reflect the political parties who control the office. The fine reflects the "party line" just like it has done for near 100 years in Alberta. While tears are shed over some cuts and Bulls, the irrigation sucks the fish outta rivers all over southern Alberta and nothing gets done. We are one screwed up place. Don 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.