Baker Lake Harsh Wardens

[RiverChromeGS]

^^ i know mike its kind of ridiculous, boat fishing should be ok especially on baker, i guess to make the baker wardens happy tho, whoever fights it marks it, use that rule and you should be fine. Lets hope you slam enough fish to have to deal with the issue! Good luck!!!

[MotoBoat]

this makes me nervous just popping the rod off the downrigger clip and handing it to JoAnn.

Oh boy, looking nervous while on the water Mike. Is certain to get you some attention!......LOL! But by the time you get to Baker Lake. That red, under cover boat will have a different colored paint job and one of the kids will have a beard. Your going to constantly be looking over your shoulder and asking , is he following me? I have seen that boat 5 times and he asked me what college I went to, is that fish and game? Did I record that last fish on my catch card........wait a minute I haven't caught anything yet! JoAnn have you caught anything? Man is it hot out here, I am sweating up a storm and jumpy as all get out.

Say does Baker require a knotless net during the Sockeye season, like Lake Wenatchee?

[RiverChromeGS]

Trust me if your not hooking fish the mustache man in the red boat wont even notice your on the lake, now if your catching sockeye, be careful and keep your distance because i heard that if you so much as lay eyes on someone elses fish when it jumps, your subject to marking it on YOUR card and you may be in a lot of trouble at the end of the day after the spotters with their telescopes from the top of mount baker let the wardens know what you did

[dutchman2858]

Bodofish: You are absolutely correct that "freak" has the right to go to court...but your "...you goons..." comment is off base. "Fishenfreak" initiated the thread to express his outrage at what he perceived as mistreatment by the wardens, and to garner vindication from other members for that outrage. He got plenty...but he also got disagreement with his position. Those dissention opionions are also guaranteed by the Constitution.

While the court decision will settle the issue of this ticket...it will not have any affect on "Fishenfreaks" (or your) opinions. If the court sides with him and dismisses the charge he will get his vindication and be able to crow, "I was right!" If the court upholds the ticket and fines him, he will state, "They made a mistake...if they had understood what really happened they would have dismissed the ticket!" That's no condemnation of "Freak" it's human nature. Good thread, though!

[MotoBoat]

Bodofish: You are absolutely correct that "freak" has the right to go to court...but your "...you goons..." comment is off base. "Fishenfreak" initiated the thread to express his outrage at what he perceived as mistreatment by the wardens, and to garner vindication from other members for that outrage. He got plenty...but he also got disagreement with his position. Those dissention opionions are also guaranteed by the Constitution.

While the court decision will settle the issue of this ticket...it will not have any affect on "Fishenfreaks" (or your) opinions. If the court sides with him and dismisses the charge he will get his vindication and be able to crow, "I was right!" If the court upholds the ticket and fines him, he will state, "They made a mistake...if they had understood what really happened they would have dismissed the ticket!" That's no condemnation of "Freak" it's human nature. Good thread, though!

Your thought process is similar to mine. Bodo the bully, not sure where that came from but is entitled to his opinion and glad he didn't scare anyone away from posting there thoughts or opinions. The majority of opinions are on the far right or far left, very few ever take into consideration both sides, when striking an opinion. Especially when on the receiving end.

In my opinion, not being a psychologist. What you have explained is "Human Nature". Our reactions can be predetermined by how we as humans are wired. Win or loose, this will be a lasting memory for the freak, and a learning experience for future fishing trips. If he wins, is it worth the hassle to repeat the procedure over reeling in a fish? And if a not so pleasing outcome, cemented into the Freaks fresh water fishing rule book of life!

Based on this incident and the recent Omak trip where the Freak and friend started a thread about there trip to Omak. In that thread, legalities of proper hook use for that time of year came to light. Perhaps a thorough reading, and understanding of the fishing pamphlet is in order. Or roll the dice, and claim the "I did not know card" and find your self with the hassle of entering the court system for clarification of the rules or vindication.

One thing no one has asked is what WAC violation is listed on the ticket? Freak?

[goodtimesfishing]

Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents. My understanding has always been who ever is in control of the fishing pole, WHEN THE FISH WAS LANDED is who punches the card. FF if you did not have the pole in your hand when the fish was netted, that is what I would stress to the judge. I would NOT bring up the "im a kid thing" I would not say anything other then I didn't LAND the fish so I did not punch the fish. I would not even mention the whole part about being followed, as most judges will feel you are trying to talk your way out and they don't like it when you do that. Stick to the facts, and don't make it sound like enforcement was out to get you and did you wrong. Let the judge see it for what it is UNCLEAR REGULATION. State that if I had read in the regs. ANYTHING about MAJORITY OF THE TIME I would have put the pole back in the pole holder for my fishing partner.
I think the outcome will come down to who landed the fish(who had control of FISHING POLE when fish was brought on board) who nets the fish does not matter. Length of time fighting fish does not matter. If the judge is tough and wants to say "It clearly states, you may not harvest any part of another persons daily limit." State that there is not a definition for "harvest" in the regs and that netting a fish for another person would be part of the harvest, yet clearly people net the fish for other people. This leaves "harvest" open to interpatation. Keep in mind he may also mention the part about:You may not fish with a rod not in your immediate control or leave your gear unattended.This is a BS ticket in my opinion and hope you get a judge that can see that. Just my 2 cents.

[RiverChromeGS]

I understand where your coming from Goodtimes, but in your definition, that would mean that i could set gear, set the hook and fight the fish, and hand off when the fish is dead tired for my buddy to pull into the net in the last 2 seconds so he can mark it... that doesnt make sense either. IM not trying to make a conflict or anything, just saying that its so unclear that there really is no way to determine who should have marked it, every single person to post in this thread has come up with a different definition of who should have marked it and what you must do to be the person to mark it, bottom line its unclear and that alone should give me an advantage in court

[RiverChromeGS]

Bodofish: You are absolutely correct that "freak" has the right to go to court...but your "...you goons..." comment is off base. "Fishenfreak" initiated the thread to express his outrage at what he perceived as mistreatment by the wardens, and to garner vindication from other members for that outrage. He got plenty...but he also got disagreement with his position. Those dissention opionions are also guaranteed by the Constitution.

While the court decision will settle the issue of this ticket...it will not have any affect on "Fishenfreaks" (or your) opinions. If the court sides with him and dismisses the charge he will get his vindication and be able to crow, "I was right!" If the court upholds the ticket and fines him, he will state, "They made a mistake...if they had understood what really happened they would have dismissed the ticket!" That's no condemnation of "Freak" it's human nature. Good thread, though!

thanks for contributing and stating your opinion, like i said i dont have anything against anyone just because they didnt agree with me, it can go both ways.

[goodtimesfishing]

not sure if you thought of this or not, but I would print a copy of this thread and if needed you could ask the judge to read through it, to show how unclear it is. It is not one of those cases where it has a clear anwser on page such and such.

[natetreat]

You can keep your rod in a rod holder as long as it is easily removed. You also may play the fish with the rod still in the holder. I hook fish and hand off the rod every day, sometimes I'll take the rod back if the fish is in jeopardy of getting off, then I'll give the rod back. Should I be marking all these fish? Neither of them had filled their cards, so they were both allowed to fish. I think that this whole thing is ridiculous, there is no "majority of the time" and there is not a definition of owner ship of the fish based upon who plays it the longest. On the fish and wildlife website under fishing guide information faq it says

Can I hook a fish and hand the rod to another person to land?

Yes, as long as you and other person have a valid fishing license and, if required, a valid catch record card.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/commercial ... uides.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nothing about how long the fish is played etc. The ticket is bogus. If you both played the fish, it could go on either card in my opinion. A lot of times I'll hook a fish, play it, then hand my rod to someone else so that I can net it. Whose fish is that? Should I mark it, or should they? If someone doesn't feel comfortable netting my fish, I'll net it after handing off my rod. Unless somewhere hidden in the RCW there is somewhere that defines the nature and ownership of the fish where multiple people play the fish, there is a gray area where ownership could be either parties fish.

[natetreat]

I really find this ticket interesting. The issue would be who marks the fish if two people play the fish. I read and re-read the game laws, and even read the entirety of the RCW and WAC pertaining to fish and wildlife. Unless I'm missing something, there is no law or rule that defines this certain situation. While the WDFW website states that it is legal to hand off the rod, it's not mentioned in the game laws. There is the section about designated harvester rules for those fishing for disabled people, but that doesn't apply in this circumstance.

While it is unlawful to take another's limit, which is the law that he was cited under, there is no provision or rule that defines who the fish belongs to when multiple anglers play the fish. There is no rule prohibiting multiple anglers from playing the fish either.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=220-56-150" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
While there are logical conclusions that can be made about who actually "harvested" the fish, there is no legal definition or explanation of ownership of a fish where two people play the fish. The argument could be made that since it was hooked on a rod owned by one person, no matter who reeled it in it was that persons fish. It also can be argued logically that the person who played the fish longest actually "caught" the fish and is responsible for marking it. When two people play the fish equally, it could be argued that the fish belongs to the person holding the rod when the fish is netted, or it could be argued that it belongs to the person who netted it.

Fact is that the concept is ambiguous at best, and is almost legally non-existent when two or more people play the fish. Unfortunately, unless you come in prepared, call an expert witness or get a lawyer, I'm fairly certain that a judge will default to the discretion of the citing officer. The fact that he followed you around waiting for a violation to occur is irrelevant. When you purchase a license and engage in recreational fishing, you waive your rights of unreasonable search and seizure, privacy and property while engaged in recreational fishing, so game wardens are allowed to follow you around and stop you whenever they see fit.

In the end, since there is no rule against multiple anglers playing the fish, and there are no definitions, legal or otherwise within the game laws, RCW or WAC that define or explain who owns the fish when the fish is harvested in these circumstances, the discretion of the citing officer is the only thing that makes it a violation. If you take the time and effort to contest the citation, I believe there is a good chance that you did not in fact violate any laws, barring previous court precedent that I am unaware and also too lazy to look up. It will depend on the judge that you get, his mood and the manner that you present your case as to whether you'll be found committed or not. I'm pretty sure that if it is considered a criminal act, the burden of proof will be on the state, and they'll have to prove that sharing the playing of a fish with your fishing partner is a violation, and that the fish actually belonged to you under the law. If you've got a lawyer in the family, I'd bring him along. It may be worth it for you to hire an attorney, because if you are found committed, they can revoke your guides license and you won't be able to guide anymore. That's another thing to consider.

[RiverChromeGS]

The ticket is bogus. If you both played the fish, it could go on either card in my opinion. A lot of times I'll hook a fish, play it, then hand my rod to someone else so that I can net it. Whose fish is that? Should I mark it, or should they? .

couldnt have said it any better myself nate, its way too undefined for wardens to be writing tickets for something like that, total ,

and like you said since there is no written law its probably going to end up being whatever mood the judge is in

[dutchman2858]

Fishenfreak: Point of clarification...on July 18 you posted the following to "Baker Lake Fishing Reports":

BE CAREFUL ON BAKER

"today i dropped my gear back in the water before marking my fish, i was about to mark it after getting one rod back in and an undercover game warden came from a boat with poles and gear and everything and immediately gave me a ticket. Theyre watching in undercover boats so mark your fish immediately"

Same incident or a different one?

[RiverChromeGS]

Fishenfreak: Point of clarification...on July 18 you posted the following to "Baker Lake Fishing Reports":

BE CAREFUL ON BAKER

"today i dropped my gear back in the water before marking my fish, i was about to mark it after getting one rod back in and an undercover game warden came from a boat with poles and gear and everything and immediately gave me a ticket. Theyre watching in undercover boats so mark your fish immediately"

Same incident or a different one?

same incident, i was too lazy to write up the real situation that night so i made it simpler, but decided to do the full write up in the forum the next day!

[TomD]

Continue to fish for salmon after the adult portion of the daily limit has been retained.
If each of your 3 kids catch and retain one salmon apiece at Baker you are through for the day. YOU may not also catch and retain a limit!

Hewesfisher - this doesn't refer to the fisherperson... it refers to the salmon...

In areas where there is a different limit... like the Cowlitz where you can catch 6 salmon, only 2 of which may be adults...

If you take your second adult, you are done, regardless of how many jacks you do or don't have...

I checked in with Mike Cenci, Deputy Chief of WDFW Enforcement. He did confirm for me that my interpretation is correct. The statement in the regs does not refer to adult people fishing with children. It refers to continuing to fish after you have retained the legal limit of adult salmon.

Hope this helps people's understanding. Tight Lines!

[Amx]

What is an 'adult' salmon?

[RiverChromeGS]

What is an 'adult' salmon?

a non-jack salmon, which does not apply at baker, but would apply in a place where the limit is like 6 chinook, 2 of which may be adults, (over 24 inches) in which you can continue fishing for adults if you keep jacks, but cannot fish for jacks after retaining 2 adults

[MotoBoat]

What is an 'adult' salmon?

Not real certain. But most likely based on Size? Example: "so many inches" or smaller is a jack. "so many inches" or larger is an adult. This is my immediate thought. Others can clarify.

[MotoBoat]

What is an 'adult' salmon?

a non-jack salmon, which does not apply at baker, but would apply in a place where the limit is like 6 chinook, 2 of which may be adults, (over 24 inches) in which you can continue fishing for adults if you keep jacks, but cannot fish for jacks after retaining 2 adults

I your court date Monday, today? or on another Monday? What county court house do you have to travel?......Burlington?.........Everett?..............Mt Vernon...?

[Bodofish]

Bodofish: You are absolutely correct that "freak" has the right to go to court...but your "...you goons..." comment is off base. "Fishenfreak" initiated the thread to express his outrage at what he perceived as mistreatment by the wardens, and to garner vindication from other members for that outrage. He got plenty...but he also got disagreement with his position. Those dissention opionions are also guaranteed by the Constitution.

While the court decision will settle the issue of this ticket...it will not have any affect on "Fishenfreaks" (or your) opinions. If the court sides with him and dismisses the charge he will get his vindication and be able to crow, "I was right!" If the court upholds the ticket and fines him, he will state, "They made a mistake...if they had understood what really happened they would have dismissed the ticket!" That's no condemnation of "Freak" it's human nature. Good thread, though!

It's a perfect use of the word and not off base at all, he doesn't deserve to be bullied by any of the posters telling him to just buck and take his punishment. There is no punishment to take unless the Judge deems it so.

SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, TOO BAD.