Poaching?

[Jimbo87]

Now that got your attention. Now lets establish this fact: I DO NOT POACH.

However, some of my friends have seen pictures of fish that I've caught and said "Wow man, that fish is sweet! Did you keep it?" And this time of year, my reply is - "Nope, caught it in the DHALO section of the creek". To which they usually reply "Wow dude...I would have kept it anyway for something like that".

Now here is the question - What exactly is the penalty for taking fish outside of regs?

Everytime I try to research just what the penalty would be for taking fish outside of regulations, all I get are articles on deer. Aside from the moral issues and considerations for preserving the natural habitat, etc. - legally, what are we dealing with here?

 

[Fishidiot]

Jimbo,
I honestly don't know. My guess would be that the fine would somehow correlate with how many fish one illegally possesed? Perhaps $25-35 per fish? I'd imagine that much of the time there are multiple infractions: no license, no PFD etc and that the WCO may have some leeway in how to calculate the fine.
I don't know.

 

[hbgbswanson]

I can only assume it's the same as the per fish fine stated here.

Q & A
Penalties for Fishing without a License
Question
What are the penalties for fishing without a license?
Answer
The Fish and Boat Commission takes the offense of fishing without a license (also known as poaching) very seriously.
The base fine for fishing without a license is currently (2008) set at $50. An amount equal to two times the cost of the required license and permit is added to the base fine.

A violator also may be sentenced to pay an additional fine of $20 per fish taken illegally.

Fishing without a license is the single most prosecuted fishing offense under the Fish and Boat Code.

Poaching fish from Pennsylvania waters is a little like shoplifting: Poachers are prosecuted. The simple message is this: If you want to enjoy all the wonders of fishing in the waters of the Commonwealth, buy a fishing license. The cost is modest; the benefits are great. If you fish without a license, you will face penalties that far exceed the modest cost of a fishing license.

You Poach...You Pay!!

http://fishandboat.com/images/pages/qa/fish_regs/poach.htm

 

[Jimbo87]

I would assume the same, it would definitely make sense for the fine to correlate to how many fish you would have in your posession. It also makes me wonder just what you would have to do (or how little you would have to do) to get your license yanked.

 

[Jimbo87]

Swanson - sorry for the overpost, didn't see your post in the time it took me to reply. Good info, thanks!

 

[MKern]

BTW, replica mounts are about the same price as skin mounts. Always put the fish back and take a couple pictures and good measurments.

However, to me, a framed picture is way classier than a mount, and a fraction of the cost.

 

[Foxgap239]

Somehow I remember reading somewhere that not only is there a fine but loss of fishing privledges for a period of time. Maybe Mike could weigh in here.

 

[caveman]

This is from the PFBC website on the Unlawful acts page:

IF A VIOLATION OCCURS...
Persons accused of violating the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Code or rules and regulations may be issued a citation and have a right to a hearing before a district justice. Law enforcement personnel have the authority to confiscate or seize as evidence fish and fishing equipment that are illegal or used to violate fishing laws or regulations. The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission may, upon proper notice, suspend or revoke the fishing privileges, boating privileges or other permits of any person convicted (or acknowledging guilt) of a violation of the Fish and Boat Code or Fish & Boat Commission regulations.

If you have been convicted of or plead guilty to a second or subsequent violation within a 12-month period, you may be assessed an additional fine of $200 for those offenses classified as summary offenses.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

That's it?

No wonder people don't care. Not stiff enough.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

MKern wrote:
BTW, replica mounts are about the same price as skin mounts. Always put the fish back and take a couple pictures and good measurments.

However, to me, a framed picture is way classier than a mount, and a fraction of the cost.

I agree 100%. The photo in my Avatar is also a double matted 8x10 mounted in a very nice frame. It's in my man cave. The wild tiger trout was released unharmed.

 

[pwk5017]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
That's it?

No wonder people don't care. Not stiff enough.

Totally agree. $20? Pssh wow...I spend more in gas to get to a stream.

Depends on the section that you were in, but why keep the fish? I dont see much accomplishment in catching a big stocker that is a 2week resident of the stream. No doubt the catch was fun, but something you want to memorialize in your home for 20 years? Not me.

 

[Cornholio]

This is a littlle off the mark, but that old mind set of having to keep every nice fish just plain pisses me off. Why do people feel the urge to kill something rare and beautifull. Take a picture to put on the wall, let the fish go, everybody wins.

 

[Chaz]

They will also take your gear.

 

[billm67]

I agree with Cornholio....Having to keep the fish all the time is stupid. The same goes for deer hunting...at least to me. When I was growing up my father had a construction business. My dad and brothers shot doe in doe season....but we depended on the meat to survive over the winter. Up where we hunt my cousins all go out and kill every doe they see and complain the rest of the year that there are no deer to hunt. The same goes here. Being a good steward of the resources says to take only what you need. Enjoy catching the fish...byt put him back so that he'll be there to catch again.

 

[pcray1231]

I know someone who's daughter just got a citation for fishing without a license. It was her first and only cast EVER.

She was at a stream with her bf, she was not fishing, but her bf was fly fishing (and properly licensed to do so). She got interested and he handed her the rod to let her take a cast. The WCO was on them before she finished a single cast.

At least that's the story I got. I do realize it's the story a teenager told her mother, though. If fully accurate, I said it's probably a little over the top on the WCO's part, and they may have ultimately lost a fisherperson. But technically, yes, it was a violation.

 

[DGC]

I do realize it's the story a teenager told her mother, though. If fully accurate, I said it's probably a little over the top on the WCO's part, and they may have ultimately lost a fisherperson. But technically, yes, it was a violation.

I agree. I suspect most WCO's would as well. The "if accurate" aspect is the key, especially when a teen faces coughing up money.

 

[171farm]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
That's it?

No wonder people don't care. Not stiff enough.

Seems like the fishing penalties rival the hunting penalties in this state. Not much of a shock that both are so often broken.

 

[wresle24]

I was early harvest fly fishing in Lancaster County. Unaware that the early harvest section ended at the 472 bridge (my fault I understand) I was about 20 feet upstream from the bridge. I was the only one on the water as it was mid March cold and rainy. I was properly licensed for the year and kept NO fish. Don't even own a stringer. My fine was $70 for poaching. GC said if I had kept fish it would have been $200 with a loss of license for the reminder on that year and the next. Make sure you know your creek sections...

 

[Phish_On]

Absolutely right that the penalties arent stiff enough. Fine someone a few hundred dollars, take away there fishing/hunting privliages for a extended period of time. See if they do it again.

 

[MKern]

They probably will do it again; they did just break the law and lightning can't strike twice right?