The Susky Regs and PFBC and Facebook

[barrybarry]

Happened to see this today. Sorry if it was covered before.

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/angler-s-facebook-photo-of-lunker-smallmouth-bass-from-susquehanna/article_46112ba6-1f4e-11e5-ac28-53377d53a036.html

 

[Fishidiot]

Yes, we've discussed this.

Short version: photo of a Susky bass being held up for a photo before being released. Evidently, the PFBC has citied the individual because - as we discussed in the previous thread - the reg states that the fish must be immediately released without being removed from the water. The individual is fighting the citation. Will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Please keep us informed if you see any further articles that follow up on this topic.

 

[jay348]

Fishidiot wrote:
Will be interesting to see how this turns out.

+1

I must have missed the previous discussions, but I've been wondering the same thing. Many times during this year's closed season, I saw hero shots of smbs (on what obviously looked like the susky) on social media, and wondered "what are these guys thinking posting this?"

 

[Fishidiot]

There's no tradition in PA of requiring fish to be kept entirely in the water during release (at least none that I'm aware of). Because of this, when PA anglers hear that they have to release fish immediately, they just assume a pic is okay...and they don't note the literal letter of the law.

In FL, by contrast, it has long been publicly understood and accepted that tarpon and goliaths must be kept in the water. But these are big fish (apples to pumpkins, so to speak) and lifting them is often not possible anyway.

Here in PA, anglers just aren't habituated to such an ethic (whether we should be is debatable).

This is an unorthodox rule and was not well publicized by the PFBC when it went into effect. I think the PFBC may have a tough case to enforce such a citation, at least for a couple years. My personal view is that, if the PFBC seeks to continue to enforce this policy to the letter, the state's anglers should get a grace period and the PFBC needs to do a better job with getting the word out.

 

[Swattie87]

Did he break the law as written, yes. Can’t really argue that. However, I can’t help but believe there are greater fouls being committed in the lower Susky watershed that I would prefer my license resources going toward enforcing or improving. This gentleman caught a nice Bass on accident, took a picture, and released it.

PFBC – The Bass in that picture is fine, or as fine as it was living in the lower Susky before it was caught and photographed anyway. Unless of course it was caught and illegally creeled, or succumb to some mid-Summer stressor from the pollution.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

What a joke. The PAFBC should spend their time protecting the watershed and going after real poachers not scapegoating a sportsmen. I've often felt they target the very people who pay their salaries with enforcement of unreasonable, picky, useless laws that protect nothing and help no one . I've reported incidents of poaching 3 times in the past month or so. Provided license plate numbers , descriptions etc....Lancaster, York and Berks counties.
No follow up from anyone in that organization. Have heard numerous other accounts of same stuff. Driving around in huge SUVs all day from one boat ramp to another and pestering lawful anglers is something we can all do without. Yeah....I'm bashing the PAFBC. I've been to court with one of them. He's now retired (good riddance). I KNOW HOW THEY CAN ABUSE THEIR POWER.

 

[wgmiller]

http://lancasteronline.com/news/local/angler-beats-charge-of-illegally-catching-susquehanna-smallmouth-bass/article_e644cac6-2faf-11e5-b86e-4ff10e8175ee.html

I hope I can get out of a speeding by the judge saying, "You know what? He didn't seem like a malicious type driver." :-D

To me, the regs are clear on the fact that the fish can't be removed from the water during that time period. It's black and white. While I agree that the PFBC probably has "bigger fish to fry", this sets a precedent for others to follow. I don't know in legal terms what cases can set precedent (if MDJ cases apply), but this is a setback for the PFBC if they wish to enforce the "no removal from the water" reg in the future.