Investigative resources are finite. Grievances and potential infractions are infinite. Sometime battles need to be picked and chosen.
Wild & Clear
- Thread starter MontanaWild
- Start date
Investigative resources are finite. Grievances and potential infractions are infinite. Sometime battles need to be picked and chosen.
I have no dog in this fight....but this seemed to resonate with me. With resources limited, state game and fish agencies need to be especially vigilant when picking their battles.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Maybe resources wouldn't be so finite if Residents of Montana had to pay more than $36 combined for an elk and deer tag...for starters.
I don't find this "battle" out of line at all, only fitting and appropriate.
If you're going to base the amount of money spent per conviction and resulting fines as a litmus test for the "battle"...then we should just fold the tent and go home right now and not fight any.
There probably isn't a single wildlife related case in the State of Montana that "pencils" out.
Its really not up to YOU to decide which cases are important and which ones aren't.
IMO, this one is pretty important on a few levels.
1. The fish in question has already been considered for the ESL...targeting them in closed waters is a black and white issue..100% against the law. Just what we don't need is a bunch of yahoos out there mishandling bull trout to make a video.
2. The message needs to be sent to guys like this, that they are not above the law, even if they "just want to encourage people to fish, hike, use the wilderness, etc.". Yes, use it, but follow the law, not that complicated. Set an example, don't be made an example of by breaking the law.
3. These were flagrant violations and they were so dumb, they posted their crimes for the whole world to see...nothing like strapping on the Velcro pants and showing the world your arse...
I don't find anything wrong with the FWP and FS pursuing the violations, they had it coming.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
I find myself agreeing with Buzz. On the other hand how many times has Randy talked in length about all the "permit hoops" he has to go through? These guys and I'm sure others in the industry have heard either through Randy's comments or others the requirements for filming with the appropriate permits. It will send a message to others I'm sure.
What I do find silly the amount that someone has to pay for these permits. When you consider what they charge for grazing and mining it's crazy. Seems a rancher can rape the countryside with his overgrazing while being minimally charged but someone whats to shoot some video and they put the screws to them. Heck we have to pay $12 to pitch a tent and poop in the outhouse anymore. You add an extra car to the campsite and you're dinged even more.
I've always admired Randy's diligence in following the laws. It's been that way since I've known him as an accountant. I've seen him following things to a "T" in situations that I knew really probably didn't matter or nobody would know. You sure don't have to look over your shoulder if you're doing what you're supposed to. And that helps you sleep at night.
What I do find silly the amount that someone has to pay for these permits. When you consider what they charge for grazing and mining it's crazy. Seems a rancher can rape the countryside with his overgrazing while being minimally charged but someone whats to shoot some video and they put the screws to them. Heck we have to pay $12 to pitch a tent and poop in the outhouse anymore. You add an extra car to the campsite and you're dinged even more.
I've always admired Randy's diligence in following the laws. It's been that way since I've known him as an accountant. I've seen him following things to a "T" in situations that I knew really probably didn't matter or nobody would know. You sure don't have to look over your shoulder if you're doing what you're supposed to. And that helps you sleep at night.
I hadn't looked at this in a bit to see the turn it was gravitating towards. I agree 100% with Buzz.
Prosecution of fish and game cases will never pencil out.
Maybe they were just dumb naïve college kids. I don't know. Should they have asked more questions? Absolutely yes.
The issues with targeting bull trout are nothing new. This isn't rocket science here.
These guys aren't villains, they screwed up and had to pay the piper. Hopefully they will mature past the making excuses stage and learn from it, and do it right the next time. They certainly have talent.
When you are talking about commercially exploiting a potential ESA species I don't see how anyone can make the claim that FWP has better things to focus on. That's simply ridiculous.
Prosecution of fish and game cases will never pencil out.
Maybe they were just dumb naïve college kids. I don't know. Should they have asked more questions? Absolutely yes.
The issues with targeting bull trout are nothing new. This isn't rocket science here.
These guys aren't villains, they screwed up and had to pay the piper. Hopefully they will mature past the making excuses stage and learn from it, and do it right the next time. They certainly have talent.
When you are talking about commercially exploiting a potential ESA species I don't see how anyone can make the claim that FWP has better things to focus on. That's simply ridiculous.
ida homer
Well-known member
I love how you arm chair idiots are raking them over the coals.
It's pretty clear that it was an honest mistake. No one in their right mind would knowingly post an illegal fishing trip on the internet. Especially someone that talented, with legitimate sponsors and as serious of a following as they maintain.
It's easy to see that they typically do things the right way, just from observing the kind of effort they put into their editing. I'm not saying they should go unpunished, so un-clinch your fists.
It's pretty clear that it was an honest mistake. No one in their right mind would knowingly post an illegal fishing trip on the internet. Especially someone that talented, with legitimate sponsors and as serious of a following as they maintain.
It's easy to see that they typically do things the right way, just from observing the kind of effort they put into their editing. I'm not saying they should go unpunished, so un-clinch your fists.
slipinonem
New member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2015
- Messages
- 73
An honest mistake? Really? Even as a nonresident I'm capable of reading and understanding the regulations as they are written. The onus is on them to know the laws BEFORE they set foot in the field. They still won't admit they were wrong, passing the buck. If they woukd just man up they wouldn't be getting roasted as badly as they are.
2 points; ignorance of the law is still a crime and sponsors = commercial activities.
We may not like the rules and we may not follow the rules, but there will be a price to pay if we are caught breaking them.
I am sure it was a good learning moment and they will move ahead making better decisions.
belly-deep
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 3,459
Money and/or a chance to get more sponsorships makes people go out of their "right mind" all the time. There have been several outdoor TV show hosts get busted for game violations in the last couple years. Every fly fisherman I've ever talked to knows it is illegal to fish for bull trout. An a person of average intelligence would make sure to read the regulations pretty close if they were going to fish an area where it was open. They said they had catch cards, which means they were at N FWP office at some point. Would have been real easy to just ask if they were confused by the wording of the regs.
Has anyone posting here been pulled over for speeding and received a warning? I know I have. Why? It's my presumption that the officer took into acct my spotless driving record and the amount over the speed limit I was traveling.
These guys made enough mistakes that it sounds like they got what they deserved. However, IMO, All people are trying to say is that context is relevant and can influence the proper course of action.
These guys made enough mistakes that it sounds like they got what they deserved. However, IMO, All people are trying to say is that context is relevant and can influence the proper course of action.
In reading their press release, I get the impression that they really don't want to take full responsibility. I could be wrong, but that's the vibe I get.
Given the number of citations that were issued, I think it's fairly safe to say that their prevailing attitude during the investigation was not one of humility, accountability, and cooperation. One doesn't get charged with that many violations for simple mistakes that one owns up to once it's brought to their attention.
Even earlier in the thread they denied it was the Bob Marshall. Turns out it was. That clearly indicates intent and knowledge.
Again, they are very talented and I hope they learn from it and move forward.
Given the number of citations that were issued, I think it's fairly safe to say that their prevailing attitude during the investigation was not one of humility, accountability, and cooperation. One doesn't get charged with that many violations for simple mistakes that one owns up to once it's brought to their attention.
Even earlier in the thread they denied it was the Bob Marshall. Turns out it was. That clearly indicates intent and knowledge.
Again, they are very talented and I hope they learn from it and move forward.
RobG
Well-known member
Also fishing for bulls in the NF Blackfoot, where there is no ambiguity about it being illegal to target bulls.
RobG
Well-known member
-10 for not pointing out the illegal targeting of bull trout or the fact that you can't commercial film in a wilderness
Bambistew
Well-known member
Their response was pretty funny. Highlighting that a clarification had to be made to include tributaries as a reason for being stupid.
I only fish MT on occasion now, but used to fish probably 80-100 days a year. The regs really haven't changed much in the last 20 years or more. A few more streams/lakes added, in the "exceptions," but definitions seem to be the same for the most part. In the expectations section, it either clearly states the water body AND the tributaries, if they are included. One part that I believe has been in the regs for as long as I can remember is "If you don’t find the water you are looking for listed in the district exceptions, use the standard regulations for the district you are fishing in." It then referes to the table with bag limit/season/etc. The standard regs state no take of bull trout, or targeting them. Its pretty clear to me.
Bull trout have been off limits for nearly 20 years now, if not more. I can't say for certain as I don't often fish where they are present. We're not talking some new change out of the blue. Man up, take your lumps and move on. We all screw up.
I only fish MT on occasion now, but used to fish probably 80-100 days a year. The regs really haven't changed much in the last 20 years or more. A few more streams/lakes added, in the "exceptions," but definitions seem to be the same for the most part. In the expectations section, it either clearly states the water body AND the tributaries, if they are included. One part that I believe has been in the regs for as long as I can remember is "If you don’t find the water you are looking for listed in the district exceptions, use the standard regulations for the district you are fishing in." It then referes to the table with bag limit/season/etc. The standard regs state no take of bull trout, or targeting them. Its pretty clear to me.
Bull trout have been off limits for nearly 20 years now, if not more. I can't say for certain as I don't often fish where they are present. We're not talking some new change out of the blue. Man up, take your lumps and move on. We all screw up.
MThuntr
Well-known member
Looks like Adipose Boats has pulled their sponsorship.
Via Facebook:
Via Facebook:
T
tjones
Guest
Totally unrelated question.
Why the camo face masks? I haven't fished much for 20 years, back then camo wasn't necessary.
Why the camo face masks? I haven't fished much for 20 years, back then camo wasn't necessary.
MThuntr
Well-known member
It's cool that's why.
(edit: this came off snarky towards Tony but it was directed at all of those guys that do wear them because they are cool instead of wearing them for health reasons)A close friend of mine has to use a buff in conjunction with sunscreen as he has gotten skin cancer from overexposure to UV light.
Last edited:
T
tjones
Guest
Face mask and visor are part of the beginner package to the new Orvis Tuxedo. If your not wearing these, you obviously don't know how to fish............
. Just an FYI, both must be worn into the bar after fishing as well to retain any credibility!Really, they are just used to hide from the sun. Someone marketed incredibly well to the right people!
Similar threads
