Question: What should the fine be for an illegal fish? (length or creel violation)

[rushcreekoutdoor]

Okay guys, enforcement is a popular topic on our forum here as well as a number of other hunting and fishing forums that I visit. As I am directly involved with local KDFWR officers in enforcing the game and fish laws in Kentucky, I thought that I would take a little survey:

What do you think should be the fine for either possessing one to three short fish or being over the limit one to three fish? Same question for a larger violation, say 10 to 20short fish or 10-20 over the limit.

Remember, each fish can be a separate charge.
Court Costs are around $175-180
General penalty range for the basic violation is fine of $50 to $500 unless there is a more specific charge that carries a different penalty.

So what about it guys, how much for a short fish???

RCO

[gabowman]

To begin with, it would be great to take the settings of fines out of the courts and give them back to DNR to set. DNR catches you...they write the ticket, everybody knows the fine, and you go pay it...no courts. Just see the judge. That way the good ole' boys dont get off scott free and the rest pay the penalties. As far as how much? Doesnt really matter as long as everyone gets the same fair treatment once caught IMO. A pat on the backside (or spank on the hand) doesnt get the job done.

How's that for not answering your question?!?:D:D:D

[ifish]

I was checked by Rory Flynn a few years ago and he was really checking the fish. He was doing a full length creel survey. I had 18 fish that day and he showed be one that he said was short so I put it back in my checker and it showed right on the line at 10 inches and I asked him to show me his check and it came up 1/16 of an inch short.In his opinion I had a short fish and he could of wrote me a ticket but he did not. Short fish or too many fish is both illegal in my opinion.

[acgriggs]

INO $50 a fish is fine for first time offenders. Fines for repeat offenders should be steeper. Maybe $100 a fish the second time caught and if you are dumb enough to get caught a third or more time start taking poles, equipment and even boats.

[Wiskers]

First fish should be $200 with an additional $50 a fish for each fish under the legal length limit. If the individual is caught with 5 or more fish under the legal length limit the fine per fish should be doubled. Max fine $2000.

$200 min. fine for over the limit, with an additional $50 per fish for everyone over 21. I other words 1 fish is gonna cost you $200, every 1 after that is $50 a piece. For instance. The fine would be $200 for the first fish and another $50 a piece for the remaining 4, total $400 fine plus court cost. If the individual is caught with over 5 fish over the limit the fine should be doubled. Max fine $2000

Repeat offenders should have their fishing privileges suspended for a minimum of 2 years.

Make it hurt!

[crappiedoc]

$100 fine+ct costs on the 1st fish, double the fine on the 2nd, 3rd would double again and so on. Make it stiff and then get stiffer. The 3rd fish should also carry community service too. Something like Fish cleaning station attendant with labeled coveralls. Maybe even boat ramp attendant with labeled coveralls. I think the humility thing rocks, let everybody know who the violaters are. Because they're really thiefs, cause they are stealing from all of us.

[buffalo13]

Be glad when the weather breaks where we can talk about fish we caught instead of whats on here now...
Guess it's a good time to clear the air..

[CatFan]

First fish should be $200 with an additional $50 a fish for each fish under the legal length limit. If the individual is caught with 5 or more fish under the legal length limit the fine per fish should be doubled. Max fine $2000.

$200 min. fine for over the limit, with an additional $50 per fish for everyone over 21. I other words 1 fish is gonna cost you $200, every 1 after that is $50 a piece. For instance. The fine would be $200 for the first fish and another $50 a piece for the remaining 4, total $400 fine plus court cost. If the individual is caught with over 5 fish over the limit the fine should be doubled. Max fine $2000

Repeat offenders should have their fishing privileges suspended for a minimum of 2 years.

Make it hurt!

And fishing while your privileges are suspended should be another hefty fine and an even longer suspension.

And all the fines go to enforcement of fish and game laws.

A hunter/fisherman education class would be a nice requirement before violators could get a new license. With tests.

And you release your entire catch and lose fishing privileges for 24 hours for any violation more than a single fish or fraction of an inch. This would hit some folks much harder than the fine. Especially people who think their wealth makes them immune from following rules and regs.

1 or 2 fish or a fraction of an inch short should get you at least a written warning, and possibly a record on some kind of system so officers would know who pushes the law.

I kept a fish that was short by 1" a couple of years ago. We were on them pretty good, and I guess I measured it, saw it was short and put it in the well instead of over the side in my hurry to get back to fishing. Luckily it was still lively at the ramp and I didn't get checked. So it can be an accident.:o

[rushcreekoutdoor]

Thanks for the responses. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was going to really reply.

For the record, I agree with buffalo13. I watch a lot of topics like these come up on several forums. Our forum is generally more civil than some. One that I use to advertise my hunting lease on is so rude, it looks more like Topix than a family forum. With all of the threads and posts about the Townhalls and the regulation proposals, I thought I would see what people really wanted.

As far as gabowman's concerns, your solution interesting and would work really well in certain parts of Southern Russia where the duck hunting and fishing is good. Here in the US, the Constitution is a bit of an impediment to such frontier justice. Seriously though, that is not particularly an issue in my neck of the woods. My County is in Western Kentucky but does not border KY lake. We deal much more frequently with hunting violations. As such, most of our fishing violations are license/safety (lights and vests) and probably are written to bank fishermen on the river or sloughs ponds way more than people with "deep pockets". I can tell you that the average person who gets caught fishing without a license in our District truly suffers from paying the court cost alone, much less the fine. I remember a "good ole boy" who got a ticket once for fishing without a license at a pond with his 6 year old kid. He was reeling in a fish with the child's Snoopy pole when the officer walked up. Only one pole. Should that result in $380 in fines and costs assessed in the field? No matter how good it sounds to say "treat everyone the same" its really not justice. I have to look at each case and each set of facts and make my decisions accordingly.
Our most substantial fishing violation in the last few years involved a local man who was using a commercial shocker purchased on the internet and tried to throw it in the river when he got caught. He had a few catfish, but no gamefish. He was a "pretty good ole boy" but I doubt he felt like he got any breaks when he paid a large fine, lost his fishing rights, and lost a $4000 boat.

As I said, we mostly get violations on waterfowl and deer. The duck hunters don't seem too happy to face fines, costs, and loss of their $1000 Super x 2's and Benelli's for floating a fourth shell, plug out, or having lead shot or a duck or two over the limit.
Since Kentucky has basically got a bounty on the heads of does, doe violations are pretty nominal, but woe be unto the sucker who has any buck violation or trespass/hunt without permission violation. The deer hunters really seem glum about $500+ in fines/costs, loss of guns and sometimes four wheelers, loss of trophy and hunting privilege for 1-3 years, and probated jailtime.

We do use a great deal of community service on the public areas and have worked with shooting sports and the public shooting range maintenance in lieu of fines or forfeitures. It all depends on the facts, attitude of defendant, criminal history or lack thereof, and overall circumstances.

Anyway thanks for the posts and keep em coming.
RCO

The Court (at least the Judges I prosecute in front of) do a good job of backing up any disposition that I recommend. I rely primarily on the recommendation of the officer, but the facts do dictate the outcome in each case. For every evil, rotten, nasty violater I run across, I can assure you that he or she has a whole host of people who think they are worthy of mercy. In truth, more mercy is shown in most average assault, disorderly conduct or other general misdemeanor cases than in F an G cases. The officers are only able to monitor a fraction of the activity, so the penalties are generally tougher to keep people at least a little fearful of the outcome.

[ekySlabber]

I really like whisker's idea, realize though that its up to the courts/judges to realize the impact poor fishing could have on our recreational revenues and actually stick it to the violators, not just make em show up and pay court costs or even get off scott free by the good ol' boy system.