Six Southern Fisherman Guilty Of Overbagging On Lake Erie!

[Gary Lange]

Six fishermen plead guilty for excessive fishing of smallmouth bass: Outdoors Notebook.

By D'Arcy Egan, The Plain Dealer

May 07, 2010, 7:30AM

PORT CLINTON, Ohio -- Six southern fishermen had a banner week of smallmouth bass fishing on Lake Erie last week, and it could cost them their boats, bass and plenty of cash after being cited for overbagging 141 smallmouth bass.

The men, from Tennessee and Georgia, were under surveillance for a few days before Ohio wildlife officers arrested them last Friday.

"It was the largest case of overbagging Lake Erie bass I'd ever seen," said Gino Barna, head of Lake Erie law enforcement. "Few Ohio fishermen, especially the hardcore bass anglers, keep Lake Erie smallmouth bass. We observed these six men making two or three fishing trips a day, bringing back a daily limit of bass each time."

The daily limit when they were fishing was five per day.

Cited were: Freeland Leffew, 66, of Soddy Daisy, Tenn., and his son, Michael Leffew, 38, of Hixson, Tenn.; Samual Stephens, 58, of Soddy Daisy, Tenn.; Freddie Warren, 63, of Wildwood, Ga.; and Charles Burkhart, 67, and Samuel Carroll, 65, both of Ringgold, Ga.

Ohio's closed bass season on Lake Erie began Saturday. Bass caught through June 25 must be released.

Port Clinton Municipal Court Magistrate Louis Wargo accepted guilty pleas on all 30 charges from the six men on Monday. Wildlife officials confiscated three bass boats, two chest freezers, 155 bags of frozen fish and 20 unfrozen fish. A pre-sentencing report is due Tuesday, with sentencing June 2.

In addition to court fines, the Division of Wildlife is seeking restitution of $50 per fish, or $7,050, forfeiture of boats and freezers and a three-year revocation of their fishing licenses. Ohio is one of 34 states belonging to the Interstate Wildlife Violator Compact.

Oddly enough, the men said they had also caught a few walleye, which they released.

[eric1978]

Selfish bastards. Hope they get what they deserve.

[troutfiend1985]

What would you ever need 141 smallmouths for? I realize that between 6 guys its 21 or so per person, but man talk about not only braking the law but flipping it off as your doing it. I'm glad justice was served. I have no sympathy for poachers. You would think the risk of loosing your boat would be enough of a deterrent to keep people from doing things like this, but I guess some never learn. I hope they never come to Missouri or Arkansas. Paochers are no friend of mine, and there is no way to justify this kind of act.

I do have one question, what do conservation departments do with the fish that are illegally harvested? I hope they don't just pitch them. If they are consumable you(or at least I) would think the right thing to do with them is to donate them to a food kitchen for the poor.

Tight Lines

[eric1978]

I do have one question, what do conservation departments do with the fish that are illegally harvested? I hope they don't just pitch them. If they are consumable you(or at least I) would think the right thing to do with them is to donate them to a food kitchen for the poor.

Tight Lines

You'd have to assume there'd be some liability issues there. What if those fillets sat out in the sun and you end up with a few hundred puking bums? One of them will have the sense to file a suit. I'd say the fish wound up either in the garbage or in the agents' freezers.

[ColdWaterFshr]

Well, they're from Soddy Daisy, Tennessee, whadya expect? At least they let all the walleye go!

[Outside Bend]

After they're used as evidence, in some cases the fish are mounted for public displays. Otherwise they're tossed in the garbage.

Honestly, one of the things which irritated me about the report is that the agents apparently had these guys under surveillance for days. It seems to me they could've nipped it in the bud a bit earlier, although it wouldn't have made as interesting a headline...

[eric1978]

Good point OB. But like you said, the headline...in the long run the publicity of the crime and punishment will probably be a net gain.

[flytyer57]

Itty bitty fines, loss of their boats, freezers etc. ain't enough.

They should get at least a year in the state prison for every fish over the limit.

String them up by their cajones at the dock and let the public they stole from give them their fair

sentence.

Anyone for the death penalty?

[Sam]

As a retired police manager, I've got a real problem with the way the conservation officers allowed that deal to continue.

When an officer observes a crime being committed, he has a duty to intervene, stop the violation in progress, then warn, cite, or arrest the violator. The most important part of that is "stop the violation in progress" because that addresses the situation at hand. The warning, citing, or arresting is to prevent future violations. It's always good enforcement to remember and carry out the intent of the law - and the intent of this law is to protect the fish, not to increase the amount of fine money collected.

I'm not sticking up for the violators, but these were a bunch of old guys on a fishing vacation, one of them with his son. Apparently fishing was great, this should have been a trip of a lifetime with lots of good memories for everybody, and look what it's turned into - forfeited boats, big fines, national news, and a lot of dead fish. OK, they were idiots for even wanting to keep all those fish, but even good people are idiots sometimes and a serious violation could have easily been prevented and the bass could have been protected.

If Conservation was watching them, an officer should have swooped in as soon as they caught their first fish over the limit. He could have cited or warned them right then - advised them that the smallmouths are a valuable resource and that they can have fun catching and releasing all day long, but as soon as they put their daily limit in the boat they're done - or else! End of problem.

Sorry to go off on a rant, but that's a situation I dealt with for years, officers who'd let crimes become really serious before stepping in, because big felony busts look great on their record - and a County that liked it for their "revenue enhancement program". I wouldn't stand for that when I was working, and if those officers had pulled this while working for me, they'd sure pay for it.

I'd do my best to fire 'em, and I might even arrest them as accessories to the crimes they let happen.

[flytyer57]

Sorry to go off on a rant, but that's a situation I dealt with for years, officers who'd let crimes become really serious before stepping in, because big felony busts look great on their record - and a County that liked it for their "revenue enhancement program". I wouldn't stand for that when I was working, and if those officers had pulled this while working for me, they'd sure pay for it.

I'd do my best to fire 'em, and I might even arrest them as accessories to the crimes they let happen.

No appology needed. I, and I'm sure all of us here, feel the same way as you about the delay and the mess of fish no longer swimming all for the mighty $$$$.

Only problem is, most courts would laugh this right out on it's ear. Fines are not heavy enough to prevent this from happening unless there is an overabundance of the crime.