Ticketed For Paddlefish Out Of Season

[Wayne SW/MO]

We grabbed last week on bull creak and there is a trout snagged now and then, hate to turn them lose but it is the law.

I don't understand how that happens. I've seen whites grabbed also and I don't see any other explanation than it's deliberate.

I've seen Spoonbill snagged below Truman including my own, but the word there was to release them without taking them from the water.

I suspect this whole incident concerns the picture taking and how long the fish were out of the water. Obviously there is a difference of opinion, but the agent has the ticket book. plexlove might beat it with a witness or two addressing the "taking" issue, but entrapment or the opinion of a judge from another state will never fly.

[slider]

Wayne I should clareifie when I saw trout snagged was when the water was still running and swift, when the fish would move people grabbed thus the trout. As fore the white bass thing you are right there is no mistake. Slider

[BigMinnow]

Wow can't believe I am just reading this thread, were have I been?

First whether or not you can or can not get out of your ticket I do not care. I do however think the agent that gave you the ticket did it for all of the right reasons he seen you do something that he felt was illegal and gave you a ticket in accordance with what he had seen.

I have had a simulare experience while coon hunting I shined my light on a group of deer, I had no clue the deer were there until I could identifies their eyes of those as deer, they were on the opposite side of the strip pit I was hunting and every so often when the hunting was slow I would turn and check them out. A passing agent noticed that I was useing a light to see the deer while in passion of a gun "TICKET" even though I had s few pelts on meandering Isaac completely legal to coon hunt I was unknowingly breaking a law. I did take my ticket to court and I did have me ticket thrown out I was completely respectfull to the job that agent had done. He seen me doing something that was illegal and took action that is what he does.

I can tell you I now know that it happens again to not keep looking at them with the light on or a gun in my hand.

[David Unnerstall]

When was the court date on this?

[bigredbirdfan]

Good Luck. 4 paddlefish and 0 gar.

The judge will be impressed with your ability to snag gar which is what you intended to catch.

But you "did" snag 4 paddlefish so other than your "words and thoughts" your intentions otherwise are unknown.

So the agent is left to assume after snaggin 1 you "intended" to snag 2, 3 and 4 and then document your catch.

You will have a diffcult time proving your intentions with not landing a single gar.

[troutfiend1985]

You will have a diffcult time proving your intentions with not landing a single gar.

Nice notice of our legal system and burden of proof. He doesn't have to prove anything wise guy, the prosecution will have to prove that he either took or atempted to take paddlefish within the meaning of the law and beyond a reasonable doubt. And to me it all depends on what "take" means. You would have to think that it means to permanently remove and possess a paddlefish, otherwise everytime you put a hook in water with paddlefish in the vicinity you could be "attempting to take" a paddle fish merely because you have a hook in the water and there are paddlefish in the water. I do wonder if the prosecution has to prove intent, if so it would be difficult becuase you would have to prove that at the time he hooked into a paddlefish it was his conscious desire to hook a paddlefish.

However, I don't see anyhting here that was entraptment. Entrapment is encouragin criminal activity in a nutshell. You can question this guys ethics, but never have I seen someone with merely poor ethics violate a crime. We shouldn't base guilty and not guilty on someones morality, rather law is concerned with acts.

Good luck, but I do hope that you change your fishing strategies becuase I believe that at best this shows a lack of judgment.

[Chief Grey Bear]

There was definite "attempt to take". But there was not "attempt to possess".

He must be in the slammer as this case was surely tried already. I wonder why the cocksure little stud isn't so mouthy now??????

[dennis boatman]

I'm sure that statement will wake him up!!!

[bluebasser86]

If what those agents were doing was entrapment then it wouldn't be legal for police officers to sit and watch for speeders, or to do drug or protitution stings. Also the word "take" has many different meanings and definitions. Take does not just mean you kept them. If you kept them out of the water or handled them in a way that the officers percieved as possibly being harmful to the fish more than what was needed to unhook and release the fish, that could be seen as "taking". I highly doubt a judge would talk so openly and negatively about the officers since a good portion of the money they make is from judging cases involving people arrested or ticketed by those "country boys". By the sounds of it I'm guessing the lawyer you talked to was a defense lawyer. They get paid to fight for you, so if they can convince you that you can beat a ticket they might be able to make some money fighting your case.

One thing about the laws, they are not black and white, they are flexible and can be interpreted in different ways by different people. Do some officers try to stretch it a little to far? sometimes, yes. It sounds to me like what you were doing could be seen as breaking that law, but it is well within your rights to fight the ticket and I think you may have a chance to beat it with the information you've given.

Not all officers are "dicks" either. I've been in law enforcement for a fairly short time, only about 5 years now. Are there some people on power trips in law enforcement? sure, but there's a lot more people who are really good guys and gals that are just doing their job and trying to feed their families on a pretty small income. You'll find people that aren't the most moral people in any line of work. How many times have you heard about someone at a restuarant doing someting less than tasteful to someones food? It just doesn't get as blown up as when an officer does something wrong because more is expected of them.

[techo]

There was definite "attempt to take". But there was not "attempt to possess".

He must be in the slammer as this case was surely tried already. I wonder why the cocksure little stud isn't so mouthy now??????

I try to stay out of these cop discussions as common sense tends to go out the window. This one seems to be fairly tame! He did possess by taking a photo of it.

I can even give you a good idea of the Officer's testimony.

We had received information of illegal spoonbill snagging at this location. Myself and another officer decided to watch the area and see if it was in fact accurate information. I saw the defendant snag a spoonbill. He did not leave the fish in the water or release it immediately, but POSSESSED it as he took a photograph of it. He did not stop snagging in the area where he now knew there were spoonbill, but kept snagging. As a matter of fact he did not move to another location. Not only did he snag three more spoonbill for a total of four, BUT he even called over another guy to let him reel one in!

I already tried to give him a break by not citing him four times or citing him for the largest fine I could, but gave him a lesser ticket. I tried to cut him a break as he said he was trying to snag gar, of which I didn't see any.

Good luck on the ticket!