Immediate Release

[bradford2]

For discussion - 'Immediate Release'

I've been saying for years that the regs need to clarify this term. Can you take a photo of an OOS fish that requires 'Immediate Release'.
(quote - Fish accidentally caught during the closed season must be immediately released back to the water.)

If NOT, then can you take a photo of a 35" Muskie, in season. It also requires 'Immediate Release'.
(quote - NOTE: If you catch a fish in a restricted size range, you must release it immediately)

They use the same terminology all over the place.

So now I see for the new regs this year in fact, an updated section on 'Immediate Release'. It's even highlighted in red......

Immediate Release of Fish – All fish that are caught unlawfully or
are illegal to possess (e.g., during the closed season, of prohibited
size, or are in excess of the catch and possession limits) must be
immediately released at the place and time of capture. This includes
fish that may be injured during catch. This rule does not apply to
invasive species like goby which must be immediately released or
destroyed (see General Prohibitions).

Doesn't seem very helpful. If anything, it would IMO stongly suggest no photos allowed period.

Catch a 10 pound walleye on the Miss? Sorry, no picture for you!

Haha what gives.

[smitty55]

Hmmmm. I thought I read elsewhere that this issue of taking pictures was going to get more clarified this year. Yea, clear as mud. They expanded it from a little note, but still, what does immediately mean then? Can we ever expect the gov to get it right lol.
I did talk to the owner of a small outfitting business who specifically asked a couple of CO's about posting pics on his fb page of oversize Walleye. Safe handling techniques were assured and with that expectation the MNR guys didn't have a problem with it. So maybe it's a discretionary thing, but I can't see a CO having a prob with taking a quick pic as a general rule. I'd wager that sitting in a livewell for who knows how long after being stressed out from being caught, can be much harder on a fish than a "timely" release.

Cheers

[Haulin Bass]

"must be immediately released at the place and time of capture."
I agree with you Brad. The statement says to release at the time of capture not plus the time it takes to snap a few pics. I guess we are probably all law breakers, unless they mean to release at at the time of the image capture.

[Oneeleven]

About a year ago I went on the search to find the answer to this very same thing as I see people with photos of sturgeon, out of season fish (totally guilty of this myself) and oversized fish, all over various social media. Seemingly without issue.

I found this tagged in a thread and bookmarked it.

Not sure if it would still be valid, but its food for thought anyways.



From: "Gilboe, Peter \(MNR\)"
Date: April 10, 2006 6:11:26 PM EDT (CA)
To: "Gaye Smith", "Mccrudden, Chuck \(MNR\)", "Rowe, Richard \(MNR\)" Cc: "Schenk, Mike \(MNR\)"
Subject: RE: Picture

Gaye,
The Ontario Fishery Regulations, section 13, say:"... every person who catches a fish of a species
(a) at a time or place at which fishing for that species is prohibited,
©the possession or retention of which is prohibited,
shall return the fish forthwith to the waters from which it was taken, and where the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to the fish"
The keys here are "forthwith" and "in a manner that causes the least harm to the fish". If a person catch and releases several fish per day more than their legal limit, but releases them after snapping a quick photo, we'd never dream of charging them for "retention" of the overlimit, so I think the same analogy holds here with closed season fish. It would come down to a test of reasonableness if it were ever to get to court, and I feel comfortable saying the I would never lay such a charge if the angler was "reasonable" in his quest for a photo. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to do - as long as you don't need to run back to the camp for a camera, or pass it around to everybody in the boat for their turn in front of the lens.
I've only ever laid the charge twice in my time; once for a little *&(%&% who was drop-kicking closed season bass off a lock in Ottawa (the Youth Court Judge was NOT amused), and another for a guy who released a whopper closed season walleye only after he saw us coming. He said he was going to release it all along, but couldn't quite explain why he had been holding it in a bag in the water for safekeeping.
If my learned partner has any other thoughts I'm sure he'll jump in.

Pete

You know the really sad thing? Honest folks worry about these very fine points of law, while others stuff the fish down their boot and think nothing of it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gaye Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:30 PM
To: Mccrudden, Chuck (MNR); Rowe, Richard (MNR)
Cc: Gilboe, Peter (MNR); Schenk, Mike (MNR)
Subject: Picture

Hello All

What is the MNR's official position on someone taking a picture of a fish caught out of season before releasing it ?

Gaye Smith

[River Monster]

I could see how a CO would have no issue with taking a quick picture or two with a nice fish providing that it is caught while it’s in season.

Now if you pull a big bass off a bed, and are taking photo’s than I could see that being an issue.

[curls]

Oneleven - my brothers' friend is a CO and he said basically the same thing as the email you posted.
Basically: Don't be a d!ck to the CO and don't try to BS them. A quick pic at the time of the catch (not minutes later, not storing them in a livewell for hours and then takinga pic and releasing in another area)... is fine.
It hasn't been proven in court, but they'll likely not lay a charge in the first place if you aren't purposely targeting OOS fish or causing the CO to really not like you.

[Jimmy_1]

Charges = Paperwork

Is it worth it?

If you catch a dandy and snap a pic of it and release it then according to the wordingfine Bradford posted you are fine.

The fish wasn't harmed, no excessive handling etc.

Big difference between deliberate OOS targeting....i.e trolling the ottawa with cowgirls in May to incidentally catching a musky with a Jackal whilst targetting gar.

[Oneeleven]

This is the other deciding factor as well I'm sure.

Spawning season puts a whole new spin on things. Or what lures/rods/set up your using too.

If you catch a huge muskie on a pan fish jig, out of a hole in the ice (where you don't really have much control over what you get) or if you're fishing in a totally non-typical spawning bass area and get one anyways, I'm sure there's forgiveness there.

But I believe there is a (moral) difference between an out of season fish and an spawning season fish. The latter ... you just don't mess with.

[TheMaverick]

About a year ago I went on the search to find the answer to this very same thing as I see people with photos of sturgeon, out of season fish (totally guilty of this myself) and oversized fish, all over various social media. Seemingly without issue.

I found this tagged in a thread and bookmarked it.

Not sure if it would still be valid, but its food for thought anyways.



From: "Gilboe, Peter \(MNR\)"
Date: April 10, 2006 6:11:26 PM EDT (CA)
To: "Gaye Smith", "Mccrudden, Chuck \(MNR\)", "Rowe, Richard \(MNR\)" Cc: "Schenk, Mike \(MNR\)"
Subject: RE: Picture

Gaye,
The Ontario Fishery Regulations, section 13, say:"... every person who catches a fish of a species
(a) at a time or place at which fishing for that species is prohibited,
©the possession or retention of which is prohibited,
shall return the fish forthwith to the waters from which it was taken, and where the fish is alive, release it in a manner that causes the least harm to the fish"
The keys here are "forthwith" and "in a manner that causes the least harm to the fish". If a person catch and releases several fish per day more than their legal limit, but releases them after snapping a quick photo, we'd never dream of charging them for "retention" of the overlimit, so I think the same analogy holds here with closed season fish. It would come down to a test of reasonableness if it were ever to get to court, and I feel comfortable saying the I would never lay such a charge if the angler was "reasonable" in his quest for a photo. I don't think it's an unreasonable thing to do - as long as you don't need to run back to the camp for a camera, or pass it around to everybody in the boat for their turn in front of the lens.
I've only ever laid the charge twice in my time; once for a little *&(%&% who was drop-kicking closed season bass off a lock in Ottawa (the Youth Court Judge was NOT amused), and another for a guy who released a whopper closed season walleye only after he saw us coming. He said he was going to release it all along, but couldn't quite explain why he had been holding it in a bag in the water for safekeeping.
If my learned partner has any other thoughts I'm sure he'll jump in.

Pete

You know the really sad thing? Honest folks worry about these very fine points of law, while others stuff the fish down their boot and think nothing of it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gaye Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 2:30 PM
To: Mccrudden, Chuck (MNR); Rowe, Richard (MNR)
Cc: Gilboe, Peter (MNR); Schenk, Mike (MNR)
Subject: Picture

Hello All

What is the MNR's official position on someone taking a picture of a fish caught out of season before releasing it ?

Gaye Smith

This ^^^^^ where is the like button?

Maybe the MNR’s terminology purposely leaves a grey area, as common sense usually prevails.
That being said, sometimes you just can’t fix stupid, if charges were brought forward in court, the MNR can lawfully defend the cause as it’s a written regulation.

[Markus]

That email is from 2006. I'd caution turning a blind eye to that regulation evolving into something more seriously enforced over the last decade.

My gut tells me it's a charge they'd use if they were wanting you for other reasons. I've never met an unreasonable CO in my life.

[Supernova224]

Maybe the MNR’s terminology purposely leaves a grey area, as common sense usually prevails.

Exactly. I think they leave the wording vague as to give COs as much discretion as possible.

[RJ]

Normal law abiding folk wouldn't ever have to worry about this one.

Who does? Folks targetting OOS fish and taking pics of every fish. They 100% use this law as a tool to nail those jackasses. The targetting OOS fish is a VERY difficult charge to make stick but it's undeniable when they lay this charge that in their eyes that day you didn't "immediately" release the fish. CO's find it very handy...

While Crappie fishing with my Dad late April last Spring my Pops hooked into a GIANT Largie. Biggest I've seen ever. Did we take a pic? Yup and would do it again in a heartbeat, we still talk about that fish regularly.

RJ

[bradford2]

I agree 100% with all the comments. Law abiding folks need not worry. It's more for OOS fish then the others. Common sense will prevail. Etc etc etc.

But still it means that if you do catch a 10lb walleye, in season on the Miss and take a photo, you could be charged under the vague law.
It's an illegal act no different than taking a picture of an OOS fish (if deemed to be illegal).

Yes yes yes I know, you will never get charged for taking a pic of a 10lb in season walleye on the MIss, unless of course you are asking for one.

I think you guys are right. It's left vague on purpose

[curls]

Funny you mention the crappie fishing and giant largies, RJ!

The CO I'm referring to was here in eastern Ontario, fishing Crappies a few years ago (May? or late April. I can't recall). Anyhow, he hooked into two BIG largies that day, took pics of them both, and knew they were OOS. This is a VERY law-abiding, pro-MNR CO we're talking about. Fishing with another CO. So yes, I'd say photos of OOS are fine as long as they're quick and the release of the fish is timely.

[TheMaverick]

And to say this question comes up almost every year on Fish-Hawk, this being the first year it’s been handled/discussed adequately.

How times have changed lo0ol