POST 18: April 23rd (9:13am) Attorney Consultations

Attorney Consultations

In my last post, the Tribune reporter just confirmed Game and Fish opened an investigation. Again, I was confused. I didn't know what Game and Fish was specifically investigating or what I should do. I had a lot of questions. At 9:13am on April 23rd, I began contacting attorneys to ask questions and discuss my situation.  

I spoke with several different attorneys. I explained my side of events and provided images and videos to those that asked. Each attorney provided their own perspective and opinion, but some consistent points were made: 

• If I were charged for keeping a foul-hooked fish, and my case were to go to trial, Game and Fish would have to provide direct evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt the walleye was foul-hooked when it was caught. There would have to be a picture or video documenting the exact location of the hook at that time.
• The condition of the walleye supported it was caught legally. 
• All attorneys advised strongly against providing any more information to Game and Fish or allowing them to take the walleye without a warrant. 

After speaking with the attorneys, I contacted Gibbs and summarized what they had stated. Gibbs asked questions I couldn’t answer. I told Gibbs I had a consultation scheduled with one of the attorneys and that he could meet with us to get his questions answered. I left it up to him to decide what he wanted to do, but let him know I was paying for it.

Changes

The current regulation on keeping a foul-hooked fish is a Class B Misdemeanor. It holds a criminal punishment with potential jail time and a fine. Does this make any sense to you? Wouldn't Game and Fish receive a lot more cooperation if some of their regulations were noncriminal?

The current regulation on keeping a foul-hooked fish should be a noncriminal offense with a fine. There is no reason this regulation (and many others) should be considered criminal.

The current regulation on a foul-hooked fish does not take into consideration what type of fishing equipment a person was using. It is the same offense for intentionally foul-hooking a fish as it would be for unintentionally foul-hooking a fish. Shouldn't the regulation take into consideration the intent of the angler? Nearly every other state in the country takes the type of fishing equipment and intent into consideration. Here is a summary of what Minnesota has as their law: "on most inland lakes, as long as a fish that was hooked elsewhere in the body was done so accidentally, it is legal to keep and can be counted towards your daily limit." Doesn't this make a lot more sense?

The regulation needs to be changed and take equipment and intent into consideration. 

The current regulation does not take into consideration whether or not a person knew where the hook was located when their fish was caught. A simple change would be to include the word "knowingly" into the regulation. Many of our state laws use this type of language so why should Game and Fish be any different? The regulation needs to change. 

The regulation on keeping a foul-hooked fish should include the word "knowingly." For example, it could read "it is a noncriminal offense to knowingly keep a foul-hooked fish." 

The word knowingly would protect a lot of innocent people from the potential for criminal charges and would be an easy change to make.

People would be a lot more willing to cooperate and provide evidence if changes were made to the regulations. Changes would save the state a lot of time and money. 

#northdakotaslargestwalleye  #volkswalleye  #justiceforthelargestwalleye