Quote:
Originally Posted by gatorhunter
No cause the fish is a walleye and the evidence presented in court by an officer will show the fish to be walleye. It is up to the accused to know what he is fishing for. If the regulations show walleye, how can the accused show that he was fishing for "pickerel" when there are no pickerel in the regulations of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Northwest Ontario?
http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/
Page 24 in the Saskatchewan regs.
http://www.environment.gov.sk.ca/adx....pdf&l=English
Page 16 in the Manitoba regs.
http://www.gov.mb.ca/waterstewardshi...on/10guide.pdf
Northwest Ontario
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodcons...nr_e001324.pdf
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/stdprodcons...nr_e001325.pdf
Do people in the know call a moose a white tail deer? "Your Honour! I've always called this animal a white tail deer which is why I thought I could legally harvest 4 of them. If I had known that a moose and a deer are different animals, I would not have killed 4 of them." An exaggeration for sure but anything can happen when it comes to people trying to get out of a charge. Why would anyone knowingly argue against something that is the legal standard?  Abiding by the legal standard protects everyone from straying over the legal line.
The word is WALLEYE!
Incidentally, regulations read in metric length. No sense asking an officer what 55 cm is in inches. If the regulation reads 55 cm. Get a measuring device that registers in metric.  |
we must have a communication gap.....thats what fishbrain said in a smart bum way....i agreed...you said NO