the shark police

[ubettcha13]

never eneough - 6/9/2007 9:08 AM

Am I the only one that sees a problem with having a permit for "targeting" a certain fish?How can you receive a fine for simply fishing for a certain fish?Possesing I can see, but Just fishing??? How can they tell if I am bait fishing for Sailfish{hms required} or kings,etc.This is just another ceazy federal money collecting tax!!!@!

It was easy to see that they were fishing for sharks One when you have one dead on your deck That's a pretty good indication and 2 If you were fishing for bluefish/bass they look alittle different
It is required by law to have a highly migratory species permit on the boat if you plan to possess a highly migratory fish If you want to catch and release no you don't need one but don't put that fish on your deck as you will be breaking the law

[vtdownhiller]

You can't use ignorance as a defence... By prosecuting these guys it wises up the rest of the community to do things the right way..I'll bet there are people out there now thinking twice about how they fish

[never eneough]

jeffro22 says that the SC dnr says you have to have a permit to FISH for hms fish.We need to clarify this as many fisherman are breaking the law,if its true.I fish for sharks all the time,but never keep any.....do I need a permit?

[rogerstg]

never eneough - 6/9/2007 9:58 AM

jeffro22 says that the SC dnr says you have to have a permit to FISH for hms fish.We need to clarify this as many fisherman are breaking the law,if its true.I fish for sharks all the time,but never keep any.....do I need a permit?

From this site https://hmspermits.noaa.gov/faqs.asp#faq18

Q: Do I need a recreational permit to fish for or land tunas, sharks, swordfish, and/or bilfish?
A: Yes, vessel owners/operators who recreationally fish for or retain regulated Atlantic tunas (bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and skipjack), sharks, swordfish, and billfish in Atlantic Federal waters, including the Gulf of Mexico and the Caribbean Sea, must obtain an HMS Angling category permit or a HMS Charter/Headboat permit. However, General category vessels may fish recreationally for HMS so long as they are participating in a registered recreational HMS tournament and fishing under tournament rules. Vessels fishing exclusively in state waters are required to obtain the HMS Angling permit if they wish to keep their regulated tunas (bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye, skipjack, and albacore). Vessel owners/operators should check their state regulations regarding the retention of sharks, swordfish, and/or billfish in state waters.

Here in RI, you can catch and release tunas (not shark) without a permit if within state waters - 3 mi limit. Whether it can be proven that you are fishing for a regulates species is based on facts and circumstances. IMO, you should have a permit

[ndb8fxe]

chrisrack - 6/8/2007 9:18 AM

If the NRP can't ID the fish on the spot and need to send the shark DNA to NOAA for testing to confirm if the fish is a mako or a great white, how can the NRP expect the recreational fisherman to know the difference while 8 miles offshore?

The Officers identified it well enough to send it for DNA testing. Do you think if they didn't know what it was that they would confiscate the fish and send it in?

[animal mother]

It's great to see how quick everyone is to condem this man.I think it's safe to say we don't have all the facts all we have is what the media reported(And we know they are always accurate and neutral ).I believe it was truely ignorance or they would not have hung it at the dock.Hit the guy with a fine for not having an hms permit something resonable and be done with it.It was one shark people get off your tower you cant put this guy in the same class as pouchers.

[jeffro22]

never eneough - 6/9/2007 9:58 AM

jeffro22 says that the SC dnr says you have to have a permit to FISH for hms fish.We need to clarify this as many fisherman are breaking the law,if its true.I fish for sharks all the time,but never keep any.....do I need a permit?

This is what two DNR officers told me at the ramp last year. I didn't have a permit at the time. They didn't write a ticket but told us they wanted to make us aware that if you catch a shark, even if you release it you need a permit. It doesn't seem right to me but for $28 i think it is worth not having to worry about it.

[makomadness]

are we talking about the great white that was caught out of delaware earlier last week. that shark should have never been put in the boat. anyone who shark fishes should be able to determine a great white. i dont see how it can be mistaken for a mako. as far as the permit as jeffro said its only 28 bucks well worth the price besides the money comes back to us in the form of various programs to ensure a good fishery

[makomadness]

i just answered my own question by going back in the posts. great whites are not as uncommon as they are saying. sat alone there were 7 boats that reported seeing them that day. my buddy was on the hot rod out of Chincotegue and had a 16 footer cruise up there slick. if you dont know let it go.
as far as dnr using dna that is just to prove with out a doubt to the prosicuters it is a great white

[rogerstg]

makomadness - 6/12/2007 7:14 AM

its only 28 bucks well worth the price besides the money comes back to us in the form of various programs to ensure a good fishery

FYI, the 28 bucks only covers the cost of administering the license program, no other programs. IOW, that's the government's cost of getting the license to you. Any surplus simply stays in the general treasury with no preference for fisheries programs.

[Beuford T. Justice]

Yes, it's another federal money grabbing tax, but I don't know of any real sport fisherman who opposes it.
Our state and federal agencies pay out plenty of monies for the monitoring, protection and improvement of the great offshore recreational fishing we currently enjoy.
I'd gladly pay much more for more protection and enforcement.

[rogerstg]

Beuford T. Justice - 6/12/2007 10:31 AM

Our state and federal agencies pay out plenty of monies for the monitoring, protection and improvement of the great offshore recreational fishing we currently enjoy.

Care to share specifics? To which programs are you referring?

[Seacat FL]

Beuford T. Justice - 6/12/2007 10:31 AM

Yes, it's another federal money grabbing tax, but I don't know of any real sport fisherman who opposes it.
Our state and federal agencies pay out plenty of monies for the monitoring, protection and improvement of the great offshore recreational fishing we currently enjoy.
I'd gladly pay much more for more protection and enforcement.

I wouldn't. Money dumped overboard in the sea is better than money given to the government. At least the sea won't immediately start coming up with reasons it needs even more of my money.

[fishcop]

spearfish3 - 6/8/2007 11:57 AM

I agree that if it take a DNA test to tell whether it is a GW or not, they should not be prosecuted for harvesting a protected species. Others will disagree because "everything is black and white," but seriously why should the DNR need a DNA test to identify the species. I am sure they are well trained and educated, but DNA testing is rediculous. Not having an HMS permit deserves a fine, but I would be willing to bet there would be a serious fine for the GW.

First of all they all know its a great white, and the man was cited. This story is not completely accurate. The tissue samples were sent tot he Guy Harvey institute for DNA analysis strictly to solidify the case in court and also because the angler was still convinced it was a Mako.

Secondly if you can tell the difference in the species your fishing for then you shouldn't be out there fishing, or at the very minimum should not harvest a fish.

[sharker53]

It's very easy to tell the difference between a GW and a Mako, as soon as it opens it's mouth. Teeth are completley different and can not be confused. Fish should not have been on the boat, adn they shouldn't have been sharkin without an HMS permit. Enough said.

[dragn3]

what's a poucher? LOL!