On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 05:52:36 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Bob F wrote:

If he knew and took the fish anyway, he should get a big fine. Many
of us would have had no clue though, and just taken the fish. In
that case, cut him a break.

Being too stupid to identify a fish you catch would rarely be a
justification for breaking the law.

While ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of the facts is.

Unless the state can show he SHOULD have known the fish was protected, he's
off the hook (unlike the fish).


Yeah-- It isn't immediately clear in that article, but the problem
wasn't that the fish had a device in it-- The problem was that it was
a Salmon-- not a Brown.

This article is a little better-
http://www.gofishn.com/ned/reports/1...ar-fishing-ban
http://preview.tinyurl.com/3kc33z2

And points out that he was with an 'outfitter' - not sure exactly what
that means in VT-- but if I was paying someone to help me fish &
*they* didn't point out that I had to toss that beauty back-- I'd be a
little upset.

Jim