"Jim Elbrecht" wrote in message
...
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Aug 2011 23:02:28 -0400, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


"Oren" wrote in message
...
"BETHEL - A Vermont fisherman who caught a 9.5-pound salmon captured
something else, too - a homing device that ended up leading
authorities to the illegally-taken fish in his freezer."

Oops...

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20110816/NEWS07/110816003/Vermont-fisherman-hooks-salmon-homing-device-too


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.

"I didn't know it was a protected fish" seldom works.

-snip-
Man-- the differences between Brown Trout and salmon are pretty
subtle. I can see how he might be fooled-- but I'm with you- no
excuse. Pay up buddy.

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Fish...browntrout.htm

In the field, with just one fish- I think I'd have to go with the
poorly arranged teeth on the roof of the mouth of the Brown. Now-- If
I just caught the biggest fish of my life, was fishing for Brown's-
and caught what I thought *was* one, would I think to check his dental
work? Probably not.

Jim

If this fish was so important to the state it should have had a visible tag
that alerted the unwary.
I have caught tagged fish that were ok to keep but asked for a report about
size and whereabouts.

It just seems to me that the biologists running this test/experiment /study
should have been more careful about protecting this fish.

Especially as it was one of two specimens. And a variety that could have
been misidentified.

Sounds like a case of professional negligence.

Charlie