Q&A with OMNR Conservation Officer
- Thread starter G.Mech
- Start date
What laws in particular are you finding upsetting?
Meh, I didn’t watch it all.. no time while at work.
The bit I did see tho I’m a bit confused. opinion rules are just that opinion. What charges will they bring to someone who disposed of fish guts in the Detroit river and they then wash up onto someone’s private dock?
Seems more like common courtesy, than law when he words it the way he words it.
Also how do you catch someone doing that? Fish guts will take time to wash up on to someone’s dock or boat launch.
The bit I did see tho I’m a bit confused. opinion rules are just that opinion. What charges will they bring to someone who disposed of fish guts in the Detroit river and they then wash up onto someone’s private dock?
Seems more like common courtesy, than law when he words it the way he words it.
Also how do you catch someone doing that? Fish guts will take time to wash up on to someone’s dock or boat launch.
That's been beaten to death and it's not illegal as long as it doesn't adversely effect other users of the water body’. He basically said it's not illegal.
Last edited:
anonymoose
Well-Known Member
Fisheries Act S. 34(1) or Ontario Water Resources Act S. 30.
I'm not saying that this is illegal, I'm not saying the charges would stick, I'm not saying you'll get charged, I'm just saying that there is legislation that an officer could use to lay a charge if they saw fit. The OWRA is not enforced by MNRF, that's MECP's playground.
dawson29
Well-Known Member
Not to sound cheeky here although here it goes. A conservation officer will arrest you for selling or trading game fish for the reason being that the actual law is based around the meat not passing through government food and drug administration checks however you can be arrested and have your game fish confiscated and they can give your uninspected meat to what I get their friends and family who don't go fishing or buy fish.
Trevor M
Well-Known Member
I asked a CO and then called the Ministry about that a few years ago when there was a bit of a debate on that on the pier between a status card holder visiting the province from out west and a status card holder from this province. (Not really a debate, they were outright arguing about it and it was quite heated) and what I was told was, and I quote, "It's complicated and depends on where they are. Anyone who has a status card can fish or hunt without a license, in the traditional lands that their specific treaty covers. However, outside of their traditional treaty lands, they need written permission to fish and hunt on the traditional territory of other treaty lands (without a license) from the band office of that other treaty territory. It's not enough to just show them a status card if they're outside their traditional treaty lands, and if they don't have that written permission on hand to produce when requested when they're outside their own treaty lands, they "must" have a fishing or hunting license like anyone else who would be required to have one."
In the end, that answer only led to more questions I decided not to ask because well, it isn't and wasn't something I had to deal with then, now or in the future.
DaveJ
Well-Known Member
Thats a kinda standard answer from the govt...except...many status peoples are exercising their NORTH AMERICAN native status..which is what they are. They will tell you the whole treaty area thing is colonial govt attempting to continue to control native rights. We approached the Caldwell band for a letter..not interested. Its not a real issue as my wife is 65 so doesn't need a licence. We would never take over a 2 man limit of anything. Ive been told by status holders I fish with that they've never been questioned once they produce a status card. I just like to put our enforcement group on the spot to see what they're response would be. Probably would be "it depends" based on who stops you.I asked a CO and then called the Ministry about that a few years ago when there was a bit of a debate on that on the pier between a status card holder visiting the province from out west and a status card holder from this province. (Not really a debate, they were outright arguing about it and it was quite heated) and what I was told was, and I quote, "It's complicated and depends on where they are. Anyone who has a status card can fish or hunt without a license, in the traditional lands that their specific treaty covers. However, outside of their traditional treaty lands, they need written permission to fish and hunt on the traditional territory of other treaty lands (without a license) from the band office of that other treaty territory. It's not enough to just show them a status card if they're outside their traditional treaty lands, and if they don't have that written permission on hand to produce when requested when they're outside their own treaty lands, they "must" have a fishing or hunting license like anyone else who would be required to have one."
In the end, that answer only led to more questions I decided not to ask because well, it isn't and wasn't something I had to deal with then, now or in the future.
anonymoose
Well-Known Member
Prohibiting sale is more about strictly regulating commercial harvest of the resource than it is about food inspection. Once people start getting paid to hunt or fish, it can result in unsustainable harvest.
If it was about food inspection you wouldn't be allowed to give game and fish away.
Sadly, food banks can't take uninspected meat. The Aylmer officers used to take seized fish and game to Teen Challenge Farm, but I'm not sure that this is still the case.
You are correct . As a status card holder I can legally hunt and fish without a license in my traditional zone. Outside of that you need permission. Now the grey area is what is the traditional area. This has been long up for debate. Some of these areas HUGE stretching from Quebec to Ontario and including other zones as well. They often overlap and there is a one that covers all the great lakes including the st Lawrence. I would expect it's something most CO officers would rather leave aloneI asked a CO and then called the Ministry about that a few years ago when there was a bit of a debate on that on the pier between a status card holder visiting the province from out west and a status card holder from this province. (Not really a debate, they were outright arguing about it and it was quite heated) and what I was told was, and I quote, "It's complicated and depends on where they are. Anyone who has a status card can fish or hunt without a license, in the traditional lands that their specific treaty covers. However, outside of their traditional treaty lands, they need written permission to fish and hunt on the traditional territory of other treaty lands (without a license) from the band office of that other treaty territory. It's not enough to just show them a status card if they're outside their traditional treaty lands, and if they don't have that written permission on hand to produce when requested when they're outside their own treaty lands, they "must" have a fishing or hunting license like anyone else who would be required to have one."
In the end, that answer only led to more questions I decided not to ask because well, it isn't and wasn't something I had to deal with then, now or in the future.
Subsection 34(1) of the Fisheries Act defines a deposit as any action that results in a deleterious substance making its way into waters frequented by fish, including: discharging. spraying. releasing.
That said, this is the response to this specific question from the OMNR, basically, they don't consider fish guts to be a 'deleterious substance':
anonymoose
Well-Known Member
Thanks @G.Mech !
However, I disagree with your interpretation of the email from MNRF. They do not state that fish guts are not a deleterious substance. They state that it would not be a an offence to dispose of fish remains in the water as long as they are not classified as a deleterious substance.
The definition of a deleterious substance has a couple of parts to it, but importantly it refers to the substance being deleterious to use by man.
There are lots of situations where human recreational use would be impaired by the presence of fish guts, resulting in an officer classifying them as a "deleterious substance".
I stand by my statement that an officer could lay charges for fish guts in water. I'll also re-state my provisos that "I'm not saying that this is illegal, I'm not saying the charges would stick, I'm not saying you'll get charged, I'm just saying that there is legislation that an officer could use to lay a charge if they saw fit."
However, I disagree with your interpretation of the email from MNRF. They do not state that fish guts are not a deleterious substance. They state that it would not be a an offence to dispose of fish remains in the water as long as they are not classified as a deleterious substance.
The definition of a deleterious substance has a couple of parts to it, but importantly it refers to the substance being deleterious to use by man.
There are lots of situations where human recreational use would be impaired by the presence of fish guts, resulting in an officer classifying them as a "deleterious substance".
I stand by my statement that an officer could lay charges for fish guts in water. I'll also re-state my provisos that "I'm not saying that this is illegal, I'm not saying the charges would stick, I'm not saying you'll get charged, I'm just saying that there is legislation that an officer could use to lay a charge if they saw fit."
@anonymoose , if you are wearing those fugly crocs of yours, I think a CO is going to try to charge with something 10 out of 10 times and should be applauded for it. If nothing else, those "shoes" are a crime against fashion and common decency.
hvyhaul
Well-Known Member
Once that hat hit the prop it became a deleterious substance without question...looked like I ran over a scarecrow
