Bartlett Brothers Busted for Crappie Violations

Chattanooga Fishing Forum

Help Support Chattanooga Fishing Forum:

I say take his license for a year, fine him by whatever laws are on the books. We don't loose our drivers license for speeding tickts or running stop signs unless we are repiticious. Whatever happens to him will not be frogotten by him if he lives to be a hundred. I don't condone what he did at all, just trying to be fair.
 
Put them in jail and feed them catfish heads, even though that is to good for them. At least clean the fish you catch. If they were feeding the hungry I might could understand.
 
Well at least that is some of them off the water let this be a lesson to all those who done or have ever thought about doing you're taking a big risk and making it harder on honest fishermen along with yourself that is more crappie than anyone could eat in a long time why be selfish and let someone else enjoy the fun also
 
Here is a remix from the guy from american idol..




To many crappie in the boat.---
To many crappie in the boat.---
The game wardens are acting like a fool because theres to many crappie in the boat.----
Going down town to see judge Brown.----
I have a big frown because i had 111 crappie in the boat.----




I had to its just to funny. LOL
 
that's why i cant catch any either. its some the fishing experts that abuse the system, that have the know how. they had a similiar sting operation go down last summer with catfish on chick lake. they also caught them. great job wildlife.
 
What is the deal with these reduced charges? I pay general license fees with trout endorsement every year, pick up the regulation guide every year so I may have a quick and accurate reference. Download pdf regulations guide so I may use electronic search of that guide. And I would expect a citation if I did not act accordingly.

I would understand if the warden did not pursue a charge for the lack of evidence, but how do the the charges get knocked down to less than 20% of the total violations?
 
sprestwood - 2/2/2010 4:29 PM

What is the deal with these reduced charges? I pay general license fees with trout endorsement every year, pick up the regulation guide every year so I may have a quick and accurate reference. Download pdf regulations guide so I may use electronic search of that guide. And I would expect a citation if I did not act accordingly.

I would understand if the warden did not pursue a charge for the lack of evidence, but how do the the charges get knocked down to less than 20% of the total violations?

It is a balancing act. Wildlife Officers know full well that a Judge is never going to uphold the required penalty if an individual is indeed found guilty of 111 violations. A fine & court cost for each violation would amount to roughly $16,000. You might want to fine them that much, but there's no way a judge is going to do that on this type violation.

And it actually hurts the officers credibility with Judges when they "pile on" charges. That's true of any officer... not just the wildlife folks.

So officers systematically try to arrive at a combination of charges which they believe are legitimate based upon the seriousness of the offense, and which they feel they can reasonably argue for in court.

That would not preclude the Judge from "piling on" charges if they wish. Judges can do darn near anything they want in their courtrooms.

But officers and prosecutors must use some discretion... just like on Law & Order, administering justice involves real people and real circumstances that can't be guided solely by the words written in Tennessee Code Annotated.
 
what dock was he fishing from I need to go there and watch and help catch some emoAngel emoAngel emoAngel
 
im hearing the word his dad is friend with judges and has money people dont think he will get any thing people say hes done got out of 4 dui
 
I think he should be made to fish with me the next three years during the month of January. This would undoubtedly make him hang himself or give up fishing for the rest of each year..................... He'd probably rather pay the fine.
 
rsimms - 2/2/2010 4:48 PM

sprestwood - 2/2/2010 4:29 PM

.......It is a balancing act. Wildlife Officers know full well that a Judge is never going to uphold the required penalty if an individual is indeed found guilty of 111 violations. A fine & court cost for each violation would amount to roughly $16,000. You might want to fine them that much, but there's no way a judge is going to do that on this type violation.

And it actually hurts the officers credibility with Judges when they "pile on" charges. That's true of any officer... not just the wildlife folks.

...........

Well then maybe what we need then are some different judges. This wasn't just a few fish over the limit, it was 111. This was a wanton disregard of the law. While I'm certainly not a threat to local fish populations, people who behave in this manner certainly are. I think that a slap on the wrist in a case like this would be an afront to all of us who try to abide by the law. Just my 2 cents.

Tennfisher
 
dang you guys are harsh.... i agree thats a lot of crappie.... but you guys are putting it to em..... they should be in trouble but surely not lose fishing for ever.... hell, you can sale drugs and only get 5 years... i'd rather have the guy that kept more fish on the street and they peddling drugs in the jail.....
 
Why does it have to be either/or. Just because dealers often don't get enough punishment doesn't mean offenders of other crimes should get less. I think the dealer sentencing issues should be addressed.
 
Hey Shiftworker, He would be on the street...cause he couldn't be on the water...fishing!!! Pour it to 'em I say, put 'em under the jail. That is just redunkulus to keep that many fish. When you live near a lake, why freeze fish? They taste better fresh!
 

Latest posts

Back
Top