Bartlett Brothers Busted for Crappie Violations

[drumking]

tennfisher - 2/3/2010 5:43 PM

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

Howard, you may not be a threat to the crappie population, but guys like this are a threat to you and others who have only limited fishing experiences because of time constraints or other reasons. There just wouldn't be as many fish for you to find if everyone did this. Someone commented that he had gotten out of 4 dui's because his dad is a friend of the judge. If a judge let's an offender off scott free because he knows the person, then that judge shouldn't be sitting on the bench. emoGeezer

 

[river rat]

Richard did you ever here what happened in court?

 

[Solo]

nwright - 1/31/2010 1:10 PM

WOW! I can’t believe some of you are advocating the TWRA engage in judge shopping again!! I can think of other judges more qualified to handle game law violations for reasons I choose not to say on a public forum.
This is a game law violation and the punishment should fit the crime, nothing more and nothing less. It is not a life and death situation and the public was not endangered. I am always amazed at the hypocrisy involving game law violations. Some people want to punish them beyond what the law says and at the same time when they, themselves, get a speeding ticket, which does endanger the public, try to get out of the ticket.
I don’t condone what they did but I am impressed by their ability to catch so many fish considering the weather and water conditions.

Exactly. It's a fish, which I'll remind some folks is a RENEWABLE resource. I don't condone this behavior, but they aren't child rapists.

 

[river rat]

Since you feel this is not a real crime then let's everybody do it and then in a few years there will be no resource much less renewable
That is why limits are put into place to keep it renewable

 

[Solo]

River rat - I never said this wasn't a real crime, it certainly is. But it is a fish and last time I checked they are still laying eggs. Limits do not make fish renewable, that's for Mother Nature. Feel free to take my limit of any species. I don't keep fish from public waters.

 

[rsimms]

river rat - 9/30/2015 10:50 AM

Richard did you ever here what happened in court?

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2010/3/24/171839/Illegal-Angler-Loses-Fishing-Privileges.aspx

 

[Solo]

Pretty stiff penalties... that 3 year hiatus and community service will hurt more than the $$$

 

[Randall53]

Very fitting. If punishment doesn't hurt, it's useless.