On a hand line!


MattMiller's picture

Posts: 4171

Date Joined: 15/06/09

Yeah mate

Tue, 2015-03-24 17:04
Dale's picture

Posts: 7930

Date Joined: 13/09/05

Wed, 2015-03-25 15:11

 Fisheries have caught up with this guy and spoken to him about the shark which is an illegal capture, apparently tigers can't be taken on the south coast if they measure more than 700mm between the dorsal fins.

____________________________________________________________________________

"Just because you are a Character, Doesn't mean you have Character."

Mr Wolf

 

 

rigpig's picture

Posts: 507

Date Joined: 21/11/12

Hope they go easy on him

Wed, 2015-03-25 15:16

 Rules are rules but unless he has calibrated measuring eyes to estimate the 700mm length from a distance from shore I would hope he doesn't get charged or anything considering it was released after capture.

Hutch's picture

Posts: 2221

Date Joined: 21/04/13

 Isn't the law that whalers

Wed, 2015-03-25 15:21

 Isn't the law that whalers (Tigers included) can't be taken (as in kept) if they measure more than the 700mm?

Dale's picture

Posts: 7930

Date Joined: 13/09/05

Wed, 2015-03-25 15:28

 Don't know if it is that law covering all whalers, I just saw the story on ABC news site this afternoon.

____________________________________________________________________________

"Just because you are a Character, Doesn't mean you have Character."

Mr Wolf

 

 

duges66's picture

Posts: 138

Date Joined: 07/03/12

whale oil beef hooked

Wed, 2015-03-25 16:09

As an Irish mate once exclaimed.

____________________________________________________________________________

There's 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those that can't.

Posts: 99

Date Joined: 14/08/12

From the fisheries

Wed, 2015-03-25 16:20

From the fisheries website:

"Killing, injuring or fishing for a protected species is not permitted and can result in fines of up to $5,000.

If protected species are caught accidentally they must be returned to the water immediately."

Technically, if you see a specific fish that is protected, chuck a bait at it and then catch it you are breaking the law by fishing specifically for it, even if you do let it go unharmed. It couldn't be argued that it was an accidental catch.

However, proving in court you knew a shark was was bigger than 700mm between the fins before you tried to catch it would be a different matter.

Anyone with legal training care to comment? I'd be interested to know.

darren monks's picture

Posts: 110

Date Joined: 25/09/14

just a big shark and no idea

Wed, 2015-03-25 19:07

just a big shark and no idea a tiger is what he needs to say on the subject. and it's not like tigers are common those parts - benefit of doubt surely.

and he released it??

how many tigers did govt. drum lines kill last summer?

poor bloke's a scapegoat for mind.

rigpig's picture

Posts: 507

Date Joined: 21/11/12

good point

Thu, 2015-03-26 12:09

 yeah, I didn't consider the government catching and killing tiger sharks over 3 metres last Summer. would be a tough argument for Fisheries to charge this guy considering they were doing the same thing to large tigers and they were knowingly and intentionaly targeting them..

Thanks for rasing that point Darren..

turtl3tim's picture

Posts: 203

Date Joined: 01/01/15

like others have said, how

Wed, 2015-03-25 21:55

like others have said, how can u specifically target something u cannot see? and then know the measurement between its fins before you land it?

____________________________________________________________________________

 Good things come to those who bait.

rigpig's picture

Posts: 507

Date Joined: 21/11/12

Common sense prevails

Fri, 2015-03-27 11:29

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-27/tiger-shark-fisherman-no-penalty/6353062

No penalty for WA fisherman who caught four-metre tiger shark on handline

 

A fisherman who caught a four-metre tiger shark on a handline near Albany will not be penalised, Fisheries WA says.

Brendon Hilder was interviewed by the department earlier this week after images and video of him pulling in the shark at Shelley Beach, in the state's south, were published.

Tiger sharks with an interdorsal fin length of 70 centimetres, which usually equates to a total animal length of 1.8 to two metres, are protected in Western Australia and penalties include a fine of up to $5,000.

In a statement, a Fisheries compliance officer said Mr Hilder was not aware that his catch was a tiger shark and no further action was necessary.

"The decision was made on the ground that during an interview and upon review of video it has been found that the fisher was not apparently aware that he had caught a tiger shark," it said.

"It was only when he pulled it in to shallow waters he became aware, at which point he called for a knife to cut if free."

Fisherman 'did the right thing'

Editor of recreational fishing magazine Western Angler, Scott Coghlan, told ABC Great Southern that tiger sharks were added to the protected species list some years ago due to concerns about the way they were treated in game-fishing competitions.

"There was a kerfuffle over game-fishing competitions - killing tiger sharks and stringing them up in the gantry to be weighed and then dumping the sharks without using the flesh for any useful purpose, which you can understand didn't go all that well," he said.

Obviously he's pulled the shark up onto the beach, he's had a couple of photos taken by the looks of things and he's rolled it back into the water, so he has released it.

Scott Coghlan, editor Western Angler

"So tiger sharks then got added to the list of species that you have to release over that 1.8-to-two-metre length."

Mr Coghlan said Mr Hilder had done the right thing in releasing the shark.

"The Fisheries Act states that you have to release the fish or the shark as soon as you're aware that it's a protected species and with the minimum amount of handling and the least amount of distress to the animal," he said.

"Obviously he's pulled the shark up onto the beach, he's had a couple of photos taken by the looks of things and he's rolled it back into the water, so he has released it.

"So the actual spirit of the reason the law was brought in and the reason tiger sharks were added to it was to stop people killing them and stringing them up and then just dumping the remains, now he certainly hasn't done that and it seems to me that it possibly needs to be looked at."

Mr Coghlan said it may be time to review the legislation.

"It's nearly 20 years old and times have probably changed a bit," he said.

"I'd hate to think that a guy who's out there having fun with his family, catching some fish, throws out a salmon head on a line to try and catch a shark, catches a shark, rolls it back in the water, I'd hate to think that he'd actually be fined or charged with anything for doing so, that would seem a bit crazy.

 

"I think commonsense should prevail, obviously Fisheries have to be seen to be doing something and I think a warning is more than sufficient and this subject will get more publicity now that people are more aware of the rules."