Polaris Supreme 3 Day

Phishy Phil

Almost A Member
Jun 15, 2019
152
186
SoCal
Name
Phil
Boat
Vagbond
Sounds like DFW could have been a lot harsher - according to Section 27.60(c)(3) - "
(3) All persons aboard a vessel may be cited where violations involving boat limits are found, including, but not limited to the following violations:

(A) Over limits

(B) Possession of prohibited species

(C) Violation of size limits

(D) Fish taken out of season or in closed areas."

According to the regulations everyone on the boat was liable to be cited as well as have the fish confiscated. I tried to do a bit of research about the fines - looked to be in the area of $500 +...
 
Blind Luck
Blind Luck
I think filthy Phil is correct
Not mentioning name but.... my neighbor owned the boat that lost their license and everybody was fined ... owners, crew..etc
Had to sell the boat

See you on 7 day
Upvote 0

cozenone

Member
Jan 25, 2020
577
663
northwest
Name
joe
Boat
none
Sounds like DFW could have been a lot harsher - according to Section 27.60(c)(3) - "
(3) All persons aboard a vessel may be cited where violations involving boat limits are found, including, but not limited to the following violations:

(A) Over limits

(B) Possession of prohibited species

(C) Violation of size limits

(D) Fish taken out of season or in closed areas."

According to the regulations everyone on the boat was liable to be cited as well as have the fish confiscated. I tried to do a bit of research about the fines - looked to be in the area of $500 +...
I don't think you can site individuals when it's a BOAT LIMIT rule, The vessel is responsible ...Period, Another reason to switch to individual limits, as far as censorship....let me pull up some old archived post's from Ali,...and the northerner's
1629747754462.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: kevina and KXKH
Upvote 0

Phishy Phil

Almost A Member
Jun 15, 2019
152
186
SoCal
Name
Phil
Boat
Vagbond
Sorry - rule specifically states that "All persons aboard a vessel may be cited where violations involving boat limits are found"

May not be fair, but the regulation seems quite specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jiggermyster
Upvote 0

Bill W

tunaholic
  • Jan 12, 2006
    5,712
    7,973
    67
    Chino Hills, Ca.
    Name
    Bill Walsh
    Boat
    Red Rooster
    What do you think about this? It was not the boat that asked to take down the post, but the DFG. Bigger can of worms to take a catch from an individual passenger without taking names.
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0

    AWilliams

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    May 18, 2009
    3,406
    2,126
    Ramona, Ca.
    Name
    Alin Williams
    Boat
    none
    Maybe the Polaris Supreme was rolling the dice on not being boarded, only buying 1 day permits and pocketing the extra $400 they saved on not buying the 2 other days permits?:confused:
     
    Upvote 0

    threewaves

    Yellowtail
  • Feb 1, 2014
    115
    198
    Nor Cal - Bay Area
    www.facebook.com
    Name
    Dave
    Boat
    BFG - Pursuit 2870
    Maybe the Polaris Supreme was rolling the dice on not being boarded, only buying 1 day permits and pocketing the extra $400 they saved on not buying the 2 other days permits?:confused:
    Not likely as the permit for the entire boat is $6.95 TOTAL not per angler.. 1 permit, $6.95 to have up to 3 days limits for the species covered. Just sounds like a FUBAR, not intentional.. Nobody, I mean nobody, is risking something like this for seven bucks..
     
    Upvote 0

    ShadowX

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    Oct 10, 2010
    2,542
    3,249
    Los Angeles
    Name
    Alex
    Boat
    None
    The DFG is just making an example out of them.

    The DFG know exactly which cattle boats are on multiday trips just by looking at their schedules and AIS broadcasts. They know which boat filed a multi-day and which boat didn't. Hell, they can take their sweet time to get to the docks since they know the exact location of the boat at all times. They can even read the fish report before the boat arrives back at port, so they know how many vans they need for the sushi party.

    Its probably not the first time that a multiday was not filed by accident or due to sloppy processes. It's really a message sent by the DFG to the entire fleet to get their shit together. If the DFG let the customer keep all their fish, it would not send a loud message. I'm sure it hurts PS's pocketbook to make it right with their customers. Money is always a good incentive for any company to get their shit together. I'm sure the DFG was waiting the whole time.

    PS could have claim they made a mistake and filed it while they were in the water. They had three whole days to file before they got back to port but chose to ignore it or was completely oblivious. The DFG is very lenient with that regulation since they allow boats to reschedule and file at last minute with a fax due to weather or other issues. Either way, the DFG made their point.

    I'm sure the rest of the boats in the fleet got that message loud and fucking clear.
     
    Last edited:
    Bill W
    Bill W
    So… fine the boat, not the passenger.
    Upvote 0
    S
    ShadowX
    That is exactly what they did. The fined the boat and took away the fish without fining the customers. The boat will pay the fine to the DFG and make it right with the customers, so it will cost them a lot more.
    Upvote 0
    Bill W
    Bill W
    Agree… Nice DFG. But the passengers own the fish, not the boat. Like the DFG sold the fish.
    Upvote 0
    Upvote 0

    ShadowX

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    Oct 10, 2010
    2,542
    3,249
    Los Angeles
    Name
    Alex
    Boat
    None
    DFG needs 7 bucks that bad ?Maybe some newbe trying to impress his boss?

    Its not about the money itself. Its about the DFG having a regulation that allows boats to legally keep more than one day's worth of catch. All they had to do was to file paperwork with a nominal fee. If private boats caught with more than the day's limits and don't have the proper paperwork, they would be in a lot more trouble. The fish would be taken away and the boat would be fined heavily. Why would a cattleboat get special treatment? The fact that the customers didn't get fined is already special treatment. If private boats are over the limit, every single person on the boat would be fined. They are lucky that it wasn't worse.

    I learned a long time ago to not fuck with the government when it comes to rules and regulations. Unless its a gray area, they will come after you eventually.
     
    Upvote 0

    Fathomx

    Old Guy
    Jan 27, 2012
    364
    117
    OC
    Name
    Wrapper
    Boat
    It's gone
    Sorry - rule specifically states that "All persons aboard a vessel may be cited where violations involving boat limits are found"

    May not be fair, but the regulation seems quite specific.

    That is true by the DFG rules, but the boat created a contract with the passengers when they gave them the money to purchase the permits on their behalf, so even if the passengers were fined, it would be the boats responsibility for that fine or reimbursing the passengers, I would assume any reputable boat would step to the plate in an event.
     
    Upvote 0

    thrasher949

    Member
    Nov 18, 2010
    299
    464
    San Clemente, CA
    Name
    Jeff
    Boat
    Parker 23
    Let me play devils advocate here based on the facts provided (if this is all true) so far...

    For a small $6.95 clerical error DFG confiscated a bunch of fish and partially ruined some paying customers trip?

    I'm all about enforcement of poaching and actual conservation, but it just seems like thats not the DFG's real agenda these days, more of a money grab??? Hopefully there is alot more to the story.....
     

    AWilliams

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    May 18, 2009
    3,406
    2,126
    Ramona, Ca.
    Name
    Alin Williams
    Boat
    none
    While I agree on most of this, I believe it is more pricipal and making an example for EVERYONE to have their shit straight... ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law. If you hit offenders in the wallet, that's when they'll learn. I bet they don't do that again and other will learn from the example.
     
    Upvote 0

    ShadowX

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    Oct 10, 2010
    2,542
    3,249
    Los Angeles
    Name
    Alex
    Boat
    None
    Let me play devils advocate here based on the facts provided (if this is all true) so far...

    For a small $6.95 clerical error DFG confiscated a bunch of fish and partially ruined some paying customers trip?

    I'm all about enforcement of poaching and actual conservation, but it just seems like thats not the DFG's real agenda these days, more of a money grab??? Hopefully there is alot more to the story.....

    Let me play the devil's advocate. If any boat is caught with more than the daily legal limit of fish, how is the DFG to determine if the catch was legal or not? If the boat filed a multi-day declaration, it would be open and shut. I wouldn't call it a clerical error because if you made a typo on your forms, that is a clerical error. If you didn't file at all, that is an entirely different story.

    I don't know how often cattle boats go on multi day and did not file the necessary papers. If this happens very often, I can see why the DFG finally put its foot on the door to have the industry clean itself up. We obviously don't know the full story, but based on the guy who wrote the original post, the PS did not file the paperwork.

    There is a huge difference between clerical error and failure to file. See what would happen if you failed to file your taxes.
     
    Bill W
    Bill W
    A huge lot of speculation over $6.95. If it did go to court it would be thrown out. The evidence is the fish and that has a chain of custody filed, more paperwork. The passengers are innocent. If the chain of custody is not filed by DFG then the fish was stolen.
    Upvote 0
    Upvote 0

    skipjack

    I Should Upgrade My Account
  • Oct 20, 2004
    1,118
    475
    67
    santa maria
    Name
    skip
    Boat
    2320 Parker "Donna Marie"
    The form has to be filled out before the trip departure.
    You fill it out,submit it,and then they send it back to you.
    The captain then has it in his possession.
     
    Last edited:
    S
    ShadowX
    Hell, the boat should file immediately when the charter master or captain schedules the trip. They know about these pending trips days, weeks or even months in advance.
    Upvote 0

    ShadowX

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    Oct 10, 2010
    2,542
    3,249
    Los Angeles
    Name
    Alex
    Boat
    None
    While I agree on most of this, I believe it is more pricipal and making an example for EVERYONE to have their shit straight... ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law. If you hit offenders in the wallet, that's when they'll learn. I bet they don't do that again and other will learn from the example.

    The problem is that its not ignorance. They all know the rules. If they choose to not follow or forget to file, that means they either have a disregard for the rules or they need to control their business process to file in a timely manner. I'm sure they know the trip was booked months in advance. There was no excuse not to file unless the date of the trip was changed at the last minute. Even the DFG has allowance to change the dates at the last minute for such contingencies. They literally bend over backwards to accommodate the fishermen.
     
    Upvote 0

    ShadowX

    I Post A Lot But I Can't Edit This
    Oct 10, 2010
    2,542
    3,249
    Los Angeles
    Name
    Alex
    Boat
    None
    Sounds like a rookie bot owner made a rookie mistake. Hopefully he does right by the passengers that lost the fish

    I hope so too. I know the Polaris Supreme is a fish killing machine. They obviously have a good captain who knows what he is doing. He has the six sense when it comes to catching fish.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Matt H
    Upvote 0

    michael e. bingham

    I Should Upgrade My Account
    May 26, 2015
    1,140
    1,697
    64
    Name
    Pura Vida
    Boat
    Pura Vida 30' Custom Panga
    It`s infirmation that shpuld be out there ` it`s another thing to add onto the multi day check list , if a passenger had brought it up before they left the dock this might nor have happened , why squash someone`s post that was facts and could have been prevented and should have , BD dosen`t need to police like this and isn`t doing the customers `US any favors , so check you`re multi day fish permits and depend on no one including BD higher ups
     
    • Like
    Reactions: javierlopez123
    Upvote 0