Nebraska angler fined $1,200 for too many walleye

[jwmiller33]

Quote:

Nebraska angler fined $1,200 for too many walleye

BAUDETTE, Minn. - A 700-mile fishing trip to Minnesota turned out to be more expensive for a Nebraska man.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources says 68-year-old James Thomsen of Ashland, Neb., had to pay nearly $1,200 when he was caught with 27 walleyes.

A DNR officer patrolling Lake of the Woods recently began questioning Thomsen about the fishing and discovered was well over the walleye limit.

The Lake of the Woods special daily and possession limit is six walleye or sauger combined, but no more than four walleyes, and not more than one longer than 28 inches. The DNR says several of the fish in the freezer of his resort cabin were over the [28"] size limit.

The DNR says Thomsen pleaded guilty to the violation and paid $1,165 in fines and restitution.

I am glad to see the DNR caught another poacher. Hopefully this guy learns his lesson

The bolded part really bugs me the most!!

[Chad Peterson]

You wonder what some guy's are thinking. Glad they caught another.

Sniffer

[mrklean]

wish they would have fined him more

[thatoneguy]

Ban him from fishing in MN for life. There is no reason for that kind of behavior.

[Steelhead Chaser]

wish they would have fined him more

Agreed - this fine is not nearly enough.

[8-Ball]

Absolutely- he doesnt deserve the privelege of fishing in Minnesota again-ever.

[goro0202]

I enjoy reading CO Gorecki's reports in the Outdoor news. He seems to run into a lot of violations up there. He has checked me before, and was very respectful. Keep up the good work! I found a more complete description of the incident on the DNR HSOforum:

Nebraska angler found with 21 walleyes over the legal limit

(Released August 26, 2011)

A Nebraska angler was fined almost $1,200 after a 700 mile fishing trip to northern Minnesota’s Lake of the Woods resulted in an over-limit.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservation officer Robert Gorecki of Baudette was patrolling the nearly 350,000-acre lake on July 31 when he came across James E. Thomsen, 68, of Ashland, Neb. The officer asked Thomsen how the fishing was.

“When I began asking about how many fish he had in possession, he got nervous,” said Gorecki.

The current daily and possession limit on Lake of the Woods is six walleyes and not more than one walleye more than 28 inches.

At Thomsen’s resort cabin, Gorecki found a freezer containing 53 fillets, or 27 walleyes. Thomsen admitted that several of the fish were over the 28-inch slot limit. He was charged with a gross over-limit of 21 walleyes, and would have to make a court appearance.

After the officer spoke with the Lake of the Woods County attorney the following morning the charge was reduced to a misdemeanor, but the fine and the restitution amounts remained the same as a gross misdemeanor. Thomsen agreed, paid $1,165 in fine and restitution ($535 fine, and $630 restitution), and pled guilty to the violation.

“After he paid the fine, I assisted Mr. Thomsen in hooking his boat trailer to his vehicle, and he left for home. I’m not sure if we will see him here again anytime soon,” Gorecki said.

[jwmiller33]

Thanks for providing that report Goro... That report leaves a few questions in my head.

Why did they feel it was appropriate to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor?

Did Gorecki first approach this guy on the water or at the boat launch or where? I wonder what events occured to lead Gorecki to physically going into his resort cabin to inspect the freezer? It sounds like all 27 walleyes were in his freezer, so did he not have any in possesion in his livewell?

It is just a really weird series of events and it really bugs me that this guy got his gross misdemeanor reduced to a misdemeanor.

[OnAFly]

He should have been banned from fishing in Mn for life on top of all of this.

[delcecchi]

He should have been banned from fishing in Mn for life on top of all of this.

I bet that if the freezers of many of the people who live on lakes were to be checked at the wrong time they would be in trouble too.

[Nick Kuhn]

I bet that if the freezers of many of the people who live on lakes were to be checked at the wrong time they would be in trouble too.

This is probably true. It'd be nice if the DNR got out more, I've seen all sorts of things on the water. When they are out though you can tell they've been watching people fish. The last 3 times I've been checked came almost immediately after landing a gamefish of some sort. As long as you give honest answers the check is usually just a minute. And the CO's will generally tell you how all the other fisherman are faring on the water.

[jerkbait]

My question is where did the 6 walleye possesion limit come from? I thought it was only 4 walleye.

[bobbymalone]

Thanks for providing that report Goro... That report leaves a few questions in my head.

Why did they feel it was appropriate to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor?

Did Gorecki first approach this guy on the water or at the boat launch or where? I wonder what events occured to lead Gorecki to physically going into his resort cabin to inspect the freezer? It sounds like all 27 walleyes were in his freezer, so did he not have any in possesion in his livewell?

It is just a really weird series of events and it really bugs me that this guy got his gross misdemeanor reduced to a misdemeanor.

My guess is it was reduced as part of a bargain to just plead guilty and get it over with. Fines stayed the same, so I don't care much.

[RangerJack]

$1,200 bucks seems like it isn't that much of a fine for his actions.

Take his boat and sell it on an auction! C'mon!

[Sota2Florida]

From the first post I am presuming that you can have a limit of 6 total walleye/sauger but only 4 can be walleye. So 3 walleye and 3 sauger or 4 and 2 etc. but not 6 walleye and no sauger.

[Hardyboy]

My question is where did the 6 walleye possesion limit come from? I thought it was only 4 walleye.

6 fish limit sauger, saugeye, walleye not more than 4 can be walleye and only 1 over 28"

[harvey lee]

I have no idea if this would work but for gross violations, why can't they take the boat, gear and everything else for these violations? Then ban them from fishing in Mn forever. You do not miscount by 15 and the excuse you did not understand the rule for the lake cannot fly.

I can see going a bit lighter on the sentence or fine if a person mis counted by one but not 15-20 over the limit.

For many with money, these fines are a joke.

[Jarrid Houston]

Leaves a guy to wonder how many times he has got away with this violation???? I agree the fine was not big enough, but nothing we can do about it~ Cudos to the DNR for this one..........

[mrklean]

we need to make examples of these type of people and let them know the state of MN means business when it comes to our natural resources, if we start taking trucks, boats, guns equipment away for this stuff one would think it would start to curb that behavior.

[gurkster]

we need to make examples of these type of people and let them know the state of MN means business when it comes to our natural resources, if we start taking trucks, boats, guns equipment away for this stuff one would think it would start to curb that behavior.

+1 I agree 100%

[bASS_BLASTER]

Fines are not enough b/c $1200 is pocket change for some people. This just means the super rich can buy their way out so no lesson is ever learned. I agree with banning a poacher for life from fishing. That will scare anybody!

[nocturnalmotors]

we need to make examples of these type of people and let them know the state of MN means business when it comes to our natural resources, if we start taking trucks, boats, guns equipment away for this stuff one would think it would start to curb that behavior.

+2!

[flyfisher03]

My question is where did the 6 walleye possesion limit come from? I thought it was only 4 walleye.

6 fish limit sauger, saugeye, walleye not more than 4 can be walleye and only 1 over 28"

6 walleyes or sauger on LOW pg 49 regs.

[jerkbait]

I misread it the first time. so dumb question. I missed the in combination statement. My bad.

[Tom7227]

I suspect that the case was settled at a lower level because LOW County doesn't have the money to pursue it all the way. The County Attorney's job is a part time position and not that well paid. A trial and possible jail time could have cost them big time and so they did the best they thought they could. Many game and fish violations are "payables" which means there is a set fine. In addition in my experience at least in the Metro not very many prosecutors or judges understand the laws and so they get a low priority. It's unfortunate but that's the way it is.