Talk about a lose-lose proposition in a gray area of fishing law . . .
In a case brought to light several weeks ago by Denver Post metro columnist Bill Johnson, Denver angler Art Hernandez was ticketed by a Colorado Division Wildlife officer at Antero Reservoir for exceeding the lake’s daily and possession limit of two trout.
According to the report, Hernandez had caught two nice-sized trout one day, and upon being contacted by the DOW officer, had said he also had taken two such fish the previous day and had taken them home. That would have placed him in violation of the two-fish possession limit. Hernandez had protested, saying he was unaware of the possession limit, but he was issued a ticket, subject to a fine of $49.50 and the loss of five points on his fishing license.
On Monday, the ticket was voided, the fine returned and the points reinstated. Two key questions remain: Why was the ticket issued in the first place, and why was it ultimately canceled?
In a no-win proposition, the DOW loses on both counts.
According to the letter of the law, Hernandez had violated the possession limit. Antero Reservoir might be the state’s foremost trophy trout fishery, and while the standard state limit is four trout daily and eight in possession, the reduced limit was enacted several years ago as an effort to maintain the quality of Antero’s fishing. The regulation is appropriate for its purpose, and a majority of the lake’s fishermen seem to support it. While Hernandez said he was unaware of it, the provision is listed in the DOW’s fishing regulations booklet, and signs to that effect are posted at the reservoir.
Ignorance of the law, as the saying goes, is no excuse, but the wrinkle in this case is that Hernandez, as confirmed by sources within the DOW, had volunteered the information about the fish that exceeded the possession limit. A true poacher would not have done so. By all appearances, the violation had been an honest mistake.
Under the circumstances, some sort of warning, with an explanation of the regulation and its purpose, would have been a better approach. But if the ticket was issued, why was it canceled?
Adverse publicity might have been a factor, along with a re-evaluation within the DOW of the circumstances, but the best guess is that the case could not have been taken to court. The DOW did not have sufficient evidence to prove illegal possession.
Whatever the reason, the ticket was voided, but at what cost? What kind of message does it send? That fishing regulations don’t matter? That the DOW won’t enforce them? Once the word gets out, will scofflaws take it as a cue to feign ignorance of the posted rules?
Law enforcement rarely deals in absolutes. While the law is the law, there’s room for some flexibility based on the situation. That should be considered before a citation is written. All of the implications must be carefully weighed, but once the decision to proceed is made, it should be pursued to its conclusion.
In this case, the DOW apparently did neither.
