Challenging DFO Ticket- anyone done it?

Interesting indeed. I'd love to hear what was considered sufficient evidence that the person was using barbed hooks.

We had DFO on our boat this summer in QC Strait. They checked the gear that had been in the water when they pulled up, and the fish in the box and the cooler- measured the fish, but did not go further with checking gear that was not in use. And they would have found lots of gear with barbed hooks!
 
Which court house did she attend? Did the prosecution meet in advance and try to negotiate?
The prosecutor will be a very junior lawyer at a private firm.
The firm gets the contract to be ad hoc federal crown. They will know the regs, but are generally not boat people.
You have to pray the judge fishes. Not a good gamble these days.

Fisherman do not last long as ad hoc crown, don't ask me how I know.
 
Interesting indeed. I'd love to hear what was considered sufficient evidence that the person was using barbed hooks.

We had DFO on our boat this summer in QC Strait. They checked the gear that had been in the water when they pulled up, and the fish in the box and the cooler- measured the fish, but did not go further with checking gear that was not in use. And they would have found lots of gear with barbed hooks!
Officers of the peace are officers of the court and their word is pretty good as evidence.
A lawyer is also an officer of the court, but the judge will sometimes prefer the oral evidence of the peace officer.
Always sucks when the big suck happens.
Don't ask me how I know.
 
Funny. We have Nanaimo officers show up at our fall and spring SFAC meetings regularly. That also used to include detachment head. Never struck me as difficult to deal with. A lot of them sportfish as well.

This one is an interesting one.
Yes, hard to believe is right. I wouldn’t have believed it unless I witnessed it with my own eyes and ears.
 
The prosecutor will be a very junior lawyer at a private firm.
The firm gets the contract to be ad hoc federal crown. They will know the regs, but are generally not boat people.
You have to pray the judge fishes. Not a good gamble these days.

Fisherman do not last long as ad hoc crown, don't ask me how I know.
Ya! Pray the judge fishes. This guy who presided over my friends trial was not a fisherman. No clue whatsover.
 
I attended the DFO seminar at the 2025 Vancouver Boat Show. During the question and answer segment at the end of their excellent presentation I asked the three DFO officers present what were the requirements that they were looking for insofar as crimped barb was concerned. The answer was Very Clear "that a reasonable attempt has been made to crip the barb". I suspect that the officer know the legal term that would be the deciding factor in your son-in-laws case. Similar to the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" use during criminal proceedings. The key word being "reasonable" which may have a broader interpretation from a DFO officers point of view. Where one officers interpretation of what is reasonable vs another officers reasonable may be completely different from the next. However the Judge will have a narrower view of reasonable, irrespective of whether he is a fisherman or not. So I would focus my attention on trying to convince the trial judge that you had made a reasonable attempt to crimp the barb. Devoting your efforts towards convincing the judge of the unreasonable nature of the DFO officer is of little or no value from my point of view. Case in point, I have never received a speeding ticket from cop that wasn't a complete a--hole! Good Luck.
 
I attended the DFO seminar at the 2025 Vancouver Boat Show. During the question and answer segment at the end of their excellent presentation I asked the three DFO officers present what were the requirements that they were looking for insofar as crimped barb was concerned. The answer was Very Clear "that a reasonable attempt has been made to crip the barb". I suspect that the officer know the legal term that would be the deciding factor in your son-in-laws case. Similar to the term "beyond a reasonable doubt" use during criminal proceedings. The key word being "reasonable" which may have a broader interpretation from a DFO officers point of view. Where one officers interpretation of what is reasonable vs another officers reasonable may be completely different from the next. However the Judge will have a narrower view of reasonable, irrespective of whether he is a fisherman or not. So I would focus my attention on trying to convince the trial judge that you had made a reasonable attempt to crimp the barb. Devoting your efforts towards convincing the judge of the unreasonable nature of the DFO officer is of little or no value from my point of view. Case in point, I have never received a speeding ticket from cop that wasn't a complete a--hole! Good Luck.
Thank you. Great insight.
 
Officer was probably trained by an officer whose last name rhymes with slack. That officer was training some females… could be and wouldn’t doubt it. Same one ihaverodwilltravels friend dealt with. Goes through tackle box and accuses of using a barn despite no barn being used. Insane. The local dfo officers in queen Charlotte strait are great to deal with though.
 
Officer was probably trained by an officer whose last name rhymes with slack. That officer was training some females… could be and wouldn’t doubt it. Same one ihaverodwilltravels friend dealt with. Goes through tackle box and accuses of using a barn despite no barn being used. Insane. The local dfo officers in queen Charlotte strait are great to deal with though.
What rhymes with Slack?
Crack?
Plaque?
🤣
 
Put two hooks in your wallet, one with a barb, one with a crimped barb. Show the judge the difference. Pretty easy, common sense decision IMO.
 
When is your hearing??
 
You can't be fined for having barbed hooks on board. Only for fishing with them.
The grey area seems to be what is considered barbed. Based on the replies to this thread I think it will come down to the officer and the judge.

  • Only a barbless hook may be used for all salmon and sea-run trout fishing. Partially crimped barbs are not allowed; barbs must be crimped flat against the shaft.
What does flat against the shaft mean? It would be near impossible to "crimp" some hooks "flat" and I don't carry anything on board that would grind them off. I use pliers on small barbs and crimpers on large barbs. Large stainless barbs do not crimp "flat" though. I make sure they are flat as possible and would pass a sleeve test.
 
TBH, if this goes to an actual hearing and the DFO appears, you (or your son) will likely be charged the penalty. The court will not look at your ability or attempt to pinch the barb. If the officer goes through the trouble of deeming the hook to have a barb (regardless if it was attempted to be crimped), then she believes she has sufficient information including a photo to write the ticket.

I could understand your frustration as your son didn’t intend to break the law, but he did. IF you can demonstrate that the subject book was not being used for fishing, or that the DFO observations at the time of the ticket were incorrect (measurement techniques (wrong sweater, wrong date, wrong id, wrong location) then maybe the ticket can be stayed. Let’s hope for a DFO no show and a sympathetic judge.

As for a sympathetic judge, I’m pretty sure there is case presidence set on the argument that the fisher attempted to comply. DFO won’t issue tickets if they don’t hold up in court. Our legal system is based on precedence set so that judges can’t be sympathetic.

You can search previous case history in both provincial and federal courts. Look for ‘barbed hook’ and DFO judicial findings. Hopefully there’s a trend to dismissing penalties.

Final comment to add to stress, is there an early payment discount? Sometimes there is a discount for settling out of court, or an additional fee if found guilty.
 
Last edited:
TBH, if this goes to an actual hearing and the DFO appears, you (or your son) will likely be charged the penalty. The court will not look at your ability or attempt to pinch the barb. If the officer goes through the trouble of deeming the hook to have a barb (regardless if it was attempted to be crimped), then she believes she has sufficient information including a photo to write the ticket.

I could understand your frustration as your son didn’t intend to break the law, but he did. IF you can demonstrate that the subject book was not being used for fishing, or that the DFO observations at the time of the ticket were incorrect (measurement techniques (wrong sweater, wrong date, wrong id, wrong location) then maybe the ticket can be stayed. Let’s hope for a DFO no show and a sympathetic judge.

As for a sympathetic judge, I’m pretty sure there is case presidence set on the argument that the fisher attempted to comply. DFO won’t issue tickets if they don’t hold up in court. Our legal system is based on precedence set so that judges can’t be sympathetic.

You can search previous case history in both provincial and federal courts. Look for ‘barbed hook’ and DFO judicial findings. Hopefully there’s a trend to dismissing penalties.

Final comment to add to stress, is there an early payment discount? Sometimes there is a discount for settling out of court, or an additional fee if found guilty.
No, that is for speeding tickets.
 
You can't be fined for having barbed hooks on board. Only for fishing with them.
The grey area seems to be what is considered barbed. Based on the replies to this thread I think it will come down to the officer and the judge.

  • Only a barbless hook may be used for all salmon and sea-run trout fishing. Partially crimped barbs are not allowed; barbs must be crimped flat against the shaft.
What does flat against the shaft mean? It would be near impossible to "crimp" some hooks "flat" and I don't carry anything on board that would grind them off. I use pliers on small barbs and crimpers on large barbs. Large stainless barbs do not crimp "flat" though. I make sure they are flat as possible and would pass a sleeve test.

No light visible between the shank and the barb..... don't ask me how I know.. Anyway on my boat all barbs are ground off using a Dremel until its smooth and nothing catches on my finger nail. I though about fighting them on it but decided wasn't worth it, pay the fine and move on with your life.
 
No light visible between the shank and the barb..... don't ask me how I know.. Anyway on my boat all barbs are ground off using a Dremel until its smooth and nothing catches on my finger nail. I though about fighting them on it but decided wasn't worth it, pay the fine and move on with your life.
Sounds like that was the the test for the CO you dealt with. Others have reported the sleeve test. As most situations it seems to depend on the CO you deal with. I'm curious what holds up in court.
 
TBH, if this goes to an actual hearing and the DFO appears, you (or your son) will likely be charged the penalty. The court will not look at your ability or attempt to pinch the barb. If the officer goes through the trouble of deeming the hook to have a barb (regardless if it was attempted to be crimped), then she believes she has sufficient information including a photo to write the ticket
Is your assumption above were right, why would we even both having a judicial system at all. Fortunately we have a Judicial system that asumes you are innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof therefore lies on the DFO officer to prove that the attempt to crimp the hook was not reasonable. The rest of the nonsense you here about this and that requirement for a hook to be deemed crimped is nonsense cooked up by some clowns with nothing better to do.
 
My point is that the DFO likely has sufficient evidence to demonstrate the burden of proof, namely that the hook was not crimped as per the regulation. I'm guessing that the judicial system probably won't hear that he "attempted" to crimp it. Usually, it's either crimped or not. If precedence suggested that "attempts" were dismissed, they likely wouldn't write the tickets and go through the effort.
 
Back
Top