Commercial? Not this time

Broadbill-Pro · 02-06-2008, 12:32 PM

CaptKen · 02-06-2008, 09:27 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2006
WWW.USDOJ.GOVENRD
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Commercial Fishing Vessel's Crewmember Pleads Guilty to Concealing Thousands of Pounds of Red Snapper Smuggled into the United States
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tam Le, crewmember of the Galveston, Texas-based commercial fishing vessel Thanh Tam, pleaded guilty in federal court to concealing red snapper which was illegally imported into the United States, the Justice Department announced today. Le and other crewmembers caught the fish in violation of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson–Stevens Act). Both Le and the Thanh Tam’s captain were indicted by a grand jury in Houston, Texas on November 23, 2005 for offenses surrounding the illegal importation of red snapper in 2004 and 2005. The concealment charge carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.

On March 2, 2005, the Thanh Tam was boarded by special agents of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service Office for Law Enforcement as it was returning from a commercial fishing trip which began on February 22, 2005, before the red snapper commercial fishing season had officially opened. A hidden compartment that contained 5,641 pounds of red snapper was discovered beneath the vessel’s deck during a search of the vessel. More than 2,700 individual fish within the concealed compartment were less than the legal minimum size limit of 15 inches.

“This case involved egregious violations of catch limits for red snapper, which were enacted as part of a comprehensive system designed to protect our nation’s fish populations from illegal over-fishing,” said David M. Uhlmann, Chief of Environmental Crimes for the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division. “Over-fishing threatens the survival of fish populations across the globe, and the Justice Department is committed to vigorous prosecution of criminal fisheries violations like those that committed by the defendants in this case.”

Historically, the red snapper fishery has been severely over-fished due to its marketability. The Magnuson–Stevens Act regulates commercial fishing activities in the waters extending from the seaward boundary of each coastal state to 200 miles out to sea. In order to ensure red snapper stocks for the future, the Magnuson–Stevens Act’s fishery management plan for the Gulf of Mexico requires that legally-permitted commercial fishing vessels only harvest red snapper during an open season, maintain a maximum single trip limitation of 2,000 pounds and take only red snapper having a minimum length measurement of 15 inches.

Le’s sentencing is scheduled for May 19, 2006.

This investigation was conducted by special agents from the NOAA Fisheries Service Office for Law Enforcement with assistance provided by game wardens with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Georgiann Cerese of the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Crimes Section.

###

06-073

Broadbill-Pro · 02-07-2008, 10:42 AM

RECREATIONAL

Rumors circulated among local charter captains that the offender's boat was confiscated and that he was fined $30,000. In fact, his only punishment was $350 in fines.

COMMERCIAL

The concealment charge carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.

The BEAST · 02-07-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Broadbill-Pro

RECREATIONAL

Rumors circulated among local charter captains that the offender's boat was confiscated and that he was fined $30,000. In fact, his only punishment was $350 in fines.

COMMERCIAL

The concealment charge carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.

More often than not the guilty never get the maximum sentence. You stated the fine as fact yet you didn't post that article???? Which one got the fine? the boat with 51 fish or the one with 126 fish.

What was the actual penalty for the commercial guy... not what the law says he can get.

Not quite the same offense if you ask me! The recs had 51 fish on one boat and a seperate incident of 126 on another boat. The commercial boat busted had 5,126 fish or more than 2700 pounds and many were undersized of the measely 15" commercial size limit. Quite a bit of difference if you ask me... like 5000 fish or thousands of pounds difference!

Another twisted post!

I'm curious, Vinnie. You repeatedly post about fair and equal access. Here is an incident where the recreational fisherman has a 20" size limit yet a commercial fisherman can keep 15" fish to sell. Where is the equality there. Sounds like discriminatory conservation, don't it.

Broadbill-Pro · 02-07-2008, 05:48 PM

Didn't figure it would take long for you to pipe in.

I posted the link to the article in the first post.

I don't know what the commercial (Vietnamese) got, Ken posted it ask him.

It is obvious that the crimes were not identical in volume, but intent was the same. My question to you would be, do you really feel that either of these criminals deserves a lesser sentence? They were both experienced licensed fisherman and knew better.

Personally I don't think fines should be handed out by quantity of fish, rather by a persons intent to steal and the number of separate incidents. The only difference between these two cases was the accessability and holding capacity of fish.

In any case, the fine should be a deterrent from commiting the crime again. After reading the article, I am compelled to pay the $350 and take my chances.

LHPfish · 02-07-2008, 06:05 PM

We need a SFC Boxing Match b/w you two.

The BEAST · 02-07-2008, 06:20 PM

Yeah gotcha Vinnie! THe guy doing 120 down I-95 should get the same fine as the guy doing 5 over. THey were both INTENT on getting to work on time.

Disco Lady · 02-07-2008, 07:23 PM

Broadbill-Pro · 02-07-2008, 07:27 PM

If they were both professional drivers, the answers should be yes. If it were a recreational driver, give him a warning the first time.

I don't think there would have been an article written if they were going 5 mph over the limit. I think that 100 mph vs 150 mpg is a better comparison. Both had intentions to distribute. When it comes to protecting tax paying legal fisherman from scabs who sell fish thru the back door, I take a zero tolerance stance.

02-06-2008, 12:32 PM	#1 (permalink)
Broadbill-Pro Grander Join Date: Jan 2006 Best Catch: When I look at a Commercial Fishing Vessel I see 300 million Americans and you only see the Crew Posts: 1,184	Commercial? Not this time Columns - newsjournalonline.com

02-06-2008, 09:27 PM	#2 (permalink)
CaptKen Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sunrise/Dania Fla. Occupation: Power Plant Control Room Operator Posts: 830	-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2006 WWW.USDOJ.GOVENRD (202) 514-2007 TDD (202) 514-1888 Commercial Fishing Vessel's Crewmember Pleads Guilty to Concealing Thousands of Pounds of Red Snapper Smuggled into the United States WASHINGTON, D.C. – Tam Le, crewmember of the Galveston, Texas-based commercial fishing vessel Thanh Tam, pleaded guilty in federal court to concealing red snapper which was illegally imported into the United States, the Justice Department announced today. Le and other crewmembers caught the fish in violation of the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson–Stevens Act). Both Le and the Thanh Tam’s captain were indicted by a grand jury in Houston, Texas on November 23, 2005 for offenses surrounding the illegal importation of red snapper in 2004 and 2005. The concealment charge carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000. On March 2, 2005, the Thanh Tam was boarded by special agents of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service Office for Law Enforcement as it was returning from a commercial fishing trip which began on February 22, 2005, before the red snapper commercial fishing season had officially opened. A hidden compartment that contained 5,641 pounds of red snapper was discovered beneath the vessel’s deck during a search of the vessel. More than 2,700 individual fish within the concealed compartment were less than the legal minimum size limit of 15 inches. “This case involved egregious violations of catch limits for red snapper, which were enacted as part of a comprehensive system designed to protect our nation’s fish populations from illegal over-fishing,” said David M. Uhlmann, Chief of Environmental Crimes for the Justice Department’s Environmental and Natural Resources Division. “Over-fishing threatens the survival of fish populations across the globe, and the Justice Department is committed to vigorous prosecution of criminal fisheries violations like those that committed by the defendants in this case.” Historically, the red snapper fishery has been severely over-fished due to its marketability. The Magnuson–Stevens Act regulates commercial fishing activities in the waters extending from the seaward boundary of each coastal state to 200 miles out to sea. In order to ensure red snapper stocks for the future, the Magnuson–Stevens Act’s fishery management plan for the Gulf of Mexico requires that legally-permitted commercial fishing vessels only harvest red snapper during an open season, maintain a maximum single trip limitation of 2,000 pounds and take only red snapper having a minimum length measurement of 15 inches. Le’s sentencing is scheduled for May 19, 2006. This investigation was conducted by special agents from the NOAA Fisheries Service Office for Law Enforcement with assistance provided by game wardens with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Georgiann Cerese of the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Environmental Crimes Section. ### 06-073 __________________ http://home.comcast.net/~CaptKen1

02-07-2008, 06:20 PM	#7 (permalink)
The BEAST Charter Captain Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Miami/upper Keys Boat: 2007 WorldCat 330TE / 300 Suzuki's Best Catch: every catch is my best catch Occupation: charter captain Posts: 765	Yeah gotcha Vinnie! THe guy doing 120 down I-95 should get the same fine as the guy doing 5 over. THey were both INTENT on getting to work on time. __________________ Capt. Jim, The BEAST 2007 WorldCat 330TE / 300 Suzuki's

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Do you really want to be a commercial fisherman?	Broadbill-Pro	Swordfishing	7	01-11-2007 11:20 AM
First time Long time	on deck	Introductions	10	08-27-2006 03:03 AM
Night time the right time.. week 3 june 2006	captscott	Venice Fishing Reports	0	06-19-2006 03:38 PM
rec. vs commercial	Rod Chucker	Swordfishing	90	03-21-2006 09:52 PM
Commercial fishing is `going down fast'	Reporter	General Chat	0	09-06-2005 12:15 PM

02-07-2008, 10:42 AM	#3 (permalink)
Broadbill-Pro Grander Join Date: Jan 2006 Best Catch: When I look at a Commercial Fishing Vessel I see 300 million Americans and you only see the Crew Posts: 1,184	RECREATIONAL Rumors circulated among local charter captains that the offender's boat was confiscated and that he was fined $30,000. In fact, his only punishment was $350 in fines. COMMERCIAL The concealment charge carries a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000.

02-07-2008, 05:48 PM	#5 (permalink)
Broadbill-Pro Grander Join Date: Jan 2006 Best Catch: When I look at a Commercial Fishing Vessel I see 300 million Americans and you only see the Crew Posts: 1,184	Didn't figure it would take long for you to pipe in. I posted the link to the article in the first post. I don't know what the commercial (Vietnamese) got, Ken posted it ask him. It is obvious that the crimes were not identical in volume, but intent was the same. My question to you would be, do you really feel that either of these criminals deserves a lesser sentence? They were both experienced licensed fisherman and knew better. Personally I don't think fines should be handed out by quantity of fish, rather by a persons intent to steal and the number of separate incidents. The only difference between these two cases was the accessability and holding capacity of fish. In any case, the fine should be a deterrent from commiting the crime again. After reading the article, I am compelled to pay the $350 and take my chances.

02-07-2008, 06:05 PM	#6 (permalink)
LHPfish Hooked Up Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 185	We need a SFC Boxing Match b/w you two.

02-07-2008, 07:23 PM	#8 (permalink)
Disco Lady Grander Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 2,608

02-07-2008, 07:27 PM	#9 (permalink)
Broadbill-Pro Grander Join Date: Jan 2006 Best Catch: When I look at a Commercial Fishing Vessel I see 300 million Americans and you only see the Crew Posts: 1,184	If they were both professional drivers, the answers should be yes. If it were a recreational driver, give him a warning the first time. I don't think there would have been an article written if they were going 5 mph over the limit. I think that 100 mph vs 150 mpg is a better comparison. Both had intentions to distribute. When it comes to protecting tax paying legal fisherman from scabs who sell fish thru the back door, I take a zero tolerance stance.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)