Fisherman's penalty for undersize crab overturned

San Fran Chronicle ^ | August 27, 2013 | Bob Egelko

[dennisw]

Catching undersize Dungeness crabs is a crime, and it's no defense to claim you didn't know they were too small. But it's not much of a crime, a San Francisco appellate panel said, and the penalty must be modest as well - not a fine that ate up a commercial fisherman's profit for the day.

In a ruling published Friday as a precedent for future cases, the Appellate Division of San Francisco Superior Court upheld Tim Estes' misdemeanor conviction for hauling in too many crabs below the legal minimum size, but overturned a judge's $47,000 forfeiture order and said Estes must be resentenced.

Estes, a Fort Bragg (Mendocino County) resident, has operated a crab boat for more than 20 years, piloting the vessel and directing placement of crab pots but leaving the measurement of crabs to his crew.

After taking in about 44,000 pounds of Dungeness crabs in offshore waters one day in November 2010, he was told by state Fish and Game wardens that some appeared to be below the minimum breadth of 6 1/4 inches, a level set by state law to help preserve the species.

After measurements in which Estes cooperated, the wardens found that crabs weighing 991 pounds, or 2.2 percent of the total, were undersize, and returned them to San Francisco Bay. Estes was charged with violating a law against catching more than 1 percent undersize crabs in any single haul.

He said he had no way of knowing the crabs were too small, but Superior Court Judge Andrew Cheng said Estes' mental state was irrelevant, and a jury convicted him in March 2012. Cheng placed him on probation, fined him $1,000, and added a $47,000 forfeiture, about as much as Estes' profits from the trip.

[dennisw]

In this file photo, a dock worker held a large Dungeness crab just arriving at Fisherman's Wharf on the docks of Fisherman's Wharf Wednesday December 12, 2012 in San Francisco. Photo: Brant Ward, The Chronicle

 

 

YUM!!!!!

[DManA]

I believe it is article 237 of the Constitution that says:

The executive branch shall have the power to measure every G.D. crab any poor fool catches and to confiscate whatever they please for whatever reason.

That was a very controversial proposal at the Constitutional Convention but then none of the attendees were crab catchers.

[kabumpo]

Have the newspapers fired their copy editors? It’s undersized, not undersize.

[Venturer]

Crabs have been in short supply in Maryland this year. Crabbers haven’t done much at all. The bait and fuel to catch them have eaten up all of their profit as there aren’t many crabs.

So Martin O’Malley our wise and distinguished Governor doubled the cost of the crab license for next year.

What a guy.

[RedMDer]

Five Days Until September!

Please Contribute Today!

[Scrambler Bob]

Undersized crab —

Let’s see, that would be Miley Cyrus???

[Domangart]

They have made plastic and metal gages for telling how legal they are. It puts the gage on the rear. It finds it too large it can keep it. Judge Dread can tell F&G what he wants in his court.

[mosesdapoet]

So what was the forfiture ? If it was reduced as the article states what was it? I’m not going into that lefty rag to find out.

[dennisw]

the added $47,000 forfeiture was eliminated by the appellate court

[mosesdapoet]

If you do this again you can put that in your comment as well as the judge’s name and term of office (when she’s up for re-election)if available.

[mosesdapoet]

Opps you did write the decision was overturned I apologize.Also that judge was a he not a she but you never know now-a-days.