Posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:50am
The Pier Rats Speak (Roar) -- Possession Limits...
Date: August 23, 2002
To: PFIC Message Board
From: kingcrab
Subject: Giving away fish counts toward your bag limit ????
I read a post awhile back about bag limits. "Giving away any fish you caught counts toward your bag limit." If I were to go on a salmon party boat and caught my two fish limit, I cannot fish anymore? or I can still fish, but have to release any more salmon I've caught? Those who got seasick and cannot fish go home without any fish? Let's say there are 20 people fishing on the boat and 19 of them have caught their two fish limit by 9 a.m.. So the last person has until the end of the day to catch his/her limits? If the boat has 20 anglers, I know they will fish until 40 salmon are in the box, no matter who caught it. Are there any laws broken here? If so, they are not being enforced.
Posted by Ken Jones
That's why the Fish and Game recently had the sting operation... Or at least that is one reason why they had the sting operation. The example you site is a definite breaking of the law. There were however several other issues also brought out in the sting operation.
Posted by CorbinaBob
Help me out here anyone, please. If I catch and release a fish like I normally do, it should not count towards my bag limit. I always make sure the fish is viable and healthy before releasing it, and if not it counts towards my bag limit. If the bag limit is two fish and I caught and released two fish I have bagged zero fish and can continue fishing. The problem may be that with two fish already bagged, if I harm another fish, it counts towards my bag limit. So always leave room in your bag limit for at least one fish and you can fish as long as you like. Now the drawback to this is the attitude towards catch and release on party boats. The last time I went on a party boat, which was at least 10 years ago, if I threw back a keeper, they would have thrown me over right after. It seems to be mostly oriented mostly to how many pounds of fish I will put in my freezer, and next to zero for the fishing experience.
Posted by baitfish
You've got it! The bag limit is just that, a Bag limit, not a release limit, once your bag limit has been met you are done fishing for the day. Although, that does not mean that you can't go on trying to catch other fish, But if the possibility lies that you might catch another fish of the same species, know that you might be going over your limit, even if you were to release the fish. Adam
Posted by pescare
Giving away fish counts toward your bag limit . "If I were to go on a salmon party boat and caught my two fish limit, I cannot fish anymore?" No, you cannot fish anymore. You said it yourself, you caught your two fish limit. Where's the confusion? "Those who got seasick and cannot fish go home without any fish?" Yes. They paid for the privilege of the boat ride. They did not pay for a guarantee of fish to bring home. "Let say there are 20 people fishing on the boat and 19 of them have caught their two fish limit by 9 a.m.. So the last person has until the end of the day to catch his/her limits?" The time on the water is entirely up to the captain. It's got nothing to do with DFG regulations. "If the boat has 20 angler, I know they will fish until 40 salmons are in the box, no matter who caught it. Are there any laws broken here?" Yes, of course. If the limit is two and someone takes three a law has been broken. Geez, for the life of me I can't understand why so many people seem to have trouble with this. A limit is a limit! Has anyone ever seen a statement in the regulations that says that limits can be ignored if you are fishing on a boat? Aaarrrghhhh.....Ed
Posted by kingcrab
Is it against the law to catch and release after you got your bag limit?
Posted by Ken Jones
What if you deep hook a fish after you've got your limit? You've now killed more fish than you are allowed. Tough decisions, huh?
Posted by Red Fish
One thing I have not heard what if'ed ... in this conversation (mostly about PB'ers) is what if you've caught your limit of one species of fish and you target another. I think it is referred to as "Potluck." Totally legal. O.K.-sure, don't take more than you can eat. But, if you go on a potluck boat north of Point Conception and in one day catch (3) halibut, (2) salmon, what is the rockfish limit now (0), (2) lings and some other assorted misc. species like WSB or top mackerel all yourself, you are well within your rights as long as you caught all of them yourself. As long as we're exhausting every "what if" hypothetical situation possible. I think the point is missed in that if a problem exists with over-fishing, then there should be a limit to the amount of anglers allowed on the water (party boats) which seems to be the evident outcome. Numbers are what is important (a little thing called statistics). D.F.G. admitted that they don't have enough research currently to really be well-informed. Right now it seems like let's just cut back until we can really understand how much the resource has truly been depleted. As a resolution, kinda like ole' Sinker's recent proclamation about how hunters get so many tags or stamps that regulate their limit of annual take of species. (granted we're talking about law-abiding individuals).
Posted by 2d
A hypothetical ...just wondering about the definition, as interpreted by the law. I'll go on the record here as saying that I'm a big proponent of C&R (much to the consternation of my wife who loves to eat fish), and that I would never consider breaking the law to fill my freezer (I have a bunch of other "breaking the law" things to worry about, anyway). Is the person who hooks the fish, or the person who lands it considered the one who's bag limit is counted? If I landed two salmon, and continued to hold my rod in the water, and then got a strike, could I then hand off the rod to another fisherman who hasn't fulfilled his limit, without technically breaking the law (assuming the fish is then landed and kept)?
Posted by baitfish
A hypothetical. Not sure about the actual law, but I would think a DFG warden could say that it is your fish since your friend would not have caught the fish if you had not set the hook. Either way, a judge would probably throw that out. Adam
Posted by gyozadude
Technically, no can do. If you've bagged your limit of salmon, it doesn't matter what the other angler is doing, the fact that you have your rod in the water and continue to monitor it is fishing after your limit is caught. But technically this is difficult to enforce, since you could claim that you were fishing for a different species after the limit of salmon. Handing the rod to another angler after hooking the fish and identifying it as being a salmon, would probably indicate knowledge of the regulations and therefore guilt by fore-knowledge and avoidance on a technicality... and any judge who's smart enough about the regs would probably sock it to you and NOT let you off if they were aware of what you were trying to do. Since you practice C&R, you got nothing to worry about since you won't have any fish in possession that could prove that you caught your limit, so hypothetically, you could keep on fishing all you wanted. - Gyozadude
Posted by 2d
Thanks, I was just wondering what the interpretation would be.
Posted by Leapin Bass
Actually ... Poaching salmon (fishing after you've caught your limit) is probably one of the easiest ones to enforce if you're on a party boat because that's usually the only fish they are targeting and the fishing methods are usually aimed at salmon. There's really no way you could say you were fishing for other species. The answer is simple. Catch one fish, keep it, then catch and release the rest. If you're lucky enough to catch one just before the end of the trip and you keep it also - great. If not, you have one fish to take home and an entire day of fishing as opposed to two fish and an entire day of watching others fish - I know which one I'd pick! Poaching white seabass on the other hand is very different and tough to enforce because most of the techniques used to catch them will catch other fish (yellowtail and halibut) so it's easier for people to poach and get away with it. It's also quite different because before the middle of June the limit is only one. Of course if you don't like the laws you can always take up golf.
Possession Limits (2) -- Continued
Posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:54am
(In reply to: A Classic Thread - Possession Limits posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:49am)
Question about LIMITS
Posted by pierangler8787 on August 24, 2002
I read an earlier thread about bag limits, but I still don't get it. Say you have caught and kept 2 Salmon, now you can't fish PERIOD? Or what if you catch 2 salmon, keep fishing, catch another Salmon and release it? Is that against the law? Somebody please help me with this. Happy fishin'! Chris
Posted by Davey jones
on Aug-25-02 12:46am
2 in possession is cool, so barbless and catch and release is fine. It is just practice after you get 2 anyway.
Posted by kingcrab
Clarified this with F&G code and not just opinion.
Posted by Leapin Bass
Nope, that is poaching. Killing your limit (whether you keep it, give it away, sell it, throw it back dead, etc.) and continuing to fish for the same species is illegal.
Posted by Frenchy
Question about LIMITS: 1.80. Take. Hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill fish, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or invertebrates or attempting to do so. According to the DFG's definition of "take", you can not even catch and release once you have reached your limit. If you are targeting a species such as bass with a limit of 10, you can keep 9, and continue to fish for them, and catch and release them. Once you keep 10, you can no longer fish for them due to the fact that pursuing, catching, or attempting to do so is considered taking which puts you over your bag limit, even if you release it. The moment you drop your line to pursue number 11 even with the intention of releasing it, you are technically breaking the law. I doubt if this is ever enforced or enforceable though, since you are allowed an over-all bag limit of 20 fin fish, you can set-up and target other species. If you accidentally hook a species for which you have already met your bag limit just release it. This specific regulation is ambiguous, and not enforceable. You were pursuing perch, and accidentally catch a bass, it's not your fault. You can't do anything to keep the bass from biting when you are not trying to pursue them. All you would have to say is, "I was pursuing perch, and the bass was an incidental catch, which was released unharmed." Andrew
Posted by pierangler8787
I see. One more question: What if you catch and release 10 Bass, every single one, do you have to stop fishing or can you continue to release? If you release 10 and then catch 1 and keep it, is that breaking the law?
Posted by mmmmfiiiish
Is it catch or bag limit?
Posted by Frenchy
It is all about possession, how many you actually kept. You only have to quit fishing for a specific species if you catch and keep or give away a limit (10 bass for an example). However there is a loophole. You can keep 9 bass and catch and release 1000 more and be 100% legal because you have not met your bag limit of 10. Now if you are fishing a hi-low rig with 2 hooks and you have 9 bass in the bag, and you catch a bass on each hook, technically you are over your limit by one. Again this is where the law is ambiguous, since it doesn't say anywhere in the regulations that you have to lower the number of hooks you are fishing with so you don't go over your limit. Technically you should quit fishing for bass after you keep or give away a full limit of 10. In my opinion the regulation is ambiguous, and I believe not enforceable since you also have the legal right to catch and keep 10 fish of other species. So the way I see it you can continue to fish for other species after you keep your limit of bass, as long as you are not keeping or giving away any more bass. If it appears that you are still specifically targeting bass (or whatever you have reached your limit of) you may have a problem. If you can show your rig and bait and have a valid claim that you are now targeting other species then bass, then I don't think you can be held accountable for catching and releasing another incidental bass. Again this is my opinion only. Andrew
Giving Fish Away
Posted by pescare on Oct 9, 2002
I remember some discussion and disagreement about this a couple of months ago so I thought I'd post this little blurb I just came across on the DFG site while looking for something else.
"Q. Can I give fish away to friends and family and do they need to have a fishing license for me to give it to them?
A. Yes, you can give fish away. The person you give fish to does not need to have a fishing license. A fishing license is only needed to take fish. You can still only take one daily limit, but you can give that limit away so that you can go fishing the next day and not be in possession of more than one daily bag and possession limit. So, if you have two people in your boat, car, camp or living in your home, you can possess two limits of fish in your boat, car, camp or home."
Ed
Posted by Leapin Bass
Yes, you can give fish away. The person you give fish to does not need to have a fishing license. A fishing license is only needed to take fish. You can still only take one daily limit, but you can give that limit away so that you can go fishing the next day and not be in possession of more than one daily bag and possession limit. Right. So, if you have two people in your boat, car, camp or living in your home, you can possess two limits of fish in your boat, car, camp or home." Wrong. car, camp, home - maybe. Boat? No way - how soon we forget the sting operation on the commercial recreational fishing boats - it's the same thing. Unless they meant to also say that the second person needs a license as well.
Posted by kingcrab
So, I can have only a maximum of 2 stripers in my freezer??
Posted by BigUnInDaBoat
4, double the daily bag limit.
Posted by phishinpat
No, you could have as many as you want...but the person you are giving the fish to, I think, would need a license if they are also on the boat, camp or pier...just my opinion!
Posted by gyozadude
Section 1.17 in the ocean regs makes it pretty clear. Bag limits refer to catch and possession regardless of whether the fish is fresh, frozen, etc., and each person can only catch one daily limit and have it in possession. And it's fairly clear in the section above that, that anyone over 16 who wants to fish must have a license with the appropriate stamps if necessary. The exceptions exist primarily for freshwater locales specifically in Northern California on certain types of trout where anglers can catch only one limit per day, but have more than 1 limit in possession. The regs also require that those people who appear to have been fishing submit their gear and catch to inspection by authorities when request it. So the key to interpreting these rules are probably based on the extent of probable cause to inspect for fish. So is it legal to have lots of fish in your freezer? Don't know. I hope so, provided the fish were taken legally. But the question I have: why would anyone not practice catch-n-release with so much fish in the freezer?
Posted by baitfish
This question just came up on another board in regards to lobster... weird. The problem is some fish have a limit of 1, White Sea Bass have a limit of 1 during certain times of the year. so if you catch 3, the legal limit during other parts of the year and leave them in your freezer past the date the regs change, would you be in violation? The intent of the law is to limit the number of fish that you take on a given day, that is why it is called a daily bag limit. But like much of the regs, it is written very poorly, and leaves it open for too much interpretation and confusion. Adam
Posted by phishinpat
The key word "DAILY"
Posted by Red Fish
"But like much of the regs, it is written very poorly, and leaves it open for too much interpretation and confusion." I think this particular regulation was written to prevent the abuse of the daily bag limit. That is probably why the D.F.G.'s answer about a boat, camp, car or home was so vague (the representative from D.F.G. was just talking off the top of their head). It's really the burden of proof. How is anyone really going to know where your fish came from unless they saw you catch them. If you thing about it, a reg like that would be enforced if a D.F.G. warden was doing a sting operation and they follow you around all day back to your boat, your car, your camp, your home as they observe you abuse the daily bag limit by leaving they fishing area with more than your take for one day.
Posted by fishfinder
Hi all, This question was just asked in the current issue of WON. I just read the article in the Carrie Wilson column. She wrote that you can only have one daily possession limit in your freezer. One of the exact examples she used were 14 lobster in someone's freezer. This is double the daily bag limit and therefore not legal to possess. She also said that if you have 3 lobster already in your freezer and plan to go out and get more you are only allowed to take 4 which would make up your bag limit and possession limit. Also if you fish and catch 7 sand bass and give three away to another fisherman the full seven count towards your bag limit and you are only legally able to keep 3 more for that day. If anyone is interested in reading the whole thing let me know via e-mail and I will either scan it and post it or send it to you. Pat
Posted by lucy
She is an idiot. A daily limit means just that -- what you are allowed to catch and keep IN ONE DAY. What you caught and threw in your home freezer yesterday doesn't count toward TODAY'S limit because you caught it YESTERDAY and it counted toward YESTERDAY's limit. It doesn't matter if you've got 20,000 TONS of fish in the freezer; they don't count toward TODAY's limit-- only the fish you catch and keep TODAY do. Now, if you're talking about a SEASON limit, such as there is with abalone, then she's still wrong, because the determining factor is not how many abalone you've got in the freezer, but how many you've already caught THIS season. If you still have some abalone sitting in the freezer from last season, they don't count at all toward THIS season's limit, because you caught them LAST season. I hope they're not actually PAYING her to write that column....
Possession
Posted by lucy on Oct 10, 2002
"Possession" means what you have on you or immediately near you and under your control, such as a backpack or cooler. It does not refer to something sitting in your freezer 20 miles away. In any case, the fish you caught on the 15th of last month and put in the freezer counts toward THAT day's limit, not TODAY's limit.
Posted by Red Fish
Makes sense to me Lucy. In possession that is. Who's to say you can't have a whole freezer load of salmon at home that you bought at Lake Safeway. I don't remember them telling me that there is a limit to the amount of fish I can buy from the fish market. (maybe there is?)
Posted by pescare
Agreed. While I usually believe the letter of law vs. spirit of law argument is weak, I think it applies here perfectly. The possession limit is in place to protect against people taking way over limit and claiming they did it over numerous days. You can't be driving around the Klamath in your camper with 18 salmon in the cooler and claim you've been there for nine days. You can however, have 18 in your home freezer because there is no way, as Red said, for DFG to prove where they came from. "My uncle gave them to me". That would be impossible to enforce. Ed
Posted by fishfinder
Hey lucy, answer to the bag limit regs. Lucy, I would have done this through e-mail but you don't include yours in your posts. So anyway in response to the info that I posted about daily bag limits from the Carrie Wilson column you wrote: "A daily limit means just that -- what you are allowed to catch and keep IN ONE DAY. What you caught and threw in your home freezer yesterday doesn't count toward TODAY'S limit because you caught it YESTERDAY and it counted toward YESTERDAY's limit. It doesn't matter if you've got 20,000 TONS of fish in the freezer; they don't count toward TODAY's limit -- only the fish you catch and keep TODAY do." The actual reg states: 1.17 Bag and Possession Limit. No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved. So I guess Carrie Wilson isn't as big of an idiot as you think she is. If you want to interpret the regs in your own manner and post your opinions state them as such. Many people who don't know the regs could have been misinformed by your post, especially young people that come to this site and read the posts as somewhat of a textbook. This site is all about answering people's questions correctly. When you let your opinions function as truth people can sometimes be misinformed. Many people who look for the regs and cannot find them in the regs book ask on the board because they know that there is someone on the board who can give them a definite answer based upon the facts in the regs book. Granted it is not likely that DFG will come to your house and inspect your freezer, but it’s a matter of ethics. If you already have a limit of fish in your freezer why do you have to be greedy and keep more then you are allowed to possess. If you want to fish for the species that you already have a limit of in your freezer fine, but why do you need to keep more fish when you already have a bunch in your freezer not being consumed. Don't take this as a personal attack because it’s not meant to be. Just look at it as the other side of a coin. If you want to debate this further send me an email, that way we don't clutter up the board.
Possession Limits (3) - Continued
Posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:56am
(In reply to: A Classic Thread - Possession Limits posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:49am)
Posted by lucy
And I still say -- That the key word is "DAILY." The regulation means that you can't go catch a limit of something, put it in a cooler (or a freezer, if you happen to have one in your boat or camper or whatever), and then go out and catch more of the same kind of fish IN THE SAME DAY. Why would the limit be called a "DAILY" limit if it also applies to fish caught in the past? It's called a "DAILY" limit because it refers to what you CATCH AND KEEP in the course of ONE DAY. If you and Wilson are right and the limit is actually a CUMULATIVE limit, then it should be called a CUMULATIVE limit and not a "DAILY" limit. Under your and Wilson's interpretation, a hunter who still has a couple of last year's ducks in the freezer would not be able to go hunting THIS year until he eats or disposes of those two last year's ducks. Is that what the law means? I DON'T THINK SO. Under your and Wilson's interpretation, where there is a one-fish limit on a particular species, a person who has a stuffed fish of that species hanging on his wall would be precluded from catching and keeping another fish of that species so long as he has that stuffed fish in his "possession." He'd have to get rid of that stuffed fish before he could go out and catch another. Is that what the law means? I DON'T THINK SO. This is another example of DFG's sloppy writing. On the other hand, it may never have occurred to the person who wrote the regulation that there might be people out there who don't know what "daily" means. Certainly it wouldn't have occurred to me until this particular debate came up. As for answering questions "correctly," the issue was not what the law SAYS, but what it MEANS. Anyone who wants to know what the law SAYS can look it up in the regulations-- they're right on the Internet, and anyone who can access this site can just as easily access DFG's site and read the regulations. The debate was over what the law MEANS, and various people, including me, expressed OPINIONS about it. You expressed an OPINION based on an article by Carrie Wilson. Did Wilson cite any actual court decisions to back up her statements about what the law means? If not, then what she said is just her OPINION. She may have gotten it from a DFG warden or official -- but I daresay that if you called up five different DFG wardens and asked them just what this particular bit of DFG's sloppy writing means, you'd get five different answers -- and those, too, would be nothing but OPINIONS. Unless and until a court decides on how the law should be interpreted, anything ANYbody says about it is just an individual OPINION, and nothing more. Since I didn't cite to any court decisions either, anyone reading my message would presumably have sense enough to know that my opinion was also just an OPINION-- and anyone who couldn't figure that out would probably not be able to tell one end of a fishing rod from the other anyway. As for why people would go out and catch fish when they already have fish in the freezer, well, some people actually catch fish for the purpose of EATING them, and like to have a stock of fish on hand for times when the fish are out of season or not available -- just the same way a person would pick blackberries when they're in season and freeze them to eat during the rest of the year. Preserving food for later consumption is one of mankind's oldest practices, and there is nothing "greedy" about doing so as long as the food IS actually consumed sooner or later and not simply allowed to go to waste. Since the original purpose of fishing was to obtain food, whether for immediate consumption or to preserve for later consumption (and not merely to torture fish for the fun of it), I strongly doubt that it was DFG's intention, in establishing bag limits, to preclude people from acquiring and preserving food for later consumption, but rather, to limit the number of fish an individual is allowed to catch AND keep in the course of any one particular day.
Posted by das limpet
Daily bag limit and Limit are not the same thing. The term "LIMIT" refers to both Take AND Possession. "1.59. Limit. Refers to daily bag limit and possession limit per person."
"Bag" means to take. "Possess" means to have in one's possession. So the key issue in this debate isn't "bag limit" but rather "possession." Upon closer examination of the regs, I must agree with fishfinder. The reg's clearly state "regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved." "1.17. Bag and Possession Limit. No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved." means: no more than what you are authorized to take in one day (one daily bag limit) may be taken or POSSESSED regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved (regardless of whether they're on your stringer, or in your freezer). Notice 1.17 says "unless otherwise authorized". If you look through the regs, most fish have "LIMITS" which refers to both take and possession. Striped bass has a LIMIT of 2, which refers to bag and possession. But right below that, sturgeon has a DAILY BAG LIMIT of 1, which means you can TAKE one per day, but there is no limit on possession. Anglers on Multi-day fishing trips are authorized to only take one daily bag limit per day but can only POSSESS up to three daily bag limits, even if they went fishing for four days or ten days. "27.15. Multi-Day Fishing Trips. The following provisions apply to anglers and to boat owners and operators when a Declaration for a Multi-Day Fishing Trip has been filed with the Department of Fish and Game. (a) Provisions related to the angler: Up to three daily bag and possession limits of saltwater fin fish, lobster and rock scallops and up to two daily bag and possession limits of abalone are allowed for a person fishing during a multi-day trip in ocean waters from a boat whose owner or operator has filed a Declaration for Multi-Day Fishing Trip, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) below. (1) The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take more than one daily bag limit of fish during one calendar day." Thank you fishfinder and Lucy for bringing the issue up. One last obvious note: the regulations only refer to fish taken under the authority of a sportfishing license. Store bought fish is not included.
Posted by gyozadude
Correction... If possession limit is not specified, then Daily Bag limit = Possession Limit = same... So in the case of sturgeon... do the logic loop. By transitive property, the possession limit is still 1, fresh, frozen or otherwise preserved. This applies to any species of fish, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. So if they don't specify a possession limit for sturgeon... it means refer back to the global rule for possession limit, which is equal to one daily bag limit.
Posted by das limpet
1.17. Bag and Possession Limit. No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved.
Posted by Songslinger
Weighing In. "Daily" is indeed the operative word here. Otherwise it would be cited specifically to mean "cumulative," as Lucy suggests. This is, no offense, kind of a no-brainer, and more of a disservice to other people who read this board. This goes beyond simple interpretation of the regulations and stretches them to a rather bizarre length. I doubt even the most officious and/or anal retentive DFG field officer would go so far. Having said this, I believe that few on this board would argue the ethics of greed. But the guy who has one striped bass in the freezer and returns home another day with a limit is violating neither natural nor governmental laws. Let's not split hairs when the real villains are out there harvesting an overabundance of fish.
Posted by gyozadude
A valid point... I do know of regulation 1.17 and it does state that possession of more than one daily bag limit is illegal. It's fairly clear to me what this means, and I disagree with Lucy in strict text of law, while I agree with Lucy on the spirit. IMO, the law is fairly clear. No more than one daily bag limit - period. No stocking. No accumulation. IMO, the key to the vagueness of the law is that it allows authorities to nab folks suspected of illegal sale or barter of sportfish caught under no license (pier) or sport license authority. I would believe that this pertains primarily to possession or transport over public properties and roads, but not in homes and evidence discovered in a home without a proper warrant would be an illegal search/seizure and not admissible in court. But just think if they didn't have this law; any group of people could decimate certain fishing holes, go home and clean and freeze the catch, and then claim that it was caught on a previous day when they tried to transport it for whatever fabricated reason. I was reading up on regulations pertaining to sportfish caught in B.C. and they implement regs that say something similar to it being illegal to possess or catch more than certain limits while at/going-to/going-from fishing location, bag and possession limits are enforced strictly, but the fish stocked at a place of residence caught on previous days are exempt.
Posted by Hyok
My two cents... I dare the DFG to prosecute anyone who has more than the daily limit in the home freezer. Regardless of how the text could be interpreted, the vagueness would be subject to a legitimate challenge in the courts. Just get Johnny Cochrane, and you'll be home free.
Posted by gyozadude
It's not vague... The text of section 1.17 is not vague. It basically says in state regs that possession over 1 daily limit frozen or otherwise is illegal. It says nothing about it being inside or outside of your home. However, Federal Law has the 4th Amendment against illegal searches and seizures, and it's unlawful for police to enter and collect evidence without a warrant. So unless the police have evidence otherwise (and Predator... chime in here with your SAF stuff), then they have no right to search someone's house or car without a warrant, and no warrant will be issued if there is no evidence a priori that fish were taken illegally in the first place. So in a battle between state and federal laws, the feds win. Which means what you do in your own home is your own business, so you can effectively stockpile, without regard to the state law, because the enforcement of such a law is impossible inside a house. The only time they can nab you is during transport, most likely if they're already staked out and waiting, because they suspect you're transporting for the sake of illegal sale. So you'd better have your Costco receipt and they'd better be farm raised fish, otherwise, ... As for Johnny Cochrane.... I'd personally pay the fine. I couldn't afford the $Megabuck legal fees he charges. Personally... Emphram Cochrane is a much bigger idol. That guy invented warp drive!
Posted by Songslinger
Zefram Cochrane...Engage!
Posted by Hyok
I still think its vague...The law does not seem to spell out what is meant by "possession." Does it mean in your cooler in your car or in your pocket? The vagueness comes from this lack of definition. It all depends on what the definition of "IS" is.
Posted by das limpet
From my dictionary..."possess: to have as belonging to one." Either you have two salmon or you don't. BigUnInDaBoat has two salmon that he caught yesterday. Yay BigUnInDaBoat! But BigUnInDaBoat can't go out and catch another two as long as he already possesses two. Wah-wah. I have no salmon. Wah-wah. But I can go out and try to catch two if I can. Yay! Today, BigUnInDaBoat gives me (hypothetically) the two salmon he caught yesterday. He has not met his daily bag limit for today, nor is he in possession of two salmon. BigUnInDaBoat may now go catch another two salmon. I on the other hand am now in possession of two salmon, which were caught by someone else, but I nonetheless have as belonging to me. Even though I never caught my daily bag limit for today, I now possess a limit, and therefore cannot go out and catch two salmon. Absurd? That is subject to debate. Lucy's opinion that it is absurd that she could catch and give away 300 salmon during a season, and that it would be perfectly legal, but it would be illegal for her to possess eight on the same day, does not take into account the fact that the people she gave to, would not be able to take a daily bag limit themselves as long as they are in possession. It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that most limits are already generous. I really don't need more than two whole salmons in my freezer. But THAT is a matter of OPINION.
Posted by lucy
Clarity... Now, that B.C. [British Colombia] law sounds as though it's written clearly, and makes clear the distinction between fish caught one day and fish caught another day. If DFG's regulations had been written with equal clarity, this whole silly issue would never have arisen. That bit about the law being deliberately vague to enable DFG to nail people for selling fish caught under a sport license doesn't make any sense. All DFG has to do to bust somebody for selling fish caught under a sport license (or with no license at all) is catch them selling fish WITHOUT having a commercial license. Period. There's no need to know where they caught the fish, or over what period of time, or anything else-- they're selling fish, they have no commercial license entitling them to sell fish, they're breaking the law, end of story. I think the INTENT of DFG's regulation was the same as the B.C. regulation, but they just didn't write it as clearly. A "daily bag and possession limit" means just that-- the number of fish you BAG and TAKE INTO YOUR POSSESSION during the course of a given DAY. It does not refer to fish you BAGGED (past tense) and TOOK (past tense) into your possession on some day in the past, and it doesn't need to, because there was a DAILY bag and possession limit in effect THAT day, as well. Granted, the person who wrote DFG's regulation should have been more specific -- but the poor fellow probably thought he WAS being clear, and didn't imagine that a bunch of choplogics and pettifoggers would come along and start haggling over whether "daily" really means "daily" or not.
Posted by gyozadude
People can sell or barter without proof or means. They do it all the time and DFG can't prove a thing since this is just "friendship" and is hard to prosecute. I think the rule is deliberately written to say it's illegal to possess more than a daily limit, regardless of how the catch is and how many days you intend to be out, specifically because they know charter boat captains and the like (many of which pay for a commercial license to sell sport caught fish), may do so and transport sport caught fish. So to prevent them from establishing this as a volume business without a full commercial license, they have this restrictions. In fact, if you look at the regs on multi-day trips, you need to apply for a special license for that event... e.g. long range tuna trips. These cannot exceed a certain number of days (I think 3) and you aren't allowed to keep more than that limit for transport. The problem with the B.C. law and any of these laws is enforcement. By saying that the home or a car is a safe haven once the fish has been processed and frozen, you allow a big loophole to open up in poaching by providing an avenue for poachers to transport large quantities of their catch (either whole frozen, or fillet'd). In B.C., they don't have a big population and fish are abundant, so it's no big deal. In CA, we have 30+Million people and it's supposed to be a desert. So poaching can be a problem. The law simply looks like they architected away the safe haven. If that pisses people off, well, too bad. I again, re-iterate the question: Why are you keeping your catch if you've already got fish in the freezer? If you're using a sportfishing license as a means of subsistence, I'd say, sorry, the laws don't favor you. The state has decided that sport fishing and hunting are regulated, and they don't allow people to subsist on fish and game unless they do it for commercial purposes (i.e. more license fees and more regulations).
Posted by lucy
Opinions, opinions, opinions. Okay, as I said above, unless someone can cite a COURT DECISION on this matter, everything anybody says is nothing but opinion-- and we could argue back and forth all day and the rest of the week over our opinions, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing. As for the question of why someone would catch fish when he already has fish in the freezer, I already dealt with that in a post above. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with "subsistence"; it's a simple matter of catching fish WHILE they're in season or available and freezing them so that you can have them at other times as well. Like, you can't go salmon fishing in December, so if you want to have some salmon on hand to eat in December, you catch it when it's in season and freeze it. That's what freezers are FOR. Is that so hard to grasp? Under your absurd interpretation of what the "daily" limit means, I would be perfectly within the law if I went out every day during salmon season, caught two salmon, and gave them away. If I did that every day during the season, I would be catching and giving away over 300 fish -- but that would be perfectly legal as long as I never had more than two in my TOTAL possession (in the bag, in the cooler, at home, etc.) at any one time. HOWEVER, if I went out four times, caught two fish each time, and put them in the freezer, so that I ended up "in possession" of eight fish, total, then I'd breaking the law. So, it's okay to kill off 300 fish as long as I don't keep them, but illegal to keep eight fish to eat over the next few months? I say again, I DON'T THINK SO!!!!
Posted by gyozadude
Here's how you do it... Lucy...The way the law says as far as anyone can interpret, is that no one can possess more than a daily bag limit of fish unless otherwise specified. There's no time dependency in the clause. It's a closed statement. This means it always applies.
That means, if we interpret the letter of the law, no one can have 8 sport caught salmon in the freezer to eat over the next month or so. It may seem ridiculous that you can't keep 8 salmon at any given time to eat, but you could catch 300 salmon and give them away. The solution is obviously one of time displacement and distribution. If you want to eat salmon and fish for salmon, the solution is to both keep what you plan to consume and give away what you won't consume. Doesn't sound like a big pain in the butt. The key is to not waste fish. And technically, while you might be in violation of the law keeping more than 2 salmon in your freezer at any given time, it'd be impossible for anyone to ever cite you for it because they'd never know without searching your house, and that won't happen unless you or some judge authorizes it, which won't happen if you didn't break any laws getting the fish in the first place. It's not to worry.
Posted by baitfish
Here's how you do it... Plus you would have to leave a 1" patch of skin, so the fish could be identified, if these laws were to be used once you got the fish home. The whole thing is absurd. The intent of the law is obviously that you are only allowed to keep so many fish per day. However some DFG attorney in all his brilliance wrote it incorrectly, it happens quite frequently, laws are written by humans so they are subject to errors. To have the law imply that you can't keep more than a daily limit at home at any one time is just silly. What if you were dating someone and you both caught your limit of 5 perch, but you broke up a week later, but she did not take her perch along with all her other stuff, you would be in violation. The law is only to allow for so many fish caught per day before you get home. Once you get home, and the next day comes you are allowed to go back out and catch another daily limit. Like Lucy says, I would love to see a court ruling where somebody had their freezer searched and was found guilty. Adam
message board home :: search messages :: archives :: event organizer :: merchandise
Possession Limits (4) -- Continued
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 5:57am
(In reply to: A Classic Thread - Possession Limits posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:49am)
CROW for dinner, sort of.
Posted by lucy on October 15, 2002
Today I called DFG and spoke to Lt. Dan Andreen and asked him about the bag/possession thingy. He said that yes, technically, it does in fact mean that you can have only one daily limit in your total possession, counting what's in the fridge and freezer that you caught in the past. HOWEVER, he also said that DFG has way too many more important things to worry about than whether Joe Schmoe has four salmon in the freezer or whatever. He also said, "The only way we'd know about it is if you invite us into your house, or we get a warrant-- and we'd NEVER be able to get a warrant unless there was some other criminal activity involved"-- for instance, someone is selling fish and has sizable stockpile of them-- and, of course, gets caught or ratted out. I said that the law was pretty stupid and should be re-written, and he agreed. Anyway, bottom line: yes, you are breaking the law if you have more than a daily limit of anything in your possession. However, unless you're stockpiling it and selling it, DFG doesn't care much and you're VERY unlikely ever to get into any trouble for it. Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to go bragging to a game warden, "Yeah, I'm doin' really good with the salmon this year; I got me ten salmon in the smoker and fifteen more in the freezer, and....."
Posted by Songslinger
Geeze, I'll Join You ...Even though I'm on a restricted diet and crow is very high in carbohydrates. Hate to be wrong, but there it is. Thanks for the heads up. Good thing my freezer's empty...
Posted by gyozadude
Squaw, squaw...
Lucy: Got baked crow in the oven right now. Wanna come over for dinner? Side dish is green bean casserole with French's Fried Onions, if the crow is too dry and tough to swallow.
Posted by Songslinger
Schadenfreude! Ahem, magnamity in victory is always appreciated.
Posted by Songslinger
Make That "Magnanimity" Think I just turned you into a trace metal or mineral or something...
Posted by gyozadude
No really... open invite for all crow eaters... The baked crow is actually made from my abundant stockpiles of sport caught, freezer-dried fish, which I now must consume or else risk getting caught, fined and labeled a hypocrite.
Posted by lucy
Hey, don't knock it -- Like just about anything else, crow is no doubt delicious if prepared and seasoned properly. And if you're hungry enough, it's probably quite tasty raw, too. And hey-- given some of the things Gyozadude has talked about cooking, along with his potstickers, I'd accept a dinner invitation from him anytime. (HINT. HINT. HINT.)
Posted by baitfish
I'll have seconds... But I will agree with the warden and you, that is incredibly stupid.
Adam. I fish therefore I... spend too much money on gear.
Posted by stumpysez
The advantages of debate... Hi all, I just wanted to mention that this illustrates what a great resource this web site is. My interpretation of the possession limit has always been exactly what Lucy (and others) was arguing for in the initial thread on this topic: that the possession limit is purely daily and not cumulative... confusion created by the fact that it's called a daily limit, which, really, it shouldn't be, because there's nothing daily about it. It sounds like the definition requires two things: A daily take limit (which is true whether you possess the fish or not... if you catch two stripers and give them to your buddy, you can't catch any more until tomorrow) and a possession limit (which is true no matter when the fish were taken or who took 'em). It doesn't seem to be a problem that those two would be the same number, it's just confusing how it is currently written. I never would have figured out the correct interpretation of the law without the lively debate here. Thank goodness I'm bad enough at fishing that I haven't accidentally become a poacher! My incompetence comes to my rescue yet again! -Stumpy
Posted by gyozadude
Hats off to Lucy... I'll add that while debate is good, my hat is off to Lucy who took the initiative to call up DFG to get a clarification. And I'd tip my hat off to Lucy a second time (if my hat wasn't already off) for posting her results publicly, even when it'd force her to eat crow.
Posted by corbinaman1
Thanks Lucy! For checking out the regs on this! That does seem like a dumb rule! At least there is no limit on Giant Squid as I still have about 20 pounds left in the freezer (ate 3 meals of it already) from a few nights of fishing a few months ago when they were running!?
Posted by mola joe
DFG Fridge Search... Can't say I've ever heard of DFG searching a freezer in someone house, but it's very common during the trout opener in the Eastern Sierras for DFG to search condos. My buddy got nailed at Crowely last year after Fish and Game took Polaroid's of people cleaning fish in the morning at the lake, and then matching them up to guys coming back out in the afternoon. Most travel a long distance to fish here and get a little greedy going back out in the afternoon for another 5 fish. DFG gave my buddy a choice. Take the ticket now for 1 over limit of trout, or have a warden go back to the condo and see what's in the fridge. My buddy took the ticket and saved the guy a trip. He was staying with 3 other people, and even though I didn't ask him, I'm sure there was three limits in the fridge. I've spent many an opener up there over the years, and in my opinion, it's about time they started cracking down. Seen way to many guys making mucho trips to the condo and back out on the water. Did have a commercial lobster fisherman friend of mine get busted at his house by a half dozen wardens after he was accused of poaching other peoples lobster traps by another commercial fisherman. Won't get into it too much, but he was caught red handed as DFG marked some bugs, dropped them in a few dozen traps, and they did end up at my buddies house and ready to go to market. Anyway, they came in with guns drawn and the whole nine yards. Needless to say, my friend no longer has a commercial license and is much lighter in the wallet. Doubtful you're going to get a knock on your door if you have a freezer full of fish though.
Posted by 2d
It is a silly rule, but it does have its applications. people who stockpile fish in their freezer, only to toss it out months down the road aren't doing us any favors. BTW, I just remembered that, a few years ago, when we were running into overpopulated Brook Trout streams and a bunch of stunted square tails, the DFG introduced a 5 daily/10 in possession limit on some eastern sierra waters for this species in an attempt to encourage people to harvest some of these stumpys. If I had remembered this a few weeks ago, we probably could have saved some debate and bandwidth.
And again...Lobster Limits / possesion question.
Posted by Predator on October 29, 2002
O.K.. When we talk limits, I know we talk about DAILY bag limits. Some people say you can only have a limit in your freezer - baloney to that, I say. But - just to be sure: You take a trip south and stay for 3 days. You get a limit the first day, and the second. You want to take them all home for a feast. Get hit up by DFG on your way home. Are you in trouble?
Posted by pEsCaDoR619
I can see why you could be...there's no way for you to prove that you caught your limit three times in three days unless you have pics of them while holding a newspaper like in the muscle magazines. and even then you would have to get the film developed and have the pics ready before you cross the border. Of course that is if they don't enforce the possession limit. But I say phooey to that too. I've released enough fish to bring back at least four days worth of limits back. But that's an individual statistic and would not be fair to fishermen like us when the ocean rapists use that loophole for their gain, resulting in our loss.
Posted by gyozadude
I thought Lucy contacted DFG already and clarified this. The regs say it's illegal to possess more than a daily bag limit - period. That includes cumulatively as well. But if you happen to have more lobsters in your possession than the law allows, I'd be more than happy to help eat some of them to keep you in compliance.
Posted by lucy
I did... (previous message)
Posted by Predator
What about that other thread? I don't know how many of you remember, but we were talking about a long-range boat fishing trip. I think Fishin' Magician was the primary in that thread. Anyway - something in it about limits and time. I remember something to the effect of that when you catch your limit on these trips, you have to wait until midnight and then, you can fish more. Something like that... Can't find the thread, though. Anyway - that's where my curiosity stems from.
Posted by lucy
Special permit. I believe that on those multi-day boat trips, you have to buy a special permit that allows you to have more than one day's limit in possession.
Posted by Predator
GOT WORD BACK FROM DFG - wow that was fast! You're right, Lucy! Here's what I got back from a wonderful guy at DFG. He replied so fast, can you believe it? I sent him my inquiry this morning, and here I come back from lunch and there it is! I'm very HAPPY with DFG right now... I asked the following: "Got a few people in a discussion about the regs on possession limits. If you take a 7 day boat fishing trip - you can only keep ONE limit, for all 7 days combined???" "You'll find the answers in the 2002 California Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations booklet, in Sections 1.17 and 27.15. Section 1.17 states: "No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved." So, say you take a 7 day boat fishing trip, and get a limit (7) of lobster on the first day. In order to legally take more lobster on the second day of the trip, you would have to first dispose of the 7 lobsters (eat them, give them away, etc.) you already possess. You could legally take a limit of lobster each day of the trip, as long as you had somehow disposed of the preceding day's limit first. But, as long as you have 7 lobster in your possession (on your person, in your bag, in your car, on your boat, in your cooler, in your house, etc.), you cannot legally take any more. The provisions of Section 27.15 allow an angler to possess up to 3 daily bag limits through the use of a "Declaration for a Multi-Day Fishing Trip". Among other things, Section 27.15 states: "Up to three daily bag and possession limits of saltwater fin fish, lobster and rock scallops... are allowed for a person fishing during a multi-day trip in ocean waters from a boat whose owner or operator has filed a Declaration for Multi-Day Fishing Trip...The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take more than one daily bag limit of fish during one calendar day...The provisions of this section do not apply to the taking and possession of salmon, steelhead, striped bass and sturgeon." So, with the multi-day trip permit on your 7 day fishing trip, you could possess up to 21 lobster (3 limits) at the end of the trip,
although you still could not take more than one limit per day. The main reasons that the regulations restrict saltwater anglers to possessing one daily bag limit of finfish and crustaceans are to make it more difficult for poachers to illegally sell critters taken under the
authority of a sport fishing license, and to reduce the number of animals that go to waste when a fish-hog cleans out his ice box and throws out bags of freezer-burned fillets. I hope this answers your questions; feel free to contact me in the future."
Posted by Mikey
Predator.... Hmm good question. But just curious.."baloney to that?" I always hear about certain people on the board respecting the DFG and honoring daily possession/bag limits, you especially. I'll agree if the whole "freezer" thing was to be enforced, everyone would get busted, or would have at one time. So anyway, I was kinda confused to hear you "reject" the notion of that particular DFG law. Mike
Posted by MalibuFrank
Predator.... Sometimes I read information on the web and it just blows me away. If any of you ever have a legal question regarding fish laws I suggest you e-mail your questions to AskMarine@dfg.ca.gov and get an answer in writing. Considering the huge fines possible getting caught with 3 daily bag limits of lobster, I would suggest NOT getting legal answers from well meaning people on message boards. Again, please DON'T take my word for it, check it out for yourself. It is my understanding of the DFG laws of the state, that one person may not possess more than one daily bag limit at any time. That includes what is in your freezer, ice chest on the boat, game bag, bucket, etc. By the letter of the law, if you have a limit in the freezer at home, it would not be legal for you to go out and land more. For example, you have 3 bugs at home in the freezer, now you go out and start catching more. To be 100% legal you should stop fishing once you land 4. 3+4=7(bag limit). This is what I got from the DFG in writing. The loopholes are, If you have a wife, 7 bugs could be hers. Kids? You get the idea. Also unless you are landing a huge ice chest full of fish every day, it is not likely a judge would ever grant a game warden a search warrant to search your home for over limits so for most this is not a worry. Another way to stock more than one daily bag limit at home is to pay the DFG about $3.00 for a "Declaration of Multi-Day Fishing Trip Permit" If you follow all of the rules, you could legally possess up to 3 daily bag limits at one time. The bottom line is don't take more than you can really use and to do it within the laws so you don't end up with a huge fine and risk loosing your fishing privileges. Frank Words of wisdom.
Posted by pescare
You must be luckier than me. Out of three requests for clarification I've sent DFG via e-mail, I've received zero replies. Ed
Posted by Predator
O.K. Frank. (In scarface's voice)...I hear you Frank. You a good man. I'll send an e-mail to that address right now with a link to this thread and ask him to come on here and answer it publicly for us all. Stay tuned. Thank you.
Posted by Predator
"Baloney" defined, Mikey...First of all, thanks for being civil and not blasting on an the assumption - I appreciate that. Now - when I say baloney to that, I, under no terms, mean to imply baloney to any reg put forth by DFG. Rather, I say baloney to the notion of and validity of such a claim of a law. It makes no sense to me. If you take a 5 day fishing trip - you can only keep ONE limit? Doesn't make sense. Why are all those outfits still in business? Why would anyone take a trip for more than one day, ever? So - I'm saying I think it's baloney and not true. I don't think that the DFG has that position on the limits. That's all. If CONFIRMED by a DFG officer, I will surely COMPLY. Not that I've ever had more than a limit of any fish in my life at any one time - but I really PLAN on getting a daily limit of lobster coming up very soon in the near future. 3 days, I want 3 limits...but if DFG says no, I WILL comply. Thanks for asking.
Posted by Mikey
Good call, thanks for clearing that up. Yup, go ahead and slap those cuffs on me, I think I've got over my limit of 2 species in the freezer now, hehe - doh! Mike
Posted by moocher
When you hit the bag limit of bugs from a pier.... Get lots of witnesses, cause hell will freeze over before that ever happens. -moocher
Posted by frozendog
Don't forget ... if fishing in Mexican waters you have to comply to their laws and regs.
LIMITS -- according to DFG
Posted by lucy
There have been several threads about this recently. I finally called DFG about it; here's the message I posted about my conversation with DFG. Stinky IS correct on this: technically, you can have no more than ONE daily limit in your possession, INCLUDING fish you've caught on previous days and stored in the freezer (or smoked or dried or whatever). The ONLY exception to this is if you are going on a multi-day boat fishing trip and buy a special permit. Now on the other hand, the DFG guy himself said that the law is stupid and should be re-written so that a daily limit really MEANS a daily limit. He also said DFG doesn't make any effort to enforce this regulation UNLESS someone has been reported as stockpiling fish for the purpose of selling them. So let's not have any blather about how catching a fish when you already have one in the freezer is some kind of federal crime or will cause some horrible and irreparable damage to your immortal soul. In the overall scheme of things, it's beyond trivial-- especially when you compare it to the depredations of organized poaching rings, and especially when you compare it to the tons of fish wasted as "by-catch" by commercial fishing.
Possession Limits -- Short Answer
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 6:00am
(In reply to: Possession Limits (4) -- Continued posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:57am)
Posted by lucy on October 15, 2002
Today I called DFG and spoke to Lt. Dan Andreen and asked him about the bag/possession thingy. He said that yes, technically, it does in fact mean that you can have only one daily limit in your total possession, counting what's in the fridge and freezer that you caught in the past. HOWEVER, he also said that DFG has way too many more important things to worry about than whether Joe Schmoe has four salmon in the freezer or whatever. He also said, "The only way we'd know about it is if you invite us into your house, or we get a warrant-- and we'd NEVER be able to get a warrant unless there was some other criminal activity involved"-- for instance, someone is selling fish and has sizable stockpile of them-- and, of course, gets caught or ratted out. I said that the law was pretty stupid and should be re-written, and he agreed. Anyway, bottom line: yes, you are breaking the law if you have more than a daily limit of anything in your possession. However, unless you're stockpiling it and selling it, DFG doesn't care much and you're VERY unlikely ever to get into any trouble for it. Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to go bragging to a game warden, "Yeah, I'm doin' really good with the salmon this year; I got me ten salmon in the smoker and fifteen more in the freezer, and....."
Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer
Posted by Songslinger
on Mar-3-03 7:41am
(In reply to: Possession Limits -- Short Answer posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 6:00am)
Let your
conscience be your guide
Though Law
might not see things your way
Accept the
consequence with pride
And leave
the whining home today
Burma Shave
Searching For Serenity
Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer
Posted by quietman
on Mar-3-03 10:01am
(In reply to: Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer posted by Songslinger on Mar-3-03 7:41am)
The code of the rational anarchist!
The *very* words I live by...
I wonder if Hienlien ever saw that? I'm gonna put it on the wall in the garage next to some of my other cool stuff, thanks 'Slinger.
Tanstaafl!
Conscience...
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 5:10pm
(In reply to: Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer posted by quietman on Mar-3-03 10:01am)
The unknown is an ocean. What is conscience? The compass of the unknown. -- Joseph Cook
In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. -- Mohandas Gandhi
How could a state be governed...if every individual remained free to obey or not obey the law according to his private opinion? -- Thomas Hobbes
Re: Conscience...
Posted by quietman
on Mar-3-03 10:10pm
(In reply to: Conscience... posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:10pm)
Yah that's the trouble with the experiment that was the United States. Thomas Jefferson, the first (known) rational anarchist wrote the constitution with the assumption that free people would follow God's teaching (the God of the Bible) and that was an absolute requirement for a free society.
That never did work out too well. Look at the declaration of independence "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF evident...and that all men are CREATED equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain INALIABLE rights.
Yet they had slaves, since slaves weren't legally human. And we murder 3 million babies a year here, because babies currently are not legally human. Exact same thing, two hundred years apart.
We don't even understand what truth and reality is very well, anymore, and I'm not sure it would matter.
Actually Madison wrote most of the Constitution,
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 10:41pm
(In reply to: Re: Conscience... posted by quietman on Mar-3-03 10:10pm)
Jefferson the Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson was probably the least religious of the Founding Fathers. But that's another story...
Re: Actually Madison wrote most of the Constitution
Posted by quietman
on Mar-3-03 11:02pm
(In reply to: Actually Madison wrote most of the Constitution, posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 10:41pm)
You're right about the constitution, I goofed. And you are right about "religious." As a Christian I am very much ambivalent towards religions, the abolishment of which was Christ's #2 goal during his time on earth.
That being said even Jefferson would be considered an extremist in todays moral vacuum.
But people have a *very* hard time with being "set free," and are much more comfortable with religions and rules and all that that entails...but it is each persons God-given free-will choice to do with as he pleases...
quietman
The Pier Rats Speak (Roar) -- Possession Limits...
Date: August 23, 2002
To: PFIC Message Board
From: kingcrab
Subject: Giving away fish counts toward your bag limit ????
I read a post awhile back about bag limits. "Giving away any fish you caught counts toward your bag limit." If I were to go on a salmon party boat and caught my two fish limit, I cannot fish anymore? or I can still fish, but have to release any more salmon I've caught? Those who got seasick and cannot fish go home without any fish? Let's say there are 20 people fishing on the boat and 19 of them have caught their two fish limit by 9 a.m.. So the last person has until the end of the day to catch his/her limits? If the boat has 20 anglers, I know they will fish until 40 salmon are in the box, no matter who caught it. Are there any laws broken here? If so, they are not being enforced.
Posted by Ken Jones
That's why the Fish and Game recently had the sting operation... Or at least that is one reason why they had the sting operation. The example you site is a definite breaking of the law. There were however several other issues also brought out in the sting operation.
Posted by CorbinaBob
Help me out here anyone, please. If I catch and release a fish like I normally do, it should not count towards my bag limit. I always make sure the fish is viable and healthy before releasing it, and if not it counts towards my bag limit. If the bag limit is two fish and I caught and released two fish I have bagged zero fish and can continue fishing. The problem may be that with two fish already bagged, if I harm another fish, it counts towards my bag limit. So always leave room in your bag limit for at least one fish and you can fish as long as you like. Now the drawback to this is the attitude towards catch and release on party boats. The last time I went on a party boat, which was at least 10 years ago, if I threw back a keeper, they would have thrown me over right after. It seems to be mostly oriented mostly to how many pounds of fish I will put in my freezer, and next to zero for the fishing experience.
Posted by baitfish
You've got it! The bag limit is just that, a Bag limit, not a release limit, once your bag limit has been met you are done fishing for the day. Although, that does not mean that you can't go on trying to catch other fish, But if the possibility lies that you might catch another fish of the same species, know that you might be going over your limit, even if you were to release the fish. Adam
Posted by pescare
Giving away fish counts toward your bag limit . "If I were to go on a salmon party boat and caught my two fish limit, I cannot fish anymore?" No, you cannot fish anymore. You said it yourself, you caught your two fish limit. Where's the confusion? "Those who got seasick and cannot fish go home without any fish?" Yes. They paid for the privilege of the boat ride. They did not pay for a guarantee of fish to bring home. "Let say there are 20 people fishing on the boat and 19 of them have caught their two fish limit by 9 a.m.. So the last person has until the end of the day to catch his/her limits?" The time on the water is entirely up to the captain. It's got nothing to do with DFG regulations. "If the boat has 20 angler, I know they will fish until 40 salmons are in the box, no matter who caught it. Are there any laws broken here?" Yes, of course. If the limit is two and someone takes three a law has been broken. Geez, for the life of me I can't understand why so many people seem to have trouble with this. A limit is a limit! Has anyone ever seen a statement in the regulations that says that limits can be ignored if you are fishing on a boat? Aaarrrghhhh.....Ed
Posted by kingcrab
Is it against the law to catch and release after you got your bag limit?
Posted by Ken Jones
What if you deep hook a fish after you've got your limit? You've now killed more fish than you are allowed. Tough decisions, huh?
Posted by Red Fish
One thing I have not heard what if'ed ... in this conversation (mostly about PB'ers) is what if you've caught your limit of one species of fish and you target another. I think it is referred to as "Potluck." Totally legal. O.K.-sure, don't take more than you can eat. But, if you go on a potluck boat north of Point Conception and in one day catch (3) halibut, (2) salmon, what is the rockfish limit now (0), (2) lings and some other assorted misc. species like WSB or top mackerel all yourself, you are well within your rights as long as you caught all of them yourself. As long as we're exhausting every "what if" hypothetical situation possible. I think the point is missed in that if a problem exists with over-fishing, then there should be a limit to the amount of anglers allowed on the water (party boats) which seems to be the evident outcome. Numbers are what is important (a little thing called statistics). D.F.G. admitted that they don't have enough research currently to really be well-informed. Right now it seems like let's just cut back until we can really understand how much the resource has truly been depleted. As a resolution, kinda like ole' Sinker's recent proclamation about how hunters get so many tags or stamps that regulate their limit of annual take of species. (granted we're talking about law-abiding individuals).
Posted by 2d
A hypothetical ...just wondering about the definition, as interpreted by the law. I'll go on the record here as saying that I'm a big proponent of C&R (much to the consternation of my wife who loves to eat fish), and that I would never consider breaking the law to fill my freezer (I have a bunch of other "breaking the law" things to worry about, anyway). Is the person who hooks the fish, or the person who lands it considered the one who's bag limit is counted? If I landed two salmon, and continued to hold my rod in the water, and then got a strike, could I then hand off the rod to another fisherman who hasn't fulfilled his limit, without technically breaking the law (assuming the fish is then landed and kept)?
Posted by baitfish
A hypothetical. Not sure about the actual law, but I would think a DFG warden could say that it is your fish since your friend would not have caught the fish if you had not set the hook. Either way, a judge would probably throw that out. Adam
Posted by gyozadude
Technically, no can do. If you've bagged your limit of salmon, it doesn't matter what the other angler is doing, the fact that you have your rod in the water and continue to monitor it is fishing after your limit is caught. But technically this is difficult to enforce, since you could claim that you were fishing for a different species after the limit of salmon. Handing the rod to another angler after hooking the fish and identifying it as being a salmon, would probably indicate knowledge of the regulations and therefore guilt by fore-knowledge and avoidance on a technicality... and any judge who's smart enough about the regs would probably sock it to you and NOT let you off if they were aware of what you were trying to do. Since you practice C&R, you got nothing to worry about since you won't have any fish in possession that could prove that you caught your limit, so hypothetically, you could keep on fishing all you wanted. - Gyozadude
Posted by 2d
Thanks, I was just wondering what the interpretation would be.
Posted by Leapin Bass
Actually ... Poaching salmon (fishing after you've caught your limit) is probably one of the easiest ones to enforce if you're on a party boat because that's usually the only fish they are targeting and the fishing methods are usually aimed at salmon. There's really no way you could say you were fishing for other species. The answer is simple. Catch one fish, keep it, then catch and release the rest. If you're lucky enough to catch one just before the end of the trip and you keep it also - great. If not, you have one fish to take home and an entire day of fishing as opposed to two fish and an entire day of watching others fish - I know which one I'd pick! Poaching white seabass on the other hand is very different and tough to enforce because most of the techniques used to catch them will catch other fish (yellowtail and halibut) so it's easier for people to poach and get away with it. It's also quite different because before the middle of June the limit is only one. Of course if you don't like the laws you can always take up golf.
Possession Limits (2) -- Continued
Posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:54am
(In reply to: A Classic Thread - Possession Limits posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:49am)
Question about LIMITS
Posted by pierangler8787 on August 24, 2002
I read an earlier thread about bag limits, but I still don't get it. Say you have caught and kept 2 Salmon, now you can't fish PERIOD? Or what if you catch 2 salmon, keep fishing, catch another Salmon and release it? Is that against the law? Somebody please help me with this. Happy fishin'! Chris
Posted by Davey jones
on Aug-25-02 12:46am
2 in possession is cool, so barbless and catch and release is fine. It is just practice after you get 2 anyway.
Posted by kingcrab
Clarified this with F&G code and not just opinion.
Posted by Leapin Bass
Nope, that is poaching. Killing your limit (whether you keep it, give it away, sell it, throw it back dead, etc.) and continuing to fish for the same species is illegal.
Posted by Frenchy
Question about LIMITS: 1.80. Take. Hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill fish, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or invertebrates or attempting to do so. According to the DFG's definition of "take", you can not even catch and release once you have reached your limit. If you are targeting a species such as bass with a limit of 10, you can keep 9, and continue to fish for them, and catch and release them. Once you keep 10, you can no longer fish for them due to the fact that pursuing, catching, or attempting to do so is considered taking which puts you over your bag limit, even if you release it. The moment you drop your line to pursue number 11 even with the intention of releasing it, you are technically breaking the law. I doubt if this is ever enforced or enforceable though, since you are allowed an over-all bag limit of 20 fin fish, you can set-up and target other species. If you accidentally hook a species for which you have already met your bag limit just release it. This specific regulation is ambiguous, and not enforceable. You were pursuing perch, and accidentally catch a bass, it's not your fault. You can't do anything to keep the bass from biting when you are not trying to pursue them. All you would have to say is, "I was pursuing perch, and the bass was an incidental catch, which was released unharmed." Andrew
Posted by pierangler8787
I see. One more question: What if you catch and release 10 Bass, every single one, do you have to stop fishing or can you continue to release? If you release 10 and then catch 1 and keep it, is that breaking the law?
Posted by mmmmfiiiish
Is it catch or bag limit?
Posted by Frenchy
It is all about possession, how many you actually kept. You only have to quit fishing for a specific species if you catch and keep or give away a limit (10 bass for an example). However there is a loophole. You can keep 9 bass and catch and release 1000 more and be 100% legal because you have not met your bag limit of 10. Now if you are fishing a hi-low rig with 2 hooks and you have 9 bass in the bag, and you catch a bass on each hook, technically you are over your limit by one. Again this is where the law is ambiguous, since it doesn't say anywhere in the regulations that you have to lower the number of hooks you are fishing with so you don't go over your limit. Technically you should quit fishing for bass after you keep or give away a full limit of 10. In my opinion the regulation is ambiguous, and I believe not enforceable since you also have the legal right to catch and keep 10 fish of other species. So the way I see it you can continue to fish for other species after you keep your limit of bass, as long as you are not keeping or giving away any more bass. If it appears that you are still specifically targeting bass (or whatever you have reached your limit of) you may have a problem. If you can show your rig and bait and have a valid claim that you are now targeting other species then bass, then I don't think you can be held accountable for catching and releasing another incidental bass. Again this is my opinion only. Andrew
Giving Fish Away
Posted by pescare on Oct 9, 2002
I remember some discussion and disagreement about this a couple of months ago so I thought I'd post this little blurb I just came across on the DFG site while looking for something else.
"Q. Can I give fish away to friends and family and do they need to have a fishing license for me to give it to them?
A. Yes, you can give fish away. The person you give fish to does not need to have a fishing license. A fishing license is only needed to take fish. You can still only take one daily limit, but you can give that limit away so that you can go fishing the next day and not be in possession of more than one daily bag and possession limit. So, if you have two people in your boat, car, camp or living in your home, you can possess two limits of fish in your boat, car, camp or home."
Ed
Posted by Leapin Bass
Yes, you can give fish away. The person you give fish to does not need to have a fishing license. A fishing license is only needed to take fish. You can still only take one daily limit, but you can give that limit away so that you can go fishing the next day and not be in possession of more than one daily bag and possession limit. Right. So, if you have two people in your boat, car, camp or living in your home, you can possess two limits of fish in your boat, car, camp or home." Wrong. car, camp, home - maybe. Boat? No way - how soon we forget the sting operation on the commercial recreational fishing boats - it's the same thing. Unless they meant to also say that the second person needs a license as well.
Posted by kingcrab
So, I can have only a maximum of 2 stripers in my freezer??
Posted by BigUnInDaBoat
4, double the daily bag limit.
Posted by phishinpat
No, you could have as many as you want...but the person you are giving the fish to, I think, would need a license if they are also on the boat, camp or pier...just my opinion!
Posted by gyozadude
Section 1.17 in the ocean regs makes it pretty clear. Bag limits refer to catch and possession regardless of whether the fish is fresh, frozen, etc., and each person can only catch one daily limit and have it in possession. And it's fairly clear in the section above that, that anyone over 16 who wants to fish must have a license with the appropriate stamps if necessary. The exceptions exist primarily for freshwater locales specifically in Northern California on certain types of trout where anglers can catch only one limit per day, but have more than 1 limit in possession. The regs also require that those people who appear to have been fishing submit their gear and catch to inspection by authorities when request it. So the key to interpreting these rules are probably based on the extent of probable cause to inspect for fish. So is it legal to have lots of fish in your freezer? Don't know. I hope so, provided the fish were taken legally. But the question I have: why would anyone not practice catch-n-release with so much fish in the freezer?
Posted by baitfish
This question just came up on another board in regards to lobster... weird. The problem is some fish have a limit of 1, White Sea Bass have a limit of 1 during certain times of the year. so if you catch 3, the legal limit during other parts of the year and leave them in your freezer past the date the regs change, would you be in violation? The intent of the law is to limit the number of fish that you take on a given day, that is why it is called a daily bag limit. But like much of the regs, it is written very poorly, and leaves it open for too much interpretation and confusion. Adam
Posted by phishinpat
The key word "DAILY"
Posted by Red Fish
"But like much of the regs, it is written very poorly, and leaves it open for too much interpretation and confusion." I think this particular regulation was written to prevent the abuse of the daily bag limit. That is probably why the D.F.G.'s answer about a boat, camp, car or home was so vague (the representative from D.F.G. was just talking off the top of their head). It's really the burden of proof. How is anyone really going to know where your fish came from unless they saw you catch them. If you thing about it, a reg like that would be enforced if a D.F.G. warden was doing a sting operation and they follow you around all day back to your boat, your car, your camp, your home as they observe you abuse the daily bag limit by leaving they fishing area with more than your take for one day.
Posted by fishfinder
Hi all, This question was just asked in the current issue of WON. I just read the article in the Carrie Wilson column. She wrote that you can only have one daily possession limit in your freezer. One of the exact examples she used were 14 lobster in someone's freezer. This is double the daily bag limit and therefore not legal to possess. She also said that if you have 3 lobster already in your freezer and plan to go out and get more you are only allowed to take 4 which would make up your bag limit and possession limit. Also if you fish and catch 7 sand bass and give three away to another fisherman the full seven count towards your bag limit and you are only legally able to keep 3 more for that day. If anyone is interested in reading the whole thing let me know via e-mail and I will either scan it and post it or send it to you. Pat
Posted by lucy
She is an idiot. A daily limit means just that -- what you are allowed to catch and keep IN ONE DAY. What you caught and threw in your home freezer yesterday doesn't count toward TODAY'S limit because you caught it YESTERDAY and it counted toward YESTERDAY's limit. It doesn't matter if you've got 20,000 TONS of fish in the freezer; they don't count toward TODAY's limit-- only the fish you catch and keep TODAY do. Now, if you're talking about a SEASON limit, such as there is with abalone, then she's still wrong, because the determining factor is not how many abalone you've got in the freezer, but how many you've already caught THIS season. If you still have some abalone sitting in the freezer from last season, they don't count at all toward THIS season's limit, because you caught them LAST season. I hope they're not actually PAYING her to write that column....
Possession
Posted by lucy on Oct 10, 2002
"Possession" means what you have on you or immediately near you and under your control, such as a backpack or cooler. It does not refer to something sitting in your freezer 20 miles away. In any case, the fish you caught on the 15th of last month and put in the freezer counts toward THAT day's limit, not TODAY's limit.
Posted by Red Fish
Makes sense to me Lucy. In possession that is. Who's to say you can't have a whole freezer load of salmon at home that you bought at Lake Safeway. I don't remember them telling me that there is a limit to the amount of fish I can buy from the fish market. (maybe there is?)
Posted by pescare
Agreed. While I usually believe the letter of law vs. spirit of law argument is weak, I think it applies here perfectly. The possession limit is in place to protect against people taking way over limit and claiming they did it over numerous days. You can't be driving around the Klamath in your camper with 18 salmon in the cooler and claim you've been there for nine days. You can however, have 18 in your home freezer because there is no way, as Red said, for DFG to prove where they came from. "My uncle gave them to me". That would be impossible to enforce. Ed
Posted by fishfinder
Hey lucy, answer to the bag limit regs. Lucy, I would have done this through e-mail but you don't include yours in your posts. So anyway in response to the info that I posted about daily bag limits from the Carrie Wilson column you wrote: "A daily limit means just that -- what you are allowed to catch and keep IN ONE DAY. What you caught and threw in your home freezer yesterday doesn't count toward TODAY'S limit because you caught it YESTERDAY and it counted toward YESTERDAY's limit. It doesn't matter if you've got 20,000 TONS of fish in the freezer; they don't count toward TODAY's limit -- only the fish you catch and keep TODAY do." The actual reg states: 1.17 Bag and Possession Limit. No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved. So I guess Carrie Wilson isn't as big of an idiot as you think she is. If you want to interpret the regs in your own manner and post your opinions state them as such. Many people who don't know the regs could have been misinformed by your post, especially young people that come to this site and read the posts as somewhat of a textbook. This site is all about answering people's questions correctly. When you let your opinions function as truth people can sometimes be misinformed. Many people who look for the regs and cannot find them in the regs book ask on the board because they know that there is someone on the board who can give them a definite answer based upon the facts in the regs book. Granted it is not likely that DFG will come to your house and inspect your freezer, but it’s a matter of ethics. If you already have a limit of fish in your freezer why do you have to be greedy and keep more then you are allowed to possess. If you want to fish for the species that you already have a limit of in your freezer fine, but why do you need to keep more fish when you already have a bunch in your freezer not being consumed. Don't take this as a personal attack because it’s not meant to be. Just look at it as the other side of a coin. If you want to debate this further send me an email, that way we don't clutter up the board.
Possession Limits (3) - Continued
Posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:56am
(In reply to: A Classic Thread - Possession Limits posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:49am)
Posted by lucy
And I still say -- That the key word is "DAILY." The regulation means that you can't go catch a limit of something, put it in a cooler (or a freezer, if you happen to have one in your boat or camper or whatever), and then go out and catch more of the same kind of fish IN THE SAME DAY. Why would the limit be called a "DAILY" limit if it also applies to fish caught in the past? It's called a "DAILY" limit because it refers to what you CATCH AND KEEP in the course of ONE DAY. If you and Wilson are right and the limit is actually a CUMULATIVE limit, then it should be called a CUMULATIVE limit and not a "DAILY" limit. Under your and Wilson's interpretation, a hunter who still has a couple of last year's ducks in the freezer would not be able to go hunting THIS year until he eats or disposes of those two last year's ducks. Is that what the law means? I DON'T THINK SO. Under your and Wilson's interpretation, where there is a one-fish limit on a particular species, a person who has a stuffed fish of that species hanging on his wall would be precluded from catching and keeping another fish of that species so long as he has that stuffed fish in his "possession." He'd have to get rid of that stuffed fish before he could go out and catch another. Is that what the law means? I DON'T THINK SO. This is another example of DFG's sloppy writing. On the other hand, it may never have occurred to the person who wrote the regulation that there might be people out there who don't know what "daily" means. Certainly it wouldn't have occurred to me until this particular debate came up. As for answering questions "correctly," the issue was not what the law SAYS, but what it MEANS. Anyone who wants to know what the law SAYS can look it up in the regulations-- they're right on the Internet, and anyone who can access this site can just as easily access DFG's site and read the regulations. The debate was over what the law MEANS, and various people, including me, expressed OPINIONS about it. You expressed an OPINION based on an article by Carrie Wilson. Did Wilson cite any actual court decisions to back up her statements about what the law means? If not, then what she said is just her OPINION. She may have gotten it from a DFG warden or official -- but I daresay that if you called up five different DFG wardens and asked them just what this particular bit of DFG's sloppy writing means, you'd get five different answers -- and those, too, would be nothing but OPINIONS. Unless and until a court decides on how the law should be interpreted, anything ANYbody says about it is just an individual OPINION, and nothing more. Since I didn't cite to any court decisions either, anyone reading my message would presumably have sense enough to know that my opinion was also just an OPINION-- and anyone who couldn't figure that out would probably not be able to tell one end of a fishing rod from the other anyway. As for why people would go out and catch fish when they already have fish in the freezer, well, some people actually catch fish for the purpose of EATING them, and like to have a stock of fish on hand for times when the fish are out of season or not available -- just the same way a person would pick blackberries when they're in season and freeze them to eat during the rest of the year. Preserving food for later consumption is one of mankind's oldest practices, and there is nothing "greedy" about doing so as long as the food IS actually consumed sooner or later and not simply allowed to go to waste. Since the original purpose of fishing was to obtain food, whether for immediate consumption or to preserve for later consumption (and not merely to torture fish for the fun of it), I strongly doubt that it was DFG's intention, in establishing bag limits, to preclude people from acquiring and preserving food for later consumption, but rather, to limit the number of fish an individual is allowed to catch AND keep in the course of any one particular day.
Posted by das limpet
Daily bag limit and Limit are not the same thing. The term "LIMIT" refers to both Take AND Possession. "1.59. Limit. Refers to daily bag limit and possession limit per person."
"Bag" means to take. "Possess" means to have in one's possession. So the key issue in this debate isn't "bag limit" but rather "possession." Upon closer examination of the regs, I must agree with fishfinder. The reg's clearly state "regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved." "1.17. Bag and Possession Limit. No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved." means: no more than what you are authorized to take in one day (one daily bag limit) may be taken or POSSESSED regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved (regardless of whether they're on your stringer, or in your freezer). Notice 1.17 says "unless otherwise authorized". If you look through the regs, most fish have "LIMITS" which refers to both take and possession. Striped bass has a LIMIT of 2, which refers to bag and possession. But right below that, sturgeon has a DAILY BAG LIMIT of 1, which means you can TAKE one per day, but there is no limit on possession. Anglers on Multi-day fishing trips are authorized to only take one daily bag limit per day but can only POSSESS up to three daily bag limits, even if they went fishing for four days or ten days. "27.15. Multi-Day Fishing Trips. The following provisions apply to anglers and to boat owners and operators when a Declaration for a Multi-Day Fishing Trip has been filed with the Department of Fish and Game. (a) Provisions related to the angler: Up to three daily bag and possession limits of saltwater fin fish, lobster and rock scallops and up to two daily bag and possession limits of abalone are allowed for a person fishing during a multi-day trip in ocean waters from a boat whose owner or operator has filed a Declaration for Multi-Day Fishing Trip, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (b) below. (1) The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take more than one daily bag limit of fish during one calendar day." Thank you fishfinder and Lucy for bringing the issue up. One last obvious note: the regulations only refer to fish taken under the authority of a sportfishing license. Store bought fish is not included.
Posted by gyozadude
Correction... If possession limit is not specified, then Daily Bag limit = Possession Limit = same... So in the case of sturgeon... do the logic loop. By transitive property, the possession limit is still 1, fresh, frozen or otherwise preserved. This applies to any species of fish, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. So if they don't specify a possession limit for sturgeon... it means refer back to the global rule for possession limit, which is equal to one daily bag limit.
Posted by das limpet
1.17. Bag and Possession Limit. No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved.
Posted by Songslinger
Weighing In. "Daily" is indeed the operative word here. Otherwise it would be cited specifically to mean "cumulative," as Lucy suggests. This is, no offense, kind of a no-brainer, and more of a disservice to other people who read this board. This goes beyond simple interpretation of the regulations and stretches them to a rather bizarre length. I doubt even the most officious and/or anal retentive DFG field officer would go so far. Having said this, I believe that few on this board would argue the ethics of greed. But the guy who has one striped bass in the freezer and returns home another day with a limit is violating neither natural nor governmental laws. Let's not split hairs when the real villains are out there harvesting an overabundance of fish.
Posted by gyozadude
A valid point... I do know of regulation 1.17 and it does state that possession of more than one daily bag limit is illegal. It's fairly clear to me what this means, and I disagree with Lucy in strict text of law, while I agree with Lucy on the spirit. IMO, the law is fairly clear. No more than one daily bag limit - period. No stocking. No accumulation. IMO, the key to the vagueness of the law is that it allows authorities to nab folks suspected of illegal sale or barter of sportfish caught under no license (pier) or sport license authority. I would believe that this pertains primarily to possession or transport over public properties and roads, but not in homes and evidence discovered in a home without a proper warrant would be an illegal search/seizure and not admissible in court. But just think if they didn't have this law; any group of people could decimate certain fishing holes, go home and clean and freeze the catch, and then claim that it was caught on a previous day when they tried to transport it for whatever fabricated reason. I was reading up on regulations pertaining to sportfish caught in B.C. and they implement regs that say something similar to it being illegal to possess or catch more than certain limits while at/going-to/going-from fishing location, bag and possession limits are enforced strictly, but the fish stocked at a place of residence caught on previous days are exempt.
Posted by Hyok
My two cents... I dare the DFG to prosecute anyone who has more than the daily limit in the home freezer. Regardless of how the text could be interpreted, the vagueness would be subject to a legitimate challenge in the courts. Just get Johnny Cochrane, and you'll be home free.
Posted by gyozadude
It's not vague... The text of section 1.17 is not vague. It basically says in state regs that possession over 1 daily limit frozen or otherwise is illegal. It says nothing about it being inside or outside of your home. However, Federal Law has the 4th Amendment against illegal searches and seizures, and it's unlawful for police to enter and collect evidence without a warrant. So unless the police have evidence otherwise (and Predator... chime in here with your SAF stuff), then they have no right to search someone's house or car without a warrant, and no warrant will be issued if there is no evidence a priori that fish were taken illegally in the first place. So in a battle between state and federal laws, the feds win. Which means what you do in your own home is your own business, so you can effectively stockpile, without regard to the state law, because the enforcement of such a law is impossible inside a house. The only time they can nab you is during transport, most likely if they're already staked out and waiting, because they suspect you're transporting for the sake of illegal sale. So you'd better have your Costco receipt and they'd better be farm raised fish, otherwise, ... As for Johnny Cochrane.... I'd personally pay the fine. I couldn't afford the $Megabuck legal fees he charges. Personally... Emphram Cochrane is a much bigger idol. That guy invented warp drive!
Posted by Songslinger
Zefram Cochrane...Engage!
Posted by Hyok
I still think its vague...The law does not seem to spell out what is meant by "possession." Does it mean in your cooler in your car or in your pocket? The vagueness comes from this lack of definition. It all depends on what the definition of "IS" is.
Posted by das limpet
From my dictionary..."possess: to have as belonging to one." Either you have two salmon or you don't. BigUnInDaBoat has two salmon that he caught yesterday. Yay BigUnInDaBoat! But BigUnInDaBoat can't go out and catch another two as long as he already possesses two. Wah-wah. I have no salmon. Wah-wah. But I can go out and try to catch two if I can. Yay! Today, BigUnInDaBoat gives me (hypothetically) the two salmon he caught yesterday. He has not met his daily bag limit for today, nor is he in possession of two salmon. BigUnInDaBoat may now go catch another two salmon. I on the other hand am now in possession of two salmon, which were caught by someone else, but I nonetheless have as belonging to me. Even though I never caught my daily bag limit for today, I now possess a limit, and therefore cannot go out and catch two salmon. Absurd? That is subject to debate. Lucy's opinion that it is absurd that she could catch and give away 300 salmon during a season, and that it would be perfectly legal, but it would be illegal for her to possess eight on the same day, does not take into account the fact that the people she gave to, would not be able to take a daily bag limit themselves as long as they are in possession. It also doesn't take into consideration the fact that most limits are already generous. I really don't need more than two whole salmons in my freezer. But THAT is a matter of OPINION.
Posted by lucy
Clarity... Now, that B.C. [British Colombia] law sounds as though it's written clearly, and makes clear the distinction between fish caught one day and fish caught another day. If DFG's regulations had been written with equal clarity, this whole silly issue would never have arisen. That bit about the law being deliberately vague to enable DFG to nail people for selling fish caught under a sport license doesn't make any sense. All DFG has to do to bust somebody for selling fish caught under a sport license (or with no license at all) is catch them selling fish WITHOUT having a commercial license. Period. There's no need to know where they caught the fish, or over what period of time, or anything else-- they're selling fish, they have no commercial license entitling them to sell fish, they're breaking the law, end of story. I think the INTENT of DFG's regulation was the same as the B.C. regulation, but they just didn't write it as clearly. A "daily bag and possession limit" means just that-- the number of fish you BAG and TAKE INTO YOUR POSSESSION during the course of a given DAY. It does not refer to fish you BAGGED (past tense) and TOOK (past tense) into your possession on some day in the past, and it doesn't need to, because there was a DAILY bag and possession limit in effect THAT day, as well. Granted, the person who wrote DFG's regulation should have been more specific -- but the poor fellow probably thought he WAS being clear, and didn't imagine that a bunch of choplogics and pettifoggers would come along and start haggling over whether "daily" really means "daily" or not.
Posted by gyozadude
People can sell or barter without proof or means. They do it all the time and DFG can't prove a thing since this is just "friendship" and is hard to prosecute. I think the rule is deliberately written to say it's illegal to possess more than a daily limit, regardless of how the catch is and how many days you intend to be out, specifically because they know charter boat captains and the like (many of which pay for a commercial license to sell sport caught fish), may do so and transport sport caught fish. So to prevent them from establishing this as a volume business without a full commercial license, they have this restrictions. In fact, if you look at the regs on multi-day trips, you need to apply for a special license for that event... e.g. long range tuna trips. These cannot exceed a certain number of days (I think 3) and you aren't allowed to keep more than that limit for transport. The problem with the B.C. law and any of these laws is enforcement. By saying that the home or a car is a safe haven once the fish has been processed and frozen, you allow a big loophole to open up in poaching by providing an avenue for poachers to transport large quantities of their catch (either whole frozen, or fillet'd). In B.C., they don't have a big population and fish are abundant, so it's no big deal. In CA, we have 30+Million people and it's supposed to be a desert. So poaching can be a problem. The law simply looks like they architected away the safe haven. If that pisses people off, well, too bad. I again, re-iterate the question: Why are you keeping your catch if you've already got fish in the freezer? If you're using a sportfishing license as a means of subsistence, I'd say, sorry, the laws don't favor you. The state has decided that sport fishing and hunting are regulated, and they don't allow people to subsist on fish and game unless they do it for commercial purposes (i.e. more license fees and more regulations).
Posted by lucy
Opinions, opinions, opinions. Okay, as I said above, unless someone can cite a COURT DECISION on this matter, everything anybody says is nothing but opinion-- and we could argue back and forth all day and the rest of the week over our opinions, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing. As for the question of why someone would catch fish when he already has fish in the freezer, I already dealt with that in a post above. It doesn't have a damn thing to do with "subsistence"; it's a simple matter of catching fish WHILE they're in season or available and freezing them so that you can have them at other times as well. Like, you can't go salmon fishing in December, so if you want to have some salmon on hand to eat in December, you catch it when it's in season and freeze it. That's what freezers are FOR. Is that so hard to grasp? Under your absurd interpretation of what the "daily" limit means, I would be perfectly within the law if I went out every day during salmon season, caught two salmon, and gave them away. If I did that every day during the season, I would be catching and giving away over 300 fish -- but that would be perfectly legal as long as I never had more than two in my TOTAL possession (in the bag, in the cooler, at home, etc.) at any one time. HOWEVER, if I went out four times, caught two fish each time, and put them in the freezer, so that I ended up "in possession" of eight fish, total, then I'd breaking the law. So, it's okay to kill off 300 fish as long as I don't keep them, but illegal to keep eight fish to eat over the next few months? I say again, I DON'T THINK SO!!!!
Posted by gyozadude
Here's how you do it... Lucy...The way the law says as far as anyone can interpret, is that no one can possess more than a daily bag limit of fish unless otherwise specified. There's no time dependency in the clause. It's a closed statement. This means it always applies.
That means, if we interpret the letter of the law, no one can have 8 sport caught salmon in the freezer to eat over the next month or so. It may seem ridiculous that you can't keep 8 salmon at any given time to eat, but you could catch 300 salmon and give them away. The solution is obviously one of time displacement and distribution. If you want to eat salmon and fish for salmon, the solution is to both keep what you plan to consume and give away what you won't consume. Doesn't sound like a big pain in the butt. The key is to not waste fish. And technically, while you might be in violation of the law keeping more than 2 salmon in your freezer at any given time, it'd be impossible for anyone to ever cite you for it because they'd never know without searching your house, and that won't happen unless you or some judge authorizes it, which won't happen if you didn't break any laws getting the fish in the first place. It's not to worry.
Posted by baitfish
Here's how you do it... Plus you would have to leave a 1" patch of skin, so the fish could be identified, if these laws were to be used once you got the fish home. The whole thing is absurd. The intent of the law is obviously that you are only allowed to keep so many fish per day. However some DFG attorney in all his brilliance wrote it incorrectly, it happens quite frequently, laws are written by humans so they are subject to errors. To have the law imply that you can't keep more than a daily limit at home at any one time is just silly. What if you were dating someone and you both caught your limit of 5 perch, but you broke up a week later, but she did not take her perch along with all her other stuff, you would be in violation. The law is only to allow for so many fish caught per day before you get home. Once you get home, and the next day comes you are allowed to go back out and catch another daily limit. Like Lucy says, I would love to see a court ruling where somebody had their freezer searched and was found guilty. Adam
message board home :: search messages :: archives :: event organizer :: merchandise
Possession Limits (4) -- Continued
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 5:57am
(In reply to: A Classic Thread - Possession Limits posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:49am)
CROW for dinner, sort of.
Posted by lucy on October 15, 2002
Today I called DFG and spoke to Lt. Dan Andreen and asked him about the bag/possession thingy. He said that yes, technically, it does in fact mean that you can have only one daily limit in your total possession, counting what's in the fridge and freezer that you caught in the past. HOWEVER, he also said that DFG has way too many more important things to worry about than whether Joe Schmoe has four salmon in the freezer or whatever. He also said, "The only way we'd know about it is if you invite us into your house, or we get a warrant-- and we'd NEVER be able to get a warrant unless there was some other criminal activity involved"-- for instance, someone is selling fish and has sizable stockpile of them-- and, of course, gets caught or ratted out. I said that the law was pretty stupid and should be re-written, and he agreed. Anyway, bottom line: yes, you are breaking the law if you have more than a daily limit of anything in your possession. However, unless you're stockpiling it and selling it, DFG doesn't care much and you're VERY unlikely ever to get into any trouble for it. Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to go bragging to a game warden, "Yeah, I'm doin' really good with the salmon this year; I got me ten salmon in the smoker and fifteen more in the freezer, and....."
Posted by Songslinger
Geeze, I'll Join You ...Even though I'm on a restricted diet and crow is very high in carbohydrates. Hate to be wrong, but there it is. Thanks for the heads up. Good thing my freezer's empty...
Posted by gyozadude
Squaw, squaw...
Lucy: Got baked crow in the oven right now. Wanna come over for dinner? Side dish is green bean casserole with French's Fried Onions, if the crow is too dry and tough to swallow.
Posted by Songslinger
Schadenfreude! Ahem, magnamity in victory is always appreciated.
Posted by Songslinger
Make That "Magnanimity" Think I just turned you into a trace metal or mineral or something...
Posted by gyozadude
No really... open invite for all crow eaters... The baked crow is actually made from my abundant stockpiles of sport caught, freezer-dried fish, which I now must consume or else risk getting caught, fined and labeled a hypocrite.
Posted by lucy
Hey, don't knock it -- Like just about anything else, crow is no doubt delicious if prepared and seasoned properly. And if you're hungry enough, it's probably quite tasty raw, too. And hey-- given some of the things Gyozadude has talked about cooking, along with his potstickers, I'd accept a dinner invitation from him anytime. (HINT. HINT. HINT.)
Posted by baitfish
I'll have seconds... But I will agree with the warden and you, that is incredibly stupid.
Adam. I fish therefore I... spend too much money on gear.
Posted by stumpysez
The advantages of debate... Hi all, I just wanted to mention that this illustrates what a great resource this web site is. My interpretation of the possession limit has always been exactly what Lucy (and others) was arguing for in the initial thread on this topic: that the possession limit is purely daily and not cumulative... confusion created by the fact that it's called a daily limit, which, really, it shouldn't be, because there's nothing daily about it. It sounds like the definition requires two things: A daily take limit (which is true whether you possess the fish or not... if you catch two stripers and give them to your buddy, you can't catch any more until tomorrow) and a possession limit (which is true no matter when the fish were taken or who took 'em). It doesn't seem to be a problem that those two would be the same number, it's just confusing how it is currently written. I never would have figured out the correct interpretation of the law without the lively debate here. Thank goodness I'm bad enough at fishing that I haven't accidentally become a poacher! My incompetence comes to my rescue yet again! -Stumpy
Posted by gyozadude
Hats off to Lucy... I'll add that while debate is good, my hat is off to Lucy who took the initiative to call up DFG to get a clarification. And I'd tip my hat off to Lucy a second time (if my hat wasn't already off) for posting her results publicly, even when it'd force her to eat crow.
Posted by corbinaman1
Thanks Lucy! For checking out the regs on this! That does seem like a dumb rule! At least there is no limit on Giant Squid as I still have about 20 pounds left in the freezer (ate 3 meals of it already) from a few nights of fishing a few months ago when they were running!?
Posted by mola joe
DFG Fridge Search... Can't say I've ever heard of DFG searching a freezer in someone house, but it's very common during the trout opener in the Eastern Sierras for DFG to search condos. My buddy got nailed at Crowely last year after Fish and Game took Polaroid's of people cleaning fish in the morning at the lake, and then matching them up to guys coming back out in the afternoon. Most travel a long distance to fish here and get a little greedy going back out in the afternoon for another 5 fish. DFG gave my buddy a choice. Take the ticket now for 1 over limit of trout, or have a warden go back to the condo and see what's in the fridge. My buddy took the ticket and saved the guy a trip. He was staying with 3 other people, and even though I didn't ask him, I'm sure there was three limits in the fridge. I've spent many an opener up there over the years, and in my opinion, it's about time they started cracking down. Seen way to many guys making mucho trips to the condo and back out on the water. Did have a commercial lobster fisherman friend of mine get busted at his house by a half dozen wardens after he was accused of poaching other peoples lobster traps by another commercial fisherman. Won't get into it too much, but he was caught red handed as DFG marked some bugs, dropped them in a few dozen traps, and they did end up at my buddies house and ready to go to market. Anyway, they came in with guns drawn and the whole nine yards. Needless to say, my friend no longer has a commercial license and is much lighter in the wallet. Doubtful you're going to get a knock on your door if you have a freezer full of fish though.
Posted by 2d
It is a silly rule, but it does have its applications. people who stockpile fish in their freezer, only to toss it out months down the road aren't doing us any favors. BTW, I just remembered that, a few years ago, when we were running into overpopulated Brook Trout streams and a bunch of stunted square tails, the DFG introduced a 5 daily/10 in possession limit on some eastern sierra waters for this species in an attempt to encourage people to harvest some of these stumpys. If I had remembered this a few weeks ago, we probably could have saved some debate and bandwidth.
And again...Lobster Limits / possesion question.
Posted by Predator on October 29, 2002
O.K.. When we talk limits, I know we talk about DAILY bag limits. Some people say you can only have a limit in your freezer - baloney to that, I say. But - just to be sure: You take a trip south and stay for 3 days. You get a limit the first day, and the second. You want to take them all home for a feast. Get hit up by DFG on your way home. Are you in trouble?
Posted by pEsCaDoR619
I can see why you could be...there's no way for you to prove that you caught your limit three times in three days unless you have pics of them while holding a newspaper like in the muscle magazines. and even then you would have to get the film developed and have the pics ready before you cross the border. Of course that is if they don't enforce the possession limit. But I say phooey to that too. I've released enough fish to bring back at least four days worth of limits back. But that's an individual statistic and would not be fair to fishermen like us when the ocean rapists use that loophole for their gain, resulting in our loss.
Posted by gyozadude
I thought Lucy contacted DFG already and clarified this. The regs say it's illegal to possess more than a daily bag limit - period. That includes cumulatively as well. But if you happen to have more lobsters in your possession than the law allows, I'd be more than happy to help eat some of them to keep you in compliance.
Posted by lucy
I did... (previous message)
Posted by Predator
What about that other thread? I don't know how many of you remember, but we were talking about a long-range boat fishing trip. I think Fishin' Magician was the primary in that thread. Anyway - something in it about limits and time. I remember something to the effect of that when you catch your limit on these trips, you have to wait until midnight and then, you can fish more. Something like that... Can't find the thread, though. Anyway - that's where my curiosity stems from.
Posted by lucy
Special permit. I believe that on those multi-day boat trips, you have to buy a special permit that allows you to have more than one day's limit in possession.
Posted by Predator
GOT WORD BACK FROM DFG - wow that was fast! You're right, Lucy! Here's what I got back from a wonderful guy at DFG. He replied so fast, can you believe it? I sent him my inquiry this morning, and here I come back from lunch and there it is! I'm very HAPPY with DFG right now... I asked the following: "Got a few people in a discussion about the regs on possession limits. If you take a 7 day boat fishing trip - you can only keep ONE limit, for all 7 days combined???" "You'll find the answers in the 2002 California Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations booklet, in Sections 1.17 and 27.15. Section 1.17 states: "No more than one daily bag limit of each kind of fish, amphibian, reptile, mollusk or crustacean named in these regulations may be taken or possessed by any one person unless otherwise authorized; regardless of whether they are fresh, frozen, or otherwise preserved." So, say you take a 7 day boat fishing trip, and get a limit (7) of lobster on the first day. In order to legally take more lobster on the second day of the trip, you would have to first dispose of the 7 lobsters (eat them, give them away, etc.) you already possess. You could legally take a limit of lobster each day of the trip, as long as you had somehow disposed of the preceding day's limit first. But, as long as you have 7 lobster in your possession (on your person, in your bag, in your car, on your boat, in your cooler, in your house, etc.), you cannot legally take any more. The provisions of Section 27.15 allow an angler to possess up to 3 daily bag limits through the use of a "Declaration for a Multi-Day Fishing Trip". Among other things, Section 27.15 states: "Up to three daily bag and possession limits of saltwater fin fish, lobster and rock scallops... are allowed for a person fishing during a multi-day trip in ocean waters from a boat whose owner or operator has filed a Declaration for Multi-Day Fishing Trip...The provisions of this section do not authorize any person to take more than one daily bag limit of fish during one calendar day...The provisions of this section do not apply to the taking and possession of salmon, steelhead, striped bass and sturgeon." So, with the multi-day trip permit on your 7 day fishing trip, you could possess up to 21 lobster (3 limits) at the end of the trip,
although you still could not take more than one limit per day. The main reasons that the regulations restrict saltwater anglers to possessing one daily bag limit of finfish and crustaceans are to make it more difficult for poachers to illegally sell critters taken under the
authority of a sport fishing license, and to reduce the number of animals that go to waste when a fish-hog cleans out his ice box and throws out bags of freezer-burned fillets. I hope this answers your questions; feel free to contact me in the future."
Posted by Mikey
Predator.... Hmm good question. But just curious.."baloney to that?" I always hear about certain people on the board respecting the DFG and honoring daily possession/bag limits, you especially. I'll agree if the whole "freezer" thing was to be enforced, everyone would get busted, or would have at one time. So anyway, I was kinda confused to hear you "reject" the notion of that particular DFG law. Mike
Posted by MalibuFrank
Predator.... Sometimes I read information on the web and it just blows me away. If any of you ever have a legal question regarding fish laws I suggest you e-mail your questions to AskMarine@dfg.ca.gov and get an answer in writing. Considering the huge fines possible getting caught with 3 daily bag limits of lobster, I would suggest NOT getting legal answers from well meaning people on message boards. Again, please DON'T take my word for it, check it out for yourself. It is my understanding of the DFG laws of the state, that one person may not possess more than one daily bag limit at any time. That includes what is in your freezer, ice chest on the boat, game bag, bucket, etc. By the letter of the law, if you have a limit in the freezer at home, it would not be legal for you to go out and land more. For example, you have 3 bugs at home in the freezer, now you go out and start catching more. To be 100% legal you should stop fishing once you land 4. 3+4=7(bag limit). This is what I got from the DFG in writing. The loopholes are, If you have a wife, 7 bugs could be hers. Kids? You get the idea. Also unless you are landing a huge ice chest full of fish every day, it is not likely a judge would ever grant a game warden a search warrant to search your home for over limits so for most this is not a worry. Another way to stock more than one daily bag limit at home is to pay the DFG about $3.00 for a "Declaration of Multi-Day Fishing Trip Permit" If you follow all of the rules, you could legally possess up to 3 daily bag limits at one time. The bottom line is don't take more than you can really use and to do it within the laws so you don't end up with a huge fine and risk loosing your fishing privileges. Frank Words of wisdom.
Posted by pescare
You must be luckier than me. Out of three requests for clarification I've sent DFG via e-mail, I've received zero replies. Ed
Posted by Predator
O.K. Frank. (In scarface's voice)...I hear you Frank. You a good man. I'll send an e-mail to that address right now with a link to this thread and ask him to come on here and answer it publicly for us all. Stay tuned. Thank you.
Posted by Predator
"Baloney" defined, Mikey...First of all, thanks for being civil and not blasting on an the assumption - I appreciate that. Now - when I say baloney to that, I, under no terms, mean to imply baloney to any reg put forth by DFG. Rather, I say baloney to the notion of and validity of such a claim of a law. It makes no sense to me. If you take a 5 day fishing trip - you can only keep ONE limit? Doesn't make sense. Why are all those outfits still in business? Why would anyone take a trip for more than one day, ever? So - I'm saying I think it's baloney and not true. I don't think that the DFG has that position on the limits. That's all. If CONFIRMED by a DFG officer, I will surely COMPLY. Not that I've ever had more than a limit of any fish in my life at any one time - but I really PLAN on getting a daily limit of lobster coming up very soon in the near future. 3 days, I want 3 limits...but if DFG says no, I WILL comply. Thanks for asking.
Posted by Mikey
Good call, thanks for clearing that up. Yup, go ahead and slap those cuffs on me, I think I've got over my limit of 2 species in the freezer now, hehe - doh! Mike
Posted by moocher
When you hit the bag limit of bugs from a pier.... Get lots of witnesses, cause hell will freeze over before that ever happens. -moocher
Posted by frozendog
Don't forget ... if fishing in Mexican waters you have to comply to their laws and regs.
LIMITS -- according to DFG
Posted by lucy
There have been several threads about this recently. I finally called DFG about it; here's the message I posted about my conversation with DFG. Stinky IS correct on this: technically, you can have no more than ONE daily limit in your possession, INCLUDING fish you've caught on previous days and stored in the freezer (or smoked or dried or whatever). The ONLY exception to this is if you are going on a multi-day boat fishing trip and buy a special permit. Now on the other hand, the DFG guy himself said that the law is stupid and should be re-written so that a daily limit really MEANS a daily limit. He also said DFG doesn't make any effort to enforce this regulation UNLESS someone has been reported as stockpiling fish for the purpose of selling them. So let's not have any blather about how catching a fish when you already have one in the freezer is some kind of federal crime or will cause some horrible and irreparable damage to your immortal soul. In the overall scheme of things, it's beyond trivial-- especially when you compare it to the depredations of organized poaching rings, and especially when you compare it to the tons of fish wasted as "by-catch" by commercial fishing.
Possession Limits -- Short Answer
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 6:00am
(In reply to: Possession Limits (4) -- Continued posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:57am)
Posted by lucy on October 15, 2002
Today I called DFG and spoke to Lt. Dan Andreen and asked him about the bag/possession thingy. He said that yes, technically, it does in fact mean that you can have only one daily limit in your total possession, counting what's in the fridge and freezer that you caught in the past. HOWEVER, he also said that DFG has way too many more important things to worry about than whether Joe Schmoe has four salmon in the freezer or whatever. He also said, "The only way we'd know about it is if you invite us into your house, or we get a warrant-- and we'd NEVER be able to get a warrant unless there was some other criminal activity involved"-- for instance, someone is selling fish and has sizable stockpile of them-- and, of course, gets caught or ratted out. I said that the law was pretty stupid and should be re-written, and he agreed. Anyway, bottom line: yes, you are breaking the law if you have more than a daily limit of anything in your possession. However, unless you're stockpiling it and selling it, DFG doesn't care much and you're VERY unlikely ever to get into any trouble for it. Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to go bragging to a game warden, "Yeah, I'm doin' really good with the salmon this year; I got me ten salmon in the smoker and fifteen more in the freezer, and....."
Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer
Posted by Songslinger
on Mar-3-03 7:41am
(In reply to: Possession Limits -- Short Answer posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 6:00am)
Let your
conscience be your guide
Though Law
might not see things your way
Accept the
consequence with pride
And leave
the whining home today
Burma Shave
Searching For Serenity
Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer
Posted by quietman
on Mar-3-03 10:01am
(In reply to: Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer posted by Songslinger on Mar-3-03 7:41am)
The code of the rational anarchist!
The *very* words I live by...
I wonder if Hienlien ever saw that? I'm gonna put it on the wall in the garage next to some of my other cool stuff, thanks 'Slinger.
Tanstaafl!
Conscience...
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 5:10pm
(In reply to: Re: Possession Limits -- Short Answer posted by quietman on Mar-3-03 10:01am)
The unknown is an ocean. What is conscience? The compass of the unknown. -- Joseph Cook
In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place. -- Mohandas Gandhi
How could a state be governed...if every individual remained free to obey or not obey the law according to his private opinion? -- Thomas Hobbes
Re: Conscience...
Posted by quietman
on Mar-3-03 10:10pm
(In reply to: Conscience... posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 5:10pm)
Yah that's the trouble with the experiment that was the United States. Thomas Jefferson, the first (known) rational anarchist wrote the constitution with the assumption that free people would follow God's teaching (the God of the Bible) and that was an absolute requirement for a free society.
That never did work out too well. Look at the declaration of independence "We hold these TRUTHS to be SELF evident...and that all men are CREATED equal and endowed by their CREATOR with certain INALIABLE rights.
Yet they had slaves, since slaves weren't legally human. And we murder 3 million babies a year here, because babies currently are not legally human. Exact same thing, two hundred years apart.
We don't even understand what truth and reality is very well, anymore, and I'm not sure it would matter.
Actually Madison wrote most of the Constitution,
Posted by Ken Jones
on Mar-3-03 10:41pm
(In reply to: Re: Conscience... posted by quietman on Mar-3-03 10:10pm)
Jefferson the Declaration of Independence, and Jefferson was probably the least religious of the Founding Fathers. But that's another story...
Re: Actually Madison wrote most of the Constitution
Posted by quietman
on Mar-3-03 11:02pm
(In reply to: Actually Madison wrote most of the Constitution, posted by Ken Jones on Mar-3-03 10:41pm)
You're right about the constitution, I goofed. And you are right about "religious." As a Christian I am very much ambivalent towards religions, the abolishment of which was Christ's #2 goal during his time on earth.
That being said even Jefferson would be considered an extremist in todays moral vacuum.
But people have a *very* hard time with being "set free," and are much more comfortable with religions and rules and all that that entails...but it is each persons God-given free-will choice to do with as he pleases...
quietman