Fishing Regulations Question

[Bucket Brigade]

I would like a more clear definition of the "daily &possession" limits please. Some lakes have kokes as 15/30 and others have 50/100. If I fish lake A and catch my limit of 15 and my buddy calls and says lake B is hot, can I catch 50 more from lake B? How about the other way around?

Also, if I have say 30 northerns in my freezer, does that mean I have to use up fish BEFORE I can legally (not Obama's legal!) catch any more?

Thanks for any input

[Papa John]

The regs are pretty clear on this. The regs and FWP offices is really where your answers need to originate, not from this site. The regs have a clear definition of possession limits: POSSESSION LIMIT: "The number of fish that may be possessed at any time in any form:
fresh, stored in freezers or lockers, salted, smoked, dried, canned, or preserved."
Also, daily limits are further explained in a sentence along with the limit chart for each region. Basically it says that you may not possess more than the daily limit for the water you are currently fishing. SOoo, 15 kok's from one lake and then moving to another lake with a 50 kok limit means no more than 50 total between your two stops. If you need better clarification, you should call your regional office. They're more than willing to help.

[missoulafish]

Don't ever get clarification on regulations on a forumn on the internet. I promise you, when and if you get a ticket for breaking a fish and game violation, no judge will never accept " well I was told it was legal by some guy on the internet".

[Bucket Brigade]

Didn't plan on "word of mouth" but even the warden couldn't be clear on this.

[Stephan_K]

Didn't plan on "word of mouth" but even the warden couldn't be clear on this.

My buddy and I had a debate on this very subject a couple years ago concerning koks.  We called fish and game on it and after being transferred three times, nobody had a clear proper answer until the last transfer.  The written regulations are NOT very clear on this subject and clearly not mathematically correct.  We were concerned due to the extreme possession limit differences for koks between different lakes.  It was finally explained to us that, simply, the possession limit is for each body of water, not collective.  And the ID label for all fish in possession must include the body of water in which they were taken.  When you step back and look at it this way it's logical and the only way it makes sense ! 

Now...... with that said, I still don't have any faith in the governing and enforcement of this statement by F&G as it took talking to a few different WARDENS with different opinions before receiving such information.  And as we all know, most gov entities do not do things that make sense or are logical so one could possibly end up with a ticket over possession limits.  And if that ever happens (which I have never heard of a possession limit ticket or case in my life) I believe it would ultimately be up to a judge to set the math of this matter straight in the end.

Now with all that said...... we didn't ask the question weather that statement applies to all species of fish or not.  I'm not comfortable "assuming" that it does.  That will be a question to F&G when our next debate over fishing regs pops up. 

But continue to call and transfer up the ladder until you get a proper answer that satisfies the math of possession limits from a WARDEN YOURSELF as we did.  And once you do, keep the name and number of that warden in a safe place    if you are going to venture into the physical realm of possession of fish that doesn't jive with the initial "interpretation" of the regs as written...... just in case something stupid should ever happen.  A conference call to that warden could stop a situation with a different warden from escalating......

[appleye]

Excellent answer Stephan_K.

I work for a Government agency in WY at the County level and it amazes me of the differences in my own department as to what a statue says not to mention, one end of the State to the other.

Stay informed and have the regulations with you if there is a question. When in doubt don't keep more fish, release a few. If you do have an encounter with a warden don't get yourself into a yelling match.

[Bucket Brigade]

Thanks Stephan! Glad I'm not the only one that sees an issue with the clarity.

[Mt.Bucket]

http://helenair.com/news/local/man-found-with--plus-trout-faces-felony-charge/article_5463923f-8581-50fe-b6bf-6a2715866762.html

[Nockdown]

Possession limits are a crock

[missoulafish]

Why? Everyone should be able to just posses whatever they want?

[Nockdown]

Pretty much. If you're Not going over daily limits and it's not being wasted what's the problem? Id like to eat pheasant more than 6 times during the off season.

[missoulafish]

Problem is populations and limits are managed to keep populations healthy. If everyone followed you line of thinking you wouldn't get to eat pheasant at all.

[Nockdown]

How many guys do you think would really go out and fill their freezer until it couldn't shut? with a daily limit few guys are going to put in the time to even put 20 pounds of fish in a freezer. Wouldn't even make a dent.

[missoulafish]

Fish and game isn't limitless. Depending on the population and location , even if one person did that it could have drastic effects.

[Papa John]

I agree with Missoula. There is absolutely no problem with possession limits when we can basically fish year around. Want to keep more? Eat more in a timely fashion. I recall seeing where FWP tracked down a guy who dumped a slug of frozen, packaged fish in a dumpster. I see no problem keeping a possession limit and eating them. I love fish. But there are guys who would abuse any resource if allowed. No limit on perch or some other panfish and very generous limits on whitefish. All great eating. Fish for those.

[pelter4]

Fish and game isn't limitless. Depending on the population and location , even if one person did that it could have drastic effects.

That's BS when your talking about most non-native salmonids stocked from HATCHERIES in Montana Lakes. For example, the Seeley Lake chain is loaded with stunted non-native hatchery Kokanee with a 5 fish daily limit and a 10 fish possession limit. So what's the FWP fix? Their going to REDUCE the plant numbers in hopes of increasing the fish size. They COULD have raised the limits and let Fisherman reduce the stunted populations but I guess that was to complicated for their college educated biologists! But then again, in all their wisdom. they want us fisherman to catch and kill every Northern Pike we can catch by almost ANY means, even though the Northern Pike IS native to Montana and the Seeley Chain is perfect habitat not to mention a huge financial boost to the area! Sure, have you minimum limits for native fish but if your going to fill our lakes with non-native salmonids, cut the possession limit crap..and build more hatcheries! ( and ,yes I know,Pike were bucket planted in Seeley..not the point)

[albo]

could be that the 608,367 2" kokanees planted in Seeley since 2003 were intended to be food for the native fish, or it could be to feed the pike so they leave the cuts alone

[Wenger]

How many guys do you think would really go out and fill their freezer until it couldn't shut? with a daily limit few guys are going to put in the time to even put 20 pounds of fish in a freezer. Wouldn't even make a dent.

Well a guy in MN was busted this year for something like 400 fish over the possession limit as I recall. The fine was huge and went federal.

Like any law. if you don't like it get others to support you and try to get it changed. Good luck on that one though.

[DAPOS]

If you wonder why limits and possessions are necessary, just do a little research or study about "market hunting" in the U.S. of past. Sadly it isn't a matter of a person "filling their freezer" it quickly becomes "where they are selling all they are catching". Market hunting really decimated wildlife populations in the U.S., and only by passing strict wildlife laws did populations come back from the  brink!