Freezer/Possession Limit

[RuralMT]

Good evening all.  I hope 2/15/20 meant big fish and plenty of them!  My apologies for somewhat double-posting this, but I have a question regarding Montana law and possession limits.  I know we shouldn't assume, but I did, and I assumed "in possession" meant what I had on my person when the game warden came to call on the lake.  Does Montana consider our freezers as "in possession?"  I know other states differ...I don't care.  What is the state of MT's point of view?

[njoy]

page 21 of regs tells it in detail.

[RuralMT]

page 21 of regs tells it in detail.

Excellent, thank you for the specific response!

[RuralMT]

I totally intend this as a rhetorical question, but how many of you have more than the possession limit canned up on the shelf?  My boss, upon hire, mentioned the amazing ability to have canned salmon all-year if you were willing to do the work to put it up on the shelf.  Apparently if you can more than 40 fish, you're a criminal.  (Again rhetorical question) how many of you have more than the "40 in possession" sitting on your pantry shelves?  It frightens me to think that we're "criminals" if that describes your pantry.

[njoy]

in the central district it is 10 salmon in the standard regs.

[RuralMT]

in the central district it is 10 salmon in the standard regs.

So if you chose to take a trip to the Western district, where, on Dickey Lake, you can keep 20, are you breaking the law if you take that limit back to the Central District?

[Cold toes]

I believe it is lake specific possession i.e. you can only have 20 in possession from dickey lake, but 10 in possession from another.

[RuralMT]

Have you (generally speaking whoever might be reading this) actually contemplated this law?  Think about how it limits your ability to live a self-sufficient life.  I understand the presumed logic behind it; prevent the wiping out of a resource. But does this law not prevent a skilled angler from the Central District, as NJoy stated, from putting more than 10 kokanee in the pantry/freezer? 

[RuralMT]

I believe it is lake specific possession i.e. you can only have 20 in possession from dickey lake, but 10 in possession from another.

Interesting.  But how could you (or the game warden for that matter) identify the origin of the filleted fish in your freezer?

[BigSage]

There’s no limit on Salmon from Georgetown.....

[Born Late]

Have you (generally speaking whoever might be reading this) actually contemplated this law?  Think about how it limits your ability to live a self-sufficient life.

In terms of how the 10 daily and in possession reg applies to the Helena Valley Regulating Reservoir, it makes sense to me given the proximity to a larger town, the high number of angler hours and the expense of annually stocking about 50,000 kokes to maintain the population.

[slickice]

Abiding by the regulations is paramount to having a sustainable fishery.  The real issue is whether possession limits include what's in your freezer or pantry.  I personally believe that what I keep in my freezer is strictly my business.  After living on my boat in Homer, AK for 6 summers I learned that AK wildlife officials considered "processed fish" exempt from creel limits.  Only when the fish were on my boat and the boat was in the water or I was fishing from shore did creel limits apply.  Additionally any form of processed fish within your home or at a processing plant were exempt.  I've never heard of anyone having their home inspected in Montana or any other state unless the person was a previously convicted poacher or part of a poaching ring. 

Because limits vary from area to area, lake to lake, as well as state to state, it's impossible for anyone to determine where the fish are from or when they were caught.  Case in point, walleyes from the Columbia river (no limit in some areas and 9/day in others) are in my freezer as well as a limit of walleye from the Hi-line in Montana.  IMO these are "processed" which were legally caught.  Having a cache of fish on hand enables me to hold fish fries with family and friends every few months.  Can you imagine FWP trying to determine where and when these walleye were caught . . . it's too convoluted.  Frankly if anyone wants to look into my freezer, have probable cause and a search warrant.  Otherwise I'll keep on "keeping on".  Tight lines.

[lundin-loading]

Regardless of personal opinions, the state of Montana specifically regulates allowable daily limits and possession limits for specific species in specific waterways. Fwp goes so far as to specify what constitutes possession up to and including fully processed fish, be it smoked, canned etc. Do a quick Google search and you'll see multiple cases across the country where individuals are prosecuted for breaking fish procession limit laws. I'm all for keeping some stock in the freezer, but we all have a responsibility to follow the rules as they are intended as true sportsman and steward's of the land and water. Tight lines all.........and it may be a good day for a fish fry!

[Cold toes]

Interesting.  But how could you (or the game warden for that matter) identify the origin of the filleted fish in your freezer?

I believe it's your responsible to identify (I just write the lake name on the freezer bags), but I can't find anything in the regs saying that you have to identify processed fish.

[slickice]

There's no way in hell that anyone can determine where a filet came from after it's in your freezer.  Limits vary to such an extent between lakes, districts and neighboring states, it's impossible to figure out or even consider prosecuting an angler who fishes all over Montana and adjoining states.  I fish ND, AK, ID, WA & MT.  No where in the MT regs does it state that you must indicate each species, where caught & quantity upon each bag while stored in your freezer.  Only when cleaned and during transport do you need to identify your catch.  It's unrealistic to believe that MT FWP could successfully prosecute someone who exceeds specific limits in his/her freezer while following the regulations as written.  Fishing in other lakes, districts and states where possession limits vary significantly, automatically makes freezer enforcement a "fools errand".  It can't be done.

I love fishing, follow the law and expect fellow sportsman to do the same.  However, I'm against any governmental agency snooping into someone's freezer without probable cause (evidence) and a warrant.  Last time I checked, this is still America.

[429421Cowboy]

There's no way in hell that anyone can determine where a filet came from after it's in your freezer.  Limits vary to such an extent between lakes, districts and neighboring states, it's impossible to figure out or even consider prosecuting an angler who fishes all over Montana and adjoining states.  I fish ND, AK, ID, WA & MT.  No where in the MT regs does it state that you must indicate each species, where caught & quantity upon each bag while stored in your freezer.  Only when cleaned and during transport do you need to identify your catch.  It's unrealistic to believe that MT FWP could successfully prosecute someone who exceeds specific limits in his/her freezer while following the regulations as written.  Fishing in other lakes, districts and states where possession limits vary significantly, automatically makes freezer enforcement a "fools errand".  It can't be done.

I love fishing, follow the law and expect fellow sportsman to do the same.  However, I'm against any governmental agency snooping into someone's freezer without probable cause (evidence) and a warrant.  Last time I checked, this is still America.

While I agree with you that I think it could be defeated just based on the number of water bodies with no possession limits that you could use as a defense, they have successfully prosecuted many people on being over the possession limit.

[Cold toes]

I love fishing, follow the law and expect fellow sportsman to do the same.  However, I'm against any governmental agency snooping into someone's freezer without probable cause (evidence) and a warrant.  Last time I checked, this is still America.

My guess is that if wardens were to observe (seeing someone keep limits over multiple days) or get a report that a person were keeping more than there possession limit on a lake, that would be sufficient enough to check a freezer. They're not just going to show up at your door for a random fridge inspection.

Also they can do genetic tests of filets if they really wanted to see where it came from.

[slickice]

There you have it . . the wardens witnessed repeated overharvest or have first hand evidence.  That's "probable cause".  A warrant under those circumstances is easy to obtain, hence a search of your freezer is allowable.  The offender deserves whatever the judge doles out.  However, simply assuming someone "may" have broken the law is subjective and does not constitute "probable cause".  Freezer cops don't exist so if you haven't broken the law, don't worry.  Furthermore, never allow law enforcement or wardens to search your premises without a warrant.  They may ask but you're "not obliged to allow them without a warrant".  Anything they see (can be unrelated) while snooping around with your permission can be used against you.   

[skifisher]

Hey slick, sounds like you have all the answers. Unfortunately, not everything you posted is accurate, and there’s a difference between “ probable cause”, and “reasonable suspicion”. Obtaining a warrant for a search is NOT as easy to obtain as you think without enough evidence to present a solid and valid case. A warrant will specify exactly what it is LE is looking for, and anything not in the warrant cannot be taken. I seriously doubt law enforcement would even be concerned with someone’s freezer unless that person was a habitual offender.
You are correct though, you do not need to allow law enforcement to enter your premises without a warrant, but if you have nothing to hide, what difference would it make if you did? Cooperation goes a long way.

[slickice]

Hey Ski, we're basically saying the same thing other than cooperating with government agencies who are looking for a violation.  Individual rights is what's at stake here.  Respect of individual rights including the unwarranted search of ones freezer has nothing to do with cooperation.  It's government overreach and intimidation.  If they feel I'm breaking the law, then get a search warrant.  Furthermore, how dare you suggest that I have something to hide.  I'm a law abiding army veteran who believes in the "Bill of Rights".  I'll never allow any government agency to snoop around my turf without a warrant.  Asking me to cooperate based upon subjective suspicion isn't in my DNA.  Allowing searches without a warrant sounds like communism to me. 

[skifisher]

First of all, thank you for your service.
I NEVER suggested you had something to hide, nor would I ever!
I do think you are over-thinking this entire subject. I get tired of all the police bashing and paranoia surrounding law enforcement and the “system”. Allowing a search without a warrant is NOT communism, especially if there is a reasonable suspicion to conduct such a search. As a free American, you always have the option to refuse such a search, and that my friend is guaranteed under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It’s your right to feel this way, and my right to disagree with your assessment.

[Cold toes]

Hey Ski, we're basically saying the same thing other than cooperating with government agencies who are looking for a violation.  Individual rights is what's at stake here.  Respect of individual rights including the unwarranted search of ones freezer has nothing to do with cooperation.  It's government overreach and intimidation.  If they feel I'm breaking the law, then get a search warrant.  Furthermore, how dare you suggest that I have something to hide.  I'm a law abiding army veteran who believes in the "Bill of Rights".  I'll never allow any government agency to snoop around my turf without a warrant.  Asking me to cooperate based upon subjective suspicion isn't in my DNA.  Allowing searches without a warrant sounds like communism to me.

The only person talking about unwarranted searches is you, man. Take a few layers of tinfoil off.

[Born Late]

https://mtstandard.com/news/local/man-found-with--plus-trout-faces-felony-charge/article_ef5713e5-37c8-5423-8ca3-cd68d7eb8e50.html

[RuralMT]

The only person talking about unwarranted searches is you, man. Take a few layers of tinfoil off.

That was the gist of the original post actually.  And if showing concern for your Fourth and Ninth Amendments is tantamount to wearing "layers of tinfoil" then hand one over! 

I'm a law abiding army veteran who believes in the "Bill of Rights". 

Thank you good sir!  Your service and defense of individual rights (both literal and ideological) are much appreciated.

[Gone_fishing]

https://mtstandard.com/news/local/man-found-with--plus-trout-faces-felony-charge/article_ef5713e5-37c8-5423-8ca3-cd68d7eb8e50.html

I was actually about to search this story, I remember reading it when it came out. Think that answers the topic at hand straight up.

[wyogator]

I am not 100% positive, but pretty sure an FWP game warden does not need a warrant to search your freezer.

[PerchPounderMT]

I am not 100% positive, but pretty sure an FWP game warden does not need a warrant to search your freezer.

they do here....
https://mtstandard.com/outdoors/game-wardens-can-t-search-without-a-warrant-and-half/article_c7129e33-3379-55d3-8ef8-537fe52f5631.html

[coldcreekchris]

here's the deal...we need self monitoring....we need to do the honorable thing..when no one else is looking.....the regs are there for a reason....I am sick and tired of people posting pics of obvious violations...numbers and size...they are there for a reason....the current regs are quite acceptable....seeing posts with blatant disrespect to the size/numbers is disheartening....can't keep 5 times  in your freezer...you just can't....smoke em up..eat em..and go again....

[Doeslayer]

Here in mi you are allow 3 daily limits per person that lives in your home... Now as im not sure of all the specifics since daily limits vary from different bodies of water such as sag bay amd river you can keep 8 walleye at 13" and most of the rest of the state is 5 walleye at 15"...

[slickice]

Hey CCC.  You're tired of seeing pics on this site showing "obvious violations" of FWP laws.  I must be missing something because I've not seen any such photos.  If you're so tired of these pics, perhaps you can re-post some of these "obvious violations".