Well, if it's also illegal to release a dying fish, as it says in the article, he would have broken the law either way. That seems awfully goofy to me. Although, I suppose it's a lot easier for the authorities to prove that he kept more than one fish than it is for him to prove that the fish was dying in this case. Maybe the laws should be revisited since that is a fairly likely scenario and it's nearly impossible for a fisherman to prove that the second trout was dying. I guess the most likely change would be to make fishing after you've already caught/kept one illegal, which obviously isn't desirable.
