Quote Originally Posted by Paddywacker View Post
Does the possession limit mean literally what it says, that, say, I catch a limit of 30 crappie today, go home clean and freeze, then tomorrow catch another limit of 30 clean and freeze, now I have 60 in my "possession" , so can I not keep any more crappie until I remove some of what I have in my possession?
As I understand it, in KY you can have as many Crappie as your freezer can hold (provided you caught them legally and no more than a "creel limit" per day fished). Possession limit is defined as fish in possession "while afield, after 2 or more days of fishing".

Even the Ky Fishing & Boating Guide states : "A possession limit is two times the daily creel limit for all fish species with a daily creel limit and excludes processed fish". Which, to me, says that once the fish are processed (ie "cleaned"), they no longer count against your Possession Limit. I'm sure this was written to refer to those fish that are caught & taken to your primary residence (home). But, I'm wondering if it would also include those fish that are caught & cleaned while you are camped/lodged away from your primary residence (home) ?? It would seem so, since there's no explicit reference to "where" these fish are kept ... just that a "processed" fish does not count against your possession limit.

I think KDFWR should expand their explanation of the possession limit definition, so as to remove any grey area concerning that definition, and remove any doubts about what is legal and what is not. The little Q&A box on pg 5 of the Ky Fishing & Boating Guide, while it does help define the difference between a daily limit & a possession limit, still leaves the "where" question up to the laymans interpretation. Defining where the possession limit is limited to, or if it is limited to any particular place or scenario, would put all the CO's and the angling public on the same page. If it's worded so as to not leave any doubts about where a possession limit rule refers to, then a violator of that rule would not have a case against any misunderstanding/misrepresentation of that rule. And the rest of us law abiding anglers would have no reason to doubt our interpretation of the rule, seeing as how it would be explained, totally, in black & white terms.

... pappy