Legal to give fish away?

[Dave Stewart]

Bottom line here is what defines "possession". This is not defined in the Kentucky Fishing Regs and certainly it needs to be. Right now it comes down to which ever enforcement officer is making the decision....this is what is leading to all the confusion. All it would take to clear this up is a statement in the fishing regulations. I have emailed KDFWR before with this same question and have not gotten any response....that only tells me that no one there really knows so easier to not answer the question than to answer it. The reason I emailed them was that I have been getting a lot of people emailing me wanting to know that if they are fishing with an Alabama rig and have 5 bass in the box and they catch a double are they breaking the law? I would like to have the answer in writing and not on the phone...I said, she said does not stand up in court...but an answer in writing does... Again, does possession mean when you put a fish in the boat or does it mean when you put it in the livewell or cooler??? If any of you are going to the home town meetings this year....ask the question there....maybe if enough people ask the question there and ask that this be defined in the published regs next season it will finally happen...until then, it is just a matter of opinion and the only opinion that counts is the officer that is checking you.

[Duayne]

Dave, the possession limit deals with how many you can have in the field. You can have a possession limit at a camp site but not on a boat. Fish are not to be processed while in the field until you are preparing to leave. That way, size can still be checked. It is OK to process fish you intend to eat while in the field, and those do not count against a possession limit after they have been eaten.

I seriously can not see how having a limit and continuing to fish for, say bass, is illegal if your intent is to cull. The fish are alive and your intent is not to keep more than your limit. That's a whole nother ball game when it comes to fish like stripers that can't be kept alive and culled. But even then, we regularly catch more than a limit on one spot in a matter of minutes and it isn't something that can be controlled, aside from cutting lines. No judge in his right mind, when presented with the facts, would fine in a situation where someone had four fish in a livewell, caught two on an A rig, and released one of them. I do agree that there are some CO's that might would cite for it, but that just isn't something I would worry about while fishing. If they don't want you having more than a limit on a boat while culling, then limit how many hooks you can have in the water. Even that isn't practical, as how many hooks are on most of your crank baits?

[Trophyhunter8]

As far as giving a bass to somebody else. It would be no different than Shooting a deer and giving it to someone else to tag. Not legal. If I'm fishing and catch 6 keepers then fish with an alabama rig, catch two more keepers. I would release two, but i'm gonna keep fishing.

[ESOX2009]

All it would take to clear this up is a statement in the fishing regulations.

The thing is, most regulatory agencies are very hesitant about opening up a regulation for revision. Once the regulation is opened back up for revision, our legislators can make any changes that they decide upon and some of them may have an agenda. ....and, some of them might not have as much common sense as everyone would imagine (I'm trying to be nice ).

I have seen some KRS regulations that remain open to interpretation and somewhat ambiguous, rather than opened up for clarification, because there is the very possible risk of the revised regulation ending up in a much worse condition than the original.

[stripernut]

X2 on what ESOX2009 said.....
i'm imagining that the "clarification" would all but "clarify", more likely it would include laguage like;

an angler is considered to be in posession of a fish when he reaches the point of intent to keep, notwithstanding the intent to revive or retrieve the lure or hook

and most of us would say "HUH" ?!

lawmakers must get paid by the word....

im going to suppose the final say will continue to be left up to the CO handling the situation.....thank goodness we have some pretty reasonable COs around cumberland who seem to have a pretty strong background in the outdoors and alot of common sense.

[Dave Stewart]

X2 on what ESOX2009 said.....
i'm imagining that the "clarification" would all but "clarify", more likely it would include laguage like;

an angler is considered to be in posession of a fish when he reaches the point of intent to keep, notwithstanding the intent to revive or retrieve the lure or hook

and most of us would say "HUH" ?!

lawmakers must get paid by the word....

im going to suppose the final say will continue to be left up to the CO handling the situation.....thank goodness we have some pretty reasonable COs around cumberland who seem to have a pretty strong background in the outdoors and alot of common sense.

Then again...the word possession could be clarified to say that a fish is in possession if not released immediately after it has been caught and removed from the hook. There would be no question then and no one would be at the mercy of someone's opinion. I certainly agree most CO's use common sense....they are also subject to being wrong just like any other human being....and so are judges, especially when the law is not clear. Like I said before, obviously the reason no one has answered my email is that no one knows for sure because the law is not clarified.

[crappiepappy]

Then again...the word possession could be clarified to say that a fish is in possession if not released immediately after it has been caught and removed from the hook. There would be no question then and no one would be at the mercy of someone's opinion. I certainly agree most CO's use common sense....they are also subject to being wrong just like any other human being....and so are judges, especially when the law is not clear. Like I said before, obviously the reason no one has answered my email is that no one knows for sure because the law is not clarified.

The duality of definition of the word "possession" seems to be a sticking point ... not to mention the fact that we're talking about two different subject matters ( ie - what constitutes a fish being "in possession", and what defines the whereabouts of a "possession limit")

Is a fish that bites your lure/bait & gets caught on your hook & still in the water ... technically "in your possession" ... or does it have to be removed from its environment (water) and placed in yours (boat/bank/dock) ... or does it have to be placed in a contained environment (stringer/basket/cooler/livewell) ?? That seems to be the concern on the definition of "possession", as it applies to limits/culling/giving away of fish. IMHO ... that definition of possession would apply only to a fish placed in a contained environment (with the intent to keep or cull). Since culling is legal in KY, once you've got a limit you don't have to stop fishing (or catching) ... you just have to stop "keeping", so you cull a smaller fish for a larger one. If the next fish you catch isn't bigger than your smallest fish, you release it and continue to fish for one that is.

In the case of "possession limit", as it pertains to "where" you're keeping those fish, and when does a processed fish count or not count ... the vagueness of the statement/ruling put out by the KDFWR is subject to misinterpretation, and should be clarified in terms that cannot be misunderstood. I think this could be done, but I think it hasn't been done for the simple fact that there's so many variables that a simple ruling isn't possible. Maybe, since the clarification of a law could open up a whole other can of worms or end up being worse or more confusing than the current one, the KDFWR shouldn't "amend" the law ... but strike the current one & rewrite the whole thing, to include those circumstances "where" a possession limit & processed fish are and are not legal.

I think Dave & I are on the same page, as far as needing a more defined clarification of these rulings, in either case. I don't think we should be at the mercy of a vague law that's left up to the CO to interpret on a case by case situation, when it could be written definitively & cover all possible situations. It would make it so much easier for the angling public & the CO's to understand & comply with, even if it did result in a negative, or more restrictive outcome. At least we'd ALL know the confines of the ruling, and the consequences of violating it.

I also believe that ... if you give fish away, while still on the water & continuing to fish, you're still subject to the daily creel limit, and as such you would be in violation if you continued to catch & keep fish beyond the numbers of that specie's creel limit. It would be no different in catching over your limit and "giving" those extra fish to your boat partner(s). The person "receiving" those fish would also have to count those fish as part of their daily limit & possession limit !!

Good discussion ... !!

... pappy

[Duayne]

So a CO walks up to a guy fishing from the bank and checks him. The guy has a whole stringer full of fish. WELL over the limit. The CO tells the guy he's going to write him up for poaching, take all his gear and take the car he used to get there. The guy tells the CO that he isn't poaching and that the fish on the stringer are pets. He just brings them to the lake so they can get some exercise. He says he just got there and had not had a chance to take them off the stringer yet. The CO says, well how do you get them back. I just call them, he says. The CO says, "this I gotta see". The guy turns the fish loose and goes back to fishing. The CO says, "well, call the fish back". The guy says, "what fish?"

All we gotta do is call them pets!

[Carter1]

Everyone here should be writing down questions like these so they can participate in the live "Call In" show of KY Afield which will be airing later this month. If we all ask a lot of the same questions we should get an answer but we have to be together on it.

[Carter1]

I just got a response from Major Estes and here it is, "The legal section has determined that culling would be allowed on Cedar Creek Lake". So, that question is cleared up. I told him about the question concerning possession limits. He may respond to me through email but like I said, you should also use the "Call In" show for questions too. That way more folks will get the information rather than just a handful here. If I hear back from him on that topic though I will put his reply here.

[bassmaster]

I just got a response from Major Estes and here it is, "The legal section has determined that culling would be allowed on Cedar Creek Lake". So, that question is cleared up. I told him about the question concerning possession limits. He may respond to me through email but like I said, you should also use the "Call In" show for questions too. That way more folks will get the information rather than just a handful here. If I hear back from him on that topic though I will put his reply here.

Yeah right!! Tell that to the game wardens patroling over there (Cedar). Same reponse last year only to have them question the tourney director there. Oh well they do seem to have some discrepancies in the way that they interpret the regulations themselves. Thanks.

[artcarney_agr]

Yeah right!! Tell that to the game wardens patroling over there (Cedar). Same reponse last year only to have them question the tourney director there. Oh well they do seem to have some discrepancies in the way that they interpret the regulations themselves. Thanks.

Exactly. Unless you've got it in writing or have a copy of a memorandum that went out, you don't have much of a leg to stand on. A verbal clarification doesn't hold much water at all.