fishing regulations on private lakes

[restornator]

i have always assumed that a private owner has full rights over his/her pond or lake. Reading the latest regulations magazine i noticed the fishing regulation apply to all public and private waters. This is outrageous. No wonder there aren't any pond management businesses in this state.

[SLP]

Maybe I am missing the logic behind their thinking, but I agree with you. If a person builds and stocks a private pond I don't see any detriment to the state in him harvesting more than the daily limit if he chose to one day, or on another day let his young grandson keep a fish that is one inch too small to be legal. Of course I wonder how they would ever know about it in the first place?

[ryan_ekubass]

i aint trying to ruffle no feathers but think of it from a hunting aspect if you shoot what ever or more than your limit the population is depleted. Now from a fishing stand point all they are doing is regulating the fish so that there is a healthy fish population in the future.. I see what you guys are saying but to each his own. And if you pay for the fish adn have them stocked they are still considered a game species in the state so they fall under state regulations. They have minimum standards set that cannot be lowered but more stringent regulations can be placed on certain bodies of water.

[SLP]

Hunting is completely different because game animals travel across property lines, and of course nobody owns the wild animals that happen to enter their land.

If a person builds a private pond and stocks it, as those fish multiply they still will never have an effect on the Kentucky's general population of the species. They wouldn't even exist if it weren't for the person efforts in the first place.

[Colbyt]

I would need a link to the regulations before I accepted that.

I thought the state laws only applied if the state provided the stock for the pond in question. Many people do buy their pond stock from private companies. As such I see no difference between fish and cows. They are yours and you do what you want with them.

[restornator]

Of course I wonder how they would ever know about it in the first place?

exactly, so why is it in law?

[smashdn]

If I own both sides of a non-navigable stream for several miles and I do not allow access to fish on it should I have to also follow those regulations?

I mean I am not allowed to even keep brook trout and they are on my land and in the stream that I have full control over.

[Duayne]

It may be helpful to understand the perspective of these regulations which is we may own land but we do not own the living creatures of the wild on that land. The ones that can come and go as they please do so but even those than can not are viewed the same. Of course they know that if you own both sides of a stream that has Brooke trout you could harvest them and there simply isn't a lot they can do about it. In that case, the regulations are there to help provide a guide line. I would also assume those regulations can help protect you if you or they catch someone fishing or hunting on your property.

[SLP]

IMO fish in streams should be regulated regardless if you are fishing on private property or not. I think a stream running through a persons property is entirely different than a pond located solely on private property.

However if a person builds a pond on his property, buys fish to stock it with his own money, I just can't see any logical argument for the state to regulate those fish.

I don't have a pond, and I doubt I ever will so really I don't have a horse in this race but I do find it interesting and it doesn't make any sense to me. I would love to hear the reasoning behind it. Even if a person chose to mismanage their personal investment, what business is it of the state? Those fish wouldn't even exist without the persons money and efforts.

Ironically I assume the land owner could legally choose to fill in the pond which would kill all the fish, but he couldn't cull out a fish one inch smaller than the legal limit. That's where the entire logic goes right out the window.

[Duayne]

I don't disagree with anything you said, SLP. I don't know if they can come up with something that covers all the ifs, whens and hows so I guess they don't even try. That's where selective enforcement probably comes into play. Let's face it, if a guy has his own farm pond that's full of small bass, no one is going to bust his chops for culling some out. But at least as it is today, if the same guy catches someone keeping his small bass and he gets them caught, there are regulations in place to add to the penalty.

[restornator]

i can think of one scenario where this would honestly make sense. If someone is at a gas station showing his buddies a cooler full of 10 inch bass, and the game warden just happens to walk by, the warden could fine him regardless of where the fish came from. There wouldn't be a grey area, if say the guy claims (lies) he caught them from his friend's pond.

[SLP]

i can think of one scenario where this would honestly make sense. If someone is at a gas station showing his buddies a cooler full of 10 inch bass, and the game warden just happens to walk by, the warden could fine him regardless of where the fish came from. There wouldn't be a grey area, if say the guy claims (lies) he caught them from his friend's pond.

Yeah, the fish should not leave the property unless they were fillets. If you are carrying around illegal fish, they could have been caught anywhere, so that should be illegal.