question about limits

[Gordie]

I would imagine that if there was such an exception there would be a lot of fish that were gut hooked or injured to the point that they couldn't be released.

excatly you and I both know that would kill way more fish than it would save.

[Zoob]

I fired off the question to the state. This was their reply:

Quote:

Hello

I will use the 6 fish walleye limit as my example.

You have 5 fish in the live well you catch your sixth fish.

You cannot take one out of the live well and add that fish. You have your sixth fish for a limit [5 in tank, one in hand].

Now if you just had four fish and caught your fifth. You could take one out of the live and add that other fish since you have not reached your six fish limit.

Mille Lacs lake does not allow for any type of culling.

Personally, I'm not much of a fan of culling anyhow. Once you've decided to keep it -- commit to it. There's always another day.

[aanderud]

As soon as you catch your 7th eye, you are over your limit. Period! Even if you don't intend to keep it, once it's in your boat you are over your possession.

[BobT]

I'd like to add to aanderud's comments. The law does allow time to photograph your fish before releasing it without having it considered being in possession.

If you're already in possession of a 22" walleye and by chance happen to pull in that elusive 31" walleye, you are able to take the time to photograph it for posterity before releasing it.

[Zoob]

I'd like to add to aanderud's comments. The law does allow time to photograph your fish before releasing it without having it considered being in possession.

If you're already in possession of a 22" walleye and by chance happen to pull in that elusive 31" walleye, you are able to take the time to photograph it for posterity before releasing it.

...wouldn't that just suck.

[mtheis]

I personally agree with your comments and after careful reading of the regulations I have thought that you could continue fishing after keeping your limit too. But after argument after argument among friends over this issue, I finally called the DNR and asked them how they read the law. The DNR person on the phone DID NOT agree that we could legally keep fishing and said I would be in violation of the law if I continued to fish for that species. Now I realize that he is not the final authority, but I have a feeling that there are some officers in the field who will tag you and in court you will have to support your position with the arguments you gave. He mentioned the keep one short of your limit idea to continue fishing until the end of the day.

However you and I read the law, it is still not clear, and I wish that you didn't have to be a lawyer to read simple fishing regulations that affect simple people!

[DTro]

It would be an interesting case, that is for sure. But I cannot see how it would hold up, as you weren’t breaking any law. The law is possession and not intent, right?

On a side note, I ran into this dilemma over the weekend while Lake Trout fishing.

I caught a nice one 5 minutes in and I knew I wanted to keep a couple (the limit is 2). Well it didn’t take but a couple hours more to catch another one. Well this one was on the smallish side, but it was gut hooked and I didn’t want to stuff it back down the hole. BUT, I would have really liked to have kept fishing as I just drove 5hrs, and I’m by myself and I have 2 fish in the bucket and I now have to quit.

So I packed it up.

I found it funny that I drove longer than I fished.

The regs in MN could really use a nice overhaul. I think that it’s utterly ridiculous in some cases that common sense can’t be applied.

[OnAFly]

The problem is that with common sense, too many people will take advantage of it. Every law written now has to be so explicitly written out and then followed to it's exact wording, not necessarily the intent of it's creation.

[TylerS]

The problem is that with common sense, too many people will take advantage of it. Every law written now has to be so explicitly written out and then followed to it's exact wording, not necessarily the intent of it's creation.

Actually, the problem with common sense is that it isn't all that common anymore...

[aanderud]

But after argument after argument among friends over this issue, I finally called the DNR and asked them how they read the law. The DNR person on the phone DID NOT agree that we could legally keep fishing and said I would be in violation of the law if I continued to fish for that species. Now I realize that he is not the final authority, but I have a feeling that there are some officers in the field who will tag you and in court you will have to support your position with the arguments you gave.