DNR Question

[TonkaBass]

This is a stupid rule that I don't agree with at all. First off, I can understand that an old law made during the days when people put fish on stringers was needed. People would cull a dead fish and put a live one on the stringer, that way they wouldn't be over their limit. Lots of dead unused fish would result. Now days people have complex livewells and even chemicals that help ensure a fishs survival. Why does this state even allow tournaments when you're not supposed to catch your limit and then upgrade to bigger fish, which is the whole point behind competitive fishing. Am I missing something here??? We all pay for a license. If I catch 10 crappies and continue to fish and have to lie to a co that I have now started to fish for sunnies in order to be legal is a joke. A guy should be able to C&R even if he has a limit. Not such a big deal for me as far as table fair goes, but in tournaments I would get a little upset if a co stopped me and told me I had to stop fishing, even more upset if he ticketed me and I got DQed! (at which point I would tell him he would have to ticket every tournament guy in the state)

[aanderud]

aanderude Sorry, you are wrong. The portion you quote is just clarifying what possession means. Some attempt to place in coolers to "revive" but, that is possession.

Look under General Regulation, Possessing Fish - Once a daily or possession limit of fish has been reached, no culling or live-well sorting is allowed. You might not like it but that's how it is.

[timjones]

The CO is correct in this case. The definition of "Possession" per state statutes:

97A.015 DEFINITIONS.

Subdivision 1.Applicability.

The terms defined in this section apply to this chapter and chapters 97B and 97C.

Subd. 36.Possession.

"Possession" means both actual and constructive possession and control of the things referred to.

Now, if you take the situation as presented by the first poster, he had 10 crappies in his "possession", perfectly legal. What he was doing wrong was continuing to fish for crappies. As soon as he hooked another crappie he was in violation of the possession regulation. The crappie was hooked but not in his physical "possession" but he had control of the crappie via the fishing line and hook which placed that crappie in "constructive possession", hence, at that point he was one over limit.

[DTro]

The CO is correct in this case. The definition of "Possession" per state statutes:

97A.015 DEFINITIONS.

Subdivision 1.Applicability.

The terms defined in this section apply to this chapter and chapters 97B and 97C.

Subd. 36.Possession.

"Possession" means both actual and constructive possession and control of the things referred to.

Now, if you take the situation as presented by the first poster, he had 10 crappies in his "possession", perfectly legal. What he was doing wrong was continuing to fish for crappies. As soon as he hooked another crappie he was in violation of the possession regulation. The crappie was hooked but not in his physical "possession" but he had control of the crappie via the fishing line and hook which placed that crappie in "constructive possession", hence, at that point he was one over limit.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. In that case you are technically in possession of an out of season walleye if caught by accident while fishing for crappies in the spring.

With the new updated definition of possession, I would love to see a citation (written for C&R fishing while in possession of a limit) held up in a court of law.

If the intention of the law is for that to be illegal, then the regs will need to be updated again, because in the current form, there is nothing that makes it illegal.

Just my opinion...

[Woody61]

Suppose you have your limit and start C&R then end up mortally hooking one? Do you stuff it back down the hole or toss it away from the boat? Cant see the DNR liking that especially for eyes.Sound advise sems to be just to stay one under the limit just in case.

[aanderud]

97A.015 DEFINITIONS.

Subdivision 1.Applicability.

The terms defined in this section apply to this chapter and chapters 97B and 97C.

Subd. 36.Possession.

...

[bturck]

Lets try another scenario that has happened to me more than once. First of all I want it to be very plain that I am 199% behind the CO's and the tough job they possess and would not hesitate to turn someone into TIP who is screwing with the limits. This being said: I'm out early in the spring, prior to walleye season, fishing crappie jigs and minnows and lo and behold I hook any eye. Now lets suppose the CO is sitting on shore with a 50 power scope watching the action and I boat this eye, unhook and release it. According the the main theme of the thread I am now in possession of an illegal fish. I'm sure I'm not the only one that it has happened too. Even though as mentioned above I am a definite supporter of the law if I recieved a ticket for this I would fight it all the way. This could also occurr with a northern, bass or any other fish that is technically out of season at that time. Specifically targeting a fish to which you have already reached your limit I can see, or culling, throwing back the little guy and replacing it once you have your limit I would certainly consider a direct violation, however in todays world many lures will catch more than one species of fish. Good luck to all and hang on. Bill

[spear-n-pike]

Culling and livewell sorting are not the issue, I was just stating that it was the only thing close to the catching a limit and then continue to fish or not fish "rule" in the regs.

[timjones]

The definition is SPECIFIC to fishing. The definition applies to all wild game, and if you look up the definition of wild game you will see that it includes fish. Keep in mind that the Fishing Regulations Booklet you get with your license is only a snippet of the actual regulations put forth in the State Statutes and Rules. I'm not saying he can't accidentally hook a crappie, or you can't accidentally catch a walleye out of season and be in the wrong. That's not the intent of the regulation and will be brushed off by most CO's. Where he went wrong, if you read his post, is he admitted he was still catching and releasing crappies. This is illegal. It is done this way for your own protection because if you continue to fish after a limit you run the risk of having to violate a regulation even though you don't intend to. Using the previous example, he has his 10 fish but continues to fish for them. On the 15th fish he gut hooks it. Now he is stuck. He has no choice but to violate one of three regulations. If he throws it back knowing it won't survive, that is wanton waste. If he keeps it, he is over limit. If he keeps it and throws one of his other fish back so he is not over limit, that is culling. Take your pick, either way your BUSTED!

[aanderud]

The definition is SPECIFIC to fishing. The definition applies to all wild game

[Northlander]

Same thing happened to me and Poutslayer on Red a few years back. Funny how them CO's always show up when your on a hot bite.

[maxx rpm]

It is really sad how poor this forum is getting with people giving wrong information. Especially when it pertains to law. There is no: "well its what i think", or " i bet the lawmaker really meant to say this". I have not recently scoured the regs, as i know some here have, but i have never heard of forcing someone to quit fishing when a limit is reached. I have continued to fish for a short period of time myself, and will again in the future unless a law is passed saying no. If i am fishing very deep, i would quit. If i was using a tip-up, i would quit. The potential of an injured fish does exist with that. Fishing how i normally do, i really dont worry about a dead fish. Well, thanks to all that post the real law, and my sympothy to those that even faced with the facts still can not say they were wrong.

[toughguy]

So once I have my limmit of one fish I can't fish for another kind of fish?

[vintagejoe]

Much ado about nothing. Joe.

[caseymcq]

Suppose you have your limit and start C&R then end up mortally hooking one? Do you stuff it back down the hole or toss it away from the boat? Cant see the DNR liking that especially for eyes.Sound advise sems to be just to stay one under the limit just in case.

Suppose that a fish within a protected slot is mortally hooked, and it gets stuffed back down the hole or tossed away from the boat. Has a law been broken in this case?

The issue may be a good one for the DNR to provide further clarification. Just say, "Yes, it is ok to C&R after a limit is in possesion," or "No, it is not ok to C&R after a limit is in possesion." That way there is no interpretation that may vary between anglers and COs.

[RiverFish]

The definition is SPECIFIC to fishing. The definition applies to all wild game, and if you look up the definition of wild game you will see that it includes fish. Keep in mind that the Fishing Regulations Booklet you get with your license is only a snippet of the actual regulations put forth in the State Statutes and Rules. I'm not saying he can't accidentally hook a crappie, or you can't accidentally catch a walleye out of season and be in the wrong. That's not the intent of the regulation and will be brushed off by most CO's. Where he went wrong, if you read his post, is he admitted he was still catching and releasing crappies. This is illegal. It is done this way for your own protection because if you continue to fish after a limit you run the risk of having to violate a regulation even though you don't intend to. Using the previous example, he has his 10 fish but continues to fish for them. On the 15th fish he gut hooks it. Now he is stuck. He has no choice but to violate one of three regulations. If he throws it back knowing it won't survive, that is wanton waste. If he keeps it, he is over limit. If he keeps it and throws one of his other fish back so he is not over limit, that is culling. Take your pick, either way your BUSTED!

Retired,

According to your reasoning here, are you saying that if you keep one walleye over 20 inches you must stop fishing for walleyes at that point?

[blackdog1101]

Well, I'm one of the ones who early in this thread said the CO was right. But after reading aanderud's posts, I think he has nailed it. The clarification in the 2008 regs booklet does seem to make it legal to C&R after a limit has been caught.

[jd524]

I would follow the regulations books the DNR publishes. Their intention is to lead us in the right direction.

I would be careful when trying to guide yourself by looking up the state statutes and consider them the golden word. That might be, but many times they are not.

It only takes one case like we were talking about to end up in court. The judge may make a ruling that either changes the statute in some way, or abolishs it all together. The judge has just made case law, and it can be very tough to know what the changes were.

Sometimes you might ask 2 CO's the exact same question, and they give you 2 entirely different answers. We usually think that one of the CO's is off his rocker, but that might not be so.

CO #1 might have given the anwser straight out of statute, and to us thats how we have always interpreted it. The only thing though is that CO might not be aware of some new case law that totally changes or abolishes the statute.

Co #2 gives an off the wall answer for the question that nobody believes; however he may have been updated on the recent case law and how it applies to a certain situation. This CO might be right in his answer.

I know, i know, why then are the statutes still being published when they are no longer any good?.....POLITICS!

Minnesota statutes say that you can't burn the American flag, or committ adultery; however higher court rulings have made case law saying that you can legally burn a flag or have committed adultery. Case Law supercedes, so yes you can do both, legally.

In order to repeal those two statutes a legislator would have to draft a bill aboloishing MN's no flag burning and no adultery laws. Not to many legislators want to have their name on that bill. Wouldn't look good for them, and no real reason to, the higher courts already abolished the laws. So there those two worthless statutes will sit an entirety.

I believe that the keeping a fish house unlocked law is another example. The Minnesota Sumpreme Court ruled that fish houses have an expectation of privacy therefore CO's can no longer enter without consent or exigent circumstatnces. However, the law still says the door has to remained unlocked. I think the Sumpreme Court decision did away with that as well, but it will probably always remain in the statutes.

Sorry this post got long winded, but I was reading several posts that were getting very deep into the legalities. I deal with statutes and case laws on a daily bases and wanted to share with everyone that the case law element hadn't been discussed, and shouldn't be overlooked.

If not sure than I would error on the side of caution. If you absolutely need to know for sure then I would make contact with the prosecuting attorney's office and ask them there interpretation. This is where cops go when they have legal questions.

Happy fishing!

[bturck]

Spear n pike: I did not mean to imply that you were culling, it was meant only as a statement of "What If", not an accusation. Sorry for the implication. Bill

[Blainebob]

what page is this rule on? I cant find it. only thing i found was ... "Once a daily or possession limit of fish has been reached, no culling or live-well sorting is allowed".

Maybe thats what they thought your intention was-I'm sure its happened many times where people throw frozen ones back down the hole, I've been places and seen smaller crappies frozen on the ice.Sounds like you had the sweet hole,though

[Burchoid]

Why doesn't someone just call the DNR and ask? (651) 296-6157 They will usually get you with an expert to clarify a question like this.

I've called them several times for clarification on particular laws/rules that were vague in the published set of regs and they were very helpful and listened to my concerns and reasoning behind my questions.

[aanderud]

Why doesn't someone just call the DNR and ask? (651) 296-6157 They will usually get you with an expert to clarify a question like this.

I've called them several times for clarification on particular laws/rules that were vague in the published set of regs and they were very helpful and listened to my concerns and reasoning behind my questions.

I haven't called them because to me it can't get much clearer than the definition they put on page 3 with the big "new" sign next to it in he regulations.

[blackdog1101]

I haven't called them because to me it can't get much clearer than the definition they put on page 3 with the big "new" sign next to it in he regulations.

[LOTWSvirgin]

Thats stupid they do in bass tournys all the time dont they its called culling.

[aanderud]

Originally Posted By: aanderud

I haven't called them because to me it can't get much clearer than the definition they put on page 3 with the big "new" sign next to it in he regulations.

I don't know. I'm not sure I read this to say that it's OK to keep fishing after you've caught a limit of fish.