Posts: 4,139
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2002
Reputation:
0
[font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]bassrods and I have been having a discussion on the topic of donating fish. I am interested in hearing others opinions on the subject of donating fish. First, let's start with what the proclamation says about donating:[/size][/black][/font]
[font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][size 2] [left]1. Donating[/left][/size][/font][font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 2] [left](1) A person may donate protected wildlife or their parts to another person only at the[/left] [left]following places:[/left] [left](a) the residence of the donor;[/left] [left](b) the residence of the person receiving protected wildlife or their parts;[/left] [left]© a meat locker;[/size][/font][font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][size 4][/left][/size][/font][font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 2] [left](d) storage plant; or[/left] [left](e) a meat processing facility.[/left] [left](2) A written statement of donation must be kept with the protected wildlife or parts[/left] [left]showing:[/left] [left](a) the number and species of protected wildlife or parts donated;[/left] [left](b) the date of donation;[/left] [left]© the license or permit number of the donor; and[/left] [left](d) the signature of the donor.[/left] [left][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]Also it states under[/size][/black][/font] "[font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"]F. Possession and Transportation" [/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]that:[/size][/black][/font][/left][font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 2] [left][/left] [left](3) A person may possess or transport a legal limit of game fish or crayfish for another person when accompanied by a donation letter. (See Section III.H.1. DONATING.)[/left] [left][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][black][size 3]This is all I could find concerning the subject in the proclamation. So, after reading this, one can conclude that several common practices that many fisherman are involved in are, technically illegal. For instance:[/size][/black][/font][/left] [left] [/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3][/size][/font][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3](1) You go fishing with a friend, you catch a fish but do not want to take it home. Your friend says he'll take it home for dinner and you give it to him. Is this illegal? According to the laws stated above, it is.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3][/size][/font] [/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3][/size][/font][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3](2) Several anglers catch their limits of fish and use them to have a fish fry for a group, let say, at a pavilion or campground at the water they were caught on. Is this illegal? This looks like an illegal activity by the letter of the law.[/size][/font][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3][/size][/font] [/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3][/size][/font][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3](3) You catch a limit, your friend catches a limit. You decide to let your friend transport the fish. You write the proper documentation so he can transport your fish to his house. You then decide to let him have your fish as a donation with the proper documentation and a legal location for a donation exchange. Does your donation apply to his possession limit or is it exempt since it is a donation? [/size][/font][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3][/size][/font] [/left] [left][/left] [left][font "Comic Sans MS"][size 3]I'm sure there are a lot of scenarios that you could come up with that would be breaking the law. I thought that this would be a good topic to discuss and hear varying opinions.[/size][/font][/left][/size][/font][/font][/size][/font]
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I think you are thinking waaaayyy too much about this Rich. I highly doubt any law enforcement officer will get that technical with you. Just so long as you are doing your part to obey the law, you should be fine. Write the letter, and don't worry about it. Cook your fish for your friends, and don't worry about it. Just don't blatently break the law and I don't think you'll be paying any fines. Just my 2 cents.
[signature]
Posts: 1,049
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
Always been curious on this one a few times. The way I interpret the statements and scenarios are as follows:
1) To the letter of the law it is illegal, however since there is no possesion infraction on either angler I do not think a donation matter would come into play, asked or offered upped.
2) Once the game has been processed for consumption or otherwise, unusable it is no longer a "possesion" of game. For example, if I were on any Utah water fishing for trout and already had 8 on the wall at home I would not be out of my limit. No I believe the law does state that a daily possesion limit has to be watched meaning I can not go catch 4 trout, eat them for breakfast and go catch another 4 for lunch.
3) You can not assign the fish to your friend until you are at his house, your house or as stated locations are required even for transport. After the location and legal donation has occured the donatee is legal to transport "a" limit of game ie 4 trout, 20 perch and so on. I would also interpret that the donation clears you of a possesion limit law.
Curious to know what would be the law in donating a bunch of species to a nonprofit food shelter or mission? Take a group of 10 anglers that limit out on perch at Jordanelle but they each only want to keep half. How would you donate the fresh fish to a food shelter, or say a family member? That family member would clearly be outside of the possesion limits both daily and aggregate.
[signature]
Posts: 3,536
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
[font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1][font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][size 2][font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][size 4][font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 2][font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 3][font "Comic Sans MS"]1 and 2, I agree with OEJ completely.
3, "[/font][/size][/font][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][/size][/black][/font][font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1]I would also interpret that the donation clears you of a possesion limit law. " that part I do not agree with. I don't think it would clear you of any possesion limit. It does not state that it will, and the other law, the bag and possesion limit, would still apply. Only if there were an explicit law stating the exemption would it legally take effect. Although a CO may let you off on that one based on the perceived ambiguity.
[/size][/black][/font]
[signature]
Posts: 34,010
Threads: 448
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
36
I'll agree with everything you said except for having a fish fry with a few friends at the lake after the outing. It would not be illegal if you went home and ate the fish so I don't see how it would be any different eating them at the lake. Especially if your camped out at the site for the weekend.[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]Part of my lifelong "career" had been writing of manuals and instructions so that others can understand them. It's tough, because there are always folks who try to twist meanings or who naturally end up with conflicting opinions.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I would hate to be in charge of writing the fishing proclamation for DWR. It is almost impossible to convey, in a few easy words, just what the intent and consequences are for every possible rule and scenario. If you don't believe it, just ask several different COs how they interpret some of the more complex rulings. You will get as many different answers as you get by asking IRS people about tax laws. Some of them have differing opinions.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I have posed these questions (possession and transfer laws) to a couple of DWR folks and the answers are usually that they try to apply the INTENT of the laws. The purpose of the rulings were originally to discourage the trout harvesters from cleaning out the streams and lakes of the hatchery pets. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]It was a common trait among those who bought fishing licenses to think that unless they got a limit every trip that they had been cheated. It was also a macho thing to be able to bring home a cooler full of fish, to share with everybody else if you didn't want them yourself. Whole families would gather on a fishing hole and keep fishing until everybody had a limit, and it was usually only one or two of the anglers who caught most of the fish.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Today we have reduced bag and possession limits, slot limits and other restrictions that really cramp the style of fish hogs and harvesters. They are all about keeping, not catch and release, and they do not want to stop fishing when they pass their own limits. So, they give away a couple of fish and keep at it. Or, they don't eat the fish themselves and they take them home and either give them away to throw them away after showing them off. That is wrong.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]DWR officers are not looking to bust someone for handing off a fish to a fellow angler who couldn't catch anything, as long as there were no limits exceeded. But, techically, under the proclamation, that is illegal.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]One thing that will get you a ticket, whenever it is witnessed, is someone handing off a fish inside a slot limit, if you already have your limit inside the slot. That is the purpose of slots...to reduce harvest...and officers watch for that through their binoculars. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The general rule is that once you convert your whole fish into a cooked product, for consumption, the possession rules are no longer in effect. You can smoke up a batch of fish and they are usually considered to no longer count in your bag and possession limit. At least this is what I have been told. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I still have to get a firm ruling on "canned" fish. I know some people spend time on a lake, canning the fish they catch over several days and then taking them all home. The fish are "cooked", but should they be counted in the possession limit. I wonder where you cross the line between frozen, smoked, canned or pickled.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Again, I would hate to be the one writing the proclamation and having to explain it to a bunch of wacko Utah anglers.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 143
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
[ ] It is all very simple! Catch and Release!
[signature]
Posts: 636
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation:
0
Okay, I have a question: Let's say I'm fishing at Utah Lake and catch my limit of catfish, which I want to keep, but I can't help but think of my old neighbor who used to love to fish and who still enjoys eating fish. It sounds like from the proclamation, if I want to be completely legal, that there's no way I can harvest additional fish for him, even if I have a donation letter with me. Right?
Instead, it sounds like I must give him part or all of my limit, with a donation letter, at his residence, to be completely within the confines of the law, if I want to donate some fish to him.
I just want to make sure, because if there is such a loophole in the regulations, then each time a guy was threatened with possessing a number of fish over his limit, he could simply whip out his donation letter and claim that he was catching fish for someone else.
It sounds like from the following paragraph, though, that it's only legal to transport a legal limit of fish for donation purposes:
(3) A person may possess or transport a legal limit of game fish or crayfish for another person when accompanied by a donation letter. (See Section III.H.1. DONATING.)
It's just that "transport a legal limit of game fish ... for another person" part that sounds awfully vague. What are your thoughts?
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]Bag and possession limit means just that. There is no provision for putting your fish aside and then catching limits for everybody you know...with or without documentation and approval. DWR does not approve.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]If you wanna take some fish to Uncle Fudd, they come out of your limit. Nothing vague about that at all.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]And, technically, you need to do the paperwork, although it is probably seldom done (if ever).[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,088
Threads: 22
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
13
slow day at the office, eh?
#1. if you catch a fish, and you don't want to take it home -- then you release it!!! Tell your buddy to catch his own damn fish!
I don't understand your stance on #2:
You catch a limit of fish. You go back to your camp where your wife, your kid, and a neighbor kid are waiting. You fillet your fish. You fry them. You all eat them. Now, remind me. Where did you break the law?
You haven't donated anything. The fish never left your possesion. You had a fish fry!! Is the water in the watercooler contaminated?
#3 -- you both take a limit. You write a note so he can transport the fish for you. Everythings OK here. Right up until you decide to give him your fish. Why did you keep them, if you didn't want them? You should have released them!! Now, you just stuck your buddy with more fish than a possesion allows for. Nice job. Some friend you are. You just lost a fishing buddy.
Seriously though, it must be a slow day at work. Aren't there more important things to worry about, than trivial stuff like this? Aren't there some cormorants eating the fish from a community pond somewhere? What should we do about that?
[signature]
Posts: 1,495
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
[size 1]"Although a CO may let you off on that one based on the perceived ambiguity"[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]With that statement you have covered what is wrong with fishing/game laws. Most or ambigus at best. Left to the interpitation of indvidual officers.[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]#2 would not be considered illgeal because you have setup a temoray residence at the campground. Under the spirit of the law and what the DWR is aming for is the use of wild game. So preparing it and cooking it to be comsumed at a Pavilion would be considered an acceptable use of wild game. This also includes camp meat when hunting.[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]Unfortunetly it has been left to the individual officer to make the detremetion. Most are resonable and truly don't wish to ruin your day outdoors. Some just have the Wyatt Urp syndrome and shoot from the hip. I have had sereral citation over the years for simular things (camp meat) and have always prevailed in court. The key is having and using that licenses as it was ment to be used (tags, permits, whatever). There is NO law on the books prohibiting you from using your catch or take.[/size]
[size 1]This means you may clean cook and serve your fish lake side without fear of being ticketed. You may also share it with the members of your family without a donation letter. Common sense applies here. If you are catching fish by the busshel basket and sending them off 1 limit at a time I hope they bust your butt! The donation rules were written to help prevent waste of OUR natural resources. I would rather give a fish to a stranger than have it freezer burn in my freezer.[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]But Hey Rich you make some interesting points! I can certainly see how some one could get their backside in a sling here. I can hardly wait for this thread to take off LOL[/size]
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]Need to raise the blast and possession limit on cormorants. But then, who would want to keep one?[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Maybe you could make them available by drawing only...and let everyone draw out. Then get the word out that they taste like chicken...and even better than bald eagle or spotted owl. Increase the limits on Scofield and remove the slot limit.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 6,353
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
[reply]
[cool][#0000ff]Need to raise the blast and possession limit on cormorants. But then, who would want to keep one?[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Maybe you could make them available by drawing only...and let everyone draw out. Then get the word out that they taste like chicken...and even better than bald eagle or spotted owl. Increase the limits on Scofield and remove the slot limit.[/#0000ff] [/reply]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[reply]
2) Once the game has been processed for consumption or otherwise, unusable it is no longer a "possesion" of game. For example, if I were on any Utah water fishing for trout and already had 8 on the wall at home I would not be out of my limit. No I believe the law does state that a daily possesion limit has to be watched meaning I can not go catch 4 trout, eat them for breakfast and go catch another 4 for lunch.
[/reply]
You are correct OEJ.
Once you have bagged your limit for the day, you cannot bag any more that day. You don't have them in your possession if you've eaten them, but you cannot bag more to replace them. The 4 trout that you caught and ate for breakfast are your limit for that day.
Fishrmn
Posts: 595
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
It always gets me when people try to interpret the rules. Everybody wants to twist them. Just follow them in the spirit they were made and there is usually no trouble.
In response to Tube Dude,
[size 1][#0000ff]I still have to get a firm ruling on "canned" fish. I know some people spend time on a lake, canning the fish they catch over several days and then taking them all home. The fish are "cooked", but should they be counted in the possession limit. I wonder where you cross the line between frozen, smoked, canned or pickled.[/#0000ff] [/size]
I still cannot find in the proclamation where it says that fish that is processed is not part of your possession. It clearly states in the definitions II. [font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 2] [left](21) "[/size][/font][font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][size 2]Possession[/size][/font][font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 2]" means actual or constructive possession.[/left] [left](22) "[/size][/font][font "MyriadPro-BoldCond"][size 2]Possession limit[/size][/font][font "MyriadPro-Cond"][size 2]" means, for purposes of this proclamation only, one bag limit,[/left] [left]including fish at home, in a cooler, camper, tent, freezer or any other place of storage.[/left][/size][/font]
Note the last part ANY OTHER PLACE OF STORAGE
to me this is clear it is in your posession until it is
1. eaten or
2. legally donated with the proper documentation at the proper place. ( residence, cooler etc.)
Just remember that a full limit is not the measuring stick to a successful outing.
Just my take,
Macscabin
[signature]
Posts: 3,536
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
I believe this interpretation was taken originally from hunting guidelines from somewhere in one of the hunting proclamations that states that processed game is no longer considered in your possesion (such as game at a taxidermist or made into jerky).
I agree with TubeDude, if you have cooked it up, or processed it into "fish jerky" by smoking it, it is no longer in your possession limit (unless it is part of a daily bag limit because it was caught that same day).
[signature]
Posts: 595
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
I might think differently except I know of people being prosecuted for being over their possession for having Bottled fish. These having come from Scofield.
I get the taxidermy thing but still also get that it is in your possession until consumed not processed. Processed is never mentioned in the proclamation. At least not in the fishing proc.
Macscabin
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]No disagreement...and no complete agreement. I know what the proclamation says. I also know how it has been interpreted by DWR personnel on different occasions. The laws are subject to interpretation. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I have known of people being busted both on the lake and later at home, for having several limits of canned trout. I have also known of others who were not cited for having a pantry full of canned fish. Same for smoked fish. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The focus of enforcement seems to be keeping people from keeping all they catch and then just giving it away or dumping it into a freezer...at home or at a frozen food locker. I don't know what the actual statistics are but I would be willing to bet that a very high percentage of fish put in a freezer never see a pan...or the table. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I was dumping some yard cleanup junk at a landfill one time, when a pickup drove up beside me and proceeded to unload almost a whole bed full of frozen fish and meat. Many of the fish were not even wrapped and all were visibly freezer burned. When I challenged the guys dumping the stuff they explained "We don't eat fish and game". They could not explain why they had kept it in the first place. That was in Arizona. I copied the license plate and reported the incident, but never heard back on it. I am sure it happens in every state.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I remain unconvinced that there is a clear statement of application to fish that is "processed"...by cooking, smoking or pickling. The proclamation does not make that distinction, but officers sometimes overlook processed fish in considering limits.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]If cooked fish were covered under the same rules and restrictions, you would have to do a writeup everytime you invited a guest to a fish dinner...or even just offered a bite of cooked or smoked fish to someone. On the other hand, if cooking fish excludes them from possession limits, that would seem to open the door to creative poaching.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 595
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
I understand what you are saying TD and it all comes down to ethics. Something that cannot be nailed down because it is different for everyone. Like I said before, if all people could take the laws in the spirit they were written we wouldn't have to worry about writing a donation letter to invite friends to dinner.
I remember a similar discussion on the DWR board this winter concerning making ducks into jerky and then they no longer counted toward your posession. You want a good read go find it and watch them back-peddle when one of the guys actually did some research and found that they still count toward posession. ( I believe he checked state and federal sources)
We wouldn't need to twist the laws if we were all ethical sportsman. After all Catch and Release is a relatively new concept (meaning in the last 20 years) around here. I still run into some that think they are only successful if they take their "share" home after every trip just to freeze and then chuck the next time they clean out their freezer.
Remember ethics is a personal thing and lots of folks will get bent out of shape when yours differ with theirs.
Just my take
Macscabin
[signature]
Posts: 36,168
Threads: 307
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]I am in complete agreement. You can make laws black and white, but it is hard to regulate ethics. Kinda like driving at a "safe speed" even though that might be lower than the posted speed under certain conditions. Or, to put it another way "ethics are what you have when nobody else is looking." [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Limits and slots on some waters may be over-generous, but not strong enough on other waters. Ideally, anglers should operate on a "do what is right" principal, rather than "harvest the legal limit" every time they go out.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Without management and regulations we would likely have poor fishing all over the state. There are plenty of violators, and some of them get caught. But, fish and game laws are like locks on doors and windows...they are there to help keep honest people honest. If someone really wants to get past them, they will find a way.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
|
