DNR pinch, anybody else see this?

[mtheis]

I read the article and then I let it "stew" awhile. 70 yr old lake cabin owner gets nabbed...too many lines in the water...20 ft boat...49 fish over limit in freezer.

Does he think that since he pays those high lake shore taxes he's exempt from the rules? 20ft boat means he's well off doesn't it? He may even be thinking of the seine nets in the spring that capture all those walleyes he doesn't agree with. He probably didn't out right keep over limits. More than likely it was a fish here and a fish there that did it. Isn't that what most of us are guilty of if we're guilty at all? More than one line in the water probably is the second most often law broke. Again, does he think Minnesota is the land of messed up game laws? And then we think we are doing everything right but the darn game warden is stretching the fish to exceed 20 inches.

I think I know why so many older fisherman turn to golf and cocktails after the back nine!

[MSRiverdog]

I recall Strib stories years ago of out of stater's keeping way over their limits and bringing them back to Chicago, specifically a large party of police officers, and another of folks from Iowa being caught with hundreds of perch on their way back home.

[kgpcr4]

Look up hooking mortality rates. The last study I saw stats for (2008) had a 10% mortality rate with estimates as high as 23% depending on what depth the fish were taken at. Depending on how often that person fishes and how many they catch and at what depth they fish, yes they can be just as damaging.

You are right on here! The C&R clan think they do no harm but we have all seen the floaters out there. That does not excuse what this guy did.

[Sonicrunch]

They were foolish to let the CO in the house without a warrant.

Agreed.

[screaminchicken]

I finally found a follow up story on it!

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2013/08/27/mille-lacs-lake-area-anglers-face-heavy-fines/#more-12922

[John Mickish]

I realize this situation is limited to fishing in Minnesota only, but if this gentleman had a current North Dakota license with a possession limit of 10 per person and a South Dakota license with a possession limit of 8 per person, would this change anything? If they could prove they were in these two states fishing, they would be very close to legal. It doesn't change this situation but it does add an interesting twist to this. I can't find anything in the law book that would make this scenario illegal. Many would argue it should be wrong. If you did this with hunting, it is legal. I am just curious if this would be any different.

Everyone should read the rules in the fishing book pertaining to packaging your fish. If the rules are followed this is a non issue.

[73h h4x]

I find it odd that people say this guy is "damaging the resource". It doesn't imply that he caught and kept all 49 of his "illegal" walleye in the same outing - for the sake of argument, let's assume he and his wife caught them 4 fish/day. If he would simply eat them every day, or give them away, he would not be breaking the law. He and his wife can keep a total of 4 fish per day, every day. But because he chose to store some in the freezer for later, now he is a criminal who is 'destroying the resource'?

I know there is no way to monitor and individual's yearly harvest, but not allowing people to store more than their daily limit seems unfair in my opinion - to punish people for how often they eat fish, cause that's really all you're doing.

There is no penalty for me harvesting 730 fish in a year from mille lacs, as long as i eat both walleyes every day... but if i put 20 of those walleyes in my freezer for a party i'm throwing next week, i'm a criminal.

Honestly, i feel sorry for the old guy. SO MANY people do this, and this poor guy just happened to get "caught". I think most Minnesotans see the possession law as a joke (and i would have to agree) because it is illogical and almost impossible to enforce.

[SalmonSlayer]

I'm confused about this part " They are also charged with a misdemeanor for angling with two hooks or a treble hook not attached to an artificial lure, which carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and/or a $1,000 fine."

So he had a stinger trailing more than 3" on a lure? Or had a multiple hook rig longer than 9"? I wish they would elaborate on what about his rig was illegal. Last time I checked Mille Lacs wasn't a designated trout lake...

From the regs:

Single Tackle Configuration. Anglers may use up to three single or multiplepronged (example - treble) hooks on a line used as a single tackle configuration

attached to the end of a fishing line (Examples – crawler harness, quick-strike

rig. See pictures on page 17). Note: a single tackle configuration cannot be

used on designated trout streams and lakes.

- The total length of the single tackle configuration from the first hook to the

last hook must be nine inches or less.

An angler may have one additional single or multiple hook on a line as

part of the artificial lure/bait as long as it is within three inches of the

artificial lure/bait (Example - a stinger hook (often a treble hook) can be

trailed behind a jig).

[73h h4x]

Salmonslayer- it was for fishing with an extra rod, not the configuration of one particular rod.

[SalmonSlayer]

That's a strange way to word it...

How would they write it up if he had 4 hooks in a tackle configuration then?

[Igor Drackenwolf]

I find it odd that people say this guy is "damaging the resource". It doesn't imply that he caught and kept all 49 of his "illegal" walleye in the same outing - for the sake of argument, let's assume he and his wife caught them 4 fish/day. If he would simply eat them every day, or give them away, he would not be breaking the law. He and his wife can keep a total of 4 fish per day, every day. But because he chose to store some in the freezer for later, now he is a criminal who is 'destroying the resource'?

I know there is no way to monitor and individual's yearly harvest, but not allowing people to store more than their daily limit seems unfair in my opinion - to punish people for how often they eat fish, cause that's really all you're doing.

There is no penalty for me harvesting 730 fish in a year from mille lacs, as long as i eat both walleyes every day... but if i put 20 of those walleyes in my freezer for a party i'm throwing next week, i'm a criminal.

Honestly, i feel sorry for the old guy. SO MANY people do this, and this poor guy just happened to get "caught". I think most Minnesotans see the possession law as a joke (and i would have to agree) because it is illogical and almost impossible to enforce.

This is what I was thinking too.

I go to Lac Suel every June with my two boys and we bring home 12 walleye - 24 fillets. Obviously, they come back frozen, and they stay frozen until such time as we take a few out and cook 'em.

According to the "freezer" rule, as long as I have those 12 walleye from Canada in my freezer, I cannot harvest a walleye from MN.

I get why they have the rule, but it seems like overkill to me. Whether or not you get "pinched" is completely dependent upon how many fish you eat - not how many you've caught, or when you've caught them.

[DTro]

Read the storage/packaging regs again. Pretty sure you can have a limit from every state in the union (and Canada) in your possession at the same time as long as you have proper documentation.

[Red Miller]

I've never seen that in the regs. Can you point me to the page?

[Igor Drackenwolf]

I just read through the possession regs to make sure. Nothing in there says anything other than what your limit is, and what "possession" is.

"Fish are in an angler’s possession whether on hand, in cold storage, in transport, or elsewhere."

That's the final word on the subject, at least according to the regulations. Nothing else in the reg book comes close to addressing the definition of possession, or carving out exceptions to the above rule.

You're in MN, you possess 6 walleye in your freezer, you're done until you eat some. Doesn't matter if you fish once in the spring and once in the fall. You can't possess a 7th fish.

Contrast that with the guy who catches and eats 6 fish every 2 weeks. He's using way more of the resource, but he's legal.

It is a wacked way to manage the harvest.

[harvey lee]

I agree with DTro in regards to having limits from another state or Canada in your freezer at the same time as A mn limit.

Well, if you do believe this law needs to be changed or corrected, you would then need to go to your state rep and ask him to try to change it in the Legislature.

Good luck with that one. In anyones lifetime, I do not see the DNR dropping the poss limit.

Remember one thing, with no poss limit in the law, there would be people keeping who knows how many walleyes or any other specie in thier freezer.

I have zero issues with a 6 fish poss limit.

[DTro]

Page 67.

I assume this statement would also apply to other states inland waters.

Fish from Canadian inland waters may be possessed in Minnesota in excess of the Minnesota limit only if the angler has proof—such as lodging receipts or verification through U.S. Customs—that the fish were taken from inland Canadian waters.

[Igor Drackenwolf]

Page 67.

I assume this statement would also apply to other states inland waters.

Fish from Canadian inland waters may be possessed in Minnesota in excess of the Minnesota limit only if the angler has proof—such as lodging receipts or verification through U.S. Customs—that the fish were taken from inland Canadian waters.

Hey good catch. Learn sumptn new every day!

I didn't think to look outside the section on MN possession limit to find exceptions to the MN possession limit.

[Igor Drackenwolf]

The same principle does apply to the initial thought though, my Canada tangent notwithstanding.

A guy who keeps six fish in his freezer that are all from MN waters is done harvesting fish until he eats one. The guy who catches and eats 6 every couple weeks is good to go.

It's a wacky way to attempt to control how many fish are harvested. A guy who takes his 7th fish from the lake could get busted, while a guy who takes dozens and dozens over the course of a year is inside the law, as long as he's eating them as he goes.

[DTro]

While I agree with that, do you have a better solution in regards to possession?

[Igor Drackenwolf]

While I agree with that, do you have a better solution in regards to possession?

The only thing that comes to mind is a separate limit for frozen meat. Something that takes into account that an angler with fish in the freezer may still want to go out another day and harvest fish.

Admittedly, I have no idea what unintended consequences may spring from that.

As an aside, if I had to guess, I would guess that a whole helluvalot of fishermen keep their daily limit without regard to what they have in the freezer, assuming that the DNR will never see their freezer - or being ignorant of how the possession limit relates to frozen fish.

[aanderud]

Quote:

The only thing that comes to mind is a separate limit for frozen meat. Something that takes into account that an angler with fish in the freezer may still want to go out another day and harvest fish.

Would you really be happier if the possession limit were twice the daily harvest limit, or something? I mean, no matter what they do they have to set SOME limit, right? Then you're going to get to that limit in your freezer and be unable to harvest. So, what's the difference between the freezer limit being just a simply-enforceable daily limit (like it is now) and something more complicated like you propose?

[Igor Drackenwolf]

Would you really be happier if the possession limit were twice the daily harvest limit, or something? I mean, no matter what they do they have to set SOME limit, right? Then you're going to get to that limit in your freezer and be unable to harvest. So, what's the difference between the freezer limit being just a simply-enforceable daily limit (like it is now) and something more complicated like you propose?

I didn't "propose" anything. It was just one solution that comes to mind.

Here's the thing: the guy who eats fish as he goes gets to consume up to 6 walleyes per day. (I realize that is unrealistic, but it is the upper limit of what is possible).

On the other hand, the guy who has 6 fish in his freezer cannot harvest another until he eats one.

How about this? Once a fish is in your freezer, it is considered "consumed"? The daily catch limit would still apply. The transport/possession laws would still apply. But a fish in the freezer is a fish in the belly. Why not?

Again, just thinking out loud of ways to overcome the ridiculous manifestations of legality/illegality arising by the current definition of "possession".

[ClownColor]

So one could have over 2,700 walleyes in their freezer? Silly rabbit. Your theory of someone eating them every day is just as likely as someone catching their limit every day, I get it...both would never happen so pick the better of two evils.

Why does one need more then 6 per liscens in the freezer? That's 12 filets...two filets a week, or one meal as recommended, that's 6 weeks of walleyes. Plus all the other limits you can keep. Heck, one limit of eyes, perch, an pannies should keep you full for some time.

[Igor Drackenwolf]

So one could have over 2,700 walleyes in their freezer? Silly rabbit. Your theory of someone eating them every day is just as likely as someone catching their limit every day, I get it...both would never happen so pick the better of two evils.

Why does one need more then 6 per liscens in the freezer? That's 12 filets...two filets a week, or one meal as recommended, that's 6 weeks of walleyes. Plus all the other limits you can keep. Heck, one limit of eyes, perch, an pannies should keep you full for some time.

Good points, all. But, if a guy has 6 walleyes in his freezer, and is getting on the water for the first time in a month, should he become a criminal if he harvests another 6?

[Redlineracer12]

Good points, all. But, if a guy has 6 walleyes in his freezer, and is getting on the water for the first time in a month, should he become a criminal if he harvests another 6?

I think you could eat the 6 before you go on your trip. Otherwise do you really need 6 more to bring home?

[Igor Drackenwolf]

Fish fry dinner party for 12?

[Igor Drackenwolf]

I'm only playing devil's advocate because of the obvious discrepancy created by the regulation.

[ClownColor]

Fish fry dinner party for 12?

Walleye aren't the only fish in the sea...if I'm hosting a fry, more then likely panfish will be had...and the walleyes come out when everyone's full and its my turn to eat.

Or, if your set on eyes, go get your limit in MN, Canada, WI, and take a trip to Devils lake. You'll need a license per area but with each license comes a limit of fish.

Last option you have is to get your family and friends license number to store their limit in your freezer. They had better not store any walleyes at their home cause you'll be claiming them at your place.

[Kyhl]

Good points, all. But, if a guy has 6 walleyes in his freezer, and is getting on the water for the first time in a month, should he become a criminal if he harvests another 6?

Yes.

Here's a thought, you don't have to harvest every fish caught or your limit every time out.

Heck, I haven't filleted a fish this year. I do it for fun and sport, not to put meat in the freezer.

[fishgutz77]

The Regs are the Regs and that's that. end of story.

It really whizzes me that the old fish hawks think that it's needed to have that many walleyes in the bank. I ended a long friendship over this very thing when I found out that a buddy of mine was hoarding walleyes with another that lived on the lake by Izaty's.

over fish, slot fish, under fish I don't care I should have reported them both.

And they got all indignant when I called them on it. They are night fishing all the time and stuffing fish in the freezer. Let's say you have a family of 4, that's 24 walleyes in the bank you can have legally. that's 48 fillets and you can have your fish fry for the big party. that's if Mom and Dad have a license and 2 kids under age don't. That seems to be pretty liberal to me.

I only wish the penalty was stiffer so the word would get out how painful this is, that would deter some of this. Not to mention ease up on the lake. Go gettem DNR.