# Hook'em and Cook'em



## NHS (Sep 7, 2007)

It looks like the elitist "how dare you keep a limit of fish" ethic that is so common on Utah water's today has come full circle to bite us in the butt.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=31400154&nid=1288&fm=most_popular&s_cid=popular-3

Trout...its what's for dinner.;-)


----------



## Greenhead_Slayer (Oct 16, 2007)

Man alive, some of the comments on that article made by readers are unreal.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

they should do away with the possession limit that is in effect. why should it matter how many fish I have in the cooler or home freezer as long I abide by the four fish limit per day limit. 
I went fishing over the weekend and between the wife and I, we had a limit in 1 hour not counting the ones that we released in that hour. some we had to keep because of them swallowing the hook.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Knowledge is the deciding factor- places to keep fish and places to let them swim again- nothing new- just need those who participate in anything to have some knowledge about it. Much more harmonious outcome.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

sagebrush said:


> they should do away with the possession limit that is in effect. why should it matter how many fish I have in the cooler or home freezer as long I abide by the four fish limit per day limit. .


Because some people have learned to abuse that rule...some people will catch a limit of fish, take them home, put them in the freezer, and then return to catch another limit of fish. It is a rule to protect against people who look to abuse the resource.


----------



## sagebrush (Sep 8, 2007)

wyoming2utah people will always find a way to beat the system no matter what it is fishing, hunting, boating and etc. it only protects the law abiding people


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

sure...they might. But that doesn't mean we should just abolish the rules, though...!


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Our society does not have the ability to function with out rules. Just too many people that are still searching for that first clue.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> Because some people have learned to abuse that rule...some people will catch a limit of fish, take them home, put them in the freezer, and then return to catch another limit of fish. It is a rule to protect against people who look to abuse the resource.


How is it abusing the resource if you take fish home and put it in the freezer to eat it later? Or are you talking about people catching a limit on Tuesday, taking them home putting them in the freezer, and going back out on Tuesday to catch another limit?

There are already laws against wasting game and fish. So the reason can't be that they just get wasted in the freezer. There is also a law against keeping more than your limit on one day.

So I don't see how it's abusing the resource. Besides, the vast majority of people aren't going to even be able to catch more than 1 limit in a day.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> sure...they might. But that doesn't mean we should just abolish the rules, though...!


Actually, Drew Cushing said that if their current plan is adopted for 2015 for non-trout species and works, they are considering the same plan for trout species in 2016.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1486-encouraging-anglers-to-keep-fish.html



DrewCushing said:


> "If we find that it does make a difference," Cushing says, "we might recommend that the possession limit for salmonoids be eliminated in 2016."


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dodger said:


> Or are you talking about people catching a limit on Tuesday, taking them home putting them in the freezer, and going back out on Tuesday to catch another limit?


This ^^^

This kind of thing happens quite often on community fisheries...I have also seen and witnessed huge overlimits with people camping....these people will catch a limit, fillet them, put them on ice, and then return to the fishery and catch another limit. I think the law is in place to protect against these kinds of practices.

Regardless of what Drew did or didn't say, whether the law should be changed or not should NOT be based on whether people will find a way to abuse the system. The decision to make a law or keep a law should be made on whether the law is needed to protect a resource. I would be willing to bet that the reason the law is being tried on warm and coolwater species first is because those species either see a lot less overall harvest or they are more prone to overpopulation issues....


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

wyoming2utah said:


> This ^^^
> 
> This kind of thing happens quite often on community fisheries...I have also seen and witnessed huge overlimits with people camping....these people will catch a limit, fillet them, put them on ice, and then return to the fishery and catch another limit. I think the law is in place to protect against these kinds of practices.
> 
> Regardless of what Drew did or didn't say, whether the law should be changed or not should NOT be based on whether people will find a way to abuse the system. The decision to make a law or keep a law should be made on whether the law is needed to protect a resource. I would be willing to bet that the reason the law is being tried on warm and coolwater species first is because those species either see a lot less overall harvest or they are more prone to overpopulation issues....


So just to be clear, if someone catches their limit on Tuesday, takes their fish home, puts them in the freezer, goes back to the lake on Wednesday, you don't think the person should be able to catch 4 more on Wednesday?

That's the current law (for some places - FG and Strawberry. I know they changed possession limits on other lakes). But I don't think it's a law that makes sense.

How do they know where the fish came from? It would be legal to have 8 rainbows in your freezer from, say, Vernon Reservoir but not to have 8 rainbows in your freezer from Flaming Gorge. That's silly.

Think about crossing state lines - I fish in Montana every year where the possession limit is 10 trout, 5 per day. The second I come back to Utah, I'm breaking the law. I can't have 10 trout in my freezer in Utah, arguably.

You can't buy more than 4 (or 8 ) trout at the grocery store either. You can't buy more than 4 frozen sockeye salmon at the grocery store. Or, you can't have 4 rainbows from FG and 5 rainbows from the grocery store.

I don't think anyone is going to be writing tickets. I just don't think we ought to have freezer police.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

Selective harvest should be the key word here.... Not just harvest.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Dodger, you're not in violation if you can provide a MT license. Fish from Utah waters are the only ones that are regulated in Utah. Likewise with the store if you can provide a receipt. Farm raised trout are not protected.

I agree that it would be nearly impossible for most LEO's to discern whether a fish came from FG, Strawberry, or Vernon. Short of a scientific analysis, that's not going to happen.

Aside from all of that, eating fish is the only reason we, as humans, ever started trying to catch them in the first place.

I think a lot of people forget that.

If people are strictly C&R because they "don't eat/like fish", it is irrational for them to spend time pursuing fish.

But that's just logic. I realize logic is thrown to the wayside when it comes to fishing (otherwise I'd buy gold instead of gas to go fishing). I get it, but I feel it is important for the angler to take a moment and realize what they're really doing. Connect with it. Let that emotional desire to fish become something more than a "sport" or "hobby", which it is not, by nature. 

Granted, there is much sport and time involved in the pursuit of fish, but it is so much more. 

If people are C&R because they think they're helping the resource, that varies by location and is usually unnecessary. 

Keep some fish, fillet them, dip them in whipped egg, roll them in bread crumbs and Parmesan, and fry them in oil. This is good, no matter what species. My horribly picky children even eat this (after finally convincing them to taste it).

Just to be clear, I'm not saying people should keep everything they catch, or even a limit. I'm not saying that the only reason to fish is food either.

Honing ones' skills to improve their odds of survival in such a situation is perfectly reasonable. Just remember the root of all of that.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

Dodger sales of seafood of any kind in the grocery store has nothing to do with fish and game or limits in the freezer,I would have to put a limit on trout and salmon that I sell to folks if that were the case.Now for a story,I have had more than 1 guy buy trout to take home from his "fishing trip" to show his lovely wife that he actually caught some.I guess they were not biting in Wendover:mrgreen:


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Packfish said:


> Knowledge is the deciding factor- places to keep fish and places to let them swim again- nothing new- just need those who participate in anything to have some knowledge about it. Much more harmonious outcome.


Agree with this.

Here's some food for thought: How many fish that are released actually survive? 40%, 80% or somewhere in between? depends on the anglers handling, conditions, etc.?

Lot's of factors to consider.

Keep 'em and eat 'em or let 'em go - It's all good. Enjoy the sport, be good sportsmen, educate yourself and help protect our waters!


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

Wasn't there a guy in Arizona recently that was picked up for having 1600 trout in possession ? He must have been Michael Jackson with that San Juan Shuffle.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Dodger said:


> So just to be clear, if someone catches their limit on Tuesday, takes their fish home, puts them in the freezer, goes back to the lake on Wednesday, you don't think the person should be able to catch 4 more on Wednesday?


No....that is NOT what I am worried about. What I am worried about is the guy who catches several "limits" on the same day.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

LOAH said:


> Dodger, you're not in violation if you can provide a MT license. Fish from Utah waters are the only ones that are regulated in Utah. Likewise with the store if you can provide a receipt. Farm raised trout are not protected.
> 
> I agree that it would be nearly impossible for most LEO's to discern whether a fish came from FG, Strawberry, or Vernon. Short of a scientific analysis, that's not going to happen.


LOAH - your point as far as why people fish is well taken. But, I think you also see my point as well and how there is just no way to keep track of what fish in your freezer came from where. I have my MT license and I can keep 10 trout in my freezer with that license. Plus I have my UT license so I can get 4 more in my freezer with that one. But, how does anyone know where my 14 fish came from? How do they know I'm not replacing my 10 trout from MT with trout from UT? Good heavens, the Kokanee limit at some lakes in Oregon is 100/day.

How many people are going to keep their receipt when they buy trout at the grocery store? I know they aren't protected but I'm just saying if you have trout in your freezer you bought at the grocery store, there is no way for anyone to tell they are from the store as opposed to the lake. Even DNA I'm not sure would tell you that because not all of the fish in the lake are necessarily from the same brood stock (you might get similar DNA among particular stockings but probably not from year to year).

If you bought trout and don't have a license and you throw away your receipt, there's no proof any more. If I bought an Oregon license, I could keep 104 kokes in my freezer plus whatever Montana says I can have.

I'm just saying, laws about what you have in the freezer don't make sense because there is no way to enforce it.

Also, another touchy subject, if I catch my 3 kokes at FG in WY on a WY license, can I go to the Utah side of FG and catch 3 more on my Utah license? I think we all know the answer is "no" but if I can bring 10 back from MT, why can't I bring 3 back from WY?



Dunkem said:


> Dodger sales of seafood of any kind in the grocery store has nothing to do with fish and game or limits in the freezer,I would have to put a limit on trout and salmon that I sell to folks if that were the case.Now for a story,I have had more than 1 guy buy trout to take home from his "fishing trip" to show his lovely wife that he actually caught some.I guess they were not biting in Wendover:mrgreen:


You actually made my point for me. If people can pass off store bought for the real thing, how do you tell what came from a license and what came from Dunkem at the store?

And, you'd have to sell fishing licenses to sell anyone a rainbow trout. As soon as your receipt is gone, your grocery shopper is in legal limbo - possession of a protected species of fish without a license or possession of more than a limit of a protected species of fish.



wyoming2utah said:


> No....that is NOT what I am worried about. What I am worried about is the guy who catches several "limits" on the same day.


I'm right there with you on that. What I'm saying though is that it's already against the law to keep more than one limit on one day. A law about what you can have in your freezer is redundant. If they can't enforce the daily limits, what makes anyone think they can enforce the number of fish in your freezer, especially when you are looking at the situations above (fish from other states on other licenses, grocery store, fish farms, private ponds, etc).


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

There are already areas/lakes where you can keep a limit of 8 brook trout or 8 lake trout, but these are places that some "meat anglers" are too lazy to get to or you need a boat, hike into, or 4wd to access, so this keeps pressure low enough for the fish to overpopulate an area. I really don't care if Joe or Jose keeps as many planter rainbows as they like from the local community ponds, they are likely there because they need to feed their family and most planters in the warmer waters are trash fish anyway. We are very selective about the trout we keep to eat, these days it's only the mackinaw lake trout, tigers, and bright colored brook trout due to the pink meat and less mushy texture.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Dodger said:


> LOAH - your point as far as why people fish is well taken. But, I think you also see my point as well and how there is just no way to keep track of what fish in your freezer came from where. I have my MT license and I can keep 10 trout in my freezer with that license. Plus I have my UT license so I can get 4 more in my freezer with that one. But, how does anyone know where my 14 fish came from? How do they know I'm not replacing my 10 trout from MT with trout from UT? Good heavens, the Kokanee limit at some lakes in Oregon is 100/day.
> 
> How many people are going to keep their receipt when they buy trout at the grocery store? I know they aren't protected but I'm just saying if you have trout in your freezer you bought at the grocery store, there is no way for anyone to tell they are from the store as opposed to the lake. Even DNA I'm not sure would tell you that because not all of the fish in the lake are necessarily from the same brood stock (you might get similar DNA among particular stockings but probably not from year to year).
> 
> ...


Most of us will never buy trout from a store but if they do it's in a marked package, so I would think(or hope anyway) common sense would cover that question.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

30-06-hunter said:


> Most of us will never buy trout from a store but if they do it's in a marked package, so I would think(or hope anyway) common sense would cover that question.


I'm not necessarily talking about "most of us" as anglers here on the forum. I'm more talking about people that go out occasionally and aren't familiar with the rules.

And fish may or may not be in a marked package. You can buy rainbows at WinCo that they just wrap in butcher paper and put a sticker on.

Anyway, the specifics aren't really the issue. I'm just saying we don't need freezer police because there is no way to enforce that rule. And, based on what I've seen here, people's concerns are based on rules that are already on the books. I don't see the harm in fish in a freezer being off your possession limit.

Or, I think you ought to be able to smoke them and freeze them and have them taken off your limit once they are cooked.

It makes as much sense as taking a fish to the taxidermist and having it come off your possession limit as soon as you put it in his freezer.

I just think the whole freezer possession limit is silly especially when the possession limit differs from place to place. No one can tell whether your rainbow came from Navajo Lake or Strawberry.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I figure why keep any fish in the freezer? It is so easy to catch a few fish for dinner and not worry about putting them into the freezer only to be forgotten. I have gotten to the place that I enjoy a fresh fish dinner and usually will only put the ones on the stringer that I plan on eating within the next couple of days. 

I remember when you could have a 10 fish limit with 20 in possession. Those days everyone was bottling fish for the long winters but I never did like bottled fish either. 

Now to get back on the subject, there are ponds and lakes out there that really need to be thinned out some to let the fish grow to a decent size. I know of some lakes (not in Utah) where the crappie are so numerous that you can catch a limit of 20 of them in less than a half hour, but the fish are only the size of your hand and no larger. The same with brook trout in some waters in Utah, there is just so many of them that they reach a certain size and just stop growing.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

It would be nice to be able to legally save up enough trout to do a nice sized batch of smoked fish. A current possession limit isn't hardly enough to warrant the effort...well yes it is, but it would be nice to fill the smoker.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Dodger said:


> I'm not necessarily talking about "most of us" as anglers here on the forum. I'm more talking about people that go out occasionally and aren't familiar with the rules.
> 
> And fish may or may not be in a marked package. You can buy rainbows at WinCo that they just wrap in butcher paper and put a sticker on.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you are over thinking things, most people who do not fish will never have to worry about any limits. I can almost guaranty that 80-90% of people who buy fish will be cooking it that same day or within the next 2 days, as most fish comes here frozen and must be cooked shortly after purchasing. I bet if you called up any seafood section of a grocery store you will find that only about 12% of fish they sell is trout.

As for WinCo, we have never shopped there and would likely never buy seafood there if we did.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

30-06-hunter said:


> Sounds like you are over thinking things, most people who do not fish will never have to worry about any limits. I can almost guaranty that 80-90% of people who buy fish will be cooking it that same day or within the next 2 days, as most fish comes here frozen and must be cooked shortly after purchasing. I bet if you called up any seafood section of a grocery store you will find that only about 12% of fish they sell is trout.
> 
> As for WinCo, we have never shopped there and would likely never buy seafood there if we did.


I don't think I'm overthinking it. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of it all. Technically, possessing fish without a license is an infraction of the rules. You can look through every word of the Utah Code and I doubt you'll find anything that says "unless you have a receipt from the grocery store."

Not to mention the fact that no one will be able to tell where the fish in your freezer came from - Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, wherever. It's absurd.

Actually WinCo has a pretty good seafood department. They have stuff you'll never see anywhere else in our little corner of the desert.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

Dodger said:


> I don't think I'm overthinking it. I'm just pointing out the absurdity of it all. Technically, possessing fish without a license is an infraction of the rules. You can look through every word of the Utah Code and I doubt you'll find anything that says "unless you have a receipt from the grocery store."
> 
> Not to mention the fact that no one will be able to tell where the fish in your freezer came from - Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, wherever. It's absurd.
> 
> Actually WinCo has a pretty good seafood department. They have stuff you'll never see anywhere else in our little corner of the desert.


Is it organic or wild caught?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Dodger said:


> Or, I think you ought to be able to smoke them and freeze them and have them taken off your limit once they are cooked.


Once they're prepared for consumption, they're no longer counted on your limit(s)



Dodger said:


> I just think the whole freezer possession limit is silly especially when the possession limit differs from place to place. No one can tell whether your rainbow came from Navajo Lake or Strawberry.


I do agree with that. The only way to make that enforceable would be to have random warrants passed out for people with a fishing license. I'm not into that.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

LOAH said:


> Once they're prepared for consumption, they're no longer counted on your limit(s)
> 
> I do agree with that. The only way to make that enforceable would be to have random warrants passed out for people with a fishing license. I'm not into that.


I've always seen the standard as "consumed" rather than "prepared for consumption." Am I missing something?

Random warrants. LOL. We still have a little bit of the 4th amendment left. More seriously though, someone says you catch too many fish and they could get a real warrant to search your stuff. I doubt it would happen unless you have 1600 fish in your freezer. But, you know what I mean.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

30-06-hunter said:


> Sounds like you are over thinking things, most people who do not fish will never have to worry about any limits. I can almost guaranty that 80-90% of people who buy fish will be cooking it that same day or within the next 2 days, as most fish comes here frozen and must be cooked shortly after purchasing. I bet if you called up any seafood section of a grocery store you will find that only about 12% of fish they sell is trout.


Your pretty close on the 12% guess,however most of the seafood we carry comes in fresh not frozen.Your also right about people eating it shortly after buying,after all who wants to put a nice piece of fresh halibut in the freezer>>O


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Greenhead_Slayer said:


> Man alive, some of the comments on that article made by readers are unreal.


KSL comments are off the hook retarded. I had to stop reading them because I realized that people are so **** stupid and that they can vote!

KSL needs to kill their comments section.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Bax* said:


> KSL comments are off the hook retarded. I had to stop reading them because I realized that people are so **** stupid and that they can vote!
> 
> KSL needs to kill their comments section.


Maybe you should ask their admin to do some work on the logo. I'm sure that would implode the system...


----------



## willfish4food (Jul 14, 2009)

As much as I think the possession limit is stupid and uninforceable, I don't think it should be done away with entirely. I don't think this law is aimed at 99 percent of fishermen or the person who occasionally keeps a limit while still in possession of some same species fish. This law is in place to give teeth to prosecuters when people who grossly waste game get caught. A CO will not go to a person's home with a warrant to search a freezer unless there is reason to suspect violation of the law; and I'm willing to suspect they wont go for a guy who has 4 fish extra in their freezer. But, when a CO checks someone's freezer and finds dozens or hundreds of poached fish in violation, I hope there is a law that gives power to procecute the violators.


----------



## 30-06-hunter (Sep 22, 2013)

willfish4food said:


> As much as I think the possession limit is stupid and uninforceable, I don't think it should be done away with entirely. I don't think this law is aimed at 99 percent of fishermen or the person who occasionally keeps a limit while still in possession of some same species fish. This law is in place to give teeth to prosecuters when people who grossly waste game get caught. A CO will not go to a person's home with a warrant to search a freezer unless there is reason to suspect violation of the law; and I'm willing to suspect they wont go for a guy who has 4 fish extra in their freezer. But, when a CO checks someone's freezer and finds dozens or hundreds of poached fish in violation, I hope there is a law that gives power to procecute the violators.


I really wish there was more they could do to prosecute folks who waste any kind of fish or wild game. I'm the guy who feels bad if I land a fish and it slips down in between some rocks where I can't get to it and release it or take it back to camp, we won't even get into how bad I felt when I hit a deer last October. I was raised to only kill what I intend to eat and anything else is selfish poaching, and we need to do all we can to respect and preserve nature for our future. I realize not everyone agrees but that's how I am.


----------

