# Bag And Possession Limits



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

In the 2012 Fishing Guidebook on pages 17 and 18, it discusses bag and possession limits.
For several years the Guide gives an example of how the limit works.
I have felt that this example is flawed and should be removed but it keeps showing up in the Guide every year.

This is the quote from the book. [page 18]

"You may not fish at waters that have specific bag or size limit if you possess fish in violation of that limit."

Now it goes on to give an example that totally contradicts the above statement.

"For example, if the cutthroat trout limit at a river you'd like to fish is two cutthroats,
and you harvest three cutthroats earlier that day at another water, you can't fish at that river until you consume at least one of the cutthroats you harvested earlier. You may continue to fish while in possession of a full limit, but you must immediately release any additional fish that you catch."

There are at least two things that I read that I think are wrong in this example.
First, is states that you may not fish at all after you have a limit.
That law changed a year or two ago.

The second thing that I see is wrong is that is states that after you have a limit of fish, you can consume a portion or all of that limit, and then catch more.
It doesn't matter if or where you fished earlier in the day.
It doesn't matter if you consume any of that limit.
You can continue to fish at any Utah water while in a full possession of fish, as long as you catch and release the fish.

By the way, don't forget that it doesn't matter when you catch a limit of fish, As long as you have a limit of fish in your possession, you can't take any more fish into your limit. This includes the fish that you have at home, in your camp or any other place.

So am I reading this correctly?
Your thoughts.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Yes and no. Good and bad.
First. You can't consume a fish, thereby reducing your possession of fish to allow you to catch more today. If that were legal, you could catch and keep fish all day long and cook them up while on the water. You can't legally do that. If the limit is 4, and you catch and keep 4, you're not legally able to keep any more, even if you've cooked and eaten all 4. Your bag limit is a daily limit.

But if in the example you quoted, you were to say that you caught 3 cutts yesterday and had consumed one, you would be in possession of a limit, thereby meaning you could fish, but not keep any more at a water that has a 2 fish limit.

The law didn't change a year or two or 5 or 10 years ago. There are 4 sentences that have been exactly the same. I know, I've been in this discussion for 10 years. They are:


> • Any trout, salmon or grayling not immediately released is part of your bag and
> possession limit.
> • A trout, salmon or grayling may not be
> released if it's been held in or on a stringer,
> ...


The part that you've quoted was added in 2007 I believe. Back when Corey was running the forum before this one, I talked to him about it. The sentence read something like:
For example, if the cutthroat trout limit at a river you'd like to fish is two cutthroats,
and you harvest *two* cutthroats earlier that day at another water, you can't fish at that river until you consume at least one of the cutthroats you harvested earlier. We talked about it when they had the draft of the new proclamation listed on the web. He and I had a long discussion about having your limit does NOT violate the limit.

The part that you quote that you're having trouble with about not fishing with a limit is something that you're misreading, or misunderstanding. It doesn't say you can't continue to fish while in possession of a limit. It says:


> You may not fish at waters that have a
> specific bag or size limit if you possess fish in *violation* of that limit.


If the limit is 2, and you have 3, you can't fish there. But if the limit is 2, and you have 2, you're okay.


----------



## dubob (Sep 8, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> "For example, if the cutthroat trout limit at a river you'd like to fish is two cutthroats, and you harvest three cutthroats earlier that day at another water, you can't fish at that river until you consume at least one of the cutthroats you harvested earlier. You may continue to fish while in possession of a full limit, but you must immediately release any additional fish that you catch."


There's another problem associated with this example. By definition, a 'Bag Limit' is: "the maximum limit, in number or amount, of protected wildlife that one person may legally take during one day."

Once you've taken a bag limit of fish on a given day, you may not consume one or more on that same day and legally take more on that same day - according to the definition.

Now possession limit has a different definition and consuming a fish from your possession limit caught on an earlier day would allow you to fish today to replace it - AFTER you consumed one from your possession limit of course. I just love how these little conundrums seem to pop up every year.


----------



## leviwin (Dec 7, 2011)

The wording sure does make that confusing. Somehow they need to simplify that.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

"If the limit is 2, and you have 3, you can't fish there. But if the limit is 2, and you have 2, you're okay."

You can fish at any water at any time, even with a limit.
The above statement says that you can't fish at a water that has a 2 fish limit and you have 3 in your possession.
The guide book states that you can fish with a limit in possession as long as you are practicing catch and release.
The example contradicts itself.
This example states that you must stop fishing. You don't have to stop fishing, you just have to stop adding the fish to your bag.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Nope. If you have 3 in your possession, and the limit is 2, you've got fish in your possession that are in violation of the limit on the water that you are attempting to fish. It may have been within the limit of the water that you were fishing when you caught them, but it is one more than the limit for the "new" water that you want to fish.

If you have any trout under 22 inches at home (in your possession), you cannot legally fish most of the artificial flies and lures only waters that have a minimum size restriction. If you have a Tiger Muskie (legal to keep at all waters except Pineview) in your possession, you can't fish at Pineview.



> You may not fish at waters that have a
> specific bag or size limit if you *possess fish in violation of that limit*.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

But it also states that you can eat one of the fish and then continue to fish.
You can't do that either.
You must wait at least one day before you can fish again.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I'll agree with you on that one. You gotta wait until the next day, and have eaten at least one of the cutthroats in the example they give. But if you have fish in your freezer that don't comply with the rules of the water you're gonna fish, you're in violation. If you have a trout with cutthroat markings, you can't fish at Huntington Reservoir.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Fishrmn said:


> I'll agree with you on that one. You gotta wait until the next day, and have eaten at least one of the cutthroats in the example they give. But if you have fish in your freezer that don't comply with the rules of the water you're gonna fish, you're in violation. If you have a trout with cutthroat markings, you can't fish at Huntington Reservoir.


Donate the fish to a friend or family member with all the proper paer work. Loophole accomplished. Not in the field though.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

But you still can't continue to fish the same day.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Grandpa D said:


> But you still can't continue to fish the same day.


Oh yeah, that too! Forgot to add that. Thanks GD.


----------



## Bscuderi (Jan 2, 2012)

That's just confusing.... They should lay it out and not count fish in your freezer from a different water. One cutt from somewhere would make a lot of waters unfishable wether you intended to keep a fish or not that's just stupid. I think the idea is good so people don't let them get freezer burn and go to waste. Just seems like a rule most people don't understand and if u don't understand it or have to interpret it with a magnifying glass it's a bad rule!


----------



## Chaser (Sep 28, 2007)

Bscuderi said:


> That's just confusing.... They should lay it out and not count fish in your freezer from a different water. One cutt from somewhere would make a lot of waters unfishable wether you intended to keep a fish or not that's just stupid. I think the idea is good so people don't let them get freezer burn and go to waste. Just seems like a rule most people don't understand and if u don't understand it or have to interpret it with a magnifying glass it's a bad rule!


Think that's confusing? Try proving the waters from which your freezer full of fish came from. There is no way of doing it, so they have to make a blanket rule to protect the resource from fish mongers.

The easy solution? Keep only what you will eat, and consume it while it is fresh (which means the day you catch it) and you won't have issues keeping more the next day, or face restrictions on where you can fish.


----------



## Bscuderi (Jan 2, 2012)

Chaser said:


> Bscuderi said:
> 
> 
> > That's just confusing.... They should lay it out and not count fish in your freezer from a different water. One cutt from somewhere would make a lot of waters unfishable wether you intended to keep a fish or not that's just stupid. I think the idea is good so people don't let them get freezer burn and go to waste. Just seems like a rule most people don't understand and if u don't understand it or have to interpret it with a magnifying glass it's a bad rule!
> ...


agree fully sometimes I like a filet or two in the freezer in case I make some trout curry but if in making anything other than curry fresh never frozen Is the way to go! Nothing beats eating trout the day or day after it was caught. I understand that there trying to protect the waters from the liers who say it came from somewhere else! I just think its stupid because identifying a boneless skinless filet as that of a cutthroat and not of a rainbow in my freezer how would you do that? Just another rule to police the honest!


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Chaser said:


> Think that's confusing? Try proving the waters from which your freezer full of fish came from. There is no way of doing it, so they have to make a blanket rule to protect the resource from fish mongers.


Its easy to prove with today's technology, its just expensive. Any animal that grows up in an ecosystem has unique isotopes in its body from the surrounding water / food sources. A mineral analysis would prove where a fish... deer, elk whatever, came from. The burden would be on the F&G to prove it did NOT come from where you stated, as in this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Not worth it for a simple fish. They do do it however, for trophy animals like a suspected illegally harvested elk or something.

-DallanC


----------



## Bscuderi (Jan 2, 2012)

We need an ask a co forum subject and get some to join to answer our questions. It reads funny but I would assume what was meant by this was not to say for instance you have 1 fish in your possession in your freezer at home that you couldn't fish such and such reservoir 1 week later because it's catch and release only! What if I had a 16 inch cutthroat in my freezer at home and went all the way to strawberry 2 hours away to fish. I'm not supposed to fish strawberry because I violate the possession limit by having a fish from a completely different water thats in the slot at the water I fish? I hardly believe this was meant to keep these instances from fishing. I interpret the rule to say for instance you keep 4 at rockport and want to go fly fish the weber on your way home you couldn't because it's a 2 fish limit! If the co pulls up to your car you have 4 in the cooler it's hard for him to say you weren't over keeping on the weber! I think common sense fills the gap or if your that worried about it i guess donate to your wife's girlfriends or roommates.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Bscuderi,

Pretty much. But it could be used against someone who is constantly abusing the resource.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

To me rules and regulations help keep honest people honest and it helps catch cheats and thieves.


----------

