# Catch & Release With A Full Limit Of Fish?



## BigMac (Feb 12, 2012)

How do you guys interpret the law on continuing to fish on a catch & release basis once you have kept a full limit of fish to take home? I can see pro & con on either side you look at.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

No need for interpretation. It's in black and white.

From the 2012 Fishing Guidebook:


> You may continue to fish while in possession of a full limit, but you must immediately release any additional fish you catch.


It's on page 16.


----------



## BigMac (Feb 12, 2012)

Thanks a bunch I thought I had looked threw the whole guide book but missed it some how. Thanks again!


----------



## fish1on (Jan 12, 2009)

This is an interesting dilema.

I do not keep fish for the most part, just a C&R kinda guy. I will keep a few for a meal that night from time to time or anything that I may harm. But, I do understand that keeping limits is part of the rights that go with a license.

Now, I see a person with a limit on a stringer or basket and they are still fishing. What happens next is they deep hook a fish and it will not survive. What do they do? Toss it in the water to die, keep it........both options are violations.

Bad rule in my book. I think that a negative 1 of limit you can continue but when you hit that magic number you are done.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

There's no violation in immediately releasing a fish, bleeding or not. As long as it's not wanton destruction, then it's legal. Ethical issues may come into play if it's ongoing without changing tactics.

Totally fine to keep fishing though.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

fish1on said:


> This is an interesting dilemma. Now, I see a person with a limit on a stringer or basket and they are still fishing. What happens next is they deep hook a fish and it will not survive. What do they do? Toss it in the water to die, keep it........both options are violations.
> 
> Bad rule in my book. I think that a negative 1 of limit you can continue but when you hit that magic number you are done.


You're welcome to keep that as your plan, one short of your limit. But what about Bear Lake Cutthroats at Bear Lake? If they have all of their fins, including the adipose fin, your limit is zero. What about cutthroats or Tiger Trout where there are slot limits? Your limit is zero if they are in the slot. If you hook one and it is bleeding, you can't keep it. You must release it. The examples are all over. Cutthroats at Huntington have a limit of zero. Deer Valley Lakes is catch and release only from Jan. 1st through Sept. 30th. Your limit is zero. If you hook one and it starts to bleed, you're faced with the dilemma. You can have only one Walleye that is over 24 inches. By your way of doing things, you'd better quit with one if you catch one over 24 inches, even though the limit is 10 Walleye.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

The DWR thought hard about making the rule that once you have a limit, you must stop fishing. In fact until it was spilled out in the Regulations last year, some CO's could and would cite an angler for fishing with a limit in their possession.
It was determined that the rules must allow an angler the opportunity to continue to fish after achieving a limit.
This is because of the examples already mentioned. When you are fishing in a water where there is a species of fish that must be released, you are in a possession violation as soon as you catch a protected fish.
Another example of this is Tiger Muskie in Pineview.

I don't like the rule and would like to see something in the way of,
once an angler has a limit of fish in possession, that angler must switch to artificial only tackle.

This will never happen though because the DWR wants to apply the KISS rule to fishing when possible.
So for now you may have a limit in your possession and continue to gut hook fish with treble hooks and yank the hook out and throw the dying fish back and do it again as much as you want.
Bad rule IMHO.


----------



## BigMac (Feb 12, 2012)

Every one is hitting on the pro & con that I had thought of my self. I have had the worry of a deep hook or even a swallowed hook if bait fishing. I did read the law in the guide book & I do under stand that ethics my come into play too. I guess personal choice when it comes down to it.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

BigMac said:


> I guess personal choice when it comes down to it.


True.

Personaly, if I plan on keeping a limit, I stop fishing once it has been caught.

If someone is worried about releasing bleeding fish, then grab the fly rod. It beats yanking their guts out and it's fun to boot.


----------



## Bscuderi (Jan 2, 2012)

*Catch & Release With A Full Limit Of Fish?*

Clip the line on swallowed hooks? If you actively fish bait then swallowing is rare and I don't understand the mentality of having to get your ten cent hook back. In the event you want to release a deep hook clip the line as close as possible to the hook! Survival rates pretty good. I think a few people give bait anglers a bad name.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> The DWR thought hard about making the rule that once you have a limit, you must stop fishing. In fact until it was spilled out in the Regulations last year, some CO's could and would cite an angler for fishing with a limit in their possession.
> It was determined that the rules must allow an angler the opportunity to continue to fish after achieving a limit.
> This is because of the examples already mentioned. When you are fishing in a water where there is a species of fish that must be released, you are in a possession violation as soon as you catch a protected fish.
> Another example of this is Tiger Muskie in Pineview.
> ...


It was back in 2009 that they actually said it was legal to continue fishing while in possession of a limit. The law hasn't changed, but it was clarified in 2009. The 2010 guidebook is still available on line, and doesn't specifically cite the change, only the current sentence that I quoted. I tried to convince the Attorney General's office to go with the artificial only after creeling a limit, but it was a no go. It's gotta be what it is, or there are a whole bunch of waters that would be off limits to fishing.

It is up to the individual angler to make his best effort to not injure the fish that he releases. If that means a change of lures, baits, or tactics then so be it.


----------



## Leaky (Sep 11, 2007)

I'm probably an ethic type of person, although I don't always practice what i preach. Weak ethics but strong logic. Probably not as ethical as as i would like to think.  I do try, and deserve any criticism when I don't do the "right thing" which in hind sight is not very acceptable. 
What am I saying, everything considered, in my opinion, is --------, when you catch and keep your legal limit, you're done!!!! That is right thing ethically and should be the legal rule.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Again, what about when your limit is zero? Do you avoid those places? What about when you have a limit of one species, say whitefish, and you're still able to keep trout? Do you quit fishing because you've reached your limit of one species, but are targeting another? I used to fish Minersville a lot. The limit on trout less than 22 inches long is zero. Ya just gotta be careful with the resource. If you're injuring fish, you ought to be able to keep them and stay within the limit. If you've reached the limit, or the limit is zero, you ought to make sure you're not injuring the fish that you catch. The bottom line is, there's nothing wrong with the law.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

"If you've reached the limit, or the limit is zero, you ought to make sure you're not injuring the fish that you catch"

I agree with this statement.
The problem is that most people don't change how they are fishing after they have a limit.
I have seen this way too many times at Strawberry and our Community Ponds.
The other problem that goes hand in hand with this is" culling".
The act of releasing a trout that is in one's possession to replace it with another trout.
This is illegal but I see it done way too often.

PS,
I turn these offenders in when I see it and can prove it.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

I bet you can guess my opinion on this one. So what, a few fish die. I keep a limit and carry on fishing. The few that die from relaese provide nutrients to the lake. It is rare that a few fish dying is gonna kill the entire fishery. Sometimes I think we all give way too much credit to ourselves and the impact of a few days of slaying fish. 3 or 4 bleeders a day aint gonna destroy most fisheries.

Bet I just made a few friends on that reponse.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

If you're getting 3 or 4 bleeders, then they ought to be the 3 or 4 that you keep. If you've kept 4, and get 4 more that are bleeding, maybe you could switch to something that doesn't have treble hooks, or isn't tipped with bait, or something else to reduce mortality.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

tye dye twins said:


> I bet you can guess my opinion on this one. So what, a few fish die. I keep a limit and carry on fishing. The few that die from relaese provide nutrients to the lake. It is rare that a few fish dying is gonna kill the entire fishery. Sometimes I think we all give way too much credit to ourselves and the impact of a few days of slaying fish. 3 or 4 bleeders a day aint gonna destroy most fisheries.
> 
> Bet I just made a few friends on that reponse.


People like this are terrible and don't deserve to enjoy the resource. I might add that I bet $100 you have had more than a few run ins with the fish cops. Right?

Bet I just made a few friends on that one. You sir are the first person I have ever placed on ignore.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

JuddCT said:


> tye dye twins said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you can guess my opinion on this one. So what, a few fish die. I keep a limit and carry on fishing. The few that die from relaese provide nutrients to the lake. It is rare that a few fish dying is gonna kill the entire fishery. Sometimes I think we all give way too much credit to ourselves and the impact of a few days of slaying fish. 3 or 4 bleeders a day aint gonna destroy most fisheries.
> ...


How sweet of you. Shall I add you to the tye dye fan club? Get in line buddy. I will take that bet dude! Never had a fish violation in my life.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

*Catch & Release With A Full Limit Of Fish?*

This is awesome. It says "it" posted, but I don't have to read it. Thank you Peterson and Mods. Best function ever!


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> This is awesome. It says "it" posted, but I don't have to read it. Thank you Peterson and Mods. Best function ever!


LMAO! karma has a way of biting people like these two in the a&$.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

Agreed Judd. That was pretty hard read to stomach. I guess as long as he feels he has the right to waste 3 or 4 fish a day it's okay with him. That is the same logic that says "I only poach one deer a year, nobody will miss it".


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

tye dye twins said:


> I bet you can guess my opinion on this one. So what, a few fish die. I keep a limit and carry on fishing. The few that die from relaese provide nutrients to the lake. It is rare that a few fish dying is gonna kill the entire fishery. Sometimes I think we all give way too much credit to ourselves and the impact of a few days of slaying fish. 3 or 4 bleeders a day aint gonna destroy most fisheries.
> 
> Bet I just made a few friends on that reponse.


"Stupid is as stupid does." George Washington 1778


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

*Catch & Release With A Full Limit Of Fish?*

To keep it on topic,

I'm of the opinion that if you have your limit and you decide to keep fishing, maybe you should change your fishing method so you don't wantonly destroy wildlife. If your next fish comes in bleeding from the gills, stop immediately and learn how to properly catch, handle (or better yet not handle), and release a fish.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

martymcfly73 said:


> tye dye twins said:
> 
> 
> > I bet you can guess my opinion on this one. So what, a few fish die. I keep a limit and carry on fishing. The few that die from relaese provide nutrients to the lake. It is rare that a few fish dying is gonna kill the entire fishery. Sometimes I think we all give way too much credit to ourselves and the impact of a few days of slaying fish. 3 or 4 bleeders a day aint gonna destroy most fisheries.
> ...


I have been called worse by better people.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

tye dye twins said:


> martymcfly73 said:
> 
> 
> > [quote="tye dye twins":17pmbgi4]I bet you can guess my opinion on this one. So what, a few fish die. I keep a limit and carry on fishing. The few that die from relaese provide nutrients to the lake. It is rare that a few fish dying is gonna kill the entire fishery. Sometimes I think we all give way too much credit to ourselves and the impact of a few days of slaying fish. 3 or 4 bleeders a day aint gonna destroy most fisheries.
> ...


I have been called worse by better people.[/quote:17pmbgi4]

Thanks but I was referring to your methods not your IQ. My bad.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

JuddCT said:


> To keep it on topic,
> 
> I'm of the opinion that if you have your limit and you decide to keep fishing, maybe you should change your fishing method so you don' t wantonly destroy wildlife. If your next fish comes in bleeding from the gills, stop immediately and learn how to properly catch, handle (or better yet not handle), and release a fish.


AGREED! Great post.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

*Catch & Release With A Full Limit Of Fish?*



martymcfly73 said:


> tye dye twins said:
> 
> 
> > martymcfly73 said:
> ...


Thanks but I was referring to your methods not your IQ. My bad.[/quote:29w9ceuv]

Don't quote "it". I now have to read it! Stupid glitch with Tapatalk!


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

*Catch & Release With A Full Limit Of Fish?*



Mr Muleskinner said:


> Agreed Judd. That was pretty hard read to stomach. I guess as long as he feels he has the right to waste 3 or 4 fish a day it's okay with him. That is the same logic that says "I only poach one deer a year, nobody will miss it".


yeah, as long as you only take the head and antlers. As most of the nutrients (rest of the body) will just go back into the earth which helps the resource.


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Pfffft deer and fish are much more different (In). Apples and oranges dude(Before). Love the comparison BS(The). Keep it coming(Lock).


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

There is a good reason that I feel that the rules need to change.
If people are allowed to continue to bait fish after catching a limit of fish, many of these fish will die.
There is no need for this to happen. Simply change your tactics and tackle and fish with artificial lures and flies.
It sounds like something that would be easy to do but there are some people that just won't do it if they don't have to.
It must become the law to switch to artificial only or there will be some that won't do the ethical thing to do

The DWR states that they can't make it a rule to stop fishing after you have a limit but they CAN change the law to require artificial only regulations after someone has reached their limit.

If it is left to the discretion of the angler to switch, in many cases it won't happen.
Some people just don't understand ethical fishing.
They have to be forced to do the right thing.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

They're not going to change the law to require artificials after you're in possession of a limit. The second they do that EVERY water that has a species that must be released, i.e. Huntington and Cutthroats or trout with Cutthroat markings and Pineview with Muskies, or a slot limit, like Strawberry will become artificials only. Ain't gonna happen. I've been in on this argument for at least 10 years. We'll just have to hope that karma will kick in and maybe allow some of those who think it is okay to release a few bleeders to become bleeders themselves.


----------



## JuddCT (Sep 7, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> It sounds like something that would be easy to do but there are some people that just won't do it if they don't have to. It must become the law to switch to artificial only or there will be some that won't do the ethical thing to do. If it is left to the discretion of the angler to switch, in many cases it won't happen. Some people just don't understand ethical fishing. They have to be forced to do the right thing.


I hate additional regulation on the many due to the stupid actions of the few, but your points make a lot of sense. It is an unfortunate thing that the many have to deal with when we should just be able to govern ourselves.

I just think it really says a lot about a person if they have a full limit, they bring in a bleeder, and just throw it back to die saying it is good for the rest as it provides nutrients and they keep fishing. :roll: At some point you need to become a contributing member of the society instead of a person with a self-serving attitude. :shock:


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Grandpa D said:


> *If it is left to the discretion of the angler to switch, in many cases it won't happen.
> Some people just don't understand ethical fishing.
> They have to be forced to do the right thing*.


+1 Grandpa D

For us when we get a limit we stop fishing. As I see it its being a positive steward of a resource. Including I can gurantee folks will high grade if they have a limit continue fishing and then catch a larger fish they'll keep it as we've seen in the past or release another fish they've had in the livewell, in a bucket or on a stringer.

I believe a very, very, very small minority of anglers just pure and simple DON'T CARE about anything but themselves. They are selfish, self centered and they see nothing wrong with willful wasting of a resource as its all about them and they have no regard for any resource is how I see it. Very sad as it reflects the maturity of an individual and ones chronological age is no indication of maturity level.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Fishrmn said:


> They're not going to change the law to require artificials after you're in possession of a limit. The second they do that EVERY water that has a species that must be released, i.e. Huntington and Cutthroats or trout with Cutthroat markings and Pineview with Muskies, or a slot limit, like Strawberry will become artificials only. Ain't gonna happen. I've been in on this argument for at least 10 years. We'll just have to hope that karma will kick in and maybe allow some of those who think it is okay to release a few bleeders to become bleeders themselves.


Actually, the legal concept of "possession" is a lot more complicated than holding something in your hands. Reducing something to possession, legally speaking, means claiming some sort of obligation to the something. For example, reducing a fish to possession would be like claiming ownership of it (putting it in a box, a cooler, a live-well, a stringer, etc.).

I haven't done any research, but I believe you have to reduce the fish to possession to have it in possession. Simply catching it, snapping a picture, and putting it back does not require that you "possess," legally speaking, the fish. Will some game officers argue that catching it is possession? Yes. I think they will. Are they right? No.

You could still have the "stop after 4 fish rule" and allow fishing for 0 limit species. All the DWR needs to do is teach the game officers what "possession" means from a legal perspective.


----------



## Mr Muleskinner (Feb 14, 2012)

tye dye twins said:


> Pfffft deer and fish are much more different (In). Apples and oranges dude(Before). Love the comparison BS(The). Keep it coming(Lock).


I never said that the animals are the same. I said it was the same logic. I would write it in crayon for you if possible or maybe an Etch and Sketch.

another Dude huh? A term that is/was better reserved for stoners, skaters and surfers.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

k2muskie said:


> For us when we get a limit we stop fishing. As I see it its being a positive steward of a resource. Including I can gurantee folks will high grade if they have a limit continue fishing and then catch a larger fish they'll keep it as we've seen in the past or release another fish they've had in the livewell, in a bucket or on a stringer.


So, I guess that means you've quit fishing for Muskies? The limit for Tiger Muskies at Pineview is ZERO. You've already got your limit.


> Pineview Reservoir, Weber County • CLOSED to the possession of tiger muskie. All tiger muskie must be immediately released.





Dodger said:


> Actually, the legal concept of "possession" is a lot more complicated than holding something in your hands. Reducing something to possession, legally speaking, means claiming some sort of obligation to the something. For example, reducing a fish to possession would be like claiming ownership of it (putting it in a box, a cooler, a live-well, a stringer, etc.).
> 
> I haven't done any research, but I believe you have to reduce the fish to possession to have it in possession. *Simply catching it, snapping a picture, and putting it back does not require that you "possess," legally speaking, the fish. Will some game officers argue that catching it is possession? Yes. I think they will. Are they right? No. *
> 
> You could still have the "stop after 4 fish rule" and allow fishing for 0 limit species. All the DWR needs to do is teach the game officers what "possession" means from a legal perspective.


If it's in your hands, it's in your constructive possession. Here's where it gets really tricky.



> Possession means actual or constructive possession.


And here's the answer.



> • Any fish that doesn't meet the size, bag or
> species rules for the water you're fishing
> must be returned to the water immediately.


It is what it is. I'm in favor of the law the way it reads. I wish it could be made to include a change to artificials after possessing a limit. It can't. I wish people could be required to have a conscience, a spine, and a brain. Ain't gonna happen. Some folks just don't want that much responsibility.


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Nope won't stop fishing for TMs. FWIW had COs and Sheriff Marine Patrol watch us catch a few and quickly release...just gave us thumbs up and came by and said nicely done.  

I' recently read a very long thread on this very topic on another forum and what it all boils down to is all in the eyes of a CO wrt a true C&R fish. Some COs will say the fish must remain in the water never coming out others allow a quick photo. However, having a strict C&R fish outta of the water for several minutes flopping around in the bottom of a boat or on the shoreline removing hooks or getting a camera would be seen as not immediately released. Even know about an instance on PV last year that this happened and the angler got a ticket and fined for having the TM outta water well over several minutes.

As I see this 'thread' based on the 'title of the thread' its about fish that are not C&R but about fish with a bag limit...ie Trout, Perch, Crappie, Walleye, Bass, Wiper etc etc having a bag limit.

So knowing you have a limit of fish and continue to fish and catch more fish you state you know are 'bleeders' and state you know will die...wowzaaa thats a completely different story by me. 

For us we stop and will continue to stop fishing when we have a limit. Again its respecting the resource by us. However, if one continues to fish and continues to catch and knows they are tossing back bleeders well is that respecting a resource with a sincere mature and ethical approach and attitude? If observed by a CO great possibilty it could be seen as wasting. To me again its a very, very, very narrow minded few who are self centered with the attitidue of I don't give a crap as its all about them and are they really what one would consider an angler to respect....hmmmmmmmmm


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Again, once you have your limit it becomes a catch and release situation. There is no difference between having 4 trout in your possession and continuing to fish, and having no Tiger Muskies in your possession and continuing to fish. You cannot legally keep any more fish in either situation. It is your responsibility to treat the resource with respect. And what happens when a Tiger rolls up in your line, or inhales a hook and it catches a gill raker and starts to bleed? You can't legally keep it. At least not a Pineview now.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Fishrmn said:


> If it's in your hands, it's in your constructive possession. Here's where it gets really tricky.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is what it is. I'm in favor of the law the way it reads. I wish it could be made to include a change to artificials after possessing a limit. It can't. I wish people could be required to have a conscience, a spine, and a brain. Ain't gonna happen. Some folks just don't want that much responsibility.[/quote:2bo6dyzk]

Not really. Just holding something doesn't put it in your possession, constructive or other wise.

Is the DWR guy that drives the stocking truck violating his possession limits because he's driving 1000 rainbows to a community pond? I could think of several other examples.

He's not violating his possession limits because the fish are still in the constructive possession of the state via the DWR. The DWR/State owns all the fish in all of our public waters. It allows you, through a license agreement (your fishing license) to take up to 4 trout from its waters per day from the state's constructive possession into your personal possession. So the question is where does actual possession transfer from the state to you? When you reduce the fish to possession by putting it in a box, livewell, cooler, on a stringer, whatever. Simply holding the fish doesn't remove it from the state's constructive possession.

So any fish that doesn't meet the size limits remains in the state's constructive possession, even if you are holding it. You violate that law when you reduce the fish to possession (take real and constructive possession) by not releasing it to the water immediately.

It really doesn't have to be as hard as it's being made out to be.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Dodger said:


> Simply holding the fish doesn't remove it from the state's constructive possession.
> 
> So any fish that doesn't meet the size limits remains in the state's constructive possession, even if you are holding it. You violate that law when you reduce the fish to possession (take real and constructive possession) by not releasing it to the water immediately.
> 
> It really doesn't have to be as hard as it's being made out to be.


If it's in your hands, it's in your constructive possession. I've talked with the DWR liaison to the Utah Attorney General's office. It's in your constructive possession.


> Possession means *actual or constructive possession*.


Again. Here's the answer.


> • Any fish that doesn't meet the size, bag or
> species rules for the water you're fishing
> must be returned to the water immediately.


If you release it, you're fine. If you don't you've taken actual possession of it.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Fishrmn said:


> If it's in your hands, it's in your constructive possession. I've talked with the DWR liaison to the Utah Attorney General's office. It's in your constructive possession.
> 
> 
> > Possession means *actual or constructive possession*.
> ...


If you release it, you're fine. If you don't you've taken actual possession of it.[/quote:19r7bpw8]

What you aren't understanding is that legally, I don't believe that by holding a fish you are in either ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE possession of the fish.

We can agree to disagree. My way helps the resource. Your way abuses the resource.

Plus, I don't care if you called Governor Herbert himself, it doesn't matter what anyone in his office THINKS the law means because the executive branch doesn't interpret it.

Possession is a difficult legal concept that I had some pretty in depth experience with. If I got a ticket, I would be more than happy to walk in, argue, and walk out with my usual win.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

So how long can you have a fish out of the water before you are in violation?
I don't expect a legal answer to this question.
I'm trying to point out that there are laws that are subjective and can be considered in the "GREY AREA".

Just because a CO sees it one way, that doesn't mean that another CO or a Judge will see it the same way.
Let's just accept the fact that fishing rules and regulations can sometimes be hard to interpret.

What we do know is that it is legal to continue to catch and release fish while in possession of a legal limit of that fish.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Dodger, 
I don't think we are on opposite sides of this. Maybe we are and I'm completely misreading you. If you have a fish in your hands, you have possession of it. It's what you do next that makes the difference. I've been in this discussion before. I was nearly banned from the predecessor of this forum because of it. I've always said that the law allows you to continue to fish while in possession of a limit. It has now been clarified to say that more plainly. It is still incumbent upon the angler to do his part in protecting the resource.



Dodger said:


> What you aren't understanding is that legally, *I don't believe that by holding a fish you are in either ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE possession of the fish.*


You may not believe it, but the Utah Attorney General's office does. I'm pretty sure that they have a little bit more to say about it than either you or I.

To those who think that they are somehow better than that, or above reproach because they practice catch and release, I'll say this; There is no difference between having a limit of fish and releasing another fish unharmed, and having no fish in your possession and releasing another fish unharmed. If your technique of fishing is causing injury to the fish, you should; First, make the changes necessary to ensure that you don't injure more fish. Second, keep the injured fish if you can do so legally.



Grandpa D said:


> What we do know is that it is legal to continue to catch and release fish while in possession of a legal limit of that fish.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Grandpa D said:


> So how long can you have a fish out of the water before you are in violation?
> I don't expect a legal answer to this question.
> I'm trying to point out that there are laws that are subjective and can be considered in the "GREY AREA".
> 
> ...


Yeah, there is always interpretation with the law. That's why we have judges and juries to interpret the law for us.

Honestly, what "immediately released" means is open to different interpretations. I understand and agree totally on that. But, my point is that we ALREADY use that same standard, whether it is hard to implement or not. We aren't changing anything by just saying a fish that you return to the water immediately, whatever that means, is not in your personal possession.

It's easy to implement because all DWR has to do is train its employees on what possession means and it prevents the wasting of the resource. Everyone can fish at lakes with 0 possession limits with no regulation changes. No one can kill a hundred fish to get 4.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Fishrmn said:


> Dodger,
> I don't think we are on opposite sides of this. Maybe we are and I'm completely misreading you. If you have a fish in your hands, you have possession of it. It's what you do next that makes the difference. I've been in this discussion before. I was nearly banned from the predecessor of this forum because of it. I've always said that the law allows you to continue to fish while in possession of a limit. It has now been clarified to say that more plainly. It is still incumbent upon the angler to do his part in protecting the resource.
> 
> 
> ...


We aren't on opposite sides of this, we are just interpreting possession differently which results in vastly different effects on our fisheries. I understand why you have strong feelings about it.

My point though is that the AG's office doesn't matter. It's never been litigated and until it is, we don't know what the answer is. The AG will argue your side. Someone will argue my side. And from a legal perspective, I think my argument is the winner. Believe me, I'm qualified, in every sense of the word, to say that. They may have more to say about it than I do, but if I was arguing on the other side, I believe my argument would win because logic dictates that it must. See my DWR fish-stocking-truck driver. It is illogical to say that he is in constructive possession of 1000 fish and therefore he should be cited. He's merely a custodian of the fish for the state, which retains constructive possession until the fish is removed from the lake by an angler pursuant to a license agreement.

My solution is an elegant one. Step back for a minute and consider what happens when you change the interpretation of possession to a reduction to possession (state retaining constructive possession of the fish during the time you immediately release the fish to the water). I outlined it in my last post in response to Grandpa D's comment. It works, perfectly and simply. Everyone, except the TDT, wins.

The AGs office hasn't considered what I propose. No one has. That's why the law is what it is now.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The AG isn't arguing my side. I suggested the constructive possession clause was flawed, but that is their interpretation. Until someone litigates it, that is the official stance. I'm not interested in going to court over the whole thing. I'll let you research the constructive possession, but their view is it's in your constructive possession if you catch it.

My views protect the resource the same as yours. If you're injuring fish that you can't legally keep, you ought to quit doing what you're doing. Either quit fishing, or change your techniques. There is no real difference between catch and release fishing while in possession of a legal limit of 4 trout, or zero muskies. There is no need to require someone to stop fishing when they have a limit. And there is no justification in allowing zero harvest like Tiger Muskies at Pineview, and then requiring someone to stop fishing when they have their limit. There was ONE example, that has been removed, that truly put a conundrum in it. There used to be a rule that you could not release perch that were caught between certain dates at Deer Creek reservoir. In that situation, you were forced to break the law if you caught another perch while in possession of a limit of perch.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Fishrmn said:


> The AG isn't arguing my side. I suggested the constructive possession clause was flawed, but that is their interpretation. Until someone litigates it, that is the official stance. I'm not interested in going to court over the whole thing. I'll let you research the constructive possession, but their view is it's in your constructive possession if you catch it.


I agree with you that that is probably their stance. I disagree with them that it is a proper interpretation of the law. But until it goes to litigation, we'll never know.



Fishrmn said:


> My views protect the resource the same as yours. If you're injuring fish that you can't legally keep, you ought to quit doing what you're doing. Either quit fishing, or change your techniques. There is no real difference between catch and release fishing while in possession of a legal limit of 4 trout, or zero muskies. There is no need to require someone to stop fishing when they have a limit. And there is no justification in allowing zero harvest like Tiger Muskies at Pineview, and then requiring someone to stop fishing when they have their limit. There was ONE example, that has been removed, that truly put a conundrum in it. There used to be a rule that you could not release perch that were caught between certain dates at Deer Creek reservoir. In that situation, you were forced to break the law if you caught another perch while in possession of a limit of perch.


I'm with you there. Laws generally aren't well written, especially at the state level. Thanks for your diligence in protecting the resource. I wish everyone took it as seriously as you do.


----------



## Size Matters (Dec 22, 2007)

This is a awesome topic it is interesting to see the different views both sides make some great points I generally keep the the ones that are injured and once my limit is reached I am done but everybody has there own opinions and if it is a rule I guess your free to do what you want. 8)


----------



## mjschijf (Oct 1, 2007)

I only read through about a page and a half of responses so sorry if I'm repeating anything here.

I would personally have a hard time continuing to fish if I already kept my limit. Let's say you keep fishing, and catch a fish that's badly hooked on the gills. You then go to release it, and it floats, and can't get it to swim off. What do you do?

I think the better approach would be to keep one less than your limit if you still plan on fishing for a while. That way if you get a bad bleeder, there's no issue. Of course, this isn't applicable in all waters (size restrictions, etc.)

That's just how I approach the topic. The rule seems pretty clear in the regulations.

_________________________________________________________________________

As far as the debate on how long a fish can be out of the water...

Of course, the interpretation of "immediately released" varies. The way I see it is that you should know right away if you're going to keep or release the fish. If it's a nice fish and I decide to release it, I'll probably spend 30-40 seconds snapping a few pics, then back in the water it goes. Sure, that's not exactly "immediate", but I also doubt that the DWR would take issue with it.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

mjschijf said:


> I would personally have a hard time continuing to fish if I already kept my limit. Let's say you keep fishing, and catch a fish that's badly hooked on the gills. You then go to release it, and it floats, and can't get it to swim off. What do you do?


A lot of folks seem to want to take the high ground and say that they wouldn't keep fishing after they've kept their limit. But what about slot limits? Do you fish at Strawberry? Scofield? Bear Lake? Pineview? The tributaries to Bear Lake? Causey Reservoir between August 15th and the end of September? The Green River? There are fish in each of these instances that are ILEGAL to possess. You could hook one badly and have it go belly up. What do you do? I wish everybody could get over it. Not the fish going belly up, the idea that fishing while you have a limit in your possession is somehow below your dignity. If you fish for ANY fish that you cannot keep i.e. Tiger Muskie at Pineview, i.e. trout under 22 inches at most of the A.F.& L. waters, you're doing exactly the same thing. You're not somehow more ethical, or more moral than the guy who continues to fish while in possession of a limit.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

As I have read through the posts, I see a common idea.
Most of the people that have posted something on this topic agree that once an angler has a limit of fish, but still wants to continue fishing, that angler should use tackle that will aid in releasing fish unharmed.

This is not law but it is the right thing to do.
Because there are a minority of people that don't care if they release fish just to swim away and die,
I would like to see it to become mandatory to use artificial lures and flies only, when fishing after you have your limit.

I doubt that this will ever happen but we can continue to promote ethical fishing and we can also let the powers to be know how we feel about it.
We can also do our part by reporting people that are knowingly and willfully wasting fish.


----------



## Cooky (Apr 25, 2011)

Anybody know a good Fishing Lawyer? I was thinking about going in the morning, but I think perhaps I should retain representation first.


----------



## Bscuderi (Jan 2, 2012)

*Catch & Release With A Full Limit Of Fish?*

I don't even think one has to stop using bait. I personally like to use plyers and flatten the barbs on some hooks flys lures even single bait hooks with flattened barbs and as long as you closely watch your pole with bait or even fish it with action ie jigging trolling and drifting releasing is a breeze. Ive never had a fish swallow ice fishing! Ice fishing without bait sounds awefull wintertime i think its the only way to go with the fish slowed down! Make sure to keep tension or they'll shake quick without a barb. This isn't really much an issue for me I mostly catch and release but there are times I like to stock the fridge and freezer with a little meat and if my goal is to do that I would have a hard time keeping 3 and releasing the next good size keeper so I could keep fishing. Why because if the filet knifes going to come out I'd rather get more done! I don't notice many swallowers with my bait fishing but if I do even with a flattened barb I will clip the line off nothing pisses me off more than to see a guy shove plyers or a degorger down a fishes throat to retrieve a 10 cent hook! Then release the fish blood pouring everywhere to see it go belly up 10 seconds later. They catch a bigger one in the lip throw it on the stringer and leave the floater! Saw that at tibble fork last year! I've never had to release a floater cause I had a limit already after years of fishing! I say common sense should kick in and u need not quit fishing but if it happens more than once it's no longer a freak accident change the tactic or go home! No need for dead fish littering the banks! I feel most anglers would on this forum would do the right thing but there are some just won't rule or not it wouldn't change anything. It's already a very very regulated sport and all rules do is police the honest. The only people that don't care about the resource are the same anglers that leave empty lure hook and bait packages beer cans empty chip bags you name it all over the banks giving us all a bad name! The same people who litter the hills with shell casings and beer cans giving gun owners a bad name. Just do what you feel is right an I don't think a regulation needs to be made for the select few that wouldn't follow anyways! Some of these people probably don't even have a license.


----------



## BigMac (Feb 12, 2012)

When I posted this question I did not mean to open a can of worms! Just wasn't sure how the law read. What promted me to ask is I have had some recent trips that the fishing was hot. I had been quiting when I had my limit, but I would have liked to continue & enjoy the sport. I do also want to say I think for the most part with the exption of one the opinions have been great. Nothing wrong with cuting a line & losing a hook to save a fish. A change in tackle is a good thought too.


----------



## BULLOCK9 (Jan 27, 2010)

I have heard that if you cut your line leaving the hook in the fish's mouth it will dissolve within 48 hours.

Is this true?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

No.

I had a big walleye on the line awhile back and it rubbed my line against a metal grille, breaking it. Since there wasn't really anywhere for a fish that size to go, I figured I'd keep trying for it in that same hole. About 3 weeks later (I think), I finally got it again. My hook was still in its mouth, somewhat corroded, but still usable if needed.

Maybe if the hook is in the stomach, the digestive juices might help it dissolve a little faster, but straight water won't dissolve a non-plated hook in two days...or weeks.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Speaking of cutting the line and leaving the hook I have a good story about that. A few years ago I was fishing in Mill Meadow Reservoir and caught a nice rainbow. As I was reeling him in I noticed that there was a sliding bubble following him in. I thought that I had tangled with my fishing partner but he hadn't noticed anything. Well I got the fish in and noticed that there were two lines in its mouth, mine and the one with the bubble on it. I also noticed that there was a line with a fly attached to it coming out of its vent. That fish had taken somebody's fly and broke the line off then passed the fly completely through its digestive system and out. I had never seen anything like that before. I could hold up both sides of the line with the fish in the middle. As for the hook rusting out and all that the one that was with that fish was good enough to fish with and I have caught a couple of other fish on it.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

True that it takes a while for a hook to rust out.
What I see happen is as others have already stated. The fish do well with a hook in it.
I have caught several fish with old hooks inside of them. Some of these fish festered enough that the hook was ready to fall out. I simply used my forceps to grab the hook and out it came.

My point is that a fish will have a lot better survival rate when the line is cut and the hook is left in it.


----------



## duckdog1us (Mar 4, 2012)

keep fishing cut the lines if the hooks in deep wont kill the fish i cut my lines all the time if i think the fish isnt going to live if i yank out of it deep limit or not its wrong to kill a fish for a 10 cent hook and as far as lures or barbless that dont matter ive had spiners down deep in fish and seen guys that say all they do is catch and release kill more fish then alot of bait fisherman do lure still hook fish in the gills and thats what kill most fish if you want to say quit after a limit then for trout thats your first four fish manditory catch and keep all speices catch and release at all would be against the law cant have it both way


----------



## k2muskie (Oct 6, 2007)

Some interesting additional reading on to leave or remove a hook.

http://fishandboat.com/images/pages/qa/ ... ch_rel.htm

http://www.wildtroutstreams.com/CatchRe ... elines.pdf

http://www.nesportsman.com/articles/article11.shtml

http://www.bassdozer.com/articles/manns ... _out.shtml


----------

