Possession Limits - your take?
- Thread starter Pippen
- Start date
I don't often comment on threads like this but this is what I have personally confirmed with a FOC officer in Port Hardy.
1 - You may only transport or have in your possession your possession limit (2 daily limits).
2 - Fish that you eat while away on a fishing trip count toward your daily limit but not your possession limit.
3 - You can gift fish to anyone including those who do not have a fishing license. They are then no longer in your possession.
Those people can then transport fish as long as they don't have in their possession more than a possession limit for one person.
You do not need a license to possess sport fish only to fish for them.
4 - You can ship fish home by any means you like. But can not fish until they reach your residence.
I do note that the greed issue is usually pointed out by those who live very close to the fishery and effectively have no possession limit other than annual as they can take fish home daily or every couple of days.
I come from the interior at great expense and spend about 7 weeks on the water a year.
I rarely take more than 2 possession limits in a season.
I would like to know how many fish local Island fishermen put in their freezers every year.
1 - You may only transport or have in your possession your possession limit (2 daily limits).
2 - Fish that you eat while away on a fishing trip count toward your daily limit but not your possession limit.
3 - You can gift fish to anyone including those who do not have a fishing license. They are then no longer in your possession.
Those people can then transport fish as long as they don't have in their possession more than a possession limit for one person.
You do not need a license to possess sport fish only to fish for them.
4 - You can ship fish home by any means you like. But can not fish until they reach your residence.
I do note that the greed issue is usually pointed out by those who live very close to the fishery and effectively have no possession limit other than annual as they can take fish home daily or every couple of days.
I come from the interior at great expense and spend about 7 weeks on the water a year.
I rarely take more than 2 possession limits in a season.
I would like to know how many fish local Island fishermen put in their freezers every year.
fishin solo
Crew Member
How much you figure it costs you to do your yearly fishing trips etc?
ziggy
Well-Known Member
I find 3 somewhat questionable. As I read the regs you need the fishers name and license number to transport fish ( from the DFO site). The only reason this makes sense is if these fish are still counted against your possession limit?
2k to 5k per week would be about right.
Fuel, ferries, tackle, boat maintenance, moorage, accommodations, boat storage.
You can give fish to anyone you want. Check it out.
Everyone on this thread is speculating.
Ask an officer in the field.
I did.
scott craven
Well-Known Member
Currently I have none, I fish a fair bit and would rather eat what I catch fresh.
I used to vacuum seal and freeze but it just isn't as good as fresh.
If there is ever a surplus I share with friends and family.
ExFlyGuy
Well-Known Member
I too live on the island and have 30 days on the water so far this summer. In my freezer there is 4 meals of salmon (less then a full fish). I was in Barkley sound on the August long weekend and instead of filling the freezer, all salmon were released except for one that my friend retained.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Not doubting you can give a fish to anyone? Just questioning why they would be exempt from the DFO transporting regulations which require a name and license number?
The only license number they require is that of the person that gave them the fish.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
Yeah I got that. But then is not the fish, with your name, your number still considered in your possession while being transported until it reaches your normal residence? What difference does it make if you gave the person transporting it, the fish?
Tugcapitan
Well-Known Member
The difference is that the license holder is never getting that fish back. It is now someone else's fish.
The friend has taken possession of the fish to eat himself, not just to transport it for the license holder. Or at least that's the spirit of the Regulations.
ziggy
Well-Known Member
And yet you posted on the thread? Lol
Pippen
Well-Known Member
I dunno....I started this thread as it seemed quite apparent in the Nootka reports thread that people are being given misinformation as to the limits/possession limits they can possess. As this is a fishing forum, I thought it wasn't a bad idea to bring it to light.
If a lodge in Nootka is telling people that when they bring in fish to a licensed facility they can continue to catch limits; a little clarity surely can't hurt.
Caring about this "crap", kind of IS our duty as fishermen.
Last edited:
J-GLOBAL
Well-Known Member
Pip, as with lot of the regs, there is some ambiguity and definitely things are left open to interpretation.
I think clarifying them is a great idea.
But I wonder how much is purposely left ambiguous or open for interpretation on purpose, and how much is just because it hasn't been thought through lately, or how much is just because its hard to write regs that anticipate and cover every interpretation.
I think clarifying them is a great idea.
But I wonder how much is purposely left ambiguous or open for interpretation on purpose, and how much is just because it hasn't been thought through lately, or how much is just because its hard to write regs that anticipate and cover every interpretation.
Gong Show
Well-Known Member
Hahaha!
Regulations and legislation all start from the same source, career bureaucrats.
RCMP, DFO and CO front line officers do not write the rules they are bound to enforce.
I would not put a lot of weight into the purposely ambiguous theory, Occam's razor would put it down to a bureaucrat that is mediocre at drafting and has no idea about the industry/issue/region they are drafting about.
This causes many a person, including judges, left to interpret the intent of the regulation etc.
Regulations and legislation all start from the same source, career bureaucrats.
RCMP, DFO and CO front line officers do not write the rules they are bound to enforce.
I would not put a lot of weight into the purposely ambiguous theory, Occam's razor would put it down to a bureaucrat that is mediocre at drafting and has no idea about the industry/issue/region they are drafting about.
This causes many a person, including judges, left to interpret the intent of the regulation etc.
Big Green Machine
Well-Known Member
What a helpful reply. Move along. By the way, what's a Chinnok?
