Possession limits

[gamechanger]

Answers below

So, I give my 93 yr old grandmother some fish to drive back to Nanaimo with so her and my grandfather can enjoy it. They can no longer fish so this is the only way they can enjoy it.

Can you still gift fish? Yes, but grandma can't be in possession of more than her limit

Do they need licences if I gave it to them? No, but they need a letter with the details, fishery notice about it.

Since I brought it home to my residence and took the skin and stuff off of it and it is un-identifiable can they travel with it? Short answer yes, part of the letter if they don't have a license.

Do I need to have two different sets of fish now? One that I can travel with and one I can't because of the way I processed it? Not if it's been at your residence. If not than it has to be identifiable to species and size as needed.

These were the questions I was looking to have answered when I spoke with the unpleasant lady friday afternoon when she was heading home at 3:45. Maybe she was just having a bad day.

Cheers,

 

[BearCove]

Gamechanger,

Thanks for taking the time to respond with your answers. Cleared up a lot for me.

Walter Quinlan, who are you?

What's with this BS first post about me gifting some fish to my grandparents. How many grandparents do I have and how many times I am willing to state about gifting them fish?

What a stupid, stupid response.

From what I now understand is that I can gift them as much as I want as long as they have a letter from me and the fish has come from my place of residence.

As for being a guide, that's irrelevant. As for speaking with a CO, I have and I was told to call back Monday and I could get my answers. This didn't help me this week-end when I wanted to give some fish away and was unclear as to what the process was to keep everything legal. I also stated this in a earlier post if you had read them all.

Try and post something useful and helpful instead up just blabbing on.

Cheers,

Wade


Probably matters how many grandmothers you have, and how many times are you willing to state you have given salmon to your "grandparents", because they can't fish anymore.


As some of the posters have stated, what you are asking, is one of the reasons for this reg. Since it looks like you are a guide, do you not get to see some COs during your working hours???? Probably pretty easy to give them your "scenario" and see what they have to say.

 

[ziggy]

Can someone point out where they found the info regarding transporting unidentifiable fish being legal? I can't find it , it's at odds with the fisheries act and would seem to be an easy way of circumventing the regs! Not saying it isn't true, just saying I can't find it.

 

[BearCove]

I am trying to find that out as I type. I have an email into local DFO and I am meeting with them this afternoon.

I know that once you have your fish home you can cut it however you like. What I am wondering is if I can drive to my buddies place in town or to Calgary to see my family with a piece of this fish for a BBQ and not get into trouble for not being identifiable?

I will post details later today on what I find out. If anybody has the answers to these questions please post them.

Cheers,

Wade

 

[ziggy]

Information: Section 36 of the Fishery (General) Regulations
Section 36 of the Fishery (General) Regulations states:

Identify, Count, Weigh and Measure Fish

36. (1) No person shall possess fish that were caught by any person while fishing for recreational or sport purposes and that have been skinned, cut, packed or otherwise dealt with in such a manner that:

(a) the species cannot be readily determined;
(b) the number of fish cannot be readily determined;
(c) where weight is used to determine catch limits, the weight of the fish cannot be readily determined; and
(d) where size limits are applicable, the size of the fish cannot be readily determined.
This is what I found and I think the act takes precedence. Having said that perhaps there is an amendment. Sure seems to me like the fish must be identifiable! You're wise to get an official ruling, wiser still to get it in writing! Ask for an email?

 

[rovingfisherman]

There is no way that you need a letter when you gift a fish from your place of residence. Like you said Wade, how do you get that fish to a BBQ?

So my neighbour walks over from three doors down the street and I give him a nice filet, he turns to walk home and STOP!!! I yell to him, wait a minute I have to write you a letter???? I can't drive some jars of salmon over to my Mom's place??? It is not the intent of the reg to include transporting from your place of residence but to your place of residence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[scott craven]

Once the fish has been delivered to your normal place of residence, you can do whatever you want with it.
the regs are designed for getting fish from the water to that place of residence.

 

[Secretpursuit]

Food for thought, is it not discrimination against a class under the current regulations. If I reside in an area I am permitted to fish day in and out till I reach my yearly quota's. Yet as a visitor to that same area, I am restricted to a two day possession limit. Do not the laws of Canada prohibit discrimination, each class equally contributes to the sustainability of the resource and should gain equal access, yet one has preferred treatment. Is not that the function of the Ombudsperson's office???

 

[gamechanger]

thats not descrimination, thats harvest control. If you are a visitor and want to fish there more often go ahead, but you can't catch all of your fish in one trip just like the guy who lives there can't either. Where you choose to live is up to you.

 

[ziggy]

There is no way that you need a letter when you gift a fish from your place of residence. Like you said Wade, how do you get that fish to a BBQ?

So my neighbour walks over from three doors down the street and I give him a nice filet, he turns to walk home and STOP!!! I yell to him, wait a minute I have to write you a letter???? I can't drive some jars of salmon over to my Mom's place??? It is not the intent of the reg to include transporting from your place of residence but to your place of residence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think that's were common sense prevails. What are the chances a DFO officer is patrolling your block. If he was would he consider this poaching. I think not? I believe the law is there to stop people from transporting a large amount of fish and using the excuse that they were someone elses and were given to them! I'd suggest if your between your house and a fishing area, with a lot of fish, towing a boat, carrying fishing gear and run into a CO it might cause them to be more picky than they would be if they saw you carrying a fish to your neighbours for a BBQ. But hey, I'm not a fish cop!

 

[Walter Quinlan]

What's with this BS first post about me gifting some fish to my grandparents. How many grandparents do I have and how many times I am willing to state about gifting them fish?

What a stupid, stupid response.

Not trying to flame or stir the pot here but, do you know how many times I've listened to someone explain their reasoning for their actions with the "grandparent" thingy??

And yes, if you are a guide, I would think you would understand or try to understand that your scenario that you have explained , has been told more than once to COs of the past. Yes, it's not a perfect reg but, are any of them, perfect? Give me enough time, and I could think of more than one reason/scenario/excuse for doing something that doesn't follow the regs.

I'm suggesting that we do "try" to understand the reasoning for changes in the regs, not throwing out possibilities and reasons not to follow them.

Walter Quinlan, who are you?

A fisherman.

 

[rovingfisherman]

I think that's were common sense prevails. What are the chances a DFO officer is patrolling your block. If he was would he consider this poaching. I think not? I believe the law is there to stop people from transporting a large amount of fish and using the excuse that they were someone elses and were given to them! I'd suggest if your between your house and a fishing area, with a lot of fish, towing a boat, carrying fishing gear and run into a CO it might cause them to be more picky than they would be if they saw you carrying a fish to your neighbours for a BBQ. But hey, I'm not a fish cop!

I agree Ziggy, both intent and common sense apply but regardless of whether a person is walking home with some fish from there neighbours house or your grandmother is driving home from Hardy with some fish from there grandson who's a guide makes no difference. The fish came from a residence and was given by the individual who caught it. Again were not talking about from launch or fishing grounds but from residence, no boat, no gear. It's all common sense.
Here's another scenario: I'm going fishing to Hardy for a couple of days and I'm packing my grub, spaghetti, eggs, couple of steaks and a vacuum packed piece of nice Hali that I caught in Oak Bay Area 19. Is this illegal to have in possession when DFO wanders into camp to check on possession limits if halibut is closed in that area? Just saying from my place of residence I can give someone anything I want, not anything except fish.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[UkeeDreamin]

thats not descrimination, thats harvest control. If you are a visitor and want to fish there more often go ahead, but you can't catch all of your fish in one trip just like the guy who lives there can't either. Where you choose to live is up to you.

No validity to this post whatsoever - a local angler can take a daily limit day after day after day. Also, there are countless regs at the Depts disposal for conservation management, if there is a conservation concern as it pertains to potential rec fishery harvest, that doesn't treat anglers who pay the same taxes and same licence fees differently based on what their address is.

Whenever this issue comes up there are often claims that it's about the sport, not filling your freezer, but then weak rationales about why locals should be able to take more than travelling anglers. Fact remains we all pay into the system via taxes and licence fees equally and our constitution is supposed to guarantee equal treatment and equal access to public resources.

Past time for this issue to be modernized so it allows enforcement of what the Department wishes to enforce while treating all rec anglers equally.

Ukee

 

[scott craven]

Is this illegal to have in possession when DFO wanders into camp to check on possession limits if halibut is closed in that area?

No because the fish was processed at your place of residence.
I doubt very much that any C.O. would/could ticket you for that.
a whole fish would be a different matter....

 

[ziggy]

I guess a law that discriminates equally really doesn't discriminate? All anglers can be both resident and travelling, in fact many are, so if the law applies equally is it discriminatory?

 

[seadna]

The refrain that it's supposed to be about the sport, not filling the freezer always comes up in these discussions, but it misses a key point that I think many of us have an issue with - that being that two boats can fish side by side day after day and one can kill limit after limit, and often do, while the other can't based solely on their house address. It basically sets up a scenario where there are two sets of rules, and the problem exists in both our salt water and fresh water fisheries.

I don't buy the various conservation arguments that have been floated, either, as the regulators have abundant tools at their disposal to limit the total harvest by species, stock, area, etc - open and closed times, slot limits, daily limits, monthly limits, annual limits, etc, etc. Further, if enforcement staff are looking to simplify their jobs, eliminating what is essentially two sets of rules depending on your address and instead using a combination of seasonal openings and various bag limits by area, month and year would simplify their jobs - pretty easy to check a license and see if the fish match the recorded dates and locations and fall within the openings and limits.

So much easier to check active fishers as well because, lets all be honest, their is no practical way to check and enforce even a small portion of sport caught fish being transported so it's an ineffective way to manage harvest regardless of the regulations. From personal experience, I've been checked dozens of times on the water, at the dock, on the river, etc over all the years I've been fishing but I have never once been checked transporting fish. I'd be willing to bet the same goes for everyone here - I.e they've been checked dozens of times while fishing or just after for every time they've been checked simply transporting a possession limit, if at all.

Past time to modernize this regulation and ensure there is a single rule that applies to all recreational anglers. As Searun has said many times, this would be an easy task for a small group with knowledge and experience from all sides of the fishery and regs to tackle and resolve.

Ukee

I've got to agree with UkeeDreaming on this one. To me the regulations in BC relating to transporting fish are overly complicated and unnecessarily impact many, many honest people in order to provide a tool that can potentially be used by enforcement but which rarely is used in practice. In Washington state, the regulations are much simpler in this regard. After we hit the docks, we can fillet and package as we wish. In possession, we are allowed 2 days limits + 40 pounds of frozen or processed (smoked, canned, cooked) salmon. We can't fillet or process fish until after we land and it is fairly common to be checked either on the water or when you land. However, with budget cuts, enforcement in WA is decreasing. Nonetheless, the logic seem to be that enforcement should catch you in the act or shortly after the act (prior to landing on shore and processing your fish). After that, we're allowed to package and transport our fish more readily. We still have to provide a note to someone who is transporting our fish but we can fillet and vacuum pack as desired. To me this makes a lot more sense since it allows to law abiding people to process their fish in the best possible way for long term storage (e.g. immediately vacuum pack and freeze). The complicated BC rules inconvenience many to make it possible to (rarely) catch that rare someone who is violating the catch limits or other regulations. I'm not convinced that the cost benefit ratio is worth it in this case.

 

[rovingfisherman]

No because the fish was processed at your place of residence.
I doubt very much that any C.O. would/could ticket you for that.
a whole fish would be a different matter....

Exactly Scott, my question was rhetorical and any reasonable person or officer would see that, just as they would if you were gifting fish from your place of residence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gamechanger]

No validity to this post whatsoever - a local angler can take a daily limit day after day after day. Also, there are countless regs at the Depts disposal for conservation management, if there is a conservation concern as it pertains to potential rec fishery harvest, that doesn't treat anglers who pay the same taxes and same licence fees differently based on what their address is.

Whenever this issue comes up there are often claims that it's about the sport, not filling your freezer, but then weak rationales about why locals should be able to take more than travelling anglers. Fact remains we all pay into the system via taxes and licence fees equally and our constitution is supposed to guarantee equal treatment and equal access to public resources.

Past time for this issue to be modernized so it allows enforcement of what the Department wishes to enforce while treating all rec anglers equally.

Ukee

Ukee, the guy who lives in Ukee and fishes out of his house and you the guy who is dreaming of Ukee are both fishing under the same rules, the difference is that you don't like them. He can catch his daily limit just like you, can only have his possession limit on him outside of his residence just like you, his residence just happens to be closer to the fishing grounds you like. Its the same thing for him if he went to the Interior and went trout fishing, if you lived in Clearwater you could trout fish daily, catch your limit everyday, take it home but he could only do it twice until he got back home...its the same thing. The system doesn't provide like you say a "weak rationale about why locals should be able to take more than travelling anglers"...it treats everybody the same...you just have a longer drive. Don't be greedy.

 

[Sculpin]

Ukee, the guy who lives in Ukee and fishes out of his house and you the guy who is dreaming of Ukee are both fishing under the same rules, the difference is that you don't like them. He can catch his daily limit just like you, can only have his possession limit on him outside of his residence just like you, his residence just happens to be closer to the fishing grounds you like. Its the same thing for him if he went to the Interior and went trout fishing, if you lived in Clearwater you could trout fish daily, catch your limit everyday, take it home but he could only do it twice until he got back home...its the same thing. The system doesn't provide like you say a "weak rationale about why locals should be able to take more than travelling anglers"...it treats everybody the same...you just have a longer drive. Don't be greedy.

Great reply .

You forgot to ask him if the constitution states where he should live LOL!

 

[Aces]

No validity to this post whatsoever - a local angler can take a daily limit day after day after day. Also, there are countless regs at the Depts disposal for conservation management, if there is a conservation concern as it pertains to potential rec fishery harvest, that doesn't treat anglers who pay the same taxes and same licence fees differently based on what their address is.

Whenever this issue comes up there are often claims that it's about the sport, not filling your freezer, but then weak rationales about why locals should be able to take more than travelling anglers. Fact remains we all pay into the system via taxes and licence fees equally and our constitution is supposed to guarantee equal treatment and equal access to public resources.

Past time for this issue to be modernized so it allows enforcement of what the Department wishes to enforce while treating all rec anglers equally.

Ukee

If you want to kill more maybe you should move to Ukee then, lol.