# Limits.. personal or party



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

piketroller said:


> Is that where the line is drawn? As long as people don't post their poaching pics on this sire, it's fine to talk about, but when there's actual pictures of it posted on here, we must support it?


Let us know when you get to make the decision.


----------



## retired dundo (Jul 21, 2015)

MossyHorns said:


> Never been on a charter boat when they didn't use a party limit.


My friend goes on salmon charter every year and says they keep limit for captain and first mate to


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

There’s been some talk about changing the law in regards to party limits but so far nothing has been changed


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

sparky18181 said:


> There’s been some talk about changing the law in regards to party limits but so far nothing has been changed


Yep. Can't just go catch all you want in a day and give them to others as you go.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

sureshot006 said:


> Let us know when you get to make the decision.


Hey guys, pictures or it did not happen! 🤪


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

I usually let whatever kids are on the boat reel all the fish in. Should I turn them in?


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

piketroller said:


> Why is this thread still open with active mod participation? I thought the cardinal rule of this site was to not question someone's limit. Maybe the pro poaching sentiment is finally waning.


If you don't see a difference between question ones limit and openly saying they kept over the limit... You must be one of those that can't count... Or how about simple math... What's 8x2???... Or do you preach that common core math??


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

lostontheice said:


> If you don't see a difference between question ones limit and openly saying they kept over the limit... You must be one of those that can't count... Or how about simple math... What's 8x2???... Or do you preach that common core math??


When people post evidence of being over their limit (poaching), it should be called out. But for whatever reason, usually this sight frowns on calling out poaching when people post evidence of being over their limits. This time is being treated differently than the norm of giving poachers a bragging platform and having comments pointing out the poaching deleted.

Maybe this site is finally going to turn the corner for the better and this is the new norm, but I doubt it.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

piketroller said:


> When people post evidence of being over their limit (poaching), it should be called out. But for whatever reason, usually this sight frowns on calling out poaching when people post evidence of being over their limits. This time is being treated differently than the norm of giving poachers a bragging platform and having comments pointing out the poaching deleted.
> 
> Maybe this site is finally going to turn the corner for the better and this is the new norm, but I doubt it.


This is different than a post with 16 walleye and one guy in the picture.


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

sureshot006 said:


> This is different than a post with 16 walleye and one guy in the picture.


How about posts with a ten man limit laying in the bottom of an 18 foot boat?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

piketroller said:


> How about posts with a ten man limit laying in the bottom of an 18 foot boat?


Why not? Maybe 3 boats worth of guys wanted to put the pile in the only boat with no carpet.

That is clearly different than 4 fisher"people", a score of 18 to 10, and 28 fish in the picture. One is odd looking. The other is admission that they don't know the regs.


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

sureshot006 said:


> Why not? Maybe 3 boats worth of guys wanted to put the pile in the only boat with no carpet.
> 
> That is clearly different than 4 fisher"people", a score of 18 to 10, and 28 fish in the picture. One is odd looking. The other is admission that they don't know the regs.


The one I remember most was guys keeping three days worth of limits on ice, unprocessed to have the hero shot at the ramp at the end of the last day. At least that was the "story" given. Seems pretty much the same as going night fishing and keeping a limit before midnight and another one after midnight. Neither of these cases comply with the regulations in Michigan and would result in tickets issued should a CO encounter the offending parties.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> Yep. Can't just go catch all you want in a day and give them to others as you go.


So does this way of thinking apply to deer hunting too? Why can’t one member at deer camp shoot several deer and let the other guys tag it as their own? It just doesn’t seem right to me. I mean, let’s face a party limit should apply to fishing AND hunting.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Petronius said:


> So does this way of thinking apply to deer hunting too? Why can’t one member at deer camp shoot several deer and let the other guys tag it as their own? It just doesn’t seem right to me. I mean, let’s face a party limit should apply to fishing AND hunting.


I wasn't going to go there, yet...

It's along the lines of what I already stated. It's interesting to me what humans see as acceptable to fit our preferences. Fish, no big deal we rode out into the ice on the same quad. Deer, even if we sit in the same blind the trigger person MUST be the person tagging it, else you're a poacher.


----------



## Jerry Lamb (Aug 3, 2015)

In duck hunting, it is common to be asked "who shot what?" when being checked.
Gang limits don't fly, I guess. I'm out to have fun, and am not interested in trying to be an amatuer lawyer.
To solve this proactively I bought game straps that hang in front of each shooter.
When we get rainouts it's hard to know exactly who shot what, but we try to do our best.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> I wasn't going to go there, yet...
> 
> It's along the lines of what I already stated. It's interesting to me what humans see as acceptable to fit our preferences. Fish, no big deal we rode out into the ice on the same quad. Deer, even if we sit in the same blind the trigger person MUST be the person tagging it, else you're a poacher.


It's like, well the fish all go into the same bucket or cooler, how can we say whose fish is whose, Duh?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Petronius said:


> It's like, well the fish all go into the same bucket or cooler, how can we say whose fish is whose, Duh?


The bucket is one thing. The count is another.


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

I guess I have, and probably always will be, a fish poacher.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

triplelunger said:


> I guess I have, and probably always will be, a fish poacher.


No big deal, it's like speeding. Everyone just accepts it.

Can you imagine if harvesting a trout on a worm in fly only water had the same penalty as a deer over bait? Lol


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

triplelunger said:


> I guess I have, and probably always will be, a fish poacher.


Let's get rid of the hunting and fishing rules since poaching is no big deal. It's like the rules are in the Digest to make us look like sportsmen, big they don't have to be followed, they're only suggestions.

And how dare the DNR go after those guys that were way over the limit with fish. They were fishing for their poor invalid relatives.


----------



## TheHighLIfe (Sep 5, 2017)

sureshot

I think it was apparent that gamekeeper was adding humor, and just forgot to add the , LOL or haha


----------



## Gamekeeper (Oct 9, 2015)

sureshot006 said:


> Does it work differently for duck than fish? Would be illegal for fish.


You are probably right.
Mid water-swat gifting has to be carefully coordinated.
I think in hind sight that topic was discussed here previously with a DNR Leo, and the opinion was there’s a hierarchy in the law that requires taking the risk of hunter A losing the cripple while reloading, rather than allowing hunter B to keep blasting.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

TheHighLIfe said:


> sureshot
> 
> I think it was apparent that gamekeeper was adding humor, and just forgot to add the , LOL or haha


It's possible.


----------



## Bigeejakes (Nov 11, 2011)

TheHighLIfe said:


> here is an interesting question....
> 
> I suspect different hunters and different dnr officers could have different answers
> this might be 'in the book of laws', but the 'book of laws' often contains laws that 'defy common sense and logic'
> ...


You shoot it, because preventing a cripple is more important to me than a ticket. Ive gone to tremendous efforts to recover downed birds, I'm not gonna let one swim away if i can help it.



Sent from my moto g power using Tapatalk


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

Wow.. didn't think this topic was going to open a can of worms.. we know party limits are illegal (don't like it get the laws changed).. it's the publicly posting "over limit",that was the WTF..
Now to address the comment "ones that complain,are the ones that can't catch a limit"... I'll try to do this nicely (suresnot006 is likely watching).. that comment was almost as funny as watching your mom try to put her pants back on in the back of as escort at 2am... 
Some people don't go fishing to "catch their limit".. some actually go fishing to relax,have fun and get out of the basement (you should try the later).. Me personally,I might keep a few fish,but considering I eat fish about 2vtimes year,its not likely. The only fish I keep, go to others ( Ralph Smith can testify to that ),along with a few I know that actually need the extra food for their house. I don't drop them off and go back fishing as that limit was my daily limit also. I don't do it every day because I have a JOB and even though the fish are not in my possession,I see the fish as part of my 2 day. (I don't keep unless I know the last were cooked).. oddly enough,that doesn't take long at Ralphs (at least the perch)..


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

triplelunger said:


> My kid usually reels in my limit and his. Which one of us should get the ticket?


Alphas don’t snitch.


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

The fishing digest does not state that a limit is specific to one person. Page 8 and 9 of the fishing digest defines daily possession limit and season possession limit and neither one specifies that it is an individual limit. 

By contrast, the waterfowl digest clearly states on page 34 that the limit is an individual limit.


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

You somehow believe this table ISNOT a personal limit?? GTFOH


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

I've watched co write tickets for "over limit" because one person was carrying two stringer of stealhead (3 each) while his girlfriend carried their 2 rods and tackle bag.. I fished next to the couple,she landed 3 and sat down while he got his 3.. he still got the over limit ticket..


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Botiz said:


> The fishing digest does not state that a limit is specific to one person. Page 8 and 9 of the fishing digest defines daily possession limit and season possession limit and neither one specifies that it is an individual limit.
> 
> By contrast, the waterfowl digest clearly states on page 34 that the limit is an individual limit.


What is possession? Are you saying as long as you give it to someone else, you are no longer in possession and therefore can retain as many as you want every single day?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Straight from a few CO. I know this is from 2019 but it hasn't changed.

The whole thing is good, but limits per person is touched on starting at 26:00. You gotta click "watch on YouTube" to play it.


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

lostontheice said:


> You somehow believe this table ISNOT a personal limit?? GTFOH
> View attachment 817178


Where in that screen shot does it say those are limited to an individual and can’t be achieved by a party? It doesn’t. Musky is the only one that species an individual. Why would they specify for one and not the others?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Botiz said:


> Where in that screen shot does it say those are limited to an individual and can’t be achieved by a party? It doesn’t. Musky is the only one that species an individual. Why would they specify for one and not the others?


Maybe watch the video I posted. Your interpretation of an interpretation of the orders is not what counts.


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> What is possession? Are you saying as long as you give it to someone else, you are no longer in possession and therefore can retain as many as you want every single day?


Possession is defined in the digest. There is a daily and season possession limit. But no where in the digest does it specify that either of them cannot be a party and must be an individual.

Why would the waterfowl digest very clearly specify limits are individual and the fishing digest not?


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> Maybe watch the video I posted. Your interpretation of an interpretation of the orders is not what counts.


I will when I have time.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Botiz said:


> Possession is defined in the digest. There is a daily and season possession limit. But no where in the digest does it specify that either of them cannot be a party and must be an individual.
> 
> Why would the waterfowl digest very clearly specify limits are individual and the fishing digest not?


They're probably written by different people.

Possession says a person not a party.

Short summary of the video segment: if we see 3 guys on a boat and one catches and keeps more than his own daily limit, a citation will be issued.

They talk about binoculars and the situation where one guy catches 10 and the other guy catches 2 for a 2 man of 6 each. They pay attention to who catches what, because catching and keeping more than your daily limit is illegal.


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> They're probably written by different people.
> 
> Possession says a person not a party.
> 
> Short version of the video segment: if we see 3 guys on a boat and one catches and keeps more than his own daily limit, a citation will be issued.


I can’t help it if they don’t know the rules.


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> They're probably written by different people.
> 
> Possession says a person not a party.
> 
> Short version of the video segment: if we see 3 guys on a boat and one catches and keeps more than his own daily limit, a citation will be issued.


You really think they have a dozen different people working independently on digests? I don’t know but I’d bet it’s more centralized than that.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Botiz said:


> You really think they have a dozen different people working independently on digests? I don’t know but I’d bet it’s more centralized than that.


I have no idea how many they'd have. But it would make too much sense to have standardized language in a guide book.

If you don't believe it is by individual, I guess ask an officer. If you tell them you and your buddy have a 2 man limit and you landed them all, you're getting a ticket.

I think it is reasonable language for "a person" to be equal to "individual", but I lost my thesaurus lol


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)




----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> But when john has caught his six and then catches number 7 but says he’s giving it to joe, then he is certainly guilty of over limit


Just tell the CO you gave Joe your 4th fish when he asks.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

triplelunger said:


> Just tell the CO you gave Joe your 4th fish when he asks.


Lmao

Yeah maybe when your name is in the biweekly report they'll list that excuse. They have some funny ones.

Like "oh I must have counted wrong". Uhh... you had 12 instead of 6.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

sureshot006 said:


> Nothing says you need to keep them separate. Just don't admit to more than your own 25 and don't let them watch you.


I guess 2 counters then. Never have we been asked how many we each caught. Now in the Reef Complex they watch you. But that’s jigging walleye


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Shoeman said:


> I guess 2 counters then. Never have we been asked how many we each caught. Now in the Reef Complex they watch you. But that’s jigging walleye


Yea I'm not aware of separate regs.

This whole argument is like speeding. 95% of people ignore it but doesn't change the legality. I've never seen a cop checking speeders on 75 in Detroit where it is 55mph and if you go less than 70 you get run over.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

Botiz said:


> You really think they have a dozen different people working independently on digests? I don’t know but I’d bet it’s more centralized than that.


It is my belief that the DNR gets interns with web experience but who have little outdoors experience to update the Hunting Digest. They also don't seem to have the analytical skills or logical thinking skills needed to express the rules in a digest in a way that leaves no doubt as to its meaning.
An example, the Hunting Digest states,

*Can I use a tree stand on public land*? 
_Yes. If you hunt on public land, your tree stand must be portable and your name and address, complete Michigan driver’s license number or DNR Sportcard number must be affixed in legible English that can be easily read from the ground._

But then it also states,

*Can someone else use my tree stand or ground blind that is on public land?* 
_Yes. Your name on a tree stand or ground blind on public land does not guarantee exclusive use._ You may not use an illegal tree stand, scaffold, step, etc., or ground blind regardless of who placed it on public lands. 

Nowhere in the Conservation Wildlife Orders or in Michigan law does it state that "_Your name on a tree stand or ground blind on public land does not guarantee exclusive use"._ What the Hunting Digest suggests is that anyone can commandeer your stand and you can't do anything about it. That is false information, written by someone who has not thought the scenerio through.


----------



## cwielock (May 9, 2010)

TheHighLIfe said:


> hey jer
> 
> I know you have answered this via your 'rainouts' and 'do our best' statements, but we all know that game straps in front of each shooter is merely 'good marketing' and 'all for show'.
> 
> ...


How this works in my group. If you shoot and crippled the bird it's YOUR bird. If the trigger was pulled at the same time (Not 2 seconds apart) then it goes to the newest shooter (boost the confidence) but you can tell if you shot first usually. If you pulled the trigger and knock a bird then you claim that bird. Everyone helps to clean up crippled birds because I hate loosing em. If you limit you unload! If you don't like the rules on MY boat then find another. 

Also to the guy that let's his kid reel in his limit and yours. Good for you. But you would be better to teach him the right way and only keep HIS limit as it would be the legal thing to do. 

Sent from my SM-G991U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## snortwheeze (Jul 31, 2012)

piketroller said:


> How about posts with a ten man limit laying in the bottom of an 18 foot boat?


Sounds like a hell of a day to me !!


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Petronius said:


> It is my belief that the DNR gets interns with web experience but who have little outdoors experience to update the Hunting Digest. They also don't seem to have the analytical skills or logical thinking skills needed to express the rules in a digest in a way that leaves no doubt as to its meaning.
> An example, the Hunting Digest states,
> 
> *Can I use a tree stand on public land*?
> ...


Actually the wildlife conservation order does include the "exclusive use" statement under the ground blind section. It says that placement of the blind does not gurantee exclusive use of the area. The digest leaves out the words "of the area". That makes it seem as though the ground blind could be used by anyone but that is not what the conservation order is saying. Under the treestand section it doesnt say one way or the other.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> Actually the wildlife conservation order does include the "exclusive use" statement under the ground blind section. It says that placement of the blind does not gurantee exclusive use of the area. The digest leaves out the words "of the area". That makes it seem as though the ground blind could be used by anyone but that is not what the conservation order is saying. Under the treestand section it doesnt say one way or the other.


The hunting digest is supposed to be a summary of the hunting laws and rules, but it tends to leave out important information or give misleading info. There is enough talk on hunting sites about this, I find it hard to believe that the people in charge of writing and updating the hunting digest don't think it is important enough to correct the problems.


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

Petronius said:


> The hunting digest is supposed to be a summary of the hunting laws and rules, but it tends to leave out important information or give misleading info. There is enough talk on hunting sites about this, I find it hard to believe that the people in charge of writing and updating the hunting digest don't think it is important enough to correct the problems.


Where there is confusion there is MONEY!


----------



## Macs13 (Apr 24, 2019)

lostontheice said:


> Is party limit legal in Michigan or is it personal limit?..
> Watching a YouTube video today and has four people fishing 2 guys and 2 girls (it was a competition of the sexes).. the host states he has his limit,but keeps fishing and measuring (doesn't show him keep) but ends video with guys win, 18-10.... Is my math wrong, 2 guys fishing the Saginaw river can only have 8 per person or 16 fish???
> What's your thoughts??


It's individual but the legal way around that is to hand the hooked up pole to somebody else after you've got your limit. It's their fish if they land it. Of course, you can only be busted if somebody snitches, if the CO is watching you long enough to verify all the fish that you personally caught, or if somebody is dumb enough to post it online. YouTube videos are the best thing to happen to cops since baggy pants below the booty. (That's not speculation but one of the "lessons" from the citizen's police academy course that I participated in. Lol) 

Sent from my SM-G988U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Macs13 said:


> It's individual but the legal way around that is to hand the hooked up pole to somebody else after you've got your limit. It's their fish if they land it. Of course, you can only be busted if somebody snitches, if the CO is watching you long enough to verify all the fish that you personally caught, or if somebody is dumb enough to post it online. YouTube videos are the best thing to happen to cops since baggy pants below the booty. (That's not speculation but one of the "lessons" from the citizen's police academy course that I participated in. Lol)
> 
> Sent from my SM-G988U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I think you are adding in your own interpretation to the law that doesnt exist. There is no "legal" loophole for fishing with a pole and handing it off for someone else to land. The law says you can fish with 3 rods and thats it. There is no stipulation about who lands the fish it is about who mans the rods.

I have heard of a CO ticketing a person for setting 4 tipups out with a group of 3 people in a shanty. They were under the legal number of rods allowed as a group. They didnt even have to catch a fish. One guy set too many lines and the CO watched him do it.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> I think you are adding in your own I interpretation to the law that doesnt exist. There is no "legal" loophole for fishing with a pole and handing it off for someone else to land. The law says you can fish with 3 rods and thats it. There is no stipulation about who lands the fish it is about who mans the rods.
> 
> I have heard of a CO ticketing a person for setting 4 tipups out with a group of 3 people in a shanty. They were under the legal number of rods allowed as a group. They didnt even have to catch a fish. One guy set too many lines and the CO watched him do it.


Well... let's say you're trolling with 3 in the boat and are 1 fish shy of a limit of walleye. You can still have 9 rods out because of the C&IR rules.

I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for setting up too many rods. I don't recall guests on a charter setting up any rods at all. Would the first mate be in violation by setting lines?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> Well... let's say you're trolling with 3 in the boat and are 1 fish shy of a limit of walleye. You can still have 9 rods out because of the C&IR rules.
> 
> I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for setting up too many rods. I don't recall guests on a charter setting up any rods at all. Would the first mate be in violation by setting lines?


I agree you would never be ticketed and I think it is a double standard for trolling vs ice fishing or shore fishing. You arent legal catching your 5 fish limit on 5 different rods....but it is never policed. I gurantee you if a guy is observed catching 25 perch on 6 different rods with his son sitting there playing games on his phone the entire time he would be ticketed.


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

sureshot006 said:


> Well... let's say you're trolling with 3 in the boat and are 1 fish shy of a limit of walleye. You can still have 9 rods out because of the C&IR rules.
> 
> I've never heard of anyone being ticketed for setting up too many rods. I don't recall guests on a charter setting up any rods at all. Would the first mate be in violation by setting lines?


There is nothing in the rules,that states you have to stop fishing once you get your limit.. you can't keep over your limit,but you can catch n release.. (had this talk with a co at tippy once)..


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

lostontheice said:


> There is nothing in the rules,that states you have to stop fishing once you get your limit.. you can't keep over your limit,but you can catch n release.. (had this talk with a co at tippy once)..


Correct. In fact it directly states you can practice catch and immediate release.

One thing that I think people do that isn't technically legal is culling with a limit already on board. It's not immediate release if you're swapping fish. Cull with 1 short of a limit to be legal.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> Correct. In fact it directly states you can practice catch and immediate release.
> 
> One thing that I think people do that isn't technically legal is culling with a limit already on board. It's not immediate release if you're swapping fish. Cull with 1 short of a limit to be legal.


I am not sure this is true. If you allow culling forcing you to cull one fish short makes no sense. Culling is culling. We allow one person bass tournaments where a guy can catch his 5 bass limit and cull all day. Immediate release doesnt say which fish has to be released. We have the immediate release rule without holding in a live well for preseason bass fishing. I have never heard that you cannot cull with a limit during season. Some states do not allow it but it is rare. Pretty sure Minnesota is one....or atleast used to be one.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> I am not sure this is true. If you allow culling forcing you to cull one fish short makes no sense. Culling is culling. We allow one person bass tournaments where a guy can catch his 5 bass limit and cull all day. Immediate release doesnt say which fish has to be released. We have the immediate release rule without holding in a live well for preseason bass fishing. I have never heard that you cannot cull with a limit during season. Some states do not allow it but it is rare. Pretty sure Minnesota is one....or atleast used to be one.


Immediate release is just that.

This question was addressed by COs a couple years ago in a Q&A session that was recorded and posted here.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> I am not sure this is true. If you allow culling forcing you to cull one fish short makes no sense. Culling is culling. We allow one person bass tournaments where a guy can catch his 5 bass limit and cull all day. Immediate release doesnt say which fish has to be released. We have the immediate release rule without holding in a live well for preseason bass fishing. I have never heard that you cannot cull with a limit during season. Some states do not allow it but it is rare. Pretty sure Minnesota is one....or atleast used to be one.


This video discusses C&IR, I just don't remember what the time stamp is. It's worth listening to the whole thing anyway.









Limits.. personal or party


sureshot I think it was apparent that gamekeeper was adding humor, and just forgot to add the :), LOL or haha




www.michigan-sportsman.com





I found it, around 16 min. You could be right? They just say if they come up to you and you have 6 in the box and number 7 in your hand, you're over at that time.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> This video discusses C&IR, I just don't remember what the time stamp is. It's worth listening to the whole thing anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have watched this before and rewatched it just now. The issue is you are watching a CO talking off the cuff to his personal opinion. It would be very interesting if someone in the crowd would have asked him for a legal definition of culling or asked him how a bass tournament/walleye tournament is legal. I would bet there would be alot of back pedalling. For what its worth I agree with the officers logic. I dont believe his opinion would hold up in court though.


----------



## Macs13 (Apr 24, 2019)

DirtySteve said:


> I think you are adding in your own interpretation to the law that doesnt exist. There is no "legal" loophole for fishing with a pole and handing it off for someone else to land. The law says you can fish with 3 rods and thats it. There is no stipulation about who lands the fish it is about who mans the rods.
> 
> I have heard of a CO ticketing a person for setting 4 tipups out with a group of 3 people in a shanty. They were under the legal number of rods allowed as a group. They didnt even have to catch a fish. One guy set too many lines and the CO watched him do it.


I'm adding in the interpretation that the Ohio CO told me when I asked him last year on the Maumee. The guide is there to set the grounds but anything they don't specifically cover is open to legal interpretation. Of course, a cop or CO can write you a ticket for anything they want but it doesn't mean that it will stand up to a challenge in court. 

Sent from my SM-G988U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Macs13 said:


> I'm adding in the interpretation that the Ohio CO told me when I asked him last year on the Maumee. The guide is there to set the grounds but anything they don't specifically cover is open to legal interpretation. Of course, a cop or CO can write you a ticket for anything they want but it doesn't mean that it will stand up to a challenge in court.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G988U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Right the guide is just interpretation of the MCL.

Would be a PITA to go to court over fish culling though... not even close to worth it to me


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> I have watched this before and rewatched it just now. The issue is you are watching a CO talking off the cuff to his personal opinion. It would be very interesting if someone in the crowd would have asked him for a legal definition of culling or asked him how a bass tournament/walleye tournament is legal. I would bet there would be alot of back
> pedalling. For what its worth I agree with the officers logic. I dont believe his opinion would hold up in court though.


I have not looked up the definition in the written law but the guide book, which one would think would not make up its own definitions, has one. I'm not sure how, if this definition is the law definition, culling would be legal with a limit already in the boat. You would be violating the "without holding in the livewell" part.


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

sureshot006 said:


> I have not looked up the definition in the written law but the guide book, which one would think would not make up its own definitions, has one. I'm not sure how, if this definition is the law definition, culling would be legal with a limit already in the boat. You would be violating the "without holding in the livewell" part.
> 
> View attachment 826173


I guess you need to call the RAP hotline if there's live coverage during the next big tourney everytime somebody culls a fish.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

piketroller said:


> I guess you need to call the RAP hotline if there's live coverage during the next big tourney everytime somebody culls a fish.


I dont care enough to do that. Just debating what is written or not.


----------



## Slimshady (Apr 4, 2002)

I know that party limits are officially illegal, however, I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. Let's look at a couple different scenarios as my reasoning behind why I think that trying to enforce the "party fishing rule" would be virtually impossible. 

Let's say that a buddy and I both go out jigging in the river. Let's say that I catch 5 and he catches 1 (very likely, BTW...  ), but I don't feel like cleaning any, so I let him take them home. As long as he has a license, there's no issue with me giving him my 5 fish, correct? Neither of us were ever in possession of too many fish, so no issue. 
There have been times when we have gone to CAN to fish for Steelies and planned to stay the night and fish again the next morning. Let's say I catch my 5 on Friday night and keep them in the cooler. Saturday morning, before launching to fish again, I give all 5 of them away to people fishing from shore. They are thrilled. I am no longer in possession of any fish, hence, I can go out and catch my 5 and bring them home, correct? Any one have an issue with that?
If scenarios 1 and 2 are fine, then why can't I give away some of my fish while we are still on the boat? I don't see any reason why it would be legal for me to give them away on land, but not while still on the water. Show me where it says that. 
In trolling scenario, we will usually have 3 lines out for each person on the boat (unless in CAN, then only 2). We usually have "designated lines" for each person, but when it gets crazy, who-ever has a free hand will grab it and reel it in. When we have doubles, triples or more, it can be virtually impossible to keep track of who caught what. Sometimes one person may start reeling, then hand it over part-way through. So who's fish is it, anyway? We just check the cooler every so often to see how close we are getting to the combined limit. That's the only way to keep track in those scenarios. If you have ever fished when the fishing is really hot like that, then you know what I am talking about. 
The reality is, every time we have ever been checked, they just wanted to see our licenses and checked to make sure we had enough licenses to cover the number of fish that we had in total. They never asked if we all caught the same exact number, nor do I ever expect to get that question. It is just silly, IMO. 

And for the record, I give away 10x as many fish as I keep. To my buddies, to people fishing from shore, to my neighbors, etc. So all of these scenarios are based on reality.


----------



## Slimshady (Apr 4, 2002)

DirtySteve said:


> I think you are adding in your own interpretation to the law that doesnt exist. There is no "legal" loophole for fishing with a pole and handing it off for someone else to land. The law says you can fish with 3 rods and thats it. There is no stipulation about who lands the fish it is about who mans the rods.
> 
> I have heard of a CO ticketing a person for setting 4 tipups out with a group of 3 people in a shanty. They were under the legal number of rods allowed as a group. They didnt even have to catch a fish. One guy set too many lines and the CO watched him do it.


That's crazy and I would have fought it if I were the one ticketed. When I go out fishing with my dad, who has significant health issues and has poor balance, I set all the lines. I let him reel most of them in while sitting in a chair, because I need to do all of the netting. So you are telling me that this is technically illegal. BS. I would fight it.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Slimshady said:


> I know that party limits are officially illegal, however, I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. Let's look at a couple different scenarios as my reasoning behind why I think that trying to enforce the "party fishing rule" would be virtually impossible.
> 
> Let's say that a buddy and I both go out jigging in the river. Let's say that I catch 5 and he catches 1 (very likely, BTW...  ), but I don't feel like cleaning any, so I let him take them home. As long as he has a license, there's no issue with me giving him my 5 fish, correct? Neither of us were ever in possession of too many fish, so no issue.
> There have been times when we have gone to CAN to fish for Steelies and planned to stay the night and fish again the next morning. Let's say I catch my 5 on Friday night and keep them in the cooler. Saturday morning, before launching to fish again, I give all 5 of them away to people fishing from shore. They are thrilled. I am no longer in possession of any fish, hence, I can go out and catch my 5 and bring them home, correct? Any one have an issue with that?
> ...


I think the whole key is not retaining more than your personal daily limit, regardless of who you say you're giving them to. Give them to whoever you want, just don't catch and retain more than your individual limit in a day. The definition of possession handles the other stuff.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> I have not looked up the definition in the written law but the guide book, which one would think would not make up its own definitions, has one. I'm not sure how, if this definition is the law definition, culling would be legal with a limit already in the boat. You would be violating the "without holding in the livewell" part.
> 
> View attachment 826173


My question would be does CIR apply to anything other than preseason bass fishing. It was added to the laws when preseason bass fishing was approved. I havent seen it referenced anywhere else but admittedly I have never looked for it referenced in any other regulation.

When culling is brought about regarding bass tournaments it is typically mentioned we do not have a law forbiding culling. Therefore you cannot be charged for culling. There are a couple.rules you could likely be charged for if you culled a dead fish. That is why bassmaster allows culling but no culling of dead fish in michigan. In states where culling is illegal they do not allow culling.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> My question would be does CIR apply to anything other than preseason bass fishing. It was added to the laws when preseason bass fishing was approved. I havent seen it referemced anywhere else but admittedly I have never looked for it referenced in any ither regulation.
> 
> When culling is brought about regarding bass tournaments it is typically mentioned we do not have a law forbiding culling. Therefore you cannot be charged for culling. There are a couple.rules you could likely be charged for if you culled a dead fish. That is why bassmaster allows culling but no culling of dead fish in michigan. In states where culling is illegal they do not allow culling.


CIR with a limit already in possession states it is acceptable for the species which you already have the limit of. As in, you can CIR walleye with a limit in the livewell.

No law against culling, just possession beyond limit.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> CIR with a limit already in possession states it is acceptable for the species which you already have the limit of. As in, you can CIR walleye with a limit in the livewell.
> 
> No law against culling, just possession beyond limit.


Not in the fisheries order it doesn't. CIR is defined in order 215.22. It states CIR is defined for purposes within that order. 215.22 defines laws for bass, walleye. Pike, musky, catfish, perch and sunfish. In that order the only place CIR is addressed at all is under Bass and Musky. It states you are allowed to catch and immediately release year round for those two species. CIR is not addressed for walleye or any other species. CIR does not show up in any other order but I did not look at all of them just a handful of trout and salmon orders.


----------



## lostontheice (Feb 18, 2011)

Slimshady said:


> I know that party limits are officially illegal, however, I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. Let's look at a couple different scenarios as my reasoning behind why I think that trying to enforce the "party fishing rule" would be virtually impossible.
> 
> Let's say that a buddy and I both go out jigging in the river. Let's say that I catch 5 and he catches 1 (very likely, BTW...  ), but I don't feel like cleaning any, so I let him take them home. As long as he has a license, there's no issue with me giving him my 5 fish, correct? Neither of us were ever in possession of too many fish, so no issue.
> There have been times when we have gone to CAN to fish for Steelies and planned to stay the night and fish again the next morning. Let's say I catch my 5 on Friday night and keep them in the cooler. Saturday morning, before launching to fish again, I give all 5 of them away to people fishing from shore. They are thrilled. I am no longer in possession of any fish, hence, I can go out and catch my 5 and bring them home, correct? Any one have an issue with that?
> ...





Slimshady said:


> I know that party limits are officially illegal, however, I don't really understand the reasoning behind it. Let's look at a couple different scenarios as my reasoning behind why I think that trying to enforce the "party fishing rule" would be virtually impossible.
> 
> Let's say that a buddy and I both go out jigging in the river. Let's say that I catch 5 and he catches 1 (very likely, BTW...  ), but I don't feel like cleaning any, so I let him take them home. As long as he has a license, there's no issue with me giving him my 5 fish, correct? Neither of us were ever in possession of too many fish, so no issue.
> There have been times when we have gone to CAN to fish for Steelies and planned to stay the night and fish again the next morning. Let's say I catch my 5 on Friday night and keep them in the cooler. Saturday morning, before launching to fish again, I give all 5 of them away to people fishing from shore. They are thrilled. I am no longer in possession of any fish, hence, I can go out and catch my 5 and bring them home, correct? Any one have an issue with that?
> ...


#2 is covered by can. Law.. not Michigan.. but,I've watched tippy bugger suits write tickets for people giving fish to other shore guys and still keep a limit (or have their limit and give another to someone else) and the tickets held up in court.. there is nothing wrong with handing off the rod to another and let them land it. Then they can keep it and not be on your limit.. now per giving fish away,there isn't anything wrong with it ,but the total amount the other person has,can not be over a single person limit.. (you give him 25 perch and he has 10 already).. the person "in possession" is over limit and open to citation..


----------



## snortwheeze (Jul 31, 2012)

If there's 4 guys in boat we leave when there's 24 fish.. Sometimes one person has the hot hand. Days when it's me it's fun  Who's counting who caught what when fishings hot and the bites on. Race to the finish !!


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

DirtySteve said:


> I think you are adding in your own interpretation to the law that doesnt exist. There is no "legal" loophole for fishing with a pole and handing it off for someone else to land. The law says you can fish with 3 rods and thats it. There is no stipulation about who lands the fish it is about who mans the rods.
> 
> I have heard of a CO ticketing a person for setting 4 tipups out with a group of 3 people in a shanty. They were under the legal number of rods allowed as a group. They didnt even have to catch a fish. One guy set too many lines and the CO watched him do


 So how does this relate You’re a charter boat where are the captain sets 12,or 15 rods?


----------



## Slimshady (Apr 4, 2002)

lostontheice said:


> #2 is covered by can. Law.. not Michigan.. but,I've watched tippy bugger suits write tickets for people giving fish to other shore guys and still keep a limit (or have their limit and give another to someone else) and the tickets held up in court.. there is nothing wrong with handing off the rod to another and let them land it. Then they can keep it and not be on your limit.. now per giving fish away,there isn't anything wrong with it ,but the total amount the other person has,can not be over a single person limit.. (you give him 25 perch and he has 10 already).. the person "in possession" is over limit and open to citation..


I agree with your last point, as that would obviously put them over their "possession limit". However, the first one is a grey area to me. If it is truly a "possession" limit, and I gave my fish away to someone fishing on shore, they are no longer in my possession, therefore, how I am over my possession limit? I don't see how that one would hold up in court. Now if I bring them in and put them in a cooler with the intent of giving them away, and go out and catch another limit, now I am in violation, because I still possess them until the point when I have actually given them to someone else. 

If I no longer have them, in my boat, in my truck, in my house, etc, then they are not in my possession. Period. I don't see how that would hold up, based on how the law is defined. 

To be clear, I would never catch a limit, give them away, and go out and catch another limit in the same day. Whether or not that is technically legal or not, I just wouldn't do it. However, what I was referring to was when that scenario happens over a 2-day period. I have had that happen where I want to give them away, but by the time we came in, everyone was gone, so I iced them down overnight and gave them away the next morning before going out again. That's the scenario I am referring to.


----------



## piketroller (Oct 24, 2016)

Slimshady said:


> I agree with your last point, as that would obviously put them over their "possession limit". However, the first one is a grey area to me. If it is truly a "possession" limit, and I gave my fish away to someone fishing on shore, they are no longer in my possession, therefore, how I am over my possession limit? I don't see how that one would hold up in court. Now if I bring them in and put them in a cooler with the intent of giving them away, and go out and catch another limit, now I am in violation, because I still possess them until the point when I have actually given them to someone else.
> 
> If I no longer have them, in my boat, in my truck, in my house, etc, then they are not in my possession. Period. I don't see how that would hold up, based on how the law is defined.
> 
> To be clear, I would never catch a limit, give them away, and go out and catch another limit in the same day. Whether or not that is technically legal or not, I just wouldn't do it. However, what I was referring to was when that scenario happens over a 2-day period. I have had that happen where I want to give them away, but by the time we came in, everyone was gone, so I iced them down overnight and gave them away the next morning before going out again. That's the scenario I am referring to.


Does a daily bag limit still apply if you put the fish in a bucket instead of a bag? So much confusion out there. DNR seems to be in cahoots with Big Bag!


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

twodogsphil said:


> So how does this relate You’re a charter boat where are the captain sets 12,or 15 rods?


Thay is why i say it is a double standard. I would bet you can ticket for it.....but.they don't due to the big business it creates.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> CIR with a limit already in possession states it is acceptable for the species which you already have the limit of. As in, you can CIR walleye with a limit in the livewell.
> 
> No law against culling, just possession beyond limit.


Maybe this might help.
When you already have your limit but continue fishing and catch one more, you are now over the limit until you throw one of the fish back in the water.
If you have your limit and want to continue fishing, take one fish out and throw it back in the water. Now you are under the limit and can keep one more or throw it back without a violation.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Petronius said:


> Maybe this might help.
> When you already have your limit but continue fishing and catch one more, you are now over the limit until you throw one of the fish back in the water.
> If you have your limit and want to continue fishing, take one fish out and throw it back in the water. Now you are under the limit and can keep one more or throw it back without a violation.


That's what the officer said to do in the video previously posted.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Slimshady said:


> I agree with your last point, as that would obviously put them over their "possession limit". However, the first one is a grey area to me. If it is truly a "possession" limit, and I gave my fish away to someone fishing on shore, they are no longer in my possession, therefore, how I am over my possession limit? I don't see how that one would hold up in court. Now if I bring them in and put them in a cooler with the intent of giving them away, and go out and catch another limit, now I am in violation, because I still possess them until the point when I have actually given them to someone else.
> 
> If I no longer have them, in my boat, in my truck, in my house, etc, then they are not in my possession. Period. I don't see how that would hold up, based on how the law is defined.
> 
> To be clear, I would never catch a limit, give them away, and go out and catch another limit in the same day. Whether or not that is technically legal or not, I just wouldn't do it. However, what I was referring to was when that scenario happens over a 2-day period. I have had that happen where I want to give them away, but by the time we came in, everyone was gone, so I iced them down overnight and gave them away the next morning before going out again. That's the scenario I am referring to.


----------

