|
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | So First the fishing story,then the question about legal fish.
I just recently joined and posted my muskie here that many people commented on.Totally cool,this is a great site.
My Buddy Adam caught this prehistoric looking thing 2 years ago on Georgian Bay.Prior to this fish,his biggest fish ever was a 5lb pike. This beauty snapped my net in half,and I had the pleasure of landing him by hand as my Buddy stood as far away as possible. Great fish great experience. Needless to say Adam is now a Muskie addict and has spent thousands feeding the hunger to catch more.
The question to all is this. Im a member of a fishing club on Georgian Bay near Parry Sound Ontario. The Ministry has posted a 54" legal limit on keeping a muskie. This speaks of conservation to me. The problem being,some members do not acknowledge that any fish under 54" is a legal fish. I have moved the majority to the position that it is legal to handle a fish under 54"...Measure it,photograph it,and then safely release it. Legal Fish !
Opinions are really welcomed. Look forward to everyones input
Attachments
----------------
 adams muskie.jpg (98KB - 150 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Most Co's will say nothing. Some have told me they would charge you as the fish was not imediately released and take your camera for evidence. One CO said this would apply to anyone stoping to take pictures of any fish even over min. size with a conservation license. Like I said most would do nothing but some would get their shorts in a knot.
Edited by horsehunter 2/28/2012 3:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 489
| As long as its not in a livewell, on a stringer or in a cooler it seems there would be no attempt to harvest the fish. If they are going to take the stance that you cant photograph and illegal fish and safely release it, then the idea behind the size limit has been lost. As I understand it, the size limit is to ensure that basically no musky is harvested from the said lake. anyways, nice fish and congrats! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2894
Location: Yahara River Chain | Its one thing for someone to take a pic for some fish under 54 inches as those fish can’t read if we put “no fish under 54 inch” on our baits and taking pictures of fish that were caught out of season. I use to fish the walleye opener in Canada and we often catch muskies on our small crankbaits. My buddy would often want a pic of his muskies. When I caught one, I told him I wouldn’t want anything on film that would earn me a ticket. Since then he too would not request a pic. I think if a warden wants to be a total Richard, he could write a ticket for taking the extra time to photograph a sub-legal fish, but I’m certain he knows that today’s muskie anglers are one of the most anal release zealots on the planet and have the fishes best interest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
| I think it is a legal fish when it is legal to keep it. Otherwise it is supposed to be a immediate release. Now with a immediate release you can take a quick picture I think. Not every species can be kept in the water while you take the hooks out. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | The problem is some CO's take immediate litrrally no time out for pictures ( they have an office 100 yds up the road from my house and we have batted this around many times. One used to argue that I couldn't target muskies with a conservation license even the MNR website clearly says you can. I had this argument every time I bought my license. Now that I'm a senior I no longer have to buy a license |
|
| |
|
| Wait until Marc Reynolds (or Patrick Chewing) responds, 'they' will give you the "right" answer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| The general consensus seems to be that taking a picture of a fish that is outside of a size limit is ok as long as they fish is handled correctly and released quickly (and it is caught in season). If I remember correctly the language in the regulations stipulates immediate release, but there is no definition of what immediate means. In this case a CO may think that taking a photo is not immediate release and may charge you. In this case you would have to fight the charge, and would probably win, but could get your equipment confiscated. I wish the MNR in Ontario would issue a specific ruling on this case, because as it stands now a CO could be having a bad day and charge you, and then you would have to jump through hoops to clear your name.
So to answer your question taking a picture with any fish that is not legal to harvest, or that you are not legally allowed to harverst could be a spin of the dice. You could be charged. Personally I find it rediculous that if caught a 50" musky in the Ottawa river and took a pic some CO could charge me, but that is the system we have. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 767
Location: Ames, Iowa | Gregoire- Horsehunter:
What exactly would one be charged with? |
|
| |
|
| its legal to catch the fish... its just not legal to keep it cuz its under 54 inches...take a pic and put it back nothing illegal about it |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
| John Petshaw and I believe its legal! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Look up the word immediate in the dictionary, most CO's would say nothing if A picture was QUICKLY taken. But I know others that have said TO ME that they would lay the charge.
That is one reason (although I have worked on geting size limits increased in the past) I'm not sure I am now in favour.
MUSKIE FISHERMEN ARE 99% RELEASE ORIENTED AND THE CASUAL OR BASS ANGLER IS NOT EQUIPPED FOR SPEEDY RELEASE AND FISH DIE FROM MISSHANDELING
Edited by horsehunter 2/29/2012 7:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| djwilliams - 2/29/2012 12:20 AM
Gregoire- Horsehunter:
What exactly would one be charged with?
You could be charged with possesion of an illegal fish. I think it is a criminal offense and requires a court appearance. The CO has the right to confiscate all equipment, from tackle, rods and reels, to a boat and a car. |
|
| |
|
| In a conversation with an Ontario MNR CO, I was told that technically, taking a picture of an undersized or out of season fish is illegal. Under normal circumstances, he would not charge someone for doing it with muskies unless that person did something to really tick off the CO.
The only time he has used that provision in the regs, is to get guys targeting bass out of season. About the only thing they can get to stick.
Furthermore, he said that it is legal to target muskies with a conservation license as long as the muskie season is open and you release the fish "immediately."
Bill |
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
Location: Hugo, MN | Has anyone ever been charged with catching a "non-legal" and taking a picture? Ever? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| horsehunter - 2/29/2012 8:00 AM
Look up the word immediate in the dictionary, most CO's would say nothing if A picture was QUICKLY taken. But I know others that have said TO ME that they would lay the charge.
That is one reason (although I have worked on geting size limits increased in the past) I'm not sure I am now in favour.
MUSKIE FISHERMEN ARE 99% RELEASE ORIENTED AND THE CASUAL OR BASS ANGLER IS NOT EQUIPPED FOR SPEEDY RELEASE AND FISH DIE FROM MISSHANDELING
I think having size limits does a few things. It encourages catch and release, especially in destination lakes like LOTW. It also helps to increase the chance of catching a trophy. It also makes it very clear to people that musky are an apex predator who will not be able to sustain their numbers if they are harvested by humans.
Even though I agree that a musky caught by a bass or walleye angler will have less of a chance of surviving, it still has a chance if it is released. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | "it still has a chance if it is released"
point taken
But I would like to see the regulations clearly state that you can QUICKLY take a picture
Edited by horsehunter 2/29/2012 9:07 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | I am reading some of the posts on this forum... and I am curious. Are you guys saying that in Canada if you accidentally catch a 'non-legal' Musky, or catch one in general that is not legal- you CAN NOT take a picture??? That seems strange to me? Then again I don't live in Canada.
Next question... Is this rule (if in place) would only apply to certain Canada waters? Or is this a generalization of all Musky waters, Ontario or not?
I'm Sorry I guess I am really confused..
Thanks in advace
Edited by FAT-SKI 2/29/2012 9:31 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | In Ontario an undersize or out of season fish must be immediately released (technically NO picture) What happens depends on the individual CO. They are spread very thin but you do so at your own risk.
Edited by horsehunter 2/29/2012 9:52 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| I agree. Clarification of this issue would make me feel better., I started a topic on another forum and apparently violating the fishing regulations are much like breaking a traffic law. Most of the time you are fined, and the cases are not criminal, but serious offences can result in large fines and criminal cases.
Whatever the case there does not seem to be strict guidelines in place, leaving far too much discretion in the hands of conservation officers in my mind.
FAT-SKI this discussion is based on the Ontario Fishing Regulations, I do not know what the regulations are for other jurisdictions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| And technically if you are one mile per hour over the speed limit an officer COULD write you a ticket.
Edited by IAJustin 2/29/2012 10:15 AM
|
|
| |
|
| Horsehunter is right, IMO.
And there's a well-known CO just south of where you are Tim who makes the odd loop up to where your buddy is holding the fish (you guys love that Guitar Hold eh? :), I know that exact spot) who will ding you down to every letter of the law, you can bank on it. Taking an undersized fish out of the water for pictures is an exact offfense he looks for, his words. I have talked to him before. In the boat="posession." Undersized fish must be water-released by his definition. My last conversation with him was in 2009. Unhooked and revived in the water and let go. The guy's a cowboy and has a real agenda for muskie fisherman. They get held down to the regs as HE reads them. Like horsehunter says, mix that with the fact that there are fewer and fewer guys to do patrols and you're not likley to get much leeway. The government has no other way to generate revenue other than fines. The odds of you getting a break when you're the needle in their haystack is pretty slim. These guys burn a lot of gas covering water thats way too big in area. When they come upon you and find something, they will likely ding you. Same story all winter icefishing. It's a ridiculous rule, and there wouldn't be many fish pics in the world out of gb if they all had to be 54+. I've broken the law lots of times, by their definition/interpretation. The CO who works the area you're in is a little more sensible. But what are the odds of him being out at the exact minute you're unhooking a 53.5? Pretty slim. COs travel with OPP 90% of the time in my experience on gb, and booze is their no1 target. Safety gear is no2. The odds of you meeting any CO or OPP on most of that body of water is slim, the odds of you meeting the midnite cowboy are slimmer still where you are. When you do get stopped, be ready for a thorough series of checks. Unless they know your boat and see you a fair bit. When I see them where I fish I rarely take the boat out of gear. They pull up, say hello and ask how the fishing has been. They've checked me before and know that the safety gear's all there, we don't carry booze and we're muskie fishing so don't have a livewell to check for over the limit walleye, bass etc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1202
Location: Money, PA | Another FINE example of extremism in this great sport thats helping to ruin it!! First off, a 54" limit is extreme and absurd and ssecond, the notion that an angler is disallowed the opportunity to take a photo with his/her catch is even more rediculous. Let them catch me, if they can....If the guy wants to give me a fine, so be it, but he won't get off without hearing an earful from me.
Edited by ShutUpNFish 2/29/2012 1:07 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
Location: La Crosse, WI | How are you suppose to measure it (accurately) if you don't take it out of the water? What happens when you measure it out of the water and its "only" 53 1/2 inches. Seems pretty ridiculous that you can't take a picture with one. I could understand if they were endangered or threatened...I have a hard time believing you can get in trouble for photographing a undersized fish during the season. Who wouldn't want to take a quick photo before releasing a 50+ inch fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| I sent the MNR an email to see if they would provide clarification. I know in MN the definition of "Immediate Release" is provided in the regulations and allows time to identify, measure and photograph a fish even if it is out of season or not of a legal size. |
|
| |
|
| As to the question.................has anyone ever been charged/fined for possessing an undersized or out of season fish ?
Two instances of I know of personally.................one in Wisconsin circa mid nineties where a smalltime guide had caught an under the 40 inch minimum november fish out of deep water on a sucker and the fish was'nt staying upright so it went in his Ranger livewell and he motored directly up onto the shoreline in shallow water with it in his livewell. Unfortunately just so happened to be witnessed doing so all the while by an overzealous game warden from behind the bushes that had been egging to give him a violation of any sort for some time. He tried explaining he had no intentions of ever keeping the fish; did'nt matter, he got a ticket anyways. The fish was under the lake's legal size limit and the game warden was a jerk.
I personally got a ticket while walleye fishing the spring run up on the Rainy River from an Ontario game warden about 5 years ago. The fine was $255.00 and the violation was worded as "Transport fish unlawfully taken or possessed" .................. this as well was a fish never intended to be kept. In fact the season in both Mn and Ontario the season is closed for any walleye over 17 inches. The only purpose for using my livewell was to stabilize this walleye that I did'nt even catch, while we were getting ready to do the picture deal.................again, another bad timing thing I suppose as two game wardens were about 70 yards downstream watching us the whole time and when the fish went in the livewell, they made "their move". Of course I explained to him that we had no intention of keeping the fish, they said you can tell that to the judge and wrote out the tickets, one for me and another for me partner as he did'nt have an Ontario license. Oh, we were anchored dead center (by line of site bank to bank) in the middle of the Rainy River..................yet the borderline between MN?Ontario is not dead center bank to bank, and they had their maps to show us.
Possesion is undoubtedly, a fish in your livewell, no matter for how long or what your intentions! You put a fish in your livewell either undersize, out of season or while fishing with someone else who catches a musky that merely has a conservation license even if you had a regular license and are witnessed doing so by a game warden ..................they CAN give you a ticket. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | Many lakes in Ontario have increased the slot size on muskie.As everone here notes,all fish regardless of size would be released.Fishing is way down across the province.Muskie fishermen generally represent true conservationists.
A fish over 54 inches is trully a fish of a lifetime,and even so who would ever consider putting into a livewell and killing it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but was the record Muskie recently caught on the St Lawrence River not less than 54" ?
On another note,Georgian Bays fishing populations are reportedly at 20% of their previous totals...so conservation would be sensible for ALL species of fish |
|
| |
|
Posts: 7
Location: Toronto | So, Tim, is this club North of Parry Sound or south towards Frying Pan Island ?
Just curious  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1529
| totally retarded. how can you know its legal without measuring it. .i live in canada ,fished muskies since 1956, never ever experienced this goofy rhetoric.. why do folks have to create the sky is falling.theorys |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | We are located south of Parry Sound...About 3km away from Devils Elbow.. Have caught 7 muskie in that zone in the past 3 years. Lots of big pike as well.Fishing was really poor up until 3-4 years ago.But seems like its turning now.Still not lots of fish,but getting better every year. Smallies,lakers are everywhere
The main reason I asked question on the slot size...If you were part of a fishing club that had derbys...Would you consider under 54" a legitimate fish ? Or does a 7lb pike win ? Seems to me that in the spirit of the chase and the landing and release,the muskie wins every time.
Edited by Tim R 3/2/2012 9:28 AM
|
|
| |
|
| there are no slot limits for muskies in Ontario. it's a minimum size limit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | My mistake,size limit. misremembered |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | Been fishing that area about 25 yrs. There's very good water in all directions.
The muskie wins!
If not the derby cup, 'The Award For Drunkest Cabin That Night' for sure! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | 18 Guys in a Cabin for 3 days. Were contenders for that award for sure !! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 61
Location: Anoka | How is a guy suppose to know its 54" without a measurment its not exactly easy to do it while the fish is in the net what if its 52 1/2" your telling me this guy expects you to just look at it in the net and know lmao. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | I guess the COs make the assumption that fish are to be unhooked and measured without ever leaving the water, using a tape, floating measuring stick or a cradle with tape built in. If its 54in you can bring it aboard for your picture, if the in-water measurement falls short, in-water pics only. (That was actually the terminology and logic the CO I mentioned earlier used....'if a fish isn't legal size, you'd better hope the water is warm when you're in the water having your pic taken with it.') Laws and common practicality are divergent in many cases, this being one of them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 225
Location: Ontario, Canada | This is a silly endless debate! "Trophy'" waters in Ontario have high size limits for a reason, to promote large fish growth. To suggest that you would be fined for taking a pic of a 48" or 53" Muskie on Georgian Bay is rediculous! We do have a court system here in the Socialist Utopia we call Canada, any CO that fined you would not win in an Ontario Court. |
|
| |
|
| So are you telling me that every time a TV show like Musky Hunter films an episode in Ontario, like a couple weeks ago on the Kawarthas and a whole bunch on LOTW, they are in direct violation of the law? Look up any episode and they take the fish out of the water for the camera every time and i promise you the muskies were not 54" long! If just photoing the fish was against the law how is it legal for tournaments to happen? Here in Wisconsin, i fish many tournaments on lakes with high size limits but if you never put the fish in your livewell and transport it, than you never take possession of the fish so you are perfectly legal. If that is not the case in Ontario i believe i know many people who have been in violation of a rediculous law! If i put in that many hours to catch a musky and when i finally do i cant even take a photo of the fish and put it back in the lake? Why would i ever want to travel north to fish in Canada then? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| I totally agree with the above sentiment. Although it is very unlikely that a CO who is so inclined to fine an angler for taking an undersized fish out of the water would be present to witness such an act the fact that someone could be fined is rediculous. Even though a fine would probably be overturned in court, the fact that a court apperance would be necessary is unacceptable. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Actually the size limit there is only 44 inches
There was a musky tournament in the Kawarthas last June and the CO's were on hand to make sure no fish under 44 inches were held
Don't be to sure it would be tossed out of court although it is mainly used for people catching and releasing bedding bass before the season opener
Edited by horsehunter 3/4/2012 2:38 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | When you say the CO'S where there to make sure no fish were held...do you mean kept or held for photos ? We used to go to Pigeon and Buckhorn every year for the pickeral opening.Had a great derby going there with 60-70 guys.Now with the slot size,its like winning a lottery.Fish has to be exact size and weigh in around 2 lbs.But you still have to take them and handle them to be measured.
Muskie fishing in those waters is fantastic.Lots of locals hate them though.Blame them for decreased levels of pickeral. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | They were making sure they were released IMEDIATELY no holding for judge boat, water release of fish obviously under 44 inches . Initially all fish were to be held for judge boat untill the MNR made it quite clear charges would be laid. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 311
Location: Ontario | To Re-Cap:
1. Some COs-----like the one I mentioned in my original post, who is
a real cowboy---apply laws based on their own interpretation of said laws. I did not write these laws, and, as admitted, have broken them hundreds of times. They are silly, and anyone who knows muskie fisherman knows that they're all normally very conservation-oriented.
2. Laws are largely in the hands of the interpreter in the field. He has the option of enforcing them as he sees fit. You have the option of showing up in court to defend yourself back on shore, if it comes to that.
This is a circular argument, and one that's literally applied case-by-case, based on a CO's disrection. Based on a CO's discretion. Based on a CO's disrection.
I did not write this law. I reported on a first-hand verbal experience with an individual who applies the law in a very specific way as it applies to talking under-sized muskie out of the water for photographs. It's my opinion that this guy is an extremeist, and the odds of him being present when you have a 53.9 on your line are pretty miniscule any way. I think he's an isolated example, but an important one to be conscious of. Again, these guys are under-staffed, under-funded and the odds of you getting a break in a grey area are pretty slim, when revenue is dependant on fines. This is a pretty basic concept, I think. (And it is 100% possible to accurately measure any fish while its laying in the water alongside your boat, IMO.) The Regulations are filled with grey areas that are applied and enforced based on a CO's disretion at that moment in time. There really isn't much more to say than that. Tourism photos, magazines and TV shows are full of fish being held for pics that are 'illegal' by some people's reading+application of the laws. Its all very silly! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | AMEN |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| I understand the nature of the argument, and also think that this issue has been disected as much as it can be. Being new to the sport I would like to know if there has ever been a push to clear up the regs, such as gving definition of possession or immediate so that some discretion is taken out of the equation. |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Probably not I once sat in on a discussion between 4 CO's that couldn't agree as to what a road was. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | So this has become more muddled than I thought it would be. Whynot said he has sent an e-mail to MNR to clarify the rule on this issue.Will be interesting to see what the letter of the law states.
Im about to have a 52" muskie replica made of a fish caught last year. Guess no invites to CO's to the house |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | I just spoke to the MNR regarding this issue.The answer given is completely different from any suggestions or opinions given so far.
I was told that as long as you have a sport licence(not conservation) You are allowed to land the fish,measure it,take a picture and then release. The fish then counts as your 1 limit fish for the day. Any fish caught after are to be released immediatly while in the water as you have already reached your limit.
Good news !!
Edited by Tim R 3/5/2012 8:48 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| Glad to get clarification, I guess this means that a CO could not charge you unless he came upon you taking a pic with a fish, and you volunteered to show him pics of other fish you have caught. |
|
| |
|
| Well i guess the only GB ill be fishing in the future will be GREEN BAY! I could catch 20 fish, have a chance at a giant and photograph every one of them! What a stupid law!! |
|
| |
|
| u can catch as many muskies as you want, and get a picture with them as long as you return them to the water. no fish you release back into the water and swims away counts as your "limit" for the day |
|
| |
|
| the difference between "sport" and "conservation" is the amount of fish you can keep...
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Guest you are wrong |
|
| |
|
| the only difference between sport and cons license is amount of fish you can keep and theres no rule about taking a picture then releasing a fish..if there is find it, how many people would be taking pics of musky they catch on their grand trip less than 1% ????
|
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | Tim R - 3/5/2012 9:28 AM
I just spoke to the MNR regarding this issue.The answer given is completely different from any suggestions or opinions given so far.
I was told that as long as you have a sport licence(not conservation) You are allowed to land the fish,measure it,take a picture and then release. The fish then counts as your 1 limit fish for the day. Any fish caught after are to be released immediatly while in the water as you have already reached your limit.
Good news !!
I fail to understand how a fish that is under the legal size limit can count as your I fish limit.
I spoke to a friend this afternoon who is a CO and he said if it was in season and you quickly took a picture and released it he wouldn't do anything, if you took multiple pictures or passed it to a friend for more pictures he would. Where the law is vague some CO's take the word immediately literally and lay the charge. The word immediately is in bold type in the regulations. Most CO's use the law for people catching and releasing bedding bass before the season and in both cases the charges do stick. He also said he has a case going to court right now where the guy brought a sublegal Ottawa R. fish ashore took pictures then tried unsuccessfully to release the fish.
In most cases your not going to have a problem untill you run into the CO that just got chewed out by his supervisor or had a fight with his wife. We had a CO here that would crawl across 100 yds. of broken glass to charge his mother.
Edited by horsehunter 3/5/2012 5:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| lets just pull people over for going 1mph over the speed limit... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 174
Location: Ontario | I believe the interpretation is correct.Muskie has a season.You are allowed one fish.If that fish is not 54' it must be released. Basically,dont harvest any muskie,plain and simple.
Not sure any CO would ever find a muskie in a livewell..ever.Unless caught by someone ignorant to the species or rules. But you dont see many of those types out there in the gnarly fall weather
If anything it clarifies that it is a legal fish within my fishing derbies with our fishing club.Thats all I was looking for. |
|
| |
|
| So I take it if you have a big boat and cannot reach the water you cannot fish for Muskie because it cannot be brought aboard? Please......
I would love to see an OMNR give me a ticket for having to big a boat to fish in.
Removing hooks in the water while hanging over the side of the boat is almost insane unless you like to wear hooks. This idea of not taking a picture of an undersized ski is a bunch of hoo haa.
Hoo Haa |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Haven't heard back yet, just got an email saying they forwarded it to the appropriate person. |
|
| |
