trendsetter
Active Member
lol.. I think it's great that we can even have this discussion! Must mean there are limits to be had. Better than worrying about only bringing home one fish or even getting skunked!
Transporting "Processed" Fish..........leave the other thread behind.
- Thread starter Pippen
- Start date
the fog ducker
Well-Known Member
Heres a good one
Lingcod transport,, quoted from our Regs
Packaging Rockfish and Lingcod
For rockfish and lingcod, packaging and labelling is the same as that described
for salmon. An individual may fillet the fish in two pieces (as with salmon).
Skin must remain on each fillet for identification purposes. In cases where a
size limit applies, such as 65 cm (26 in.) for lingcod, the fillets, including the
tail, must meet the minimum “head off” size limit of 53 cm (21 in.).
FD
Lingcod transport,, quoted from our Regs
Packaging Rockfish and Lingcod
For rockfish and lingcod, packaging and labelling is the same as that described
for salmon. An individual may fillet the fish in two pieces (as with salmon).
Skin must remain on each fillet for identification purposes. In cases where a
size limit applies, such as 65 cm (26 in.) for lingcod, the fillets, including the
tail, must meet the minimum “head off” size limit of 53 cm (21 in.).
FD
Peahead
Well-Known Member
Here's what the DFO site has to say about that:
"What I get from that is the fish counts towards your possession limit up until it has been consumed. Once it has been consumed, it not longer counts as it's no longer in your possession. (At least until you hit the bathroom the next morning)
Like FD said, I doubt you'd be cooking up a 20lb spring unless you have a large group. If it's a pink or coho or sockeye then go for it I say.
Agree .Yes just safer and easier to eat a smaller coho or pink chum or soc and have it not count as your possession limit due to those species not needing to be written on your licence. However just because a DFO staffer says a completely consumed chinook does count as being in your possession doesn't necessarily mean they are correct or that you would be found guilty of an offence in court. As mentioned in another post, typically another DFO officer may say something different. To avoid a hassle with DFO I'd just eat a coho and not a spring. I'd however bet you dollars to donuts that due to the way the regs explain it: a fish is still in your possession during the consuming ) ( doesn't say 'after its completely consumed') and the fact that a chinook doesn't physically exist or in anyone's "possession" once its eaten, that you would be legal should the courts decide. My opinion only but rather not test it out - lol
Last edited by a moderator:
Bassblaster
Active Member
I love this thread. I wish I had to worry about it but so far I've got issues just trying to get a daily limit let alone a possession limit. LOL. From reading posts on the other threads it looks like I'm not alone either.
Bait tricks
Member
Basb you have to make a trip out to the wcvi to cure your ills. It's worth it..
Peahead
Well-Known Member
Way more likely a bigger issue for those that go on extended camping/boating/ hotel trips and those that have summer cabins and stay away for several days or weeks. ( not their ordinary residence)
Bait tricks
Member
So true, you have to feel for these people, but there's always basket weaving while enjoying your view.
Similar threads
