|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 29, 2007 13:15:54 GMT -5
Since the possession limits have been what they are since I started hunting over 50 years ago I doubt the DNR will or want to change them.
I'm really having a hard time understanding why you want them changed? If you look at the regulations it says the "daily" bag limit is 5 and the "possession" is 2X the daily bag limit. Now how hard is that to understand?
Most all of our neighboring states have the same possession limits of 2X the daily bag limit. I personally don't seeing the DNR changing any of the possession limits.
Like I said in my previous post people who stock their freezers up with small game or birds and have over the two day possession limit per license in the household are really poaching. Sorry but there is no other way to describe it. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by tenring on Dec 29, 2007 16:28:00 GMT -5
"There are two groups of guys I know of that rabbit hunt with dogs on the Salamonie Reservoir. They hunt every day and kill all they legally can. One of them boast to me that they kill over 600 rabbits a year on the reservoir. Now these guys under the old sign in system must report the kill each day. Now how hard would it be for someone in the reservoir office to simple add up the numbers and send a CO to pay them a visit and check their freezers? "
What did the reservoir office say when you told them about the possible violations?
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 29, 2007 17:42:21 GMT -5
I have no idea what the reservoir office did but evidently it was nothing as I never heard of any thing happen to them. Most of the time when Ive turned in a violation they thank me and tell me they will look into it. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 30, 2007 2:23:53 GMT -5
Hornharvester, I think you may have misunderstood something I said earlier. I do understand the regulation as far as the possession limits being twice the daily bag limit. That part is simple enough, I agree.
What I'm having a hard time understanding is why anyone wants to keep a regulation that isn't enforced, couldn't be enforced with any degree of effectiveness, and wouldn't achieve the original objective even if it could be enforced effectively.
Even in your own example, the guys hunting the reservoir property could have been legally within the existing possession limits. If they stayed within their daily bag limits and had plenty of friend and family that liked rabbits, they could well have either eaten or given away the excess bunnies as the season went along and been legal the whole time. I would agree that it seems unlikely, but there's no real evidence of any crime there even if the daily cards are tallied and shows them to have taken their limit every day as claimed.
That's why I'm saying that the possession limits don't work to limit the excessive taking of game by those who wish to do so, especially if they get creative about labelling their frozen game.
I'd just like to see the guy who tries to stay legal get the same freedom that we give the guy who ignores the law and laughs at us while he's eating his game on his own schedule.
My personal preference would be to simply drop the possession limits entirely, but I suspect that Woody's right about it being easier to get a ruling on definition of possession as meaning possession in the field. I can see where even the twice daily bag limit in the field could put a damper on a weekend hunting trip for a small group like a father and son, if they filled their bag limit on the first evening and the next morning. That has never happened to me, but I don't see it as anything that should make it illegal for them to go ahead and stay another evening and morning and take home three times their daily bag limit, as long as they've brought enough ice to keep the ones they got earlier. I guess it wouldn't be too hard to eat the first day's take by the end of the second day, so they could probably stay within the current possession limits that way and enjoy the whole weekend before leaving for home.
Probably be tougher to do with geese, though.
In any case, I just don't see the limits as being anything more than a totally unneeded aggravation to a sportsman who would like to stay legal and still eat his legally taken game when he wants to, without needing to either give it away or quit hunting until his appetite has caught up to his success.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 30, 2007 6:05:03 GMT -5
It is what it is, no confusion here. Laws have been set for reasons even if we don't agree with them or choose to follow them.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Dec 30, 2007 14:22:13 GMT -5
My guess is that possession and bag limits were set to denture market type hunting, Renting meat lockers under assumed names, keeping it in others freezers, keeping game in restaurant freezers (knew of a deer poacher that did this, but unfortunately not until he let town). Yeah possession limits are almost unenforceable. But I believe that if you use the tip line you can help enforce them. After all game hogs are taking game away from all of us, well most anyway.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Dec 30, 2007 14:39:10 GMT -5
I do wonder how "cooked" game is viewed. What if you cook up 3-4 rabbits for a family gathering and not all is eaten so the leftovers get put in the fridge? How is that counted against (or is it?) possession limits?
What about jerky? I've got several ziplocs of deer jerky, as well as one ziploc of goose jerky right now. If the goose wasn't labeled as "GOOSE", there really would be no efficient way of telling what it was, and even though it is you can't tell if there's 1, 2 or 4 breasts worth in there.
Better clarification would be a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by duff on Dec 30, 2007 15:16:23 GMT -5
Here is my experience with cooked and uncooked FISH in CANADA
Cooked fish did not count towards possession limit but filets did! I know a guy who has proof of that, and I witnessed it with my own eyes. I would think our laws would be the same.
But really these laws are laws of opportunity for the most part. Give the man a reason to check and you just might find out.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 30, 2007 15:38:13 GMT -5
So we could never give away any game animal that has a possession limit to anyone who is not licensed for that animal/bird?
I cant give my dad any ducks I kill because neither he nor my mom are properly licensed to possess them at their house. Makes perfect sense .... cant see why anyone would disagree with that.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 30, 2007 17:31:19 GMT -5
swilk, far as I know there's no restriction on who you give your game to, licensed or not. I think the poster who said that if you have thirty squirrels in your freezer you had better have three licensed hunters in the household was adding a few regulations into the mix that don't exist.
That's part of the problem with the whole approach.....it doesn't work. You wouldn't have to be a very devious poacher to "give" the excess game to some friend or neighbor who doesn't even like squirrel, then have them "give" it back when you when your freezer count is low enough.
And if I understand it right, it's often interpretted now that the meat can even actually still be in your own freezer, as long as it's marked with the name of the owner other than yourself. I suppose it would be difficult to legislate the use of our freezers for the storage of someone else's packaged meat, so that's probably a true interpretation. I wonder if we could get the other guy convicted of a possession violation for the meat in our freezer that he didn't even know he "owned"?
Sure is a mess to try to figure out how to make it work and be legally and effectively enforcable.
And with what we now know about how hard it really is to "hunt out" a patch of woods or even to fish out a pond, and the way small game hunting has declined in the past generation or so, I doubt that the possession laws would actually do any good if they were somehow fixed to make them very enforcable.
I really think it's time to save the ink it takes to add them to the regulation book.
I think honest hunters who try to obey all the laws, and the guys in green who try to enforce them, both deserve better laws than these ridiculous and unenforcable possession limits, especially if they extend to our freezers.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 30, 2007 18:00:44 GMT -5
Honestly, this is something I have never given any thought to.
I have hunted since I was 6 years old ..... and I have never, not once, heard of anyone being punished for a game possession violation. I dont think I am going to start loosing sleep over it now......
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 30, 2007 18:44:36 GMT -5
I think the poster who said that if you have thirty squirrels in your freezer you had better have three licensed hunters in the household was adding a few regulations into the mix that don't exist. Russ, I said that because its based on the law. If anyone has over 10 squirrels or rabbits in their freezer and there is only one person with a license living in the home then they are in violation of the possession law and can be arrested. I really don't think the CO's will come around and do a freezer check on anyone unless they catch them for another more serious game violation or someone turns them in for being a blatant game hog and then they most likely will be checked. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Dec 30, 2007 22:46:48 GMT -5
One more sticky issue regarding the limits.... Geese.
Early season (September) there is a 5 per day limit on Canada geese. Regular season it's 2. Now, with this new February season it'll be back to 5. Not to mention snows are different than Canada geese. I've never seen a Canada goose breast next to a snow goose breast, but something tells me they aren't terribly different....
Ducks are the same way- different limits on different species, though they are consistent through the season.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 31, 2007 1:27:03 GMT -5
hh, Are you saying then that there is a law against donating the game to others? I've never heard of that one.
Or is it just against donating it to someone else who lives in the same household?
So it would be illegal for me to donate 10 squirrels to my wife, and another ten to my son?
Could you point me to the documentation on that interpretation? All I've gotten so far is info that the possession limits may or may not even apply to game in the freezer, and you seem to have info that goes way beyond that and outlaws the donation of game, even to family members living in the same house.
I started hunting about the same time you did, and have hunted every year since. Never heard of any restrictions on donation of game to friends or family, or anyone else for that matter.
No offense intended, just trying to get on the same page with what we're talking about. I'll try to find the actual regulation and see if I can decipher the legalese they write them in. Seems like a lot of differing opinions on what the law really says now. I suppose the first step in getting it right is to see if there's something wrong with what it really says now.
It still looks to me from what I've seen so far that this regulation is making a lot more violators than it's catching.
By the way, for those who jump quickly to defend the law simply because it IS the law....laws are just the products of men who put their pants on one leg at a time just like we do. Lots of them turn out to be mistakes and need revisions or outlive their purposes and need repeal. Just ignoring them doesn't work much better than just ignoring the mess in the garage...neither one will go away by itself. We need to get out the trash sacks and the broom and clean them up once in a while.
And the OBR is a regulation...should it remain on the books, too? 8^)
Even the older regulations were just rules passed by men, not guidelines passed down on a mountaintop.
When we see one that doesn't seem right, it's up to us to see if we can fix it. This one looks like it's way more trouble for the legal hunter to comply with than it is for the illegal hunter to evade prosecution for. That qualifies it as pretty bad law in my book.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Dec 31, 2007 2:32:26 GMT -5
I just did some fishing on Google to see how other states defined the possession limits.
So far, it looks like Texas specifically defines possesssion limits as being in effect UNTIL the owner of the game has it in his possession at his place of abode and it is cleaned for consumption. No problem there with determining whose squirrels are in the freezer, or what portion of a squirrel might be left in the frozen leftover dumplings 8^).
I couldn't find a definition of possession limits in any other states, but did run across a mention of the legal need for donated meat to retain a paper stating the info of the donor with the meat until the entire carcass was consumed, however long that took.
I also found a reference to possession limits on a site with an interview with a Nevada CO that indicated that the possession limits there were interpretted to include the game in the freezer.
Most sites visited just stated the same thing that ours does about the possession limits being twice the daily limit after the first day, without going into any detailed definition of whether that included the game frozen at home. Seems to be at least some difference in other places as to just what constitutes "possession" and whether it applies to "in the field" or "anywhere".
The search is kind of interesting, but not enough so to keep me awake much longer, so I'll let further invetsigation wait until next opportunity.
If our state defines possession like they do in Texas, specifically ending the limits when the game is home and cleaned for consumption, I see no need for further action. I'll continue to search for the other states' take on the issue, and try to contact our DNR headquarters after the holidays to see if they can define it more closely.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 31, 2007 7:58:58 GMT -5
hh, Are you saying then that there is a law against donating the game to others? I've never heard of that one. Or is it just against donating it to someone else who lives in the same household? So it would be illegal for me to donate 10 squirrels to my wife, and another ten to my son? Could you point me to the documentation on that interpretation? All I've gotten so far is info that the possession limits may or may not even apply to game in the freezer, and you seem to have info that goes way beyond that and outlaws the donation of game, even to family members living in the same house. I started hunting about the same time you did, and have hunted every year since. Never heard of any restrictions on donation of game to friends or family, or anyone else for that matter. No offense intended, just trying to get on the same page with what we're talking about. I'll try to find the actual regulation and see if I can decipher the legalese they write them in. Seems like a lot of differing opinions on what the law really says now. I suppose the first step in getting it right is to see if there's something wrong with what it really says now. It still looks to me from what I've seen so far that this regulation is making a lot more violators than it's catching. By the way, for those who jump quickly to defend the law simply because it IS the law....laws are just the products of men who put their pants on one leg at a time just like we do. Lots of them turn out to be mistakes and need revisions or outlive their purposes and need repeal. Just ignoring them doesn't work much better than just ignoring the mess in the garage...neither one will go away by itself. We need to get out the trash sacks and the broom and clean them up once in a while. And the OBR is a regulation...should it remain on the books, too? 8^) Even the older regulations were just rules passed by men, not guidelines passed down on a mountaintop. When we see one that doesn't seem right, it's up to us to see if we can fix it. This one looks like it's way more trouble for the legal hunter to comply with than it is for the illegal hunter to evade prosecution for. That qualifies it as pretty bad law in my book. Russ, The law is 2x the daily bag limit. The law simple states to legally possess small game or any game animal in Indiana you must have a valid Indiana Hunting license. A person can donate all they want but technically the law says a person who is in possession of the game must have a valid hunting license and can only have 2x the daily bag limit. The possession law is in the Hunting and Trapping guide. Now, all this being said I really doubt a CO will come to any ones home and check their freezers for being over a squirrel or two but if someone got caught poaching deer or other game animals then I imagine the CO's would be counting every one of them and writing tickets for any over 10. h.h.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 31, 2007 9:00:39 GMT -5
I think you are taking it upon yourself to interpret what isnt written.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 31, 2007 9:32:29 GMT -5
From the 2007-2008 INDIANA HUNTING AND TRAPPING GUIDEwww.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/huntguide1/0708_HG/0708_hg_generalinfo.pdfDefinition..Possession limit: Two times the daily bag limit or the bag limit for the entire season depending on the species. Bag and Possession LimitsIt is illegal to possess, ship, carry or transport more than two times the daily bag limit of a wild animal after the beginning of the second day of the season established to take that animal. It is illegal to take more than the daily bag limit of a wild animal in a calendar day. You must maintain possession of any wild animal taken while you are hunting or returning to your vehicle after hunting, unless the animal is properly tagged. You cannot transport a wild animal for another person, which is in excess of your bag limit, unless the animal has a tag signed by the person who killed the animal. The tag must include the person’s address, total number and species of wild animals taken, and the date the wild animals were taken. When transporting pheasant, the head and head plumage of the bird must remain attached until processing. This sounds like it is more about "transporting" than actual in the freezer possessing.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Dec 31, 2007 9:36:02 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, I believe the possession limits aren't a "regulation". I *think* I remember the question being asked to the CO's a while back and a link was referenced to a section of the Indiana Code...
I'll see what I can dig up here in a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by raporter on Dec 31, 2007 9:49:23 GMT -5
Seems to me the only thing this discussion has done is make it clear we need a clear and precise regulation on possessions. Everyone has an opinion and even COs tell you to check with your local CO for their interpretation of it. That alone should be enough to let you know there is a problem.
|
|