|
Post by danf on Dec 31, 2007 10:02:22 GMT -5
Ok, a search on "possession limit" in the CO forum turned up what I was looking for. MIG told BSUTravis in this thread: www.huntingindiana.proboards52.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=coanswers&thread=1160622422&page=1Clicking on the link MIG posted and scrolling down to 312 IAC 9-2-8 (which is the one that the "regulation" is based on) you find this at the bottom of page 6 and beginning of page 7: Notice it does NOT say a *licensed* hunter. It simply says "A PERSON" so that could probably mean that you could legally give game to someone else (and their wife, sons, daughters, etc.). If it did say 'licensed hunter' you would be getting a lot of landowners in trouble... I think IAC 312 9-2-3 has exemptions to MIG's "Possession includes any part of an animal" statement...
|
|
|
Post by weedhopper on Dec 31, 2007 10:19:42 GMT -5
So guys that stock their freezer full of Springtime crappie are criminals?? Folks that have venison left over from the previous years' buck can't kill another buck until they consume the meat?? Remember,,,,,the "one buck rule".... As long as the meats in the freezer,,,you're still in possesion of that "one buck". Kinda silly,,, ??
|
|
|
Post by ActionPoint on Dec 31, 2007 15:06:24 GMT -5
Some people are really grasping at straws on this one. Apply some basic common sense. We all know these laws were made to prevent excessive harvest and waste. If you have any examples of hunters or fisherman that were targeted by CO's and cited for having a few animals or fish over the possession limit then by all means share the stories, otherwise give up on the whizzin contest. Unless you are committing other game violations or hoarding a gross number of animals in your freezer there is nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Dec 31, 2007 16:59:06 GMT -5
Some people are really grasping at straws on this one. Apply some basic common sense. We all know these laws were made to prevent excessive harvest and waste. If you have any examples of hunters or fisherman that were targeted by CO's and cited for having a few animals or fish over the possession limit then by all means share the stories, otherwise give up on the whizzin contest. Unless you are committing other game violations or hoarding a gross number of animals in your freezer there is nothing to worry about. I agree.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Dec 31, 2007 21:40:23 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. Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Dec 31, 2007 21:56:40 GMT -5
Some people are really grasping at straws on this one. I can see your argument, but do you not see where the confusion comes from? Look at my examples on waterfowl. That alone is enough to ask for clarification. AFAIK, I've never been anywhere close to violating the law. However, if/when I am getting close to having the maximum allowable of any game specie, I'd really like to know just how the law will be interpreted by any *judge*, not by the luck-of-the-draw with whatever CO just happens by....
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 1, 2008 0:33:30 GMT -5
danf, I admit I have been using "law", "regulation", and "rule" pretty much interchangably and have been too lazy to check to see which term is actually proper for the possessiom limits. They all seemed the same to me in terms of having the effect of law, but I imagine it does make some legal difference, particularly when it comes time to try to get it changed.
So, if it's in the code, but isn't a regulation, what term should be used for it? Law? Rule?
I'll call it by it's proper name if I know what that is.
And thanks for the research.
I think the main thing that the objections will hinge on is whether the limits actually extend to meat that is in the freezer. If it does, that's where the main problems come in for those who actually care about being legal, not just escaping notice while doing something illegal.
If it's defined like it is in Texas, where it's nobody's business once it's home and cleaned for consumption and can then be eaten immediately, or frozen and eaten at your leisure even if that's much later and your biggest concern is freezer burn, then most of my objections to possession limits are gone.
I still don't think they're very effective at preventing anyone who wants to violate them from doing so, and I expect they would still put a damper on some weekend outings if most of the party got lucky the first evening and the next morning. That probably wouldn't happen often, but it seems like it would be a shame if it did cut short a weekend hunting trip for some law that didn't make much sense.
And I agree that things get even sillier in regards to waterfowl. There could be a problem with getting them changed for waterfowl, beyond the normal problems of dealing with the state agencies, though. Aren't most waterfowl regulations set by the feds? From my limited exerience, the feds are almost impossible to even discuss anything with. They're simply right, always, because they're the feds. I suppose even there, any positive changes to the state law or the definitions of terms within the law would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by hoosieroutdoorsman on Jan 1, 2008 9:19:03 GMT -5
So you are only allowed to have X amount of waterfoul in your possession in your own home? I have never really kept up on the regs for waterfowl, I always understood the game laws to be directed to possession on hand to and from the field, say I go out and rabbitt hunt every day and get the bag limit each day? Does the state think they can come into my home and tell me I have too much wild game meat to feed my family?? Maybe I missed part of the discussion at hand but unless they have a hidden addition to the regulations they post in the book as long as you do not exceed the daily bag limit you have nothing to worry about. But if it boils down to the Co`s interpretation of the rule? Then the state needs to define the rule to the CO`s and tell them what LEGAL and FAIR interpretation they are allowed to have.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jan 1, 2008 9:54:43 GMT -5
For those that don't believe possession doesn't include what you have in your freezer, prove that having that game in your freezer is not possession.
To me it is black and white, daily bag limit and possession limit. I can not think of a way to explain away what I have in my freezer as not in my possession unless it has been gifted to another person.
Bottom line is this is a non-issue unless you give a CO a good reason to check.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Jan 1, 2008 10:00:05 GMT -5
Bottom line is this is a non-issue unless you give a CO a good reason to check. I agree, completely. However, when 10 CO's interpret the law/rule/regulation/code 10 different ways- THAT'S why some of us are wanting clarification. We could "what if" this from now till the end of the month and still not know the answers. My main question/concern is where and how do non-licensed, non-hunting household members fall into the division of game in the freezer? I think that was Russ's original concern as well, though that may have changed by now....
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 3, 2008 16:11:59 GMT -5
Just an update...apparently Florida defines possession as ceasing when the game is finally processed and is at your home, same as Texas.
Other states that seem to have possession that includes those in your freezer, include SD and NE.
These are gathered from other sites where the discussion has been carried on previously, found on Google. As here, much confusion and misinformation and rumor abound on the definitions. I haven't contacted the state yet to see if they have any official definitions to offer.
Looks like most states have a lot of hunters asking each other the same questions raised here, and a few asking their CO's, with about the same results.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jan 3, 2008 16:21:25 GMT -5
Let me ask you to look at "possession" as word by itself and not pertaining to game.
If there are illeagal drugs found in your house, are you in possession of it even though it is not on your person?
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 3, 2008 16:26:02 GMT -5
Danf, that was part of it, but I just generally find it irritating to run across laws that are poorly defined, rarely enforced, or are more bother to the hunter who follows them than to the violator who evades them.
No matter what the activity being regulated, poor regulations should be called out and changed or eliminated. Just sweeping them under the rug is shirking our duty as citizens to challenge government when it oppresses us unnecessarily or unfairly.
I'm as much in favor of good regulations as anyone. The guys at my archery club used to poke fun at me for setting the alarm on my wristwatch and taking the arrow off the string at precisely the end of legal shooting time, even with deer approaching. That was hard to do, but in my view if I wanted to cheat, I'd get a high-powered spotlight and a .243 and do it the way the boys down around Paragon did.
I think that poorly written or rarely enforced laws are a slap in the face to those who obey them voluntarily, and should be an embarrassment to those who are charged with enforcing them.
We can do better than that.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Jan 3, 2008 17:29:53 GMT -5
Let me ask you to look at "possession" as word by itself and not pertaining to game. If there are illeagal drugs found in your house, are you in possession of it even though it is not on your person? Nor a valid comparison. Honestly taken wild game is not illegal..
|
|
|
Post by indianagooseman on Jan 3, 2008 19:10:29 GMT -5
Let me ask you to look at "possession" as word by itself and not pertaining to game. If there are illeagal drugs found in your house, are you in possession of it even though it is not on your person? YES. Just as you would be "in posession" if they were found in a vehicle that you were operating. They do not need to be on your "person" for you to have "possession".
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Jan 4, 2008 2:01:14 GMT -5
indianagooseman, yes, you would be "in possession" of the drugs, of course.
But sometimes the law doesn't say exactly what it means, or at least doesn't mean exactly what it sounds like it says.
I'd have to look up the exact wording, but I think there's a law that says you're not supposed to possess prescription drugs prescribed for someone else. However, we've probably all gone to the drugstore for a friend, neighbor, or family member to pick up a prescription for them. Are we illegal if we don't tell them they'll just have to drag their sick bones down to the druggist and pick up their own meds? Depends on the interpretation and the definitions.
Are you in possession of a firearm within a gun free zone if you're driving along on the way to your hunting area and the road runs past a school? Again, I doubt that there will be roadblocks set up to find weapons innocently being transported for legal purposes, but you never can tell what some sheriff or or police chief might consider it his duty to protect the public from.
And I think that you're considered to be "hunting" in one section of the code if you are afield in the possession of a weapon, but in another place it's explained that you can be out in the field, and even in your stand, well before or after legal hunting hours, if your gun doesn't have a shell in the chamber or your ML doesn't have a cap on the nipple, or your arrow is not on the string.
The devil is in the details on some regulations, and it would be hard to write some laws to cover all the possible scenarios that would merit an exception.
I'm just saying that I, and apparently a whole lot of hunters in other states, would like to see some clarification in print on the laws that we're told to follow in regard to possessing game. If we can find out what they really are, then we can make the determination whether they should be changed a little to make them better, or whether we want them to stay the same.
We should be able to read the guide and have the answer to whether possession ends at your front door as it does in Texas and Florida, and maybe some other places, or whether we have to buy granny a hunting license if we want to give her some of our squirrels without risking her being hauled off to jail for illegal possession.
I suspect that it really wouldn't be all that hard to make a couple of points clearer, to satisfy those of us who can't figure out whether Indiana possession means the same thing as the same word does in Texas and Florida, or if it means the same as it does in South Dakota and Nebraska.
You can't always tell what things really mean here. There's an old saying that "South Bend is in the North, and North vernon's in the south, and French Lick isn't what you thought, either!".
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jan 4, 2008 9:34:05 GMT -5
I just don't see the confusion you guys are having. Daily bag limit and a possession limit. If it is in my freezer I possess that game. Like it or not. I can not explain it any other way. But I am not a CO, judge, or lawyer but I have served on a jury or two. It seems pretty black and white to me.
It is a very enforcable law, if a CO were to inspect your freezer you better have your ducks in a row so to speak. The likely hood of a CO picking you out at random is pretty slim, but if you are giving them a reason to search your freezer then they can enforce the law.
An example would be the fur buyer in E.C. Indiana who was selling yotes out of state earlier this year. When they raided his place he was found various other violations and he got cited for them. If he wasn't involved in the sting he probably would have gotten away with those other violation cause they might not have ever checked him.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Jan 4, 2008 12:31:00 GMT -5
How can possession end at your front door? If something (anything) is in your house, garage, shed, car, buried in a hidden underground vault it is in your possession. If you have it it is in your possession. The Indiana possession limit is understandable and neatly defined, twice the daily bag. No it does not bother me if you have 20-30 squirrels in your freezer, nor does it bother me if you have 40 or 50 crappie in your freezer, heck even a couple of hundred does not really bother me. What does bother me about that is when people go out every day and catch 25-50 (if there are two in the family) and freeze them. If you started in April and stopped in September how many fish could you store? The guys that take the limit every day and freeze it are the ones that need to be turned in. I am not into geese or ducks (would not mind trying it once though) but mostly what I believe what I have seen is a daily bag limit. Daily bag limit is different than possession limit. Oh yeah for you that what about the OBR and deer meat in the freezer and left over from last year vs this year. I believe that that is one per year not one per freezer until all gone. Besides you did legally register it didn't you, you kept your tags if you home processed didn't you. A check of the tags would tell what year they were taken, you are supposed to keep those tags (home processors) until that meat is totally gone.
Hoosier- Rabbits belong to the state too, just like deer.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jan 4, 2008 13:55:30 GMT -5
Possession limits don't pertain to deer or turkies. You have to own a tag for each animal taken, so the possession limit is already defined by how many tags you use.
It does pertain to game and fish that just require a general license. You can have your daily bag per day and 2X the daily bag in possession following the first day of the season. Clear as mud to me too. Waterfowl is no different even with the different bag limits per species or even from season to season. If you have more then allowed a description on the bag would probably explain. Like the species and date harvested on the bag. Canada geese have 2 per day during regular season so you can legally only have 4 in possession, but the special seasons let you kill 5 per day. Label your bags so there is no confusion if you think a CO is going to be checking your freezer.
You can what if everything to death I just don't see this as a big issue IMO.
|
|
|
Post by danf on Jan 4, 2008 21:25:27 GMT -5
The fish are a whole 'nother ball game, IMHO... Private waters pretty much nullify the possession limits... OK, so are you saying you can have 10 in your freezer from early season (5 per day), 4 from regular (2 per day) and 10 more from the special season (5 per day) for a total of 25? What about the different zones- they have different seasons? You may think 25 is the right answer, but a CO could say you are only allowed 4 and you'd have 21 citations. If Russ wants to ask for the possession limits to be done away with once at home, I'd be fine with that. BUT, I'd be happy with just getting clear and somewhat concise clarification. Dilute the mud a little with some fresh water, if you will.
|
|