C.O.'s cracking down.

[sparky660]

We were into Spencer fishing this weekend and a group of guys were caught with a walleye 49 cm's when the minimum size is 50 cms. They didn't get a ticket but an automatic court date. Do they generally do this? It is nice to see the CO's cracking down.

[rustynailz]

Talked to a CO friend of mine this morning who's working up in the Hinton area. Said that the average fine for a retained bull trout is in the $1000 range by the time it's all said and done.

Great to see, but he says people still aren't calling in enough.

[sonny]

I am happy to hear these poachers got a court date, instead of fine, this may send a message to anyone else thinking of doing the same thing.
It is to bad that we do not have more Fish@Wild life Officers in the field to better enforce our fish@wildlife, There is to much abuse.

[genoel]

Good for them. My mother was just telling me a story about how someone was complaining that they got nailed for a fish that was only 1/2 an inch short. Too bad! The regs don't say 50 cm.ish. Know the rules and follow them! They are in place to protect our fisheries and preserve them for us to use in the future!

[hillbillyreefer]

But a cop letting you go 7 km/h over the limit is okay.

[genoel]

Different situation all together. That fish doesn't get another chance.

[Cal]

I dont generaly keep fish unless they are obviously 50 cm or more but I can see how ending up with a 49 cm walleye could be an honest mistake. Trying to get an accurate measurement when the fish is not co-operating can be tough. Another possibility is that by the time the guy got the fish to stop struggling long enough to get a good measurement it was in no shape to swim away. If you've got a mostly dead walleye on your hands that is a centimeter or less too short to me it becomes an ethical question, is it more wrong to let the fish go to waste or to keep the fish? Notice I used the word wrong and not legal, to me the two are not always the same. I would put the fish back in this instance. A walleye going to the seagulls while unfortunate, is not worth risking a fine to me. I would not pass judgement on the fellow who chose to keep the fish though. If you are dealing with a fish that is short by more than a 1cm or so either your tape reading or your judgement needs some improvement. But thats just me, glad the CO's are out there doing their job though.

[savagencounter]

I am happy to hear these poachers got a court date, instead of fine, this may send a message to anyone else thinking of doing the same thing.
It is to bad that we do not have more Fish@Wild life Officers in the field to better enforce our fish@wildlife, There is to much abuse.

Poachers??? they guys where off 1cm Maybe an ecited measurement but doest make them poachers, 1cm is a joke. Hope they beat the charge.

[genoel]

All I know is that I'd rather be releasing 49 cm walleye than not being able to catch them because people are taking them out before they are legal. If the fish is that close on its measurement, then it is worth an extra moment to take a proper length before choosing to keep an undersized fish. The laws are in place because of the damage done to the fisheries in earlier years and they are of no use unless people take accountability for themselves and follow them, because the fish cops certainly can't check everybody. The regs also make it very clear that any undersized or other fish which is illegal to be kept is to be returned to the water whether it is alive or not.

[Beazer]

The regs also make it very clear that any undersized or other fish which is illegal to be kept is to be returned to the water whether it is alive or not.

NO grey area there!

It's like sawing wood, measure twice, cut once.

[Fishfinder]

I dont generaly keep fish unless they are obviously 50 cm or more but I can see how ending up with a 49 cm walleye could be an honest mistake. Trying to get an accurate measurement when the fish is not co-operating can be tough. Another possibility is that by the time the guy got the fish to stop struggling long enough to get a good measurement it was in no shape to swim away. If you've got a mostly dead walleye on your hands that is a centimeter or less too short to me it becomes an ethical question, is it more wrong to let the fish go to waste or to keep the fish? Notice I used the word wrong and not legal, to me the two are not always the same. I would put the fish back in this instance. A walleye going to the seagulls while unfortunate, is not worth risking a fine to me. I would not pass judgement on the fellow who chose to keep the fish though. If you are dealing with a fish that is short by more than a 1cm or so either your tape reading or your judgement needs some improvement. But thats just me, glad the CO's are out there doing their job though.
X2 Calzone X2

[cribfisher]

If you must keep fish that close to the size limit use pvc tubing. Get a 4 inch or greater tubing, cut it to the size limit you want to measure and cap one end. Put the fish in head first if the tail sticks out its good, if not just carefully dump it out.

[riderpride55]

this was a portion of a post I did on the poached ram thread. case in point. on the 1cm under eye. thats a tough call for a fishermen. I had a close call last week. I went to measure a pike, and she got away on me. she made a mess of the boat, popped her eye out. after the measuse she was 63 cm. EXACT. she was too close for my comfort, but she was beat up bad. I keep her. with the fear of the law coming down on me. I the end no problems. but the c/o's should be working on bigger and better

IMO, its not the lawmen that I have a problem with (for the most part) but how they do there job, given the laws, judicial system, and budget to work with. to me it seems that they think they are better off harassing the Joe average Hunter/fisher for minor/ridiculous infractions. those guys get a $50-250 fine pay the ticket and complain about it. if they go after the hardcore poachers there is a huge burden of evidence to deal with, major investigations. and years in a backlogged court system, with judges who think a ram is a truck, and a duck is what you do when somebody swings at you. its easy to say we are doing our jobs and making a visible presence, checking boats for beer, barbs and life jackets. while the real poachers knowing the system, and knowing the consequences, will contiune there poaching if the reward exceeds the risk.

[Cal]

Running the tape over the fish, bent to the contour of its sides can give you a longer measurement than if you run the tape under the belly or over the fish unbent.

To get a good measurement the tape must run in a straight line to be acurate, where as the belly of a fish is curved. Therefore if you ran the tape under the belly the front end could be an inch or two away from the jaw and the rear end will be an inch or two away from the pinched tail. This means you have to eyeball it up on both ends. So short of letting the fish flop around in the boat till its half dead and then getting it to lie on the tape you are going to have to try and line up the two ends by eye. IN ORDER TO BE A CM OFF YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TO MAKE AN ERROR OF 5MM AT EACH END.

I've been working as a carpenter/welder/fitter for over a decade and I have a pretty good eye. But on a flopping fish with the tape a couple inches away at both ends I admit I could definatly make a 5mm mistake. I think any honest tradesman, as well as any honest fisherman would have to agree with that. And furthermore if your some desk jocky that put in some laminate flooring or built a deck once and figure you've seen it all and you wanna sit there at your computer and pretend you could never be a cm off under the conditions that fish are regularly measured then I laugh in your general direction.

Sure when that fish cop showed up a hour or two later that fish was all done its flopping and probably real easy to measure and all you self rightious fellas are sitting there wondering how this dummy could possibly make such a stupid mistake, must be a poacher. Well I think it deffinatly could have been a mistake.

[walker197]

Running the tape over the fish, bent to the contour of its sides can give you a longer measurement than if you run the tape under the belly or over the fish unbent.

To get a good measurement the tape must run in a straight line to be acurate, where as the belly of a fish is curved. Therefore if you ran the tape under the belly the front end could be an inch or two away from the jaw and the rear end will be an inch or two away from the pinched tail. This means you have to eyeball it up on both ends. So short of letting the fish flop around in the boat till its half dead and then getting it to lie on the tape you are going to have to try and line up the two ends by eye. IN ORDER TO BE A CM OFF YOU WOULD ONLY HAVE TO MAKE AN ERROR OF 5MM AT EACH END.

I've been working as a carpenter/welder/fitter for over a decade and I have a pretty good eye. But on a flopping fish with the tape a couple inches away at both ends I admit I could definatly make a 5mm mistake. I think any honest tradesman, as well as any honest fisherman would have to agree with that. And furthermore if your some desk jocky that put in some laminate flooring or built a deck once and figure you've seen it all and you wanna sit there at your computer and pretend you could never be a cm off under the conditions that fish are regularly measured then I laugh in your general direction.

Sure when that fish cop showed up a hour or two later that fish was all done its flopping and probably real easy to measure and all you self rightious fellas are sitting there wondering how this dummy could possibly make such a stupid mistake, must be a poacher. Well I think it deffinatly could have been a mistake.

i completely agree....but why would you keep a fish that close to the limit size
? give yourself an inch or two, i was told that fish shrink when they are out of water too long...

[Fishfinder]

Had a day at rattlesnake lake early this year, between two of us caught 25 pike in the morning. Tied at 12 we had a showdown for #13....my buddy won:mad:. Kept 3 tasty fish early as we were not sure if we would catch bigger...though we did, but released them anyway as we were mostly jus out for fun n good eats later on n we had our catch for our family dinner. F n O were waiting for us at the dock and checked everything we had. We were good, however, our tape measure was a full cm off from theirs?? Luckily our smallest was 67 cm so there was no worry. Long story short...mistakes can and coulda happened....we should not be so quick to judge, as much as I despise poachers.......I coulda been one for having a faulty tape measure...and I am surely no poacher. FISH ON ALL:)

[hockey1099]

i have two measuring devices in my boat. My first choice is my stick marked with 43, 50, 63 cm. if the fish p***** the first test then it comes into the boat to be measured flat on my bench seat that also has the same markings. I wont risk hurting a fish if its not of legal size on the stick, heck i dont even handle them the either stay in or just out of the water.

That said 49cm is close but i generally dont squeeze the tail so if i have a fish and it meausres 50cm if you do it properly it should be 51cm

[Cal]

why not just release the fish. You're not fishing to survive. Go buy your fish at a supermarket. if everyone released their fish we would all be catching big ones. If you are so hungry stop at mc donalds and ge a mc fish burger.

I get what your saying man... but other than eating them is there any other reason to fish for walleye? They've got to be the absolute worst pound for pound fighter out there and all the best methods of catching them are super boring. Besides being rather unspectacular as a sportfish they get the bends and dont release as well as lots of other species. I fish for walleye more than any other species of fish and I let more keepers go than I keep, but if I couldnt take a couple home to grace my frying pan I would probably quit targeting them.

and I use a system pretty much identical to hockey's myself, I make a mark on the rod itself and use the distance from the butt of the rod to the mark as a rough measurement befor I even take the fish out of the water. Then measure the ones that pass that.

[genoel]

Bottom line is, if a fish is close, you better measure closely. Rules are rules, not guidelines! Keeping an undersized fish is no different than going to your favourite lake or stream 2 or 3 days before it opens for fishing, and saying that its OK to keep fish as long as they would be the legal length when it did open.

[Sundancefisher]

Poachers??? they guys where off 1cm Maybe an ecited measurement but doest make them poachers, 1cm is a joke. Hope they beat the charge.

So what you are saying is that the rules should just be suggestion and a range to follow without consequences rather than a hard fast regulation to protect the fishery you love:huh:?

[baitfisher83]

man some C&R fishermen need to get off their high horse, yes, it's wrong to keep a fish under the proper regulated size, but that doesnt mean you're better for not keeping any at all...

[Cal]

Bottom line is, if a fish is close, you better measure closely. Rules are rules, not guidelines! Keeping an undersized fish is no different than going to your favourite lake or stream 2 or 3 days before it opens for fishing, and saying that its OK to keep fish as long as they would be the legal length when it did open.

Two completely different scenarios. To fish a stream early you would either have to be ignorant of the fishing regulations or intentionaly breaking the rules. A 49 cm walleye is an error that could easily be made by a person who both knows the rules and is trying to follow them. Like I said all it would take is a couple 5mm mistakes, if you think your eye is too good to make that then go right on spewing your crap but I'm calling BS. Not saying what happened is right, I'm just saying that unless you were there dont be so quick to pass judgement. I think most of us on this board have kept a fish that was just long enough on many ocasions. I also think that among the thousands of barely legal fish that were taken home by the law abiding fishermen on this board there were some that were a little shy despite our best efforts wheather we knew it or not. So watching a bunch of guys who not only COULD have made the same mistake but probably HAVE made the same mistake get all preachy over a single cm makes me a little mad. To my knowlege I have never kept a fish that was under the size limit, but I've kept ones that were close and make no apology for it. There have also been times when I had no tape and used my shoes, my 6" fillet knife blade, a pair of 8 inch vice grips etc to measure fish that I knew had to be bigger than the required length. I'm willing to admit that among all those fish there could easily have been a short one.

[hal53]

so..the law states 50cm, u think u caught one close, so u pinch the tail and everything else until u see 50cm?????...why not self impose a 52-53 cm length?..without pinching or anything else....no problems from there on in..as to the 100kph poster and 7 over , that's 7%....take 7% off a 50 cm fish, you're opening up a can of worms...as a previous poster mentioned,,,the law doesn't say "50-ish"...better safe than sorry IMHO

[fishstix]

man some C&R fishermen need to get off their high horse, yes, it's wrong to keep a fish under the proper regulated size, but that doesnt mean you're better for not keeping any at all...im not saying im better. im saying that we could have big fish. You catch and kill fisherpeople really read alot into these things.

[deanmc]

I'm not saying I'm better. I'm saying that we could have big fish. You catch and kill fisher people really read alot into these things.

Wow that generalization requires no comment or explanation.

[sonny]

Any sporting goods store sells fishing rulers , that have a 90 degree bend on left end of ruler at 0 , lay fish on ruler with nose touching 90 degree bend, which is 0, there is no problem measuring a fish.
It seems a lot of fishermen will spend a great deal of money on fishing rods, reels, lures. But will not put out $5.oo for a decent measuring board. 50cm. measurment for walleye is in place for a very good reason.

[Beazer]

^on the mark there Sonny.
It could be a rare mistake for which one could make but we all have to be aware. You can't say that FW were wrong, alot of people want a tougher stance(particularly on here) but when this happens many people would be complaining.

We can't have both worlds, so it's a judgement call made by the officer. Hopefully the person was respectable enough and the officer was human enough.

[Nait Hadya]

Poachers??? they guys where off 1cm Maybe an ecited measurement but doest make them poachers, 1cm is a joke. Hope they beat the charge.

is one centimeter short on a sheep ah joke?

[jeffrey929]

Just curious... If everyone practised C & R, how would anyone be able to purchase fish at a Market or at MacDonalds?

Not knowing the circumstances of the aforementioned undersized Walleye, it is very hard to pass judgement. Did they try to sneek one by or did they make an honest mistake? Who really knows the answer to that?

[Geezle]

Wow, quite the debate going on over this one!

I definitely see how it has become such a sticky wicket. Without knowing all the circumstances it's hard to say how this happened for sure. Perhaps they were inexperienced and used an improper measuring technique, like running the tape over the body. Maybe they were trying to sneak one by for supper. None of us knows this for sure.

I'm glad to see that they got a court date. On one hand I don't think that they should get off entirely no matter what the circumstances. The law is the law after all. However, I don't think they should throw the book at the guys either.

Hopefully the judge is a reasonable person.

[droptine]

Whos to say that the F&W measuring device wasnt out 1 cm, we are fairly quick to give the officer the benefit of the doubt, why cant we do the same for the angler

[Yellowtail]

Funny how previously everyone is complaining the COs are not doing enough to stop poaching. Now that they did something, some people are complaining that they should give the poachers a break.

50 cm minimum is the law, not a suggestion. Yes everyone makes mistakes, but they should also accept the consequence of their mistake.

[genoel]

Sorry Cal, I'm not saying that they are the same type of offences. I'm just saying that mistake or not, the fish in question was not legal. If a person is going to fish where these regs are in place, you need to be sure that the fish you're keeping are legal, and if its close, then measure it twice with something that will give you an accurate measurement.

[sonny]

Droptine, it is possible F@W Officer,s measuring devise is wrong.
The angler in question when in court, and before the judge, can reqest that the F@W Officer,s measuring devise be checked, and it will be.

[Waxy]

Where has common sense gone?

Is giving the guy with a fish that *might* (there are a nearly infinite number of variables involved in measuring a fish, even as laid out in the regs) be 1cm too short really the priority that our F&W officers should be focusing on?

A law is a law, as the holier than thou's are so quick to proclaim, but what about the spirit of the law or its intent? Do you think it matters to the fishery's well being whether or not the fish was 49cm or 51cm? What about intent? Was the person clearly aware the fish was illegal, or was it an honest mistake, and the only one the person made during the inspection?

To my mind, this is where common sense and discretion on the part of the CO comes in, however, it's my understanding that they're taught and directed to simply follow the exact letter of the law, and let someone else sort it out. Too bad...

Waxy

P.S. Any two bit lawyer should be able to beat that charge if the facts are as they're presented here...

[Wulfespirit]

I'm with you, Waxy. Some acqaintances of mine were given a ticket last year for a walleye that was HALF a centimeter too short. It's sad that the officers sat there and wasted all that time writing a ticket when they could've been focusing people actually harming the fishery. They could've and should've shrugged it off with a polite verbal warning, but they chose not to. I said it before and I'll say it again - I think most fish cops are decent people... but there's always a few.....

fishstix.. are you capable of contributing anything other than stupidity? Least the other people are fishing for food.. you're killing fish for pleasure... go somewhere you're wanted.. don't know where that would be but the fun is in the journey....

[Geezle]

I think most fish cops are decent people... but there's always a few.....

X2


Incidentally I think this holds true for many groups of people.

[Tweedsider]

Here's a brain wave, if it's that close, put it back, big deal you dont get to eat that specific Walleye! There are millions more where that one came from! Why take the chance? I wouldn't, because you know that this very thing could happen to you if you start keeping fish right on the mark. Right or wrong, if the guys that got nabbed were great sportsmen or dirty rotten poachers, who cares! :tongue2:

The co's are out doing there job, thats the main thing. Can we all go fishing now!:lol:

[huntsfurfish]

"I am happy to hear these poachers got a court date, instead of fine, this may send a message to anyone else thinking of doing the same thing.
It is to bad that we do not have more Fish@Wild life Officers in the field to better enforce our fish@wildlife, There is to much abuse."

X2

[crowflyfisher]

Its funny how guys like to push the envelope. Okay 0.5cm too short isnt much but it is still too short. The standard has been set for all of us too follow and its 50cm. not 49.5cm, not 49cm and not even 48.5cm. I used to fish on the SAWT and would have probably won Travers tournament twice if we caught a couple of fish that were 0.5cm longer. Thats the way it goes. There are probably other guys that can say the same thing but as sportsmen we follow the laws and if we dont and get caught we need to live with the consequences.

[PoorTurtle]

So maybe the CO desided to give them a court date because it was so close. this way the guys could fight it properly. on the other hand, maybe the guys were being total D*ck's to the officer and he had anough so he just gave the a date in court. either way 49 cm / 50 cm is to close to keep IMO.

[floppychicken]

Here's a brain wave, if it's that close, put it back, big deal you dont get to eat that specific Walleye! There are millions more where that one came from! Why take the chance? I wouldn't, because you know that this very thing could happen to you if you start keeping fish right on the mark. Right or wrong, if the guys that got nabbed were great sportsmen or dirty rotten poachers, who cares! :tongue2:

The co's are out doing there job, thats the main thing. Can we all go fishing now!:lol:


X2 here....

That basically sums it up. If it's obvious that it's 'too close' throw the damn thing back ! Why bother taking the chance ? Take only fish that are 52cm or bigger if you're unsure about your measuring prowess! How friggin' hard is that ? Sheesh... :rolleye2:

/FC....

[Grizzly Adams]

The regs also make it very clear that any undersized or other fish which is illegal to be kept is to be returned to the water whether it is alive or not.

This is one regulation that's always puzzled me. It's illegal to waste the edible portion of a Big Game animal, but an undersize fish you have to throw back, dead or alive.
Grizz

[floppychicken]

I suppose if you were to hook into a 200 - 1500 lb fish and only intended to keep the 'HEAD', then that rule might apply also.... Indeed that would be a LOT of wasted fish and rules would certainly be 'put in place' in order to avoid that... (just like the rules of which you speak). Either way, you have a valid argument.

Cheers,

/FC....

[SCRUB]

I believe that it isn't that hard to measure a fish with the right equipment, I just bought a tape that i stuck to my seat in my 12' fishing boat, bring the fish out and lay it down and get the measurement. It is a good thing that Fish and Game are cracking down on guys who think it is ok to take fish that aren't over the legal limit.

[Hellydoc]

This has been an interesting discussion. The law is the law, and 50 cm is 50 cm. I am sure there are alot of issues with this particuar case that none of us know anything about. I have no problem with the actions taken by the F&W officer, and I also Have no issues if it was an honest mistake. I will not judge anything by the info we have.

I have had to return a 49cm walleye to the water even when it was 5 yr olds first walleye caught :( but those are the rules) although I think that one would have beeneasier to explain to the judge and F&W officer ;).

I believe something with this story is amiss though as I think it is unusual to give a court date instantly for such an infraction. I just hope that the case has some merit or else it will just be a huge waste of funding and time that could be better spent for all parties involved.

[jrcw]

Plastic fish measuring rulers are available free of charge from any Sustainable Resource Development Fish and Wildlife office. Many Parks C.O.'s and F+W officers carry them in their trucks as well. Chances are either at home or en route to your fishing hole you'll be in the neighbourhood of an SRD office so there's really no excuse. Their measuring sticks and light, durable, and have a 90 degree bend to butt the fish's nose up against for accurate measuring.

[craigmid]

I think it is fair to say that most CO's are fair people. It is just like dealing with a police officer, if you are honest and do not appear to have intentionally commited a wrong, they usually will be fair in dealing with you. However, if you cop an attidude and profess no wrong doing he may be a little harder on you. There was probably more to the situation than meets the eye. Either way 50cm is 50 cm and 49cm is 49.

[deanmc]

This is one regulation that's always puzzled me. It's illegal to waste the edible portion of a Big Game animal, but an undersize fish you have to throw back, dead or alive.
Grizz

:huh:

[Walleyes]

I think the root of this go's back to the fact that most people with common sense feel this is a dumb law with little or no research gone into it.

Now the fact remains these individuals broke the law and got caught,, they must and will be charged...
So that leaves us with the remaining and I think the question that is being debated here,, are the Alberta laws rite ??? HELL NO,, they are so screwed up it ain't funny. If I didn't know better I would think it was a dumb ass politician making up these dumb rules,, oh wait it is !!!!

Our regulations are so out of touch with what is properly suited for a fishery that it ain't funny. For a law to be set that fishermen MUST cull fish is insane!!! Look,, set it at 1 or 2 or three per suited lake.. then fishermen would take home their fish and leave.. But now we got people sitting on a lake for days on end catching fish after fish and we have hundreds even thousands of fish being culled and handled and killed for what ??? that last 1cm,, just stupid no matter how you think of it.. Well you really shouldn't have to think about it it's really all COMMON SENSE...

[huntsfurfish]

"This is one regulation that's always puzzled me. It's illegal to waste the edible portion of a Big Game animal, but an undersize fish you have to throw back, dead or alive."

Then all you would have to do is kill the fish to keep it then. Would kinda defeat the purpose of size limits.

[gprime27]

I got busted for .5 cm once. My tape said one thing and his said another. Took it to court and won

[tatonkagp]

i don't keep much for fish, and when I do there is no need to measure always error on the side of caution. I just wanted to say I would rather someone take a 1cm too small of fish then one thats a lunker. The big ones are your best spawners. I know we have a problem in alberta with fishing ethics and such. Saying what I did I am glad the CO's are at least out checking and if you are short then thats your deal. Just my 2 cents.

[AxeMan]

The COs have made Spencer and Seibert Lakes their pet project lately. Lots of CO presense there. In trucks, on quads on the trails, and on Seibert Lake. My advice would be be stick to letter of the law.

[Bear]

I got busted for .5 cm once. My tape said one thing and his said another. Took it to court and won

And here is a solution to this problem. Back when the size limits came in I worked in Parks. We were taught that if the fisherman had a measuring device we used theirs and then if there was a thought of a problem we would use a tape measure. No discrepancies then.

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Ive wanted to stay quiet on this topic , but my silence is now broken .

The law 50 cm Walleye or bigger

The angler 49 cm walleye - Illegal

How bloody hard is it . Pinch the tail too the tip of the nose if it doesnt meet that regulation return it to the water . It doesnt take a rocket sciencetist to figure this out .

Has nothing with the Conservation officers , or fish & wildlife officers clamping down. Its Illegal and you got caught . It was your fault no one Else's . Lucky you got to walk away with your rods and tackle .

Would that of been worth it for that 1 cm ?

Probably not .

So with this post you've created , probably not the smartest thing to of done but ah well whats done is done . You'll be able to provide your day in court , and more then likely will not get just a slap on the wrist , your gonna end up paying a fine . It was after all your own ignorance , to of not measured the fish or ignoring the fact the fish was on 1cm off . All I can say to you is sucks to be you . Wish Fish and wildlife was able to catch more guys keeping fish 1 or 2 Cm's over or under the regulation .

You have no one to blame but yourself .

[huntsfurfish]

"Wish Fish and wildlife was able to catch more guys keeping fish 1 or 2 Cm's over or under the regulation ."

X2

[baitfisher83]

umm whats the problem if they're over the regulation????doesnt it usually state 50cm and over?not 50cm exactly

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

umm whats the problem if they're over the regulation????doesnt it usually state 50cm and over?not 50cm exactly

Well people that have the walleye tags keeping fish , over the tag size .Especially Pigeon lake with the loss of the 50 cm & over size limit . If you don't think its not happening your on glue . I'm not a 100% sure but I think there are with just a certain size and over , dont think there's anything with a certain size and under as that would be a slot size which Alberta doesnt believe in .

[baitfisher83]

i still dont get it...if it says 50cm and over and they keep a 52 or 53, then i dont see the problem, not that i've fished for walleye except at pcr.....i understand the certain size thing with the tags but if it says over that size, then the bigger number shouldnt matter, except when it comes to taking huge breeders....which i've heard arent the best eating anyways

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

i still dont get it...if it says 50cm and over and they keep a 52 or 53, then i dont see the problem, not that i've fished for walleye except at pcr.....i understand the certain size thing with the tags but if it says over that size, then the bigger number shouldnt matter, except when it comes to taking huge breeders....which i've heard arent the best eating anyways

The tags at Pigeon lake no longer 50 cm and over . NONE ZERO ZIP NONE .

Its 43 cm to 50 cm I do believe and then 43 cm and under .

I'm saying people are tagging these fish over 50 cm when there in fact to be under that size limit . People trying to cheat the system all over the board .

Do you understand now ????

[baitfisher83]

yeah i guess....

[DarkAisling]

Have to admit BBJ . . . you had me a little stumped until I looked at the special licenses.

Class A (50 cm and over) are no longer specified for Pigeon. Class B (43-50) and Class C (Under 43) are the only two licenses specified for Pigeon Lake.

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Have to admit BBJ . . . you had me a little stumped until I looked at the special licenses.

Class A (50 cm and over) are no longer specified for Pigeon. Class B (43-50) and Class C (Under 43) are the only two licenses specified for Pigeon Lake.

And is that not what I said ?

[DarkAisling]

And is that not what I said ?

Yes. I was just reiterating to indicate that you were indeed correct, and that I understood :)

[BBJTKLE&FISHINGADVENTURES]

Yes. I was just reiterating to indicate that you were indeed correct, and that I understood :)

Okie dokie cool

[baitfisher83]

she smart, me dumb :ashamed::rolleye2:

[WayneChristie]

she smart, me dumb :ashamed::rolleye2:

:innocent:

[Fishfinder]

K i stopped reading after page two. Bottomline = if u can't understand the regs, get off the water. The rules r here to protect us n the fish. Fish on all!!!