Culling Fish is Usually Illegal

[RavYak]

There has been a lot of misinformation on here lately on this subject and I just got a written response back from SRD confirming that culling fish to remain under the limit is in fact illegal as any fish that has been kept but later released still counts towards your limit. It isn't the act of releasing the fish that is illegal but rather exceeding the daily limit due to how possession of fish is defined.

Here is my email to SRD further explaining how the law is written and should be interpreted.

Due to an ongoing debate I am hoping someone can clear up a question regarding the legality of culling fish.

The Alberta Fisheries Regulation act states the following

"No person shall in any day catch and retain from the waters set out in column 2 of an item of Schedule 5 more fish of any species set out in column 1 of that item than the quota set out in column 3 of that item."

It also defines retained as below.

"For the purposes of these Regulations, a fish is considered to be retained when it is not immediately returned to the waters from which it was taken."

This makes it quite clear that any fish not immediately returned to the water(so any fish put in a bucket, on a stringer or in a live well with the intent of keeping the fish) is considered retained and counts towards your daily catch limit.

Now if a person later decides to release the fish for some reason it is my understanding that it still would count towards their limit because it is already considered retained and there is no regulation that states that later releasing a fish removes it from your limit.

Therefore if a person already has their limit of fish and culls one to keep a larger one just caught then they would have theoretically exceeded their daily limit and would be breaking the law(although this would be very difficult to prove since they wouldn't have the fish still in their possession if checked by a conservation officer).

Can you please confirm this is correct or explain why it isn't.

Thanks

And their response.

Good day, here’s the response to your inquiry:

The interpretation is correct. Culling is addressed on page 27 of the current Guide to Sportfishing Regulations.

Best Regards,

Azina Kanji

ESRD Information Officer

Let this be a reminder to some on here that the regulations booklet is not a suggestion booklet... When it states something like "Never culls fish", it means it...

[walking buffalo]

Thanks for making the effort to inquire, and in writing.

I suspect that most people who state they can't get ERSD to respond have not actually tried.


So I guess this means I can't keep freshly caught live baitfish in the livewell, but will have to kill them "immediately", as the regulations require.

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Thanks for making the effort to inquire, and in writing.

I suspect that most people who state they can't get ERSD to respond have not actually tried.


So I guess this means I can't keep freshly caught live baitfish in the livewell, but will have to kill them "immediately", as the regulations require.

SRD is hit and miss, they responded reasonably to this question but I am still waiting for another response to a question I asked a couple months ago... It seems if something is obvious they will clear it up but if it is a grey area no one is willing to make the call.

Lol about the baitfish.

[Dan Foss]

Ravyak, I dont think many people were arguing with you over the point in that once you have your limit, you cannot release a previously retained fish and put the freshly caught one in the livewell. Maybe some were, but I wasn't anyways.

But even from your written question, and his response, Culling when you are under the limit is infact still legal. IE retention limit on lake X is 3. I have one in the livewell. Because I only need one, I catch another (gill hooked), I can still release fish 1 if it is alive and healthy and put fish 2 in the live well.

Even after i have released fish 1, i have still retained 2 fish on my license for that day. (not exceeded the 3 per day regulation, fish 1 was alive and healthy and not wasted)

Any argument there?

[nekred]

Very simple....if there is a 5 fish limit.... Fish 1 is caught and put in live well.... and retained along with fish 2 and three, 4 is caught and is really big so fish 2 is let go...... you can only catch and retain one more fish at this point whether or not you let other retained fish go.

You catch and keep number 5 you are limited out..... even though you only bring 4 fish home.....

Now trying to police that without direct observation would be difficult.

[kirbstomps]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Ravyak, I dont think many people were arguing with you over the point in that once you have your limit, you cannot release a previously retained fish and put the freshly caught one in the livewell. Maybe some were, but I wasn't anyways.

But even from your written question, and his response, Culling when you are under the limit is infact still legal. IE retention limit on lake X is 3. I have one in the livewell. Because I only need one, I catch another (gill hooked), I can still release fish 1 if it is alive and healthy and put fish 2 in the live well.

Even after i have released fish 1, i have still retained 2 fish on my license for that day. (not exceeded the 3 per day regulation, fish 1 was alive and healthy and not wasted)

Any argument there?

That it true, but it doesnt really fit the Definition of "Culling"... your only culling once you've hit you're limit, or how i understand it anyways...

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by RavYak

SRD is hit and miss, they responded reasonably to this question but I am still waiting for another response to a question I asked a couple months ago... It seems if something is obvious they will clear it up but if it is a grey area no one is willing to make the call.

Lol about the baitfish.

Like with any large organization, one needs to ask the right person for the particular question. Instead of using the general inquiries contact, search out the specialist for the area in question.

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Ravyak, I dont think many people were arguing with you over the point in that once you have your limit, you cannot release a previously retained fish and put the freshly caught one in the livewell. Maybe some were, but I wasn't anyways.

But even from your written question, and his response, Culling when you are under the limit is infact still legal. IE retention limit on lake X is 3. I have one in the livewell. Because I only need one, I catch another (gill hooked), I can still release fish 1 if it is alive and healthy and put fish 2 in the live well.

Even after i have released fish 1, i have still retained 2 fish on my license for that day. (not exceeded the 3 per day regulation, fish 1 was alive and healthy and not wasted)

Any argument there?

Yes. By yes, I mean No.

In your example, you will have retained two fish towards your limit of three. All is fine here. I don't believe anyone stated before that you cannot release a live fish back into the water it came from, "retained" or not.


The practice of culling can lead to illegal actions in reference to Possesssion limits. Once a fish is considered "retained" it applies to your daily possession limit regardless of if it was consumed, gifted away or released alive. There is no legal way to subtract retained fish from your daily possession limit.


For example, Catch three walleye (three fish limit), keep them in your livewell for a few hours before releasing all of them. Despite having released the three fish, they are considered "retained" and you cannot possess another walleye that day, alive or dead.


Add: or use Nekred's example.

"Very simple....if there is a 5 fish limit.... Fish 1 is caught and put in live well.... and retained along with fish 2 and three, 4 is caught and is really big so fish 2 is let go...... you can only catch and retain one more fish at this point whether or not you let other retained fish go.

You catch and keep number 5 you are limited out..... even though you only bring 4 fish home....."

[Dan Foss]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Yes. By yes, I mean No.

In your example, you will have retained two fish towards your limit of three. All is fine here. I don't believe anyone stated before that you cannot release a live fish back into the water it came from, "retained" or not.


The practice of culling can lead to illegal actions in reference to Possesssion limits. Once a fish is considered "retained" it applies to your daily possession limit regardless of if it was consumed, gifted away or released alive. There is no legal way to subtract retained fish from your daily possession limit.


For example, Catch three walleye (three fish limit), keep them in your livewell for a few hours before releasing all of them. Despite having released the three fish, they are considered "retained" and you cannot possess another walleye that day, alive or dead.

That right there is the response I am looking for. the act of culling itself is NOT illegal. Culling to stay within the retention limits is because it is breaking the retention limits.

Simply stating that "culling is illegal" is 100% wrong in itself. The act of Culling fish is legal, clearly not recommended. Especially in a bucket or on a stringer. But I liked the way you put it in that "the practice of culling can lead to illegal actions regarding retention limits."



*Disclaimer: I keep a walleye maybe every other year. Only ever keep the odd stocked rainbow, and a handful of perch every year so non of this really matters to me, especially because the fish I keep get bled out right away anyways. But when People are discussing the regulations, I don't like seeing misinformation being circulated

[Dan Foss]

Originally Posted by kirbstomps

That it true, but it doesnt really fit the Definition of "Culling"... your only culling once you've hit you're limit, or how i understand it anyways...

Culling is a bad word to use from the start as it is typically used to separate or set aside an animal. The term itself is not used only when limits exist. (this is another argument but the word cull/ the act of culling really has nothing to do with releasing an animal either. It just means to collect/ separate an animal from the rest. IE you cull diseased cattle away from the rest so it doesn't spread. Or an example most Albertans know. wild horses are culled to reduce population. Really has nothing to do with releasing an animal. Just collecting / separating)

However for our purposes: Culling fish is the act of setting aside one fish and releasing the other.

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

Ravyak, I dont think many people were arguing with you over the point in that once you have your limit, you cannot release a previously retained fish and put the freshly caught one in the livewell. Maybe some were, but I wasn't anyways.

But even from your written question, and his response, Culling when you are under the limit is infact still legal. IE retention limit on lake X is 3. I have one in the livewell. Because I only need one, I catch another (gill hooked), I can still release fish 1 if it is alive and healthy and put fish 2 in the live well.

Even after i have released fish 1, i have still retained 2 fish on my license for that day. (not exceeded the 3 per day regulation, fish 1 was alive and healthy and not wasted)

Any argument there?

So. Much. This.

[Northern Yaker]

The regs state on page 24 " possession: A fish is considered retained (kept) when it is not immediately returned to the waters from which it was taken.

Now that seems pretty damn clear. As much as I am a not a huge RavYak fan he's 100% right on this culling is completely illegal at any time no matter if your below your limit. Key word in the regulations being immediately.

[Northern Yaker]

It even goes on in the regs pg24 for those who never bother to read them "fish kept on a stringer or a live well are considered retained and part of your limit. "

How can't anybody really think culling fish is legal.

[Fish magnet]

Not trying to open up a can of worms but they cull at fish Derbys all the time.

[EZM]

I would suggest that your e-mail to the SRD, at the very least, is leading the respondent to desired conclusion. Well played.

In order to remain neutral ..... I would have asked - "Is the act of culling a fish unlawful, if, at any point, you have not exceeded your daily possession limit".

I wonder what the response would have been ...

I'm not 100% sure of the answer myself, despite strong and compelling arguments on both sides. Keep in mind the SRD official is not a judge and I have, in fact, been witness to erroneous information provided by, or from, a SRD officer.

Here's why I ask .............

So ......... let's say you are fishing on a hot day, in late summer, when the water is warm and oxygen levels are the lowest.

You catch a "fish", that is legal, with, say, a 3 possession limit, and after the fight you decide to put this legal fish into your aerated live well in an attempt to deliver well oxygenated water into it's gills, while monitoring, and aiding, the fish to keep upright so it can live and swim another day.

As a statement of fact, elevated oxygen levels, and keeping a stressed fish upright will increase survival rates.

You do this, say, 10 times a day, never having more than one fish in the live well .... at the end of the day you return to shore with no fish in your possession.

Are you breaking the law at any point throughout the day? If so, what would you be charged with?

How does this apply to tournament anglers? Would there be an impact on tournament anglers if this law applies?

[Dan Foss]

It even goes on in the regs pg24 for those who never bother to read them "fish kept on a stringer or a live well are considered retained and part of your limit. "

How can't anybody really think culling fish is legal.

and with this statement I actually give up. clearly you have not been following the conversations even though I have said the example above very clearly. I no longer want any part of this discussion. It's Exhausting.

Also your statement above is a double negative, but I still know what you meant

[Dan Foss]

Originally Posted by EZM

I would suggest that your e-mail to the SRD, at the very least, is leading the respondent to desired conclusion. Well played.

In order to remain neutral ..... I would have asked - "Is the act of culling a fish unlawful, if, at any point, you have not exceeded your daily possession limit".

I wonder what the response would have been ...

I'm not 100% sure of the answer myself, despite strong and compelling arguments on both sides. Keep in mind the SRD official is not a judge and I have, in fact, been witness to erroneous information provided by, or from, a SRD officer.

Here's why I ask .............

So ......... let's say you are fishing on a hot day, in late summer, when the water is warm and oxygen levels are the lowest.

You catch a "fish", that is legal, with, say, a 3 possession limit, and after the fight you decide to put this legal fish into your aerated live well in an attempt to deliver well oxygenated water into it's gills, while monitoring, and aiding, the fish to keep upright so it can live and swim another day.

As a statement of fact, elevated oxygen levels, and keeping a stressed fish upright will increase survival rates.

You do this, say, 10 times a day, never having more than one fish in the live well .... at the end of the day you return to shore with no fish in your possession.

Are you breaking the law at any point throughout the day? If so, what would you be charged with?

How does this apply to tournament anglers? Would there be an impact on tournament anglers if this law applies?

I know I said I give up. but I will respond to this post because it was well written and i think i have a good way to answer your question

So what Rav Yak was debating and what he had confirmed in his email with SRD, is that as soon as a fish is put into your livewell instead of back in the water, it is considered retained. Even if you successfully release it later, it still counts to your daily limit. Consider it as if you ate the fish on shore and went back. Even though the fish is "gone" it still counts against your limit. So in your example, you could be charged there with being overlimit. The issue would be proof as you are releasing the fish. A F&W officer would have to witness you catch and release all the fish. And even then I am unsure how his testimony would hold up in court(i am assuming time stamped pictures would be enough). But it would be no different if someone had 3 walleye, went to shore, ate them and attempted to go back out and retain his limit again in a day

[Dan Foss]

Originally Posted by Fish magnet

Not trying to open up a can of worms but they cull at fish Derbys all the time.

Indeed they do. But have you ever wondered why the fish counts for the tournaments is 4 fish per day per boat and yet they are only allowed to hold the tournaments on lakes with a retention limit of 3 walleye per person per day?


To me this makes sense. By word of the law a fish not immediately released is considered retained against your limit. so say a boat weighs its limit of 4 fish in a day. that is 2 per person(daily limit is 3 per person). now lets be real with ourselves. In a tournament if you knock out your first 3 fish early in the day and have weighed them, and you have half the day left and the fourth sitting in the livewell, you are not going to go to the weigh station an call it a day. Each boat would still be allowed to cull one more fish per person to still remain under the daily catch limits

Some tournaments do have a no cull rule anyways so doing this would be a disqualification anyways. But for those that dont, having the catch limit for the tournament at 2 allows fishermen to cull without exceeding the daily retention limits(assuming they dont cull any more than 1 fish per person.) and they do not break any regulations. I found that interesting.

[Dan Foss]

now I'm done

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by RavYak

There has been a lot of misinformation on here lately on this subject and I just got a written response back from SRD confirming that culling fish to remain under the limit is in fact illegal as any fish that has been kept but later released still counts towards your limit. It isn't the act of releasing the fish that is illegal but rather exceeding the daily limit due to how possession of fish is defined.

Here is my email to SRD further explaining how the law is written and should be interpreted.



And their response.



Let this be a reminder to some on here that the regulations booklet is not a suggestion booklet... When it states something like "Never culls fish", it means it...

Culling in itself is not illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG You still dont get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow!!!!!!

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by EZM

I would suggest that your e-mail to the SRD, at the very least, is leading the respondent to desired conclusion. Well played.

In order to remain neutral ..... I would have asked - "Is the act of culling a fish unlawful, if, at any point, you have not exceeded your daily possession limit".

I wonder what the response would have been ...

It would have been what I and some others have been saying for 2+ years

I'm not 100% sure of the answer myself, despite strong and compelling arguments on both sides. Keep in mind the SRD official is not a judge and I have, in fact, been witness to erroneous information provided by, or from, a SRD officer.

Here's why I ask .............

So ......... let's say you are fishing on a hot day, in late summer, when the water is warm and oxygen levels are the lowest.

You catch a "fish", that is legal, with, say, a 3 possession limit, and after the fight you decide to put this legal fish into your aerated live well in an attempt to deliver well oxygenated water into it's gills, while monitoring, and aiding, the fish to keep upright so it can live and swim another day.

As a statement of fact, elevated oxygen levels, and keeping a stressed fish upright will increase survival rates.

You do this, say, 10 times a day, never having more than one fish in the live well .... at the end of the day you return to shore with no fish in your possession.

Are you breaking the law at any point throughout the day? If so, what would you be charged with?

How does this apply to tournament anglers? Would there be an impact on tournament anglers if this law applies?

Exactly and well said EZM

[RavYak]

Guys, try reading and understanding... Don't get caught up on a shotened descriptive title... Read the details... I clearly stated in op that culling to stay below legal limit is illegal, that is all... I am not claiming that the act of releasing a fish is illegal as it is not.

It is legal to release a fish as long as it is still alive(although it would be unethical if you believed the fish has a poor chance of survival). The key point is that it still counts towards your limit unless it is immediatelly released.

By a far margin most people that cull are doing so to stay under the legal limit, I realize there are a small handful of unlikely examples that don't fit this category but they are exceptions and not what I am addressing.

There is no point arguing this more, culling to stay under the legal limit is illegal as outlined by the law and agreed on by an srd official.

If you know of individuals or tournaments that cull you should report them as it is your ethical obligation to do so. Either they will be fined or the laws will be changed to allow the use of live wells for culling. The fact is that right now wth the way the law is written it is not legal to do so. The chances of getting convicted of culling fish is very small though as pointed out above due to the lack of evidence available, just because you are unlikely to get charged doesn't mean it isn't illegal though.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by Dan Foss

and with this statement I actually give up. clearly you have not been following the conversations even though I have said the example above very clearly. I no longer want any part of this discussion. It's Exhausting.

Also your statement above is a double negative, but I still know what you meant

Bold: I feel the same way. Like pounding your head against a walllol

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Culling in itself is not illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

OMG You still dont get it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow!!!!!!

I don't give up because I am right... I got the evidence you asked for and still you refuse to accept being wrong...

As I have said multiple times, the act of culling isn't illegal but a culled fish does count towards your limit which makes culling to stay below the legal limit illegal as I have clearly claimed and proven...

I am done, obviously you guys refuse to accept you are wrong no matter how much clear evidence there is stating so...

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Guys, try reading and understanding... Don't get caught up on a shotened descriptive title... Read the details... I clearly stated in op that culling to stay below legal limit is illegal, that is all... I am not claiming that the act of releasing a fish is illegal as it is not.

It is legal to release a fish as long as it is still alive(although it would be unethical if you believed the fish has a poor chance of survival). The key point is that it still counts towards your limit unless it is immediatelly released.

By a far margin most people that cull are doing so to stay under the legal limit, I realize there are a small handful of unlikely examples that don't fit this category but they are exceptions and not what I am addressing.

There is no point arguing this more, culling to stay under the legal limit is illegal as outlined by the law and agreed on by an srd official.

If you know of individuals or tournaments that cull you should report them as it is your ethical obligation to do so. Either they will be fined or the laws will be changed to allow the use of live wells for culling. The fact is that right now wth the way the law is written it is not legal to do so. The chances of getting convicted of culling fish is very small though as pointed out above due to the lack of evidence available, just because you are unlikely to get charged doesn't mean it isn't illegal though.

LOL wow!

I will say it again. Culling in itself is not unlawful.
I will say it again.
and again
again
again. Banging head. Must lay down.

Wow

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by RavYak

I don't give up because I am right... I got the evidence you asked for and still you refuse to accept being wrong...

As I have said multiple times, the act of culling isn't illegal but a culled fish does count towards your limit which makes culling to stay below the legal limit illegal as I have clearly claimed and proven...

I am done, obviously you guys refuse to accept you are wrong no matter how much clear evidence there is stating so...

Yes you finally admitted that and thats what we have been saying all along!

Culling is not illegal. Sheesh. I/we are not wrong you were!

[BeeGuy]

This is amazing.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

This is amazing.

Is'nt it.

I really need to walk away.

Mods can I get a time out for a couple weeks.

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by RavYak

... As I have said multiple times, the act of culling isn't illegal but a culled fish does count towards your limit which makes culling to stay below the legal limit illegal as I have clearly claimed and proven...

I am done, obviously you guys refuse to accept you are wrong no matter how much clear evidence there is stating so...

But you did say it's illegal. Specifically in the title of this thread....

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Is'nt it.

I really need to walk away.

Mods can I get a time out for a couple weeks.

If you need some strategies on how to accomplish that lemme know.

[huntsfurfish]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

If you need some strategies on how to accomplish that lemme know.

LOL, what do I need for a 2 week holiday? PM is ok.

Awe heck, maybe I will just go fishin.