S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
6 members (SKB, oskar, 4 invisible),
759
guests, and
6
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,547
Posts546,146
Members14,423
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
by ClapperZapper |
ClapperZapper |
I don’t post there, I just read.
It seems the last few days, it has disappeared.
Just the first screen and none of the forums appear on the list and the links to them are dead.
I don’t recall Brad making an announcement that he was going to shut down for the holidays.
Is there a new url?
I’m just trying to contact an old friend for some quail hunting.
|
|
|
by ksauers1 |
ksauers1 |
Wait. Skb. If I understand you , you shot your possession limit. You then shipped your limit out, and poof, you no longer have your limit and you can start over. Is that what you’re saying?
|
2 members like this |
|
|
by LeFusil |
LeFusil |
Hope Ted has quite a bit of PBR in a can on hand. My bet is he does. As far as I understand the law, and I may be mistaken, possession limit is just that. The number of in this case birds you have in aggregate between your home and in the field. It is not a limit for the year or any other restriction. I never hit my possession limit in Montana but I was close enough that if I kept hunting I would have had too many birds. I gave them away and at that point did not have a single bird with me or at home. I believe at that point my possession limit did indeed start over. I'm sure the constitutional scholars and virologists on the board will be along shortly to issue my felony indictment Dustin, I only signed my name to the note transferring the game to my friend. I assume he signed his name. If you are losing sleep over the matter I can contact to verify he did so. Why would you think I’d be losing sleep over you or something you did? You’re just not that important to me. No offense.
|
2 members like this |
|
|
by ksauers1 |
ksauers1 |
Ah I understand now. Liberals can rationalize anything. Kind of like , I did not have sex with that women or it depends on what the meaning of is is. In your mind you did not violate the letter of the law but you sure as #### violated its intent. To your way of thinking there is reason to have a possession limit ,just keep shipping them out. Possession limits are to protect the resource from over harvesting. Guess you're not much of a conservationist
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
by Geo. Newbern |
Geo. Newbern |
There's possession limits and then there are season limits. Not the same thing. Canada gives you little stickies to put on your gamebirds; use up your stickies, you're done. Possession limits most places mean in the car or on your motorcoach or your motel until processed or no longer in your possession. That help?..Geo
Actually, birds on your person until placed in your principal mode of land transportation come under the daily limit.
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
by ClapperZapper |
ClapperZapper |
My home is about 2 miles from one of the most prolific, and popular, walley fisheries in the world.
This topic is one that probably starts with local kids in kindergarten.
Every state draws the lines differently on possession of fish and game.
Some states allow for subsistence living, so you can shoot game and share it with the other members of your community. Some states draw the line at processing. So if something has been processed for storage, it doesn’t count against your possession limit.
Some states take an even stricter view which says that if they can identify the pieces as parts of an animal, it counts against your personal possession limit. So they might thaw a bag of fish just to see how many bluegill fillets are in the bag. (Limit 75 in pos)
The reason for these things is he has to protect the resource, but also see to it that sportsman don’t monetize wild Fish and game held in public trust.
And let me tell you, with all of the retirees around where I live, people could pay for home additions by selling off their walleye and perch fillets.
The limit is 8 per day, if you decide to take two limits a day, four days a week, when they’re in the river, you can catch them literally in the tons.
CheckingFreezer contents is pretty standard operating procedure around here.
You can give them to your wife without telling her. You can give them to your kids without telling them. So at 24 fish, 48 fillets, per resident of the household, you can have all kinds of fish in your freezer without breaking the law. You can chop them into pieces and can them like tuna, and store God knows how many, and because their form has been changed, you would probably never be challenged.
Just don’t monetize it.
Montana is different on this matter than MI.
As I recall, I want to say a case was prosecuted that clarified what the status of the game was that was stored in a camper. Where the owner of the camper was claiming that the camper was his domicile, and anything stored within it met the rendered to possession/storage legal requirements.
I think they lost.
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
by LeFusil |
LeFusil |
Hope Ted has quite a bit of PBR in a can on hand. My bet is he does. As far as I understand the law, and I may be mistaken, possession limit is just that. The number of in this case birds you have in aggregate between your home and in the field. It is not a limit for the year or any other restriction. I never hit my possession limit in Montana but I was close enough that if I kept hunting I would have had too many birds. I gave them away and at that point did not have a single bird with me or at home. I believe at that point my possession limit did indeed start over. I'm sure the constitutional scholars and virologists on the board will be along shortly to issue my felony indictment Dustin, I only signed my name to the note transferring the game to my friend. I assume he signed his name. If you are losing sleep over the matter I can contact to verify he did so. Why would you think I’d be losing sleep over you or something you did? You’re just not that important to me. No offense. Well you seem interested in proving I did not follow the letter of the law and still have the Rittenhouse thread on your mind. My bad..... PS Has anyone ever told you that you take things a bit too literal at times Dustin? Loosing sleep was tongue in cheek. lighten up a bit, maybe pop a beer like Ted. I see things, people & situations for what they are. If that’s literal, then I’m guilty as charged. I’m not interested in proving anything. I had the Rittenhouse thread on my mind because I’ve got a memory like an elephant and reading things some people wrote in that thread were so ridiculous it makes the thread pretty memorable. You don’t know me, if you did know me, you’d know that I’m as cool as cucumber, low heart rate and all…..it takes a lot more than a burnt out dead head to get me riled up. 😀. Take it easy, Steve.
|
1 member likes this |
|
|
|