Jun 25th, 2026 at 6:59pm (UTC)

(Moderators: Jimbo, DentonDoc, db)
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17 Reply Reply Add Poll Add Poll Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
25 POD (cont. 10) (Read 78112 times)
ToothFairy
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 158
Location: Grand Rapids, MN
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #90 - May 8th, 2009 at 10:02pm
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
Very interesting,  never thought I would have to leave a name at a live well in the Q (if you leave camp?). What if you don't leave camp?  They are all over the place and we seldom use them but we were base camping on Pooh Bah and kept the fish alive and cold until we were ready to eat.  I'll have to read the regs again....Seems like overkill...
Kim  Cheesy
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
solotripper
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 8115
Location: clarkston MI
Joined: Mar 14th, 2005
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #91 - May 8th, 2009 at 10:56pm
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
 All I could find in the regs, under storing and transporting fish, seemed to be in reference to fish holding structures made with man-made materials. That's were the name and address thing comes into play.
 I've seen plenty of rock fish wells, but I thought "we" had a conversation about them, and I'm thinking the thought they were "illegal" had to do with fish mortality rates from predators or fish that get out but have been affected by heat or possibly low oxygen rates?
 It might just be faulty memory on my part Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Old Salt
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 4871
Location: Crossville, TN
Joined: Jun 17th, 2004
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #92 - May 9th, 2009 at 3:41am
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
Since they were only keeping baitfish, there is no need for name/address.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
db
Web-lackey
Inukshuk
Voyageur
Offline



Posts: 5461
Location: Just off the beaten path.
Joined: Sep 14th, 2002
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #93 - May 9th, 2009 at 7:05am
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
I believe we've discussed fish pens before but I don't remember anyone saying they were any legal issues involved. If there were I'd bet they'd have more to do with baitfish than someone's breakfast/brunch/linner/lupper.
  
Back to top
WWW WWW  
IP Logged
 
solotripper
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 8115
Location: clarkston MI
Joined: Mar 14th, 2005
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #94 - May 9th, 2009 at 5:26pm
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
 db, I guess we need to determine whether THEY were eating fish as TF stated, and YOU and I believed, or BAIT-FISH as OS says Wink
One man's "eater" is another man's BAIT Grin
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Akula
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 299
Location: Dakota Territory
Joined: May 6th, 2008
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #95 - May 9th, 2009 at 9:50pm
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
Excellent POD today. I can almost feel the cold, clear water on my feet... I wonder what kind of fish is on?
  
Back to top
WWW WWW  
IP Logged
 
ToothFairy
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 158
Location: Grand Rapids, MN
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #96 - May 9th, 2009 at 9:59pm
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
WE were eating the fish,  they were all 14-16 inch fish which we consider the best  size to eat for walleyes.  If the fish looks smaller to some people,  look again.  Pictures distort the true image.  Is this the problem for someone???  We have friends that keep 12 inch walleyes and eat them,  we think that is too small.  They were not bait fish as OS suggests.  Have a good day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ToothFairy
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 158
Location: Grand Rapids, MN
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #97 - May 9th, 2009 at 10:03pm
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
Akula-- to answer your question--walleye.  We stood in that spot and caught some nice eaters in the early morning.  Pooh Bah is an extraordinary lake.  Have you ever been there?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Kingfisher
Voyageur
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 1814
Joined: Mar 8th, 2004
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #98 - May 9th, 2009 at 10:17pm
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
I think it's a great idea to eat 14" walleyes and smaller is ok too. Old Salt thinks so too, he's just being Old Salt.

As far as the legality of a rock construction live well, I don't know. As far as conforming to the intent of the rules however there is really no difference between putting your fish in the well vs. putting them on a stringer. Bear in mind that they do become part of your possession limit the moment they go on a stringer or into a live well...even if they are eventually released.
  
Back to top
WWW WWW  
IP Logged
 
ToothFairy
Inukshuk
Offline



Posts: 158
Location: Grand Rapids, MN
Joined: Feb 1st, 2006
Re: POD (cont. 10)
Reply #99 - May 10th, 2009 at 3:53am
Quote Quote Print Post Print Post  
Oh yes, we know that.  we only had 8 fish in the well,  our conservation limit for the day.  We didn't eat 8 fish a day though.  I understand the limits very well.  Kim
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11 12 ... 17
Reply Reply Add Poll Add Poll Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

 
  « The Put-In ‹ Board  ^Top   

QuietJourney Forums » Powered by YaBB 2.6.0!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2026. All Rights Reserved.

Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge