03-25-2010, 02:46 PM
Sorry, but this is really bizarre to me. (I live in Idaho and sometimes fish in Utah.) Because a FEW people may not use all of their fish in a timely manner ALL are to be treated the same? That is like saying you can hunt for a deer or elk in Utah, but you can only possess 10 pounds of meat because you might not eat all of the rest quick enough. Sounds ridiculous when it is game meat, but really the theory is the same. If people can be trusted to take care of a hundred pounds of venison what is the difference between that and fish? Both are game.
Don't get me wrong, I fly fish and usually put the trout and bass back, but I do keep a fair, but not excessive, amount of panfish. I love to have a fish fry when my extended family comes to visit. So I have some in my freeze, I am sure it is more than your possession limit, but I have never thrown a single bit of fish out!
I also have some smoked and canned fish - it too is used and not wasted. Does that make me a game waster? Not in my opinion, so I don't see the point of your law. In my opinion Utah sportsmen ought to seek to have it changed, to a more realistic possession limit.
[signature]
Don't get me wrong, I fly fish and usually put the trout and bass back, but I do keep a fair, but not excessive, amount of panfish. I love to have a fish fry when my extended family comes to visit. So I have some in my freeze, I am sure it is more than your possession limit, but I have never thrown a single bit of fish out!
I also have some smoked and canned fish - it too is used and not wasted. Does that make me a game waster? Not in my opinion, so I don't see the point of your law. In my opinion Utah sportsmen ought to seek to have it changed, to a more realistic possession limit.
[signature]