PDA

View Full Version : How much Fish can you have in your Freezer?



Hell Boy
02-06-2009, 12:10 PM
Hi all,

in regards to keeping fish in your freezer, i heard that you can't keep more than your daily limit of fish species in your freezer. i don't know if its true, but i can't see how its possible to enforce.

For example, you couldn't be fined if you had 20 full fillets of snapper in your esky that you just brought from the shop and put in the freezer!!!

Not that i would buy 20 fillets of snapper from the fisho. even though u could spend the same amount on fuel, bait and boat running costs and only catch 1 snapper >:(

Pedro Jnr
02-06-2009, 12:21 PM
Yes true, our bag limits are a "in possession limit" which includes your fridge at home, if you bought 20 fillets from the shop you would have a receipt from the fish monger to prove it

Hell Boy
02-06-2009, 12:57 PM
so it is true, well i really didn't think that would be the case. it seems silly and couldn't see it being enforced, as that would apply to some bait fish in your freezer as well.

but then again if you have 4 people in your household , then you have a "edited by request" of 4 people and it wouldn't be an issue. has anybody been caught for this, as the only way you could be caught is if you got caught with fish over your take limit on the boat ramp and then they raided your home.

and before i get shot down, i do believe in the the fish limits, i've never caught more than 5 legal snapper in one outing in australia. i just can't see how it could enforced.

( you'll have to remove ' daily limit ' from your post,,,, the term is " In possession ". Cheers Phill )

choppa
02-06-2009, 02:07 PM
the main area here is if you are seen to be "running" to and fro the shore to offload your catch and then return to fishing,,,,OR if you have been reported doing so

the law states that if you have fish in the fridge/freezer at home, this contributes to your bag tally,, so therefore any request to look into them is enforceable

most reports that i have heard of comes from crabber's, but occassionally a report that merits fish quantities sweeps through

choppa

fishn-ads
02-06-2009, 06:58 PM
My understanding was fish in possession limits only apply to certain species of fish (Coral Reef species) and the limit of 20 fish in possession or special areas like tailor at Fraser?

Bag limits are per 24hr period?

gee this is confusing!!!

Not that I'm one out too slaughter fish but i do go fishing to catch a feed or two.

Adam

Richard
02-06-2009, 07:07 PM
Hi Adam,

Just to clarify - all bag limits specified in QLD legislation is referring to a "in possession" limit, regardless of the species. Sometimes there are different bag or size limits for different areas though.


cheers

Richard

dfox
02-06-2009, 08:04 PM
Years ago i new of an old fella that was fishing every day the weather allowed for spanish mackerel, due to a tip off from locals the fisheries monitored him and when they ponced they caught him with eskies full of fillets, then they raided his place and freezers.
Ive had the fisheries check freezers at home, but i have a commercial licence and everything was in the log books... foxy

tigermullet
02-06-2009, 08:46 PM
If fisheries come around here I'm going to get a bunch of friends over who will swear that they live here.;D

Seriously, the chances of fisheries coming to do an 'in freezer' check at the home of an amateur fisherman is vanishingly faint.

Anna Bligh has run out of dough. Can you imagine what has happened to the DPI budget? They'll be hard pressed to scare up a five litre container of emergency fuel.

If we're lucky, Marine Parks might have some constraints upon them as well.

Won't that be a shame? No more sunning their tits on the deck of their expensive boats. Instead, they'll have to attend shore based training courses, do a bit of filing and get to sit on useless, boring committees.

I'm starting to believe that there is a God.;D

Hell Boy
02-06-2009, 08:54 PM
Thanks guys for the info, i can understand now why the rules are there, but it still seems like a grey area.

Lovey80
02-06-2009, 10:44 PM
Let's face it the home freezer check laws are there for those blatantly breaking the law. On any one occaision a serious offender isn't likely to be 'that' far outside the law when caught or should I say that heavily punishable. That first breach is what will be used as the trigger to search the house to sting the offender on the heavy breaches.

The only other times I could see them doing it is for people running big camp sites where they will inspect all the freezers( seen that done pleanty).

Cheers chris

Noha
03-06-2009, 10:43 AM
in the nt you can have as much fish as you want in your private residence , but you have to abide by the 30 fish possesion limit in your boat or camp.
if you leave your house, say to take fish to your mates or relo,s you have to stick to the 30 fish limit. cheers

Mattg68
03-06-2009, 02:10 PM
on the other hand if someone has over the 'in possession' limit stock piled in the freezer (& know it) the question i'd be asking is: why?

answer: eat fish more often & if you know you have over the limit at home - release.

i agree it's a grey area when you consider that a good deal of fishos probably aren't aware of this info. me partly included.

thanks for raising the issue.

matt

GBC
03-06-2009, 03:03 PM
I haven't seen the floor of my bait freezer for quite a few years - they're welcome to come and empty the contents if they like... Still got that dirty great barracouda head that the boys promised would only be there a 'coupla weeks' too....

GBC
03-06-2009, 03:06 PM
I haven't seen the floor of my bait freezer for quite a few years - they're welcome to come and empty the contents if they like... Still got that dirty great barracouda head that the boys promised would only be there a 'coupla weeks' too.... Personally I'd rather give away fresh fish to those who'd appreciate them rather than freeze fillets.
All the pearly and snap we got last thursday - goone.

groverwa
03-06-2009, 04:31 PM
How much fish can you have in your freezer????????????????

This is from the Fisheries West Aust media: -


Mid West fishers fined over rule breaches

Date: Friday, 22 May 2009

The discovery of more than 180 kilograms of filleted Spanish mackerel in a Kalbarri house in mid-April has resulted in fines of almost $11,500 for a recreational fisher.

Johann Schumi pleaded guilty in the Geraldton Magistrates Court yesterday (Thursday) to possessing 181 kilograms of fish fillets, in excess of the possession limit. He was fined $500 and ordered to pay an additional mandatory penalty of $10,872.60 for the amount of fish involved, as well as court costs of $114.20.

The maximum quantity of finfish – either whole or in pieces – that you may have in your possession in Western Australia is 20 kg of fillets of fish; or 10 kg of fillets of fish and one-day’s bag limit of whole fish or fish trunks; or two-day’s bag limit of whole fish or fish trunks.

Special possession rules apply specifically to the Abrolhos Islands Fish Habitat Protection Area and there are also some specific possession limits for certain species of fish.

The Geraldton Court heard that a search of freezers at Schumi’s Kalbarri house revealed a total of 221 kilograms of frozen Narrow-barred Spanish mackerel fish fillets in packets ranging in weight from 16 to 22 kilograms

Outside court, Mid West Regional Manager Greg Finlay said Fisheries and Marine Officers had searched the house as a result of helpful information from the community and surveillance of Schumi’s fishing activities.

Also in court yesterday, Geoffrey Ronald Pearce of Swan View pleaded guilty to being in possession of 11 undersize western rock lobsters. He was ordered to pay $2,964.20 – made up of a $1,200 fine, mandatory penalty of $1,650 and $114.20 in court costs.

Fisheries and Marine Officers apprehended Pearce at Lucky Bay (north of Port Gregory) on Monday 24 March this year, after finding 11 live lobsters, with a carapace length of less than the applicable legal limit of 76mm, stored in an icebox on a tray top utility.

The court was told that, when the officers later interviewed him, Pearce admitted to capturing the undersize rock lobsters that morning. Undersize lobsters are totally protected fish.

oldboot
04-06-2009, 01:45 PM
Seriously.......we all need to be well informed about fishing regs in general and especilay size and bag limits.

NO I would go further......WE need a FULL UNDERSTANDING of the regs that apply to what we are doing.

There have been considerable changes to the QLD regulations in the last little while and not being up to date can be very costly indeed.

There seem to be quite a number of people wo are well out of date or never knew in the first place........

And be well aware that the fishing regs can be very different in various states and areas........dont forget that it may be difficult to know which state you are in at times too....think about the tweed, or east of the gold coast.

Oh yes... remember the rules on QLD are most certainly IN POSSESION, and that carcass you are keeping for crab pot bait counts as a fish in possesion.

cheers

whykickacatalong
11-06-2009, 05:28 PM
Another thing to maybe consider is the number of fillets you get from one fish. I am of the belief that each fillet is classed as 1/2 a fish. So if you, like me tend to fillet a good sized fish and then cut those fillets into smaller meal sizes then you may be increasing the number of allowable fillets in your possession. Sounds silly I know but I guess from the other side of the coin anyone can claim that the 6 small fillets they have skinned actually came from just one big fish to try and flaunt the rules. Whilst not really an issue once back in the freezer at home it certainly could be whilst in camp or on the road and you are checked.

Pretzil
11-06-2009, 05:57 PM
Ive always been under the impression that the fisheries guys really have more power than police officers dont they? Apparently (dont quote me) they dont even need a warrant to search your house. Really they have full discretion as to who they prosecute, apparently they can even take your boat and even the car you tow it to the ramp with if they want to.

Seriously tho, 180kg of spanish mackeral fillets??? Come on, if the guy wasnt planning to sell it illegally what else is there?

finding_time
11-06-2009, 06:05 PM
How much fish fillets can i fit in my freezer? Well at the moment only about 40kg !!!;) the 106L freezer died:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

vertico
11-06-2009, 10:21 PM
sounds like a load of bs
i think ive got way more than my legal limit in the freezer....... :P
better start eating every day.
sean

whykickacatalong
11-06-2009, 10:53 PM
Ive always been under the impression that the fisheries guys really have more power than police officers dont they? Apparently (dont quote me) they dont even need a warrant to search your house. Really they have full discretion as to who they prosecute, apparently they can even take your boat and even the car you tow it to the ramp with if they want to.

Seriously tho, 180kg of spanish mackeral fillets??? Come on, if the guy wasnt planning to sell it illegally what else is there?


Rather than the fisheries officers themselves having more power it is the legislation they work under that gives them certain powers. The police, when enforcing that act (which they are able too) would have the same powers. It is similar in my job with the RSPCA. I have the power to enter a persons property without a search warrent regardless of the owners permission. It seems strange when comparred to the police if they do a job on my behalf being able to enter a property for an animal cruelty complaint but if they had a complaint for something such as drugs or stolen goods as an example they would have not powers to enter without a warrent. More power to fisheries I think, it is only those that dont follow the law that have anything to worry about.

sparkyice
12-06-2009, 04:44 AM
this is an interesting thread. not being an aussie, i'll offer no opinions, but here where i live in new york, you cannot have more than your daily limit in your possesion while fishing, and you can continue fishing for that species so long as any futher fish caught are released unharmed.
what quantity you have in your freezer is your business.
they can search your freezer, and pinch you for, under sized fish of a given species.
this varies state to state, but our game wardens also have more leeway for search and seizure, and their probable cause need not be as stringent as regular cops.
dog and cat cops have similar powers.
in n.y., species with no closed season are saleable, by the angler who caught them, even to commercial establishments. some of these species have bag limits, some, like carp, have none.
so, i can go every day for a month, catch 50 perch a day, (bout 8lbs of filets) and keep em in my freezer, or sell them to a restaurant.
i can keep 3 salmon a day (18 lbs of filtets), stack the freezer full,, but i can't sell them.
myself, if i don't intend on eating a fish that day or the next, i release them.
seems like once they go into the freeze, they never come out.
just my 2 cents.

Damned67
12-06-2009, 01:10 PM
I'm all for those rules, but that's just me.
I've never frozen a fish that I've caught. I catch what I can eat that day or the next (albeit rarely), and release anything else crazy enough to find my lure.

Portacol
12-06-2009, 11:17 PM
If you do not understand catch/possesion limits after reading your state fishing rule book, phone your state authority and they will be only to happy to explain it to you. This is what I have found as I travel around the country. They seem to appreciate that people are trying to do the right thing rather than just going out fishing and saying "oops, sorry mate, me no understand". And their advice is so much better than what I have got from old mate next door at the caravan park. After all, it is "our" responsibility to understand the rules.

dogsbody
13-06-2009, 08:26 AM
sounds like a load of bs
i think ive got way more than my legal limit in the freezer....... :P
better start eating every day.
sean

Is that you Iceknight? :P

The only saving grace you got is that you think you're over the limit.

Reading between the lines there's some story, hence Mr Tongue man. Care to elaborate?

Dave

finding_time
15-06-2009, 08:59 PM
Is that you Iceknight? :P

The only saving grace you got is that you think you're over the limit.

Reading between the lines there's some story, hence Mr Tongue man. Care to elaborate?

Dave

Dave

if you notice Vertico ( seans) join date was July 2003 and Iceknight ( Joey) joined in november 2006 . I hardly think it's a case of joey rejoining under another name do you? They actually also look very differant!;)

Ian

dogsbody
16-06-2009, 04:44 PM
Dave

if you notice Vertico ( seans) join date was July 2003 and Iceknight ( Joey) joined in november 2006 . I hardly think it's a case of joey rejoining under another name do you? They actually also look very differant!;)

Ian

UM yeah,, I know mate, that's why the tongue poker. You know a dig, a friendly poke in the ribs. A slight slap across the face with gloves. ;D ;)

Dave

uglyfish
18-06-2009, 03:07 PM
Rather than the fisheries officers themselves having more power it is the legislation they work under that gives them certain powers. The police, when enforcing that act (which they are able too) would have the same powers. It is similar in my job with the RSPCA. I have the power to enter a persons property without a search warrent regardless of the owners permission. It seems strange when comparred to the police if they do a job on my behalf being able to enter a property for an animal cruelty complaint but if they had a complaint for something such as drugs or stolen goods as an example they would have not powers to enter without a warrent. More power to fisheries I think, it is only those that dont follow the law that have anything to worry about.


Division 2 Powers of inspectors for places,
boats and vehicles

145 Entry to places

(1) An inspector may enter a place if—
(a) its occupier consents to the entry or the purpose of the
entry is to get the occupier’s consent; or
(b) it is a public place and the entry is made when it is open
to the public; or
(c) it is mentioned in an authority, a fisheries development
approval, or a self-assessable development code, as a
place of business, or another place, required to be open
for inspection and the entry is made when the place is—
(i) open for the conduct of business or otherwise open
for entry; or
(ii) required under the authority, approval or code, to
be open for inspection; or
(d) the entry is permitted by a warrant; or
(e) the entry is necessary to take action the inspector is
required or authorised to take under—
(i) a quarantine declaration; or

s 146 106 s 146

Fisheries Act 1994

(ii) an order under this Act for the taking and removal,
or destruction, of fisheries resources;8 or
(iii) an order under this Act for the taking of action to
stop or delay fisheries resources or plants from
escaping.9

(2) An inspector may also enter a place if—
(a) the place is not within a city or town under the Local
Government Act 1993; and
(b) the place is not the site or curtilage of a building or other
structure used for residential purposes; and
(c) the purpose of the entry is to gain access, by a direct
reasonable route, to a body of water.
(3) In addition, an inspector may enter on, and pass along, the
beds, banks or borders of a body of water.
(4) In this section—

self-assessable development code means a code applying to
self-assessable development.



148 Warrants

(1) An inspector may apply to a magistrate for a warrant for a
place or boat.
(2) The application must be sworn and state the grounds on which
the warrant is sought.
(3) The magistrate may refuse to consider the application until the
inspector gives the magistrate all the information the
magistrate requires about the application in the way the
magistrate requires.

Example—
The magistrate may require additional information supporting the
application be given by statutory declaration.

(4) The magistrate may issue a warrant only if the magistrate is
satisfied there are reasonable grounds for suspecting—
(a) there is a particular thing or activity (the evidence) that
may provide evidence of the commission of an offence
against this Act; and
(b) the evidence is, or may be within the next 7 days, at the
place or on the boat.
(5) The warrant must state—
(a) the inspector may, with necessary and reasonable help
and force, enter the place, or board the boat, and
exercise the inspector’s powers under this Act; and
(b) the evidence for which the warrant is issued; and
(c) the hours of the day when entry may be made; and
(d) the day (within 14 days after the warrant’s issue) when
the warrant ends.
And possession means a whole fish or part of the fish (ie fillets)
Hope this helps clear some things up fellas

ozbee
19-06-2009, 09:21 AM
the point is the number of resident persons is going to have a affect unless your stupid to claim all yours . but hey i am sure it is a tool they use if they catch someone selling or suspiciously constantly fishing and having large catches . if so i dont see it as a bad thing.

gone_phishin
04-07-2009, 05:55 PM
A young bloke staying with us for the week was only just telling of a family friend in Hervey Bay who went out a couple of weekends back, got 50 winter whiting, saw the fisho's when coming in, went out the next day, got 100 winter whiting, saw the fisho's when coming in, went out the 3rd day and got 50 winter whiting, saw the fisho's when coming in....they then went around to his house, with a warrant, and busted him for overlimit. They have the power....

but then again, how many of you have seen the fisho's 3 days in a row?!?!?!? How much bad luck has the guy gotta have??

oldboot
05-07-2009, 10:57 PM
So he caught 50 winter whiting the first morning.........why didn't he eat em all for dinner..... you'd need that many of the little buggers to get enough proteien to sustain life;D

cheers

tunaticer
06-07-2009, 06:46 PM
Ok here is a curly tail on the saga. What if you accumulate the frames from previous fishing trips for use later on as crab bait. You did not exceed your quotas at any stage but the remains (frames) exist in your freezer. Where do you stand?? Would they fine you for in possession of 300 or so whiting frames accumulated over a yr of winter whiting fishing even though you have already eaten the fillets?

I reckon if they get a hint of a technicality they will use it with a fine.

oldboot
06-07-2009, 09:03 PM
I recon you would want to be stocking those crab pots........unless you can get it in writing a fish is a fish.....be it a frame or not.... one of those things.

cheers

4x4frog
07-07-2009, 09:57 AM
There's a news article related on Nugget's forum about the raids in hervey Bay in recent weeks.
Personally I think it stinks. Are we now living in pre-war nazi-Germany where gestapo Anna can come send her hitmen in to your home and pillage your freezer and decide you have broken the law.
When I was growing up in Brisbane, we'd go out a few times over winter and catch a couple of hundred wintery's between 4 or so on the boat and freeze them and eat them over the next couple of months. If we didn't get out again in winter that particular year we still had a few feeds. Why is it now deemed illegal for normal people to have gone fishing more than once and been successful? Are the fisheries idiots just jealous wanna-be fishers who can't even catch a cold?
My grandfather was the same up at Lake Cootharaba. He knew all the spots to get a feed and would on more than one occasion had over the 50 w/w worth of fillets and a few bream and the odd cattie for crab bait.
I think that if the article is true, which no doubt it is, targetting the pensioners as they appear to have been in Hervey Bay is immoral and needs to be stopped.

oldboot
07-07-2009, 12:59 PM
Here is a point we should all understand.

The government considers all non commercial fishing, no more than a pastime or a sport......there is no consideration whatsoever of fish caught by "recreational anglers" as a food source.......none........ not considered..... won't even discuss it.


They don't consider the retired bloke down the bay who goes out fishing every suitable day and brings home a couple of fish for his dinner.
They don't consider the additional quality protien this puts in his diet and how it supliments his meagre pension.
They don't consider, his just pushing past the aches and pains of his old bones to go fishing is what keeps him going and healthy... not to mention the omega3 from the fresh fish that helps his joints and heart.

They don't even consider how many thousands of dollars his fishing saves the government in health costs.........if he wasn't fishnig he would have had a bypass at 45 and anohter at 50, had to take early retirement and been on medication for 35 odd years.

NO they are only interested in the unscientific green zone that pays for the preference deal, and means he has to go further and take bigger risks in his beloved little 12 foot tinny that he baught with that batch of overtime when he was forty.

They certainly don't want to consider the couple of fish he gives to the nice lady down the road that he would have made a pass at if they were both younger and how that improved her diet and health.....

NO fish for eating must come from the commercial sector or be imported from some filthy third world fish pond.


Steps off soap box and crawls back under rock.......OH there is a crab under here...;D ... dinner.

cheers

hodges4
08-07-2009, 07:25 AM
Let's face it, it's a law like so many others, to be used if abused. It's not intended to be a revenue raiser by the government. It's also been there for many years. You Bligh bashers might want to look up when it was introduced, it may well have been the Nationals.

A good idea I heard of for those of you who keep too many, is to tag them with names of other family members. I don't know how it would stand up in court as it is still in your possession as the freezer is your possession but you could claim they were caught and are the property of the person whos name is on the bag.

4x4frog
08-07-2009, 08:30 AM
. It's not intended to be a revenue raiser by the government.



It's also been there for many years. You Bligh bashers might want to look up when it was introduced, it may well have been the Nationals.


If not revenue raising, what the hell are those inspectors going into homes for? A cup of tea? They'd find as many breeches as possible and slap the largest fine possible, so they can peg back some of the spending on useless things they tend to spend on.
If the laws have been there for years, why is it only now the labor/greens are in their most powerful position have they enforced these laws? I for one have never heard of this ridiculous invasion of peoples lives.
Who would be best to address my first letter to and start the protest against this part of the stupid environmentalist takeover.

Bros
08-07-2009, 09:03 AM
I reckon if they get a hint of a technicality they will use it with a fine.

That works both ways in that you can use a technicality to have it thrown out.

hodges4
08-07-2009, 09:20 AM
With regard to the article in the press. Something that needs to be taken into consideration is the ability of the press to take a story and exaggerate beyond belief then publish it as being the truth. I wasn't there so I would have trouble believing it to be the truth, rarely is.

Also secondhand information is usually bent in the direction of the tellers wheelbarrow he's pushing.

How many of us actually know of anyone who has definately had his house checked for being over the possession limit or are they just stories exaggerated and passed on.

netmaker
08-07-2009, 11:48 AM
if you have fisheries poking around in your freezer they are not there by accident. they have a good reason to be there and your actions have instigated it. do the right thing and you have nothing to fear.

Jurkyjj
26-07-2009, 05:03 PM
My understanding is that it is the amount that is in your possession.
If you have more than the bag limit for each person than you are in the S%$T.

This was my understanding.