Triple Tail in Federal Waters question

2»

Replies

  • BD27BD27 Posts: 1,179 Officer
    Kill N Time , that is the way that I would interpret the law . As the others if they are regulated in federal , yes you would have to adhear to those limits. However an unregulated species in federal waters is just that Unregulated . Therefor , you are not in violation in federal waters no matter the size or #'s and should be allowed to transport that catch back thru state waters. My 2 cents
  • Catalina26Catalina26 Posts: 231 Officer
    Re read the statute for triple tail like I posted before it states in or on state waters so transit for unregulated has grey areas. From what I researched through our agency and legal is this. Federal unregulated you can technically kill up to 100#s and any size but... And a huge but... The statute reads in or on so even if caught in federal you can only bring back legal state limit. If checked you fall under state statute. Trust me I know this will raise a billion questions and I'm not wasting my time to answer them all so I'll answer the obvious... Cobia is regulated that's why you can transit but since unregulated only bring back state limits unless you have something to proove and don't mjnd court and try your luck with a judge then by all means kill away.. I wouldn't risk it. The resource violation is a 2nd degree misdeamenor which is punishable by up to $500 and a 1 year in jail so if you want to try go ahead.. I wouldn't not worth it. If you have questions feel free to flood our agency with questions and you'll likely get 90000 different interpretations. Exactly what law is interpertations of what it reads so you may find a judge that favors you but then you may not. Good luck. Refer back to previous posts for answers and classification
  • Kill N TimeKill N Time Posts: 467 Deckhand
    Catalina26 - I have read the statute for triple tail and the issue is the definition of what possession in or on means. I understand what your interpretation is, but according to the Email that I received from the FWC it means those in possession that are fishing in or on state waters and it does not apply to those who are in transit through state waters returning directly to port.

    The only place that I have been able to find any clarification is on the SAFMC website under the recreational regulations for cobia where it states under notes: FWC Division of Law Enforcement use the following guidelines for possession limits in FL state waters:

    * A person who is fishing in state waters is subject to state rules
    * A person who claims to have fished in federal waters and returns to port without stopping in state waters (and thus is not observed in fishing in state waters) is subject to federal regulations.
    * A person who claims to have fished in federal waters, but who is observed fishing in state waters, is presumed to have caught the fish in state waters and will be subject to state rule.

    To me that is a pretty clear definition as to what the posses rules are of fish caught in federal waters with regulations that do not conform to state regulations.

    As far as the posses in or on state waters part in the triple statute goes. I believe (correct me if I am wrong as I by no means am an expert on statutes) it says the same thing about not possessing more than 5 mangrove snapper in or on state waters under rule 68B-14.0036 Recreational Bag Limits: snapper also.

    Under 68B-14.0036 1(b) it states Gray (mangrove) snapper. Except as provided elsewhere in this rule, no recreational harvester shall harvest in or from state waters, nor posses while in or on state waters, more than 5 gray (mangrove) snapper per day.

    I know that I can harvest 10 mangrove snapper per day from federal waters and transport them directly to port through state waters without stopping so to me according to all of the information that I have been able to gather to this point the in or on state waters refers to those fishing in or on state waters and not those in transit directly to port through state waters which has been confirmed via email from the FWC directly off of their website.

    It is very frustrating for me not to be able to get clarification when all I want to do is to understand and follow the laws correctly. I agree that it would be much simpler if the state and federal rules where the same or at least if we could find all the regulations (state and federal) in one spot with clear definitions as to what laws apply where. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this post. If I hear anything other than what I have already posted back from the FWC law department I will post it.
  • Kill N TimeKill N Time Posts: 467 Deckhand
    I forgot to mention in my earlier post that fish like tarpon and snook are a few of the multiple fish listed on the FWC's website as fish that state regulations apply to in federal waters so my interpretation of that would be that you would have to follow the state bag and size limit if you were to harvest a snook in federal waters since the state regulations apply to that fish in federal waters. Tripletail is not listed as a fish in which state regulations apply to in federal waters. Since they are unregulated in federal waters and the state regulations do not apply to them in federal waters I would think then that the rules in my earlier post in regards to transporting them through state waters would apply. I would think if the state bag and size limit were to apply to the tripletail tail being transported through state waters then tripletail would have been listed as one of the species where state regulations would apply to them in federal waters.
  • Catalina26Catalina26 Posts: 231 Officer
    The reason for you finding the possession for cobia and mangos is its regulated. What I'm simple stating is the law is vague with triple tail it's unregulated in federal. Even transit through state waters your "on" state waters. It will be up to the officer that handles this case and the judge you take it to. I'm telling you this is not worth the headache but do as you will. I've spoken to many about this both federal and state Feds say they don't worry about it cause it's unregulated state say they care so they will regulate. It's all unclear I'm just stating simple what it says in black and white.. In or on meaning if you are in possession regardless if your swimming through boating through skiing doesn't matter if you on state waters your on state waters and statute says in or on. You can argue til your blue in the face. That's what court is for if you want to go down that road you can hell you may even not et a ticket if you explain your situations but again you may get one. Just telling you what it reads and how people(court system) lols at it. They will simple say we're you stopped ON state waters? Well yes your honor but I was traveling through.. And they will say we're you ON STATE WATERS... Yes... Guilty.. Just saying that's how the judges see this stuff and almost deem it a waste of their time.. Sorry to be so cold but it's the truth
  • Kill N TimeKill N Time Posts: 467 Deckhand
    Catalina26 - Thank you for input. Not trying to argue with anyone just looking for clear definition. Apparently there isn't one in this instance. Definitely not worth the risk to me personally, but it sure would be nice if the state would give a clear definitions in their regs about transporting fish that have different regs in federal waters through state waters on their website.
  • Catalina26Catalina26 Posts: 231 Officer
    I agree 1000%.. If both were the same make my job easier and everyone"'s life easier but I don't see that happening.. But good luck and happy fishing
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 9,925 Admiral
    In the absence of federal rules state rules apply and vice versa.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
Sign In or Register to comment.