Private pond fish size limit?

[chevyguy]

So I have a buddy that has a pond and said I can keep fish I catch. My question is do size limits still apply if the fish are caught from a private pond?

 

[Cameramonkey]

IANAL (nor DNR) but I dont see how Johnny Law has any jurisdiction here. Its private property and privately owned fish. Why would DNR have any say over what you can do with your private property in an agreement between two citizens?

And you dont need a license to fish private waters either as I recall, so that leads me to believe further that you can do what you want here.

But do seek out other opinions. Ive been wrong before on stuff that otherwise seems a slam dunk based on facts. Some laws just dont make sense and are overreaching.

 

[Usmccookie]

I thought dnr's jurisdiction extended to any standing body of water.

 

[Ballstater98]

Private is private. No license is needed. As long as you abide by the landowners rules, GTG. Obviously you want to be ecologically smart, but this is how trust is gained and lost.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I thought dnr's jurisdiction extended to any standing body of water.

And you may be right, but thats why I prefaced my comment.

If you are correct, and they can interfere with an agreement between two private individuals, that would affect absolutely NO ONE but the pond owner, its absolute and utter If I want to screw up my pond by letting too-small fish be removed that should be my right. And since nobody but me would be affected, its none of DNR's business. Now I can understand keeping public lakes and streams stocked and healthy, but private ones as well? pffff!

 

[Cameramonkey]

Private is private. No license is needed. As long as you abide by the landowners rules, GTG. Obviously you want to be ecologically smart, but this is how trust is gained and lost.

Except thats not quite the issue here. As I read the OP, its all about whether the pond owner can mismanage his own private property or if DNR has the ability to nanny him and fine them for failing to follow the rules that the public waters are subject to.

 

[hopper68]

I would worry about transporting off the property. If for some reason you get pulled over and found with fish outside the limit and fishing gear with no license it might get fun to prove where you got the fish. Just my paranoia showing.

 

[04FXSTS]

I would worry about transporting off the property. If for some reason you get pulled over and found with fish outside the limit and fishing gear with no license it might get fun to prove where you got the fish. Just my paranoia showing.

That is what I also thought about being the biggest potential problem. Jim.

 

[DadSmith]

If its private property you do not need a license just permission and follow whatever rules the property owner lays out. One of the biggest is clean up after yourself.

 

[cobber]

I thought dnr's jurisdiction extended to any standing body of water.

IIRC from my days at DNR has to be either a 'water of the State' or a 'public freshwater lake.' Or maybe a 'navigable waterway'.

Unless DNR constructed a boat ramp by agreement on the pond to access for 'research', probably not DNR jurisdiction.

 

[Expat]

I don't know, the fish fuzz will drive all over hell's half acre to find some way to reach you to check your fishing license if he sees you.

 

[dudley0]

DNR doesn't care about private ponds. I talked to a local agent about a neighbor spraying his yard and causing a kill in our pond some years back.

He said he didn't have jurisdiction.

Now if you got caught with a game fish of the wrong size or if you had no fishing license or stamp I would think a simple journey back to the pond would be explanation enough, after some calm discussion.

 

[Usmccookie]

You're at a red light at 3 am. It's been 2 minutes. You haven't seen a car.

How free are you?

 

[bwframe]

You are good to go, but I wouldn't flaunt it. As mentioned, it could get to be a real PIA to prove where you caught fish and had permission to do so. Then there is the idea that some CO's, when pissed off, or told what to do, or "read the law," can make things difficult for you, even when you are in the right.

Long story, but local guy plead to a poaching charge that he was not guilty of. I'm guessing that he was bossy to the rookie CO, after the CO being bossy to him? Guy could have beat the charge, but it would have cost him way more in legal fees than to just plead guilty. It cost "officer friendly" nothing, and possibly advanced his career? Just sayin' that it happens, I've seen it myself.

 

[bwframe]

You're at a red light at 3 am. It's been 2 minutes. You haven't seen a car.

How free are you?

 

[Usmccookie]

I was alluding to the situation where you are in place to do something that is not wrong(in my eyes) but is against the law.

Said law is having a negative effect on you. If you break this law, it has zero effect on anyone else. Do you still follow the law for the sake of obedience, or do you break it because it has no negative moral implications. Therefore by breaking the law you are now net positive.

 

[ghuns]

I don't know, the fish fuzz will drive all over hell's half acre to find some way to reach you to check your fishing license if he sees you.

My grandpa owned a 20 acre property with about 8 acres of water between three separate ponds. It was on the edge of the city limits of a small town near Indian Lake in Ohio. Indian Lake is a huge state park and is always crawling with fish cops. We had a big family with tons of cousins, grandkids, etc so there were always kids fishing at his house.

My grandpa was a decorated WWII vet who lived his whole life in the area and who held his private property rights very dear. His family name was well know to all kinds of local LEOs thanks to some semi-notorious relatives.

In what I can only imagine was a hazing ritual, every couple of years a shiny new DNR officer would wander onto the property and start harassing the older kids about fishing licenses, which were NOT required for private property. We were always instructed to be polite to them, and to direct any inquiries they had to grandpa.

Every kid on the property would then drop their pole and run to wherever grandpa was to catch the show. Sometimes, if the officer was a decent guy, it was a bust. But every now and then you'd get a "respect my authoritah" kinda guy who'd dig in his heels. My grandpa was not a physically imposing dude. He was generally pretty happy go lucky. But if you pi$$ed him off, especially where us kids were concerned, he would flip a switch and become as intimidating as a NFL linebacker. Those shows always ended with a dejected fish cop apologizing profusely, and I'm sure, questioning his career choice after being backed down by a little old man.

 

[Cameramonkey]

You are good to go, but I wouldn't flaunt it. As mentioned, it could get to be a real PIA to prove where you caught fish and had permission to do so. Then there is the idea that some CO's, when pissed off, or told what to do, or "read the law," can make things difficult for you, even when you are in the right.

Long story, but local guy plead to a poaching charge that he was not guilty of. I'm guessing that he was bossy to the rookie CO, after the CO being bossy to him? Guy could have beat the charge, but it would have cost him way more in legal fees than to just plead guilty. It cost "officer friendly" nothing, and possibly advanced his career? Just sayin' that it happens, I've seen it myself.

which is problematic. As a LEO, it should be your job to prove my guilt. Its not my job as a free man to prove my innocence to you. Thats not how it is supposed to work.

But I wont pretend that this doesnt happen.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I was alluding to the situation where you are in place to do something that is not wrong(in my eyes) but is against the law.

Said law is having a negative effect on you. If you break this law, it has zero effect on anyone else. Do you still follow the law for the sake of obedience, or do you break it because it has no negative moral implications. Therefore by breaking the law you are now net positive.

I actually did this on my way to work. I approached a 4 way stop and could see clearly at least 100 yards in each direction. no other cars as far as I could see so i made the turn without stopping. And nobody was harmed by my violation.

 

[Usmccookie]

I actually did this on my way to work. I approached a 4 way stop and could see clearly at least 100 yards in each direction. no other cars as far as I could see so i made the turn without stopping. And nobody was harmed by my violation.

I have a complete stop rule. If I don't see anyone. Then I'm not even minutely, possibly harming anyone.