跑钻引玉，关于鱼获

[Yinyangfish]

按照你的理解，任何公民都不允许拥有超过数量的鱼获，那你去商店买的也不允许啦。[/quote]

魚警只管執法, 如有特殊情况可在法庭上解释

[阿恩]

还没听说过差冰箱的案例，全靠自觉。
法律法规应该适用于所有人，比如说行人闯红灯，一样吃告票。
不知法，并不代表就可以犯法。知法犯法罪加一等。

确实不会有人去人家里查冰箱，但前几年看到过食家饱某位渔具店主因为有过量的bass受罚的新闻。
以上站长和主任的说法我觉得不符合common sense, 但问题在哪我说不出来。比如说 如果某个没鱼牌的人与自己未成年的儿子（或女儿）去钓鱼，他儿子把钓上的鱼都送给他父亲，岂不是他可以无限量的钓？

[Yinyangfish]

还没听说过差冰箱的案例，全靠自觉。
法律法规应该适用于所有人，比如说行人闯红灯，一样吃告票。
不知法，并不代表就可以犯法。知法犯法罪加一等。

有的。某老毛子搞了上千条碧古，家里被鱼警翻了个底儿掉。

听過, 有些是十多年前拿的

[风雨]

确实不会有人去人家里查冰箱，但前几年看到过食家饱某位渔具店主因为有过量的bass受罚的新闻。
以上站长和主任的说法我觉得不符合common sense, 但问题在哪我说不出来。比如说 如果某个没鱼牌的人与自己未成年的儿子（或女儿）去钓鱼，他儿子把钓上的鱼都送给他父亲，岂不是他可以无限量的钓？

可别说不会查冰箱，给人个误解可就误会大发了~ 法律明文规定鱼警不需要法院许可就可以搜查私人财产/地盘。

[风雨]

还没听说过差冰箱的案例，全靠自觉。
法律法规应该适用于所有人，比如说行人闯红灯，一样吃告票。
不知法，并不代表就可以犯法。知法犯法罪加一等。

有的。某老毛子搞了上千条碧古，家里被鱼警翻了个底儿掉。

听過, 有些是十多年前拿的

您是说，老毛子把碧古在家里存了10多年？？

[Yinyangfish]

确实不会有人去人家里查冰箱，但前几年看到过食家饱某位渔具店主因为有过量的bass受罚的新闻。
以上站长和主任的说法我觉得不符合common sense, 但问题在哪我说不出来。比如说 如果某个没鱼牌的人与自己未成年的儿子（或女儿）去钓鱼，他儿子把钓上的鱼都送给他父亲，岂不是他可以无限量的钓？

可别说不会查冰箱，给人个误解可就误会大发了~ 法律明文规定鱼警不需要法院许可就可以搜查私人财产/地盘。

法律明文规定鱼警不需要法院许可就可以搜查私人财产/地盘.......和充公犯罪工具(車)及庄物的儲蕆物業(屋)

[EskimoHunter]

got the following information from
http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html

people without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit, read on

Question 164:

This has already been answered, but I have been told a CO has given a different response, so I'm just checking again. Sorry to be repetitive:

An angler catches his limit of, say, 2 lakers and gives them to his neighbor who does not fish and has no fishing licence. The next day, same angler catches another two lakers and again gives them to the same neighbor. This goes on until the neighbor has 18 lakers in his freezer.

The response in Question 38 says this is illegal. I.e., an angler may give away his daily limit (although be may not continue fishing that day), but the recipient is then bound by the possession limit and hence cannot have in his freezer more than that. I assume that if there are other members in the household, each of them could also have their limit, so that unless there are 9 people in the house, having 18 lakers in the freezer is illegal. But a reliable source just told me a CO told him this is perfectly OK. Comments?

Asked February 20, 2002

Answer from the MNR

This is correct as is the response to Question 38. One person can have his/her possession limit and no more, regardless if they possess a fishing licence or not.

Question 164a:

Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits?

Answer from the MNR

The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence.

Question 164b:

I got the feeling talking to the person that the confusion arises due to the neighbor not being licenced, as though the regulations apply only to licenced anglers physically out there fishing. I.e, if somebody gives you a fish, you are not bound by the regs. To add to the confusion, Question 66, which asks if it is illegal to possess a fish if you don't have a licence is still "with MNR for clarification". Perhaps that question and lack of reply has spawned the above

Answer from the MNR

It is legal to possess fish without an angling licence.

[Yinyangfish]

还没听说过差冰箱的案例，全靠自觉。
法律法规应该适用于所有人，比如说行人闯红灯，一样吃告票。
不知法，并不代表就可以犯法。知法犯法罪加一等。

有的。某老毛子搞了上千条碧古，家里被鱼警翻了个底儿掉。

听過, 有些是十多年前拿的

您是说，老毛子把碧古在家里存了10多年？？

老兩口不是做生意, 只是貪+法盲

[风雨]

还没听说过差冰箱的案例，全靠自觉。
法律法规应该适用于所有人，比如说行人闯红灯，一样吃告票。
不知法，并不代表就可以犯法。知法犯法罪加一等。

确实不会有人去人家里查冰箱，但前几年看到过食家饱某位渔具店主因为有过量的bass受罚的新闻。
以上站长和主任的说法我觉得不符合common sense, 但问题在哪我说不出来。比如说 如果某个没鱼牌的人与自己未成年的儿子（或女儿）去钓鱼，他儿子把钓上的鱼都送给他父亲，岂不是他可以无限量的钓？

他们俩个一共只可以拿2条bass~

[阿恩]

got the following information from
http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html

people without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit, read on

Question 164:

This has already been answered, but I have been told a CO has given a different response, so I'm just checking again. Sorry to be repetitive:

An angler catches his limit of, say, 2 lakers and gives them to his neighbor who does not fish and has no fishing licence. The next day, same angler catches another two lakers and again gives them to the same neighbor. This goes on until the neighbor has 18 lakers in his freezer.

The response in Question 38 says this is illegal. I.e., an angler may give away his daily limit (although be may not continue fishing that day), but the recipient is then bound by the possession limit and hence cannot have in his freezer more than that. I assume that if there are other members in the household, each of them could also have their limit, so that unless there are 9 people in the house, having 18 lakers in the freezer is illegal. But a reliable source just told me a CO told him this is perfectly OK. Comments?

Asked February 20, 2002

Answer from the MNR

This is correct as is the response to Question 38. One person can have his/her possession limit and no more, regardless if they possess a fishing licence or not.

Question 164a:

Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits?

Answer from the MNR

The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence.

Question 164b:

I got the feeling talking to the person that the confusion arises due to the neighbor not being licenced, as though the regulations apply only to licenced anglers physically out there fishing. I.e, if somebody gives you a fish, you are not bound by the regs. To add to the confusion, Question 66, which asks if it is illegal to possess a fish if you don't have a licence is still "with MNR for clarification". Perhaps that question and lack of reply has spawned the above

Answer from the MNR

It is legal to possess fish without an angling licence.

这个很清楚了，站长和主任应该不会再坚持认为没有鱼牌的人可以无限量的keep 鱼了吧。

[wetnose]

got the following information from
http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html

people without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit, read on

Question 164:

This has already been answered, but I have been told a CO has given a different response, so I'm just checking again. Sorry to be repetitive:

An angler catches his limit of, say, 2 lakers and gives them to his neighbor who does not fish and has no fishing licence. The next day, same angler catches another two lakers and again gives them to the same neighbor. This goes on until the neighbor has 18 lakers in his freezer.

The response in Question 38 says this is illegal. I.e., an angler may give away his daily limit (although be may not continue fishing that day), but the recipient is then bound by the possession limit and hence cannot have in his freezer more than that. I assume that if there are other members in the household, each of them could also have their limit, so that unless there are 9 people in the house, having 18 lakers in the freezer is illegal. But a reliable source just told me a CO told him this is perfectly OK. Comments?

Asked February 20, 2002

Answer from the MNR

This is correct as is the response to Question 38. One person can have his/her possession limit and no more, regardless if they possess a fishing licence or not.

Question 164a:

Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits?

Answer from the MNR

The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence.

Question 164b:

I got the feeling talking to the person that the confusion arises due to the neighbor not being licenced, as though the regulations apply only to licenced anglers physically out there fishing. I.e, if somebody gives you a fish, you are not bound by the regs. To add to the confusion, Question 66, which asks if it is illegal to possess a fish if you don't have a licence is still "with MNR for clarification". Perhaps that question and lack of reply has spawned the above

Answer from the MNR

It is legal to possess fish without an angling licence.

[xiaolu]

got the following information from
http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html

people without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit, read on

Question 164:

This has already been answered, but I have been told a CO has given a different response, so I'm just checking again. Sorry to be repetitive:

An angler catches his limit of, say, 2 lakers and gives them to his neighbor who does not fish and has no fishing licence. The next day, same angler catches another two lakers and again gives them to the same neighbor. This goes on until the neighbor has 18 lakers in his freezer.

The response in Question 38 says this is illegal. I.e., an angler may give away his daily limit (although be may not continue fishing that day), but the recipient is then bound by the possession limit and hence cannot have in his freezer more than that. I assume that if there are other members in the household, each of them could also have their limit, so that unless there are 9 people in the house, having 18 lakers in the freezer is illegal. But a reliable source just told me a CO told him this is perfectly OK. Comments?

Asked February 20, 2002

Answer from the MNR

This is correct as is the response to Question 38. One person can have his/her possession limit and no more, regardless if they possess a fishing licence or not.

Question 164a:

Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits?

Answer from the MNR

The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence.

Question 164b:

I got the feeling talking to the person that the confusion arises due to the neighbor not being licenced, as though the regulations apply only to licenced anglers physically out there fishing. I.e, if somebody gives you a fish, you are not bound by the regs. To add to the confusion, Question 66, which asks if it is illegal to possess a fish if you don't have a licence is still "with MNR for clarification". Perhaps that question and lack of reply has spawned the above

Answer from the MNR

It is legal to possess fish without an angling licence.

啊? 这不是国际玩笑吗? People without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit?

哪位讲讲这是基于什么理论, 道理, 逻辑...?

比如 SIMCOE 此季节的 BASS, 没鱼牌的(某位 18 岁以上, 65岁以下, 非伤残)人可以接受他人给的 6 条 BASS? 有小牌鱼牌的却只能 KEEP 两条 BASS. 您花钱(交税?)买了小鱼牌的, 还不如没花钱没有鱼牌的人可以留下的鱼多?!!!! 怎么解释?

[风雨]

我的理解跟你的一样。
这些规则只适用于持牌人，对于没有牌的人是没有限制的，至少我在规则里没有看到。

所以就回到了我最开始的话题。

俺可以对着俺的鱼竿打赌，您这个这个理解大错特错了。

每一个居民，都有义务自己搞清楚法律，不能用不知道某条法作为开脱的理由，此乃common sense也~

就是说朋友在接受鱼之前要先查查吃这么多的鱼是不是合法？

这个俺要慎重其事的说：YES！

西方法规多如牛毛，按中国的common sense来看有些东西是不可思议。

如果国人不自己搞清楚，只有祝自己lucky了。

所以，喜欢钓鱼的朋友，别人没有找你要的情况下就别送鱼了，搞不好害了朋友。

[风雨]

got the following information from
http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html

people without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit, read on

Question 164:

This has already been answered, but I have been told a CO has given a different response, so I'm just checking again. Sorry to be repetitive:

An angler catches his limit of, say, 2 lakers and gives them to his neighbor who does not fish and has no fishing licence. The next day, same angler catches another two lakers and again gives them to the same neighbor. This goes on until the neighbor has 18 lakers in his freezer.

The response in Question 38 says this is illegal. I.e., an angler may give away his daily limit (although be may not continue fishing that day), but the recipient is then bound by the possession limit and hence cannot have in his freezer more than that. I assume that if there are other members in the household, each of them could also have their limit, so that unless there are 9 people in the house, having 18 lakers in the freezer is illegal. But a reliable source just told me a CO told him this is perfectly OK. Comments?

Asked February 20, 2002

Answer from the MNR

This is correct as is the response to Question 38. One person can have his/her possession limit and no more, regardless if they possess a fishing licence or not.

Question 164a:

Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits?

Answer from the MNR

The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence.

Question 164b:

I got the feeling talking to the person that the confusion arises due to the neighbor not being licenced, as though the regulations apply only to licenced anglers physically out there fishing. I.e, if somebody gives you a fish, you are not bound by the regs. To add to the confusion, Question 66, which asks if it is illegal to possess a fish if you don't have a licence is still "with MNR for clarification". Perhaps that question and lack of reply has spawned the above

Answer from the MNR

It is legal to possess fish without an angling licence.

啊? 这不是国际玩笑吗? People without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit?

哪位讲讲这是基于什么理论, 道理, 逻辑...?

比如 SIMCOE 此季节的 BASS, 没鱼牌的(某位 18 岁以上, 65岁以下, 非伤残)人可以接受他人给的 6 条 BASS? 有小牌鱼牌的却只能 KEEP 两条 BASS. 您花钱(交税?)买了小鱼牌的, 还不如没有鱼牌的!!!! 怎么解释?

基于国家资源全民拥有的说法，人家不钓鱼的自然有权力享用与钓鱼者同样数量的鱼。

你买小牌，你比不钓鱼的人多了个钓鱼的权力；但你消耗的警力和政府资源与大牌持有者是一样的，那么就在你的持有量上消减一下。。。。这下子公平了~

[xiaolu]

got the following information from
http://www.outdoorontario.net/AskMNR/mnrfaqfish.html

people without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit, read on

Question 164:

This has already been answered, but I have been told a CO has given a different response, so I'm just checking again. Sorry to be repetitive:

An angler catches his limit of, say, 2 lakers and gives them to his neighbor who does not fish and has no fishing licence. The next day, same angler catches another two lakers and again gives them to the same neighbor. This goes on until the neighbor has 18 lakers in his freezer.

The response in Question 38 says this is illegal. I.e., an angler may give away his daily limit (although be may not continue fishing that day), but the recipient is then bound by the possession limit and hence cannot have in his freezer more than that. I assume that if there are other members in the household, each of them could also have their limit, so that unless there are 9 people in the house, having 18 lakers in the freezer is illegal. But a reliable source just told me a CO told him this is perfectly OK. Comments?

Asked February 20, 2002

Answer from the MNR

This is correct as is the response to Question 38. One person can have his/her possession limit and no more, regardless if they possess a fishing licence or not.

Question 164a:

Related to this, is the possession limit for the recipient the same as what the angler has? I.e., if the angler has a conservation licence, is the recipient of the fish bound by conservation limits?

Answer from the MNR

The possession limit for the recipient is that of a regular (non-conservation) licence.

Question 164b:

I got the feeling talking to the person that the confusion arises due to the neighbor not being licenced, as though the regulations apply only to licenced anglers physically out there fishing. I.e, if somebody gives you a fish, you are not bound by the regs. To add to the confusion, Question 66, which asks if it is illegal to possess a fish if you don't have a licence is still "with MNR for clarification". Perhaps that question and lack of reply has spawned the above

Answer from the MNR

It is legal to possess fish without an angling licence.

啊? 这不是国际玩笑吗? People without license are allow to have possession limit as sport license limit?

哪位讲讲这是基于什么理论, 道理, 逻辑...?

比如 SIMCOE 此季节的 BASS, 没鱼牌的(某位 18 岁以上, 65岁以下, 非伤残)人可以接受他人给的 6 条 BASS? 有小牌鱼牌的却只能 KEEP 两条 BASS. 您花钱(交税?)买了小鱼牌的, 还不如没有鱼牌的!!!! 怎么解释?

基于国家资源全民拥有的说法，人家不钓鱼的自然有权力享用与钓鱼者同样数量的鱼。

你买小牌，你比不钓鱼的人多了个钓鱼的权力；但你消耗的警力和政府资源与大牌持有者是一样的，那么就在你的持有量上消减一下。。。。这下子公平了~

但你消耗的警力和政府资源与大牌持有者是一样的? 如此说来, 没有鱼牌不钓鱼的人, 并没有耗任何警力和政府资源, 于是必须可以拥有的鱼的数量应当远远的大于拥有大牌的钓鱼人的数量?

(注: 拥有大牌的也消耗了警力和政府资源, 比没有钓鱼的人消耗的多, 而且还多出拥有了钓鱼的权力, 因此没鱼牌的人可留下的数量应当远远的多于有大牌的数量. 不是吗?)

[工程兵]

很好的题目。
坐小板凳看精彩的大砖辩论会.

[边走边钓]

wetnose和阿恩引用的都不对。


接受鱼的那个朋友根本没有鱼牌，何来Limit这一说法。

有意思，就是说法规只规管有牌的人。
就是说，如果你的邻居甚至你家的租客，如果没有鱼牌，如果他们同意，就可以无限量的keep你有鱼牌的人钓回来的鱼，你拿回来多少他们就能keep多少，你要吃的时候再从他们的冰箱里拿就是了。
文主任，这样理解对吗？

[风雨]

但你消耗的警力和政府资源与大牌持有者是一样的? 如此说来, 没有鱼牌不钓鱼的人, 并没有耗任何警力和政府资源, 于是必须可以拥有的鱼的数量应当远远的大于拥有大牌的钓鱼人的数量?

(注: 拥有大牌的也消耗了警力和政府资源, 比没有钓鱼的人消耗的多, 而且还多出拥有了钓鱼的权力, 因此没鱼牌的人可留下的数量应当远远的多于有大牌的数量. 不是吗?)

哈哈~ 站长急了：这也忒不公平了~ 事情其实是这样的

1。每一个人对资源的享用，不管是不是anglar，都应该是平等的，所以都可以享用6条免费bass，这个是天然权力。。。这一条是绝对的，不可变的。

2 。政府完全可以只发行一种鱼牌，大家都大牌，都6条，皆大欢喜~ 且慢，另有一部分人不满意了：俺们不想吃那么多鱼，就想过过钓瘾，或者偶尔吃一点儿，一样花那么多钱不公平。那么好吧，你可以少交钱，代价是你的权力也少一点儿。

所以呢，就有了大牌小牌之分。对小牌者来说，这是你自愿give up你的部分权力，所以没啥不公平的。

you got what you want.

[边走边钓]

因为没有鱼牌的人是没有权利钓鱼的，所以法规就没有考虑到这一点。我猜立法规的议员们根本没有想到会有很多人每次钓满后拿回家送人。

wetnose和阿恩引用的都不对。


接受鱼的那个朋友根本没有鱼牌，何来Limit这一说法。

没有鱼牌就不受法律约束，这个思路不对吖~

不是没有鱼牌就不受法律约束. 你可能没看清楚我和文主任说的: 这里的钓鱼法规里清清楚楚写的是关于钓鱼人的法规. 没有提到是同时适用在非钓鱼人身上的.

同理: 教师守则是教师必须遵守的, 不是用来约束并不是教师的人的.

[Pungo]

不错的坑，钻啊，玉啊，石头啊，扔进去不少。风雨君有见识，这点我在Y论坛时期就受教了，赞一个！

[风雨]

不错的坑，钻啊，玉啊，石头啊，扔进去不少。风雨君有见识，这点我在Y论坛时期就受教了，赞一个！

[风雨]

[b]因为没有鱼牌的人是没有权利钓鱼的，也就没有权利留鱼了，所以法规就没有考虑到这一点。我猜立法规的议员们根本没有想到会有很多人每次钓满后拿回家送人。

哈哈哈~ 就好像老外不递烟，只要烟一样~

其实，规则里还是考虑了其他人留鱼的情况。

[边走边钓]

还有一点要澄清一下，未成年人，16岁一下必须和有鱼牌的人一起钓才可以，如果他爸爸没有鱼牌他也是不能钓的吧？

确实不会有人去人家里查冰箱，但前几年看到过食家饱某位渔具店主因为有过量的bass受罚的新闻。
以上站长和主任的说法我觉得不符合common sense, 但问题在哪我说不出来。比如说 如果某个没鱼牌的人与自己未成年的儿子（或女儿）去钓鱼，他儿子把钓上的鱼都送给他父亲，岂不是他可以无限量的钓？

可别说不会查冰箱，给人个误解可就误会大发了~ 法律明文规定鱼警不需要法院许可就可以搜查私人财产/地盘。

[Pungo]

还有一点要澄清一下，未成年人，16岁一下必须和有鱼牌的人一起钓才可以，如果他爸爸没有鱼牌他也是不能钓的吧？

确实不会有人去人家里查冰箱，但前几年看到过食家饱某位渔具店主因为有过量的bass受罚的新闻。
以上站长和主任的说法我觉得不符合common sense, 但问题在哪我说不出来。比如说 如果某个没鱼牌的人与自己未成年的儿子（或女儿）去钓鱼，他儿子把钓上的鱼都送给他父亲，岂不是他可以无限量的钓？

可别说不会查冰箱，给人个误解可就误会大发了~ 法律明文规定鱼警不需要法院许可就可以搜查私人财产/地盘。

肯定可以，否则就是歧视父母双亡的人，或者涉嫌捆绑销售。

[alfishing]

折衷一下，应该是：

小牌也可以在家里Keep 6 条，只不过只能有2条是他自己钓的，另外4条是朋友送的