What is the actual point of a possession limit????

Travis,
Do you have a septic system or sewers? If septic, then it's still in possession after you flush!

Scott
Click to expand...


What if he poops behind the blind...does that count in his daily bag limit?
 
Travis,
Do you have a septic system or sewers? If septic, then it's still in possession after you flush!

Scott
Click to expand...


What if he poops behind the blind...does that count in his daily bag limit?
Click to expand...


Is it considered "gifted" when my sisters dog rolls in it?
 
Hahahaha, Travis that is classic.

Need to shoot another duck - take a poop first yuk yuk yuk.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'll second that.

Guys like us will sit around and worry about the letter of the law, and in the end cook up what's in the freezer before we shoot more. Meanwhile the guys that (in this day and age) that the law would arguably still be there to curb their harvest, don't care and either fill the freezer further or stomp it into the marsh...unfortunately the possession limit, although limiting the seasons harvest for some, could actually lead to more wanton waste.

Chuck
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention wanton waste. The Federal definition and state definitions couldn't be further apart. But that is another thread.

Livoti said it best stick to 2 times the daily bag limit and there is no gray. Is that a knock at your door?
 
Hahahaha, Travis that is classic.

Need to shoot another duck - take a poop first yuk yuk yuk.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I'll second that.

Guys like us will sit around and worry about the letter of the law, and in the end cook up what's in the freezer before we shoot more. Meanwhile the guys that (in this day and age) that the law would arguably still be there to curb their harvest, don't care and either fill the freezer further or stomp it into the marsh...unfortunately the possession limit, although limiting the seasons harvest for some, could actually lead to more wanton waste.

Chuck
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention wanton waste. The Federal definition and state definitions couldn't be further apart. But that is another thread.

Livoti said it best stick to 2 times the daily bag limit and there is no gray. Is that a knock at your door?
Click to expand...


I know this is getting far afield on this thread but since wanton waste was brought up it reminded me of something. In SD as long as you take game home and "use" it there is not going to be any wanton waste. Feed it to your dog and cats or I think even feed it to the chickadees that come to your bird feeder and you have used it properly.

Does the federal definition allow for feeding your dog? That should use up 2 or 3 a day if you are on a trip.
 
The Federal definition only requires that you make a reasonable effort to reduce the bird you shot to possession. It does not require you use them or consume them.

No person shall kill or cripple any migratory game bird pursuant to this part without making a
reasonable effort to retrieve the bird, and retain it in his actual custody, at the place where taken
or between that place and either (a) his automobile or principal means of land transportation; or
(b) his personal abode or temporary or transient place of lodging; or (c) a migratory bird
preservation facility; or (d) a post office; or (e) a common carrier facility.
 
I'm tempted to go back to the sausage example and say: Suppose you had a length of sausage made of 8 mallards and 2 canvas backs. With one slice of sausage left...

But - lets consider the possibilities for the actual spirit of the law rather than technical examples which could degrade into references of human waste and waste disposal systems.

Let's say my good friend Bob is a goose hunter. Further lets assume that he is ethical, maybe even a stickler. He is old - retired actually. I'm a working stiff. We may hunt adjacent fields, or even the same public area. Wouldn't it be nice if I got the chance to encounter some geese on the weekend that had not been pounded every day last week? Remember - he is retired, has better decoys, better experience, and knows how to call much better than I do.
 
Jefferson, great to see you post again. I noticed the two cases you put forth and will try to find them, I would ask you in your adventures have you seen the "what is possession?" issue explained or are there any cases which this is explained? When does possession end?

Hope you are having a great season down there.

Travis, that was classic as Pete says, but does bring up a point of when does it end, as others mentioned, what about a wing for training, heck, feathers for ties? carving purposes?

HECK, think of George W out there with his freezer full of WHOLE birds that he uses as his painting references. Do they count?

Ever think of that george??

Hum...I see him now emptying his freezer for fear of the feds raiding him.
 
Andrew,

Not to worry, Bob is back home sitting by the fire. The geese can rest easy till Bob eats a few and can legally go back out. :>)
 
If the feds ever come to your house to check your freezer, something prompted the visit (maybe you bought a duck mount online!). It is my understanding that every resident of your house can have a possession limit w/out having a liscene, i.e. gifted to them. it is also my understanding that a residence is a place with a mailbox and an address that can recieve mail. I have seen a few folks get into issues with possession limits in their camps and that being the difference, their camp wasnt a residence, even though they could stay there indefeintly, had lights, heat, ac, and satelitte tv. No mail box no residence. So after 2 days of hunting and following every law and limit, you'd have to get someone to break the law and transport all the birds somewhere else to remain legal. I am not crazy about laws that followed to the letter make normal law abiding people break the law (i.e. the old point system and posession limits). I do not think any possession limit arguement would hold in a court as it pertains to your house, but I do not think itd come up unless you had broken other laws that prompted them to be there anyway, and usually its a cheese on top of something issue. travis
 
.

Let's say my good friend Bob is a goose hunter. Further lets assume that he is ethical, maybe even a stickler. He is old - retired actually. I'm a working stiff. We may hunt adjacent fields, or even the same public area. Wouldn't it be nice if I got the chance to encounter some geese on the weekend that had not been pounded every day last week? Remember - he is retired, has better decoys, better experience, and knows how to call much better than I do.
Click to expand...


Are you saying the posession limit should keep bob at home until he eats, so someone who doesn't call well, have good decoys, less expereince, and only hunts on the weekends can shoot geese? Surely you jest.... id suggest instead of couting birds in Bobs freezer, get him to take you hunting. A possession limit is not an equalizer between the haves and have nots, and sure never been thought to do that. travis
 
The U.S. Fifth Circuit in the Morgan case explained that "possession" of migatory waterfowl a strict liability issue. I have previously posted and commented on Morgan on this website. My guess is the search function might show that prior discussion, but in any event, here is the citation:

U.S. v. Morgan, 311 F.3d 611 (5th Cir., 2002)

The opinion in the citation above replaced the opinion linked in my initial posting of this message. I am aware only of the possession limit cases posted / mentioned above and am not aware of any waterfowl cases explaining at what point possession ends.
 
Last edited:
I've learned a lot from this site for many years, and today was no difference. The freezer is part of the possession limit, thank you John for correcting my thinking.

I never had to think about the possession limits, I hardly get a daily limit.

-Jack
 
Jefferson, thanks for the link, most interesting read if you go all the way through it. I do find it interesting when you see how different people all look at the law from different angles and give you different answers.
 
lets consider the possibilities for the actual spirit of the law Let's say my good friend Bob is a goose hunter. Further lets assume that he is ethical, maybe even a stickler. He is old - retired actually. I'm a working stiff. We may hunt adjacent fields, or even the same public area. Wouldn't it be nice if I got the chance to encounter some geese on the weekend that had not been pounded every day last week? Remember - he is retired, has better decoys, better experience, and knows how to call much better than I do.
Click to expand...


REALLY!????? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha! That's rich!

OK - lets consider another possibility for the actual "spirit" of the law ....

Let's say in 1918 when the act was written your great grandfather was a market gunner on the Chesapeake Bay, shipping barrels of ducks packed in ice to all the best hotels in Baltimore. Your grandmother didn't have a freezer in the basement; she didn't even have a fridge....just an icebox - with real ice! (Mebbe they had no 'lectric!) Now lets further speculate that in their zeal to avoid waste in the resource, the feds decided that twice the daily limit was a fair deal for anyone regularly hunting and consuming ducks - ducks that that might not be fit to eat if not consumed after a reasonable period of time and would therefore be wasted. Could've happened.... Now times have changed, and you know how easy it is to change a federal mandate when nobody is still around who remembers why certain parts were included in the first place

........Oh, and let's say because a guy like Bob is experienced, he doesn't pound a field every day of the week. He lets it rest and picks his days so he can be successful over the long haul (Ever wonder why there aren't fields that produce consistently on public land?) He often passes on the large flocks and will wait for groups of 6 or less if he can do so and avoid "educating" birds. That's part of why he's successful. There are often many days when he doesn't see or hear a goose or just when all his experience, decoys, and calling can't even buy him a duck or goose. Of course, now that he's retired and no longer hunts the weekends, he could complain about how that's because all the guys who are at work are pounding the birds all weekend and making them too wary & decoy shy - or that they're sitting somewhere because those darn un-retired guys aren't keeping them moving, bla, bla, bla.....
 
Travis - "Are you saying the posession limit should keep bob at home until he eats..."

I think my point was - the spirit of the law is: migratory birds are a shared resource. You often hear about various "unfairness" when it comes to harvesting birds that have been reared elsewhere.

My point is - the law is designed to encourage "sharing" of the resource.

I don't mean to say that is is supposed to level the playing field between duffers and the experienced. AND - since compliance is MOSTLY voluntary, we have a situation where encouraged sharing is really the main result.
 
Bob - "REALLY!????? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahhaha! That's rich! "

Any reference to persons living or dead is purely coincidental.

Besides I still think the limit is centered around sharing - which I think we are doing a relatively decent job of doing IMHO. I do agree that the two day limit seems very low. And for the record - I never intended to imply that you would pound anything. Sure - I am jealous of you having all the time to do it right (which would also include a good number of days off). I've also been in situations where I would have liked to have a few more hunters around to shake things up a bit. Skybusters - no, but I'll gladly share the larger area where I hunt with a reasonable number of responsible hunters.

And also - for the record, I doubt if the places I normally hunt would ever involve the same birds that MLBob might see in any given day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top