Like I said, let them convince a judge that holding a fish is "posessing" it.

How could they prove when a picture was taken? If I was lucky enough to get a picture of a hooked fish clearing the water while jumping is he possessed (not like demons)? If I use photo shop to add an adipose to a"possessed" hatchery fish am I in violation of the law? Seems vague and unenforcable to me.

Aunty falsely thought you were somebody else. Memories tend to be short on these BB's, if people could overlook the BS and not reactit would be a beautiful world.

Taking a picture of a non-retainable fish illegal?

I call BS on that one. Every fish that is landed and released is temporarily "possessed" by the fisherperson. The proposed rule would only prohibit removing such a fish from the water, not holding it in the water for a pic, similar to how oversize sturgeon fishers do.

I hope I don't ruffle anyone's feathers here, but there is a group of attorneys in Washington called the Attorney General's Office. They not only represent all the state agencies, including WDFW, but their opinion on the legality or illegality of acts coming within the purview of a certain agency is the only one that matters, until a judge decides.

I know Mr. Jacoby to be a good man, one who is dedicated to his job, which he has held for a long time. However, he does not have opinions about the legality or illegality of WDFW regulations that carry any legal weight.

I'm not saying he's definitely wrong (though my opinion is that he is), I'm just saying that if you want to get an answer that carries any weight, request that WDFW sends the question over to the AGO, or contact the AGO directly.

That being said, how can holding a fish that must be released for a picture possibly be unlawfully possessing a fish? What about when you hold it by the tail to unhook it? Illegal? How 'bout when you use a fancy pants CNR net to land a native steelhead in a river where native steelhead release is in effect? Illegal? What about a walleye or bass that must be measured to determine if it is indeed of legal or size or not? Can this measurement possibly be done without "possessing" the fish under Mr. Jacoby's definition? What about measuring a crab, or "possessing" a female crab to take it out of your pot? Or a razor clam, or any other clam with a size limitation?

I could list similar scenarios ad nauseum, and they would continue to get more and more ridiculous until the whole idea must be abandoned.

Whew...sleep deprivation and a morning of catching a few dozen silvers has got me pretty wired up, after two thermoses of coffee!!

Fish on...

Todd.

gettin snapper, i would like your home phone number, so i can call ya and come out that way for some fishing with ya..

Well said Todd. The legal ramifications of such a ruling would border on the ridiculous.

I wonder if Mr. Jacoby thought about a Gamie's legal rights to even look at your camera. They can't look in your dope-filled film canister because it's not being used to harvest or conceal fish or game. IMO a camera fits the same description.

I would hope that once WDFW's legal team looks at it, they'll see that it's nothing more than an effort to pave the road to hell with good intentions.

A good rule in theory, maybe, but it would surely become a legal can of worms.