Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: A question about "North to Alaska" / Removing kings from the water ?

  1. #1
    Member ysr_racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Happily in So Cal.
    Posts
    583

    Default A question about "North to Alaska" / Removing kings from the water ?

    I was watching "North to Alaska". They were on The Good News River and Audrey caught a king.

    They pulled it out of the water, took pictures, and then put it back in the water and let it go. Based on what I read here, I thought once it leaves the water, it's yours. No?

    brad g.
    So Cal, USA
    Visit my Sporting Clays website
    http://www.ysr-racer.com

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    99577
    Posts
    280

    Default

    They are above the law.....

    My understanding is it has to do with the river. If its c&r only then the fish can't leave the water. If its a river where you can catch and kill then what they did is legally fine. Ethically is a different story.

  3. #3
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    For Cook Inlet salt & fresh waters. My understanding was that if you remove a King salmon 20 inches or longer from the water, it must be retained and becomes part of the bag limit of the person who originally hooked the fish...same goes for Coho.
    "Grin and Bear It"

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    267

    Default

    I double checked the regs and tearbear is exactly right. Any king over 20 inches or silver over 16 inches that is removed from the water becomes part of the bag limit of whoever hooked the fish. Page 16 of 2013 south central regs.

    I would not be too sure the folks in the video get away with this. I know of similar instances at have resulted in citations if someone points out the video, magazine article, or Facebook post to the powers that be. Nobody should be above the rules.

  5. #5
    Member kenaibow fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    well as long as they or she in this case logged the fish on her license you can put the fish back in the water, or keep it. That is the loophole, it can be removed from the water if the water shed is C&K as long as it is logged. Now was it logged who knows, your guess is as good as mine.

  6. #6

    Default

    you could have a field day on this forum alone with this one very law!

    nice bow KF!

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by safari View Post
    I double checked the regs and tearbear is exactly right. Any king over 20 inches or silver over 16 inches that is removed from the water becomes part of the bag limit of whoever hooked the fish. Page 16 of 2013 south central regs.

    I would not be too sure the folks in the video get away with this. I know of similar instances at have resulted in citations if someone points out the video, magazine article, or Facebook post to the powers that be. Nobody should be above the rules.
    Those king salmon regulations on page 16 of the Southcentral Regulation Summary booklet only apply to the salt or fresh waters of Cook Inlet. Goodnews River is not in Cook Inlet, it is in the Kuskokwim-Goodnews Drainages area and different regulations apply to those waters. In the Goodnews River, an angler may remove the king salmon from the water before releasing it. There are no regulations prohibiting that action within those waters.
    http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm....ayk_sportfish

  8. #8
    Member fishNphysician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen WA
    Posts
    4,516

    Default

    Thanks for the clarification, tally.

    What about the scenario KBF describes above... catch a king somewhere in a Cook Inlet drainage, remove it from the water, mark it on your license as required for retention, but release it to spawn and retire the rod for the day.

    I guess the premise here is that removing the fish from the water legally renders it to the angler's possession. Isn't the angler then free to do with it whatever he/she pleases. If the angler decides to "feed" the river rather than his own stomach with the catch, is there a legal problem with that?
    "Let every angler who loves to fish think what it would mean to him to find the fish were gone." Zane Grey
    http://www.piscatorialpursuits.com/uploads/UP12710.jpg
    The KeenEye MD

  9. #9
    Member alaskabliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    I think the lesson learned here to today is not to judge without all the facts...
    Ignorance is not Bliss, it's insanity

  10. #10
    Member ysr_racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Happily in So Cal.
    Posts
    583

    Default

    No one judged anybody, I just asked a question.
    brad g.
    So Cal, USA
    Visit my Sporting Clays website
    http://www.ysr-racer.com

  11. #11
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ysr_racer View Post
    No one judged anybody, I just asked a question.
    ...And you were judged for it.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  12. #12
    Member alaskabliss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    1,419

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ysr_racer View Post
    No one judged anybody, I just asked a question.
    My comment wasn't directed at you, your question was valid.
    Ignorance is not Bliss, it's insanity

  13. #13
    Member NeverLand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Boat and Condo are in Seward, but I live in Centreville, VA most of the year
    Posts
    216

    Default

    Why not ask the Wildlife Troopers?

  14. #14
    Member Frostbitten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Alaska - I wasn't born here, but I got here as soon as I could!
    Posts
    3,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alaskabliss View Post
    I think the lesson learned here to today is not to judge without all the facts...
    Come on now....there's no room for clear thinking and common sense around here!!!!!

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Palmer
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kenaibow fan View Post
    well as long as they or she in this case logged the fish on her license you can put the fish back in the water, or keep it. That is the loophole, it can be removed from the water if the water shed is C&K as long as it is logged. Now was it logged who knows, your guess is as good as mine.
    I don't think there is a loophole allowing the king to be released once it is removed from the water. The regs say that any king 20 inches or longer removed from salt or fresh water (in cook inlet) must be retained. From the way it is worded I believe you would be subject to a wanton waste violation if you released a king after you pulled it out of the water. I guess that would be an interesting question to ask a brown shirt.

    Oh yeah, and for aktally benefit, this info is from the sc regs and specifically applies to cook inlet, not the goodnews river.

  16. #16
    Member kenaibow fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    2,039

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by safari View Post
    I don't think there is a loophole allowing the king to be released once it is removed from the water. The regs say that any king 20 inches or longer removed from salt or fresh water (in cook inlet) must be retained. From the way it is worded I believe you would be subject to a wanton waste violation if you released a king after you pulled it out of the water. I guess that would be an interesting question to ask a brown shirt.

    Oh yeah, and for aktally benefit, this info is from the sc regs and specifically applies to cook inlet, not the goodnews river.
    Its not wanton waste, it's how you remove a fish from the water to take a pic if your in a place that wont allow you to remove fish from the water unless you retain it. Once it is logged you can put it back in the water, or keep it. But it has to be logged. Now if you can't remove fish from water when C&R fishing and there is no retention then is just against the law. Safari by all means as a brown shirt or blue shirt, or a green shirt.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ysr_racer View Post
    I was watching "North to Alaska". They were on The Good News River and Audrey caught a king.

    They pulled it out of the water, took pictures, and then put it back in the water and let it go. Based on what I read here, I thought once it leaves the water, it's yours. No?

    I saw this episode, and was wondering about Larry's bag limit, since I saw more than one king taken, shortly after he made a statement about a 1 fish limit. Maybe/probably/likely a several day trip. just wonderin'.

  18. #18
    Member polardds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    800

    Default

    One also has to look at when the episode was filmed. The retention after removal from the water has been on the books for a few years. This could be an older episode. Probably several days of filming all condensed into one show. A lot of cutting and pasting.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •