Quick question.
Where is explanation of “In the act of preparing a meal”? I can not find it printed any place in the MN regs.
From the regs: While on the ice, all harvested walleye and northern pike must be intact and measurable, unless a person is in the act of preparing the fish for a meal on the ice.
I take that to mean; one has a stove, pan, cooking and eating utensils etc. all set up and you are ready to fillet a fish and throw it in the pan.
If you have cleaned fish and tell them you plan to eat them on the ice before you leave you will be fine.
I wish this was the case! We had 2 carcasses sitting on the ice and had the 4 fillets with skin completely on yet sitting in a baggy in the snow next to them. We planned on eating within the hour. Even had the 20lb talk and pot outside ready to go. Not yet lit, but ready to go. They told us we had to have hot oil before removing the fillets from the fish itself. If we tried to hide something or was caught in the act of doing something intentionally wrong I would be the first to say fine me, but we thought we where doing everything 100% by the books! The more I think about it the more confusing it is. No place in print does it say you have to have hot oil ready for the fish! Sorry, just kind of venting.
I’d be upset too! I’ve just been asked, “what do you plan to do with these fish?” Right answer is “eat them out here.” The wrong answer is “take them home” or “I’m not sure.”
Rules like this really frustrate an angler 
Who is “they”? Were you confronted by a DNR CO? Unless there is more to this story, no I don’t think you are venting. Just questioning.
I would not know you need to have the oil hot before filleting the fish…really?? What if you were cooking the fish by another method other than in oil. ?
I wouldn’t consider grocery shopping, the “act of preparing a meal”, I also wouldn’t consider cutting up and setting my food in the refrigerator, the “act of preparing a meal”.
I would consider getting the stove ready, cutting up the food, mixing the ingredients, and actually cooking, “the act of preparing the meal”.
Sorry, but I believe the warden is right.
Yes, it was a Warden that visited us and by the way he was VERY nice. I do wish we would have asked more questions at the time. How can the DNR not specify what Preparing a meal is?? I would never ever do it, but we would have been better off lying and saying that we eat the fish a couple hours ago.
I would consider getting the stove ready, cutting up the food, mixing the ingredients, and actually cooking, “the act of preparing the meal”.
Sorry, but I believe the warden is right.
What if my act of preparing the food involves letting the fish bask in the breading for 45 minutes before frying? I’m not going to let the oil heat for 45 minutes.
Way too much grey area. Grey area is bad. Things need to be black and white.
Had a CO inspect us last year on URL and he was NOT happy that we had our carcasses in one bag frozen but still measurable. We did not get in trouble but he stressed the fact that they need to stay separated so they can be inspected individually. These CO’s see all sort of bad behavior on the ice, it is tough for them to find the good balance and judge each individual immediately upon meeting. I applaud any CO who enters hundreds of fish houses on a lake in a day, it can be a very dangerous and stressful job, but it needs to be done.
In our case, the fish were not already consumed but we were in the process of making batter and prepping when he entered. He could clearly tell we cleaned the fish a couple hours before and was not upset about that. We were well below our limit, as we only kept 3 Walleye and 1 Burbot to make the meal for 3 of us.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Munchy wrote:</div>
I would consider getting the stove ready, cutting up the food, mixing the ingredients, and actually cooking, “the act of preparing the meal”.Sorry, but I believe the warden is right.
What if my act of preparing the food involves letting the fish bask in the breading for 45 minutes before frying? I’m not going to let the oil heat for 45 minutes.
Way too much grey area. Grey area is bad. Things need to be black and white.
That would be considered “mixing the ingredients” would it not?!
I’d politely ask the CO to show me what page in the regulations this is stated/defined. If it’s not clearly defined in the regs, then it is up to interpretation and you could argue either side of the issue. If you were to receive a citation for it, I’d have no problem fighting that in court because it is clearly not defined in the fishing regulations. With that said, I believe if you are polite and respectful, I have a hard time believing a CO would write you up for this in your specific case.
He did issue 1 citation.
He did issue 1 citation.
For this? Or another infraction?
Are you serious? That is ridiculous. Here is a screenshot from the 2016 regulations and the ONLY place in the entire regs that preparing a meal is mentioned. As long as you indeed had the carcuses intact with head, dorsal fin, and tail, you were 100% legally abiding by the regulations as they are written. Again, I’d have the 2016 regulations book in my hand and politely ask them to prove you wrong. Since you weren’t in the act of transporting the filets, you should not have been fined for not having skin on them. “Hot oil” is not mentioned in the regs. I would definitely fight it because I think if you were to get some sort of other related violation in the next year, you could lose your license for a year or two.
DNR-regs.png
Yes, for this. That is the worst part about it we were very careful to NOT do anything illegal!! There were only 2 of us and he issued 1 ticket to my buddy. Only because he volunteered.
You have to remember that the regs book isn’t written exactly as the law is written. The regs book is to help us usual folk interpret what the law really means.
That’s where the grey area exists, in the regs book.
You have to remember that the regs book isn’t written exactly as the law is written. The regs book is to help us usual folk interpret what the law really means.
That’s where the grey area exists, in the regs book.
Even with that said, how are we expected to follow regulations that are not listed in the regs book nor communicated in any other way to the general public? I found absolutely nothing on the DNR’s website (mndnr.gov/regulations/fishing) that is listed in the regs book as where to look for additional regs/laws. Pretty absurd if you ask me. I still think the OP has a strong case for fighting it.
No different than every other law we have to follow. I don’t have a tax regulations book.
Ignorance will never get anyone off for breaking a law.
Let me be clear that I agree with the grey area and frustration. I’d be ticked too. I’ve always gone right to the statues for a better explanation though. I would also call the dnr to get an explanation on how they interpret the law.
I’ve seen the same problem on the St. Croix river where MN co’s interpret the border water laws one way but the WI CO’s interpret the same law a different way.
No different than every other law we have to follow. I don’t have a tax regulations book.
Ignorance will never get anyone off for breaking a law.
Let me be clear that I agree with the grey area and frustration. I’d be ticked too. I’ve always gone right to the statues for a better explanation though. I would also call the dnr to get an explanation on how they interpret the law.
I’ve seen the same problem on the St. Croix river where MN co’s interpret the border water laws one way but the WI CO’s interpret the same law a different way.
Actually that is a bad analogy – there IS a tax regulations book that outlines every single tax rule… Trust me, I have a couple of them on my desk. Granted theres different rules for personal vs corporate taxes, it is actually quite easy to research tax rules. There aren’t any tax rules that are unlisted and only IRS agents know about.
I’d still ask to see where the law says “hot oil”. I’d be willing to wager that there is no law that says the “oil has to be hot”…. What if I am not using oil to cook them?
This all seems too strange. As far as the CO goes, what was his interpretation of the regs and/or law as it was written…or not written? Nobody seems to have found the specifics in the law that addresses what exactly is “in the act of preparing the fish for a meal on the ice.” Would not filleting the fish be an ” act of preparing the fish for a meal on the ice.”??
I guess you would think that the CO may have just issued a warning being that the apparent violation was so ambiguous. Many of them have just issued warnings for far more obvious violations. 
Would not filleting the fish be an ” act of preparing the fish for a meal on the ice.”
Yes, however placing it into storage would not be. Which is what placing the fillets into a ziplock bag and setting it on the ice would be.
Did he explain the law at all?
I’ll let them dictate the tone of the conversation. If they are civil and just doing their job I have no issue with that, yet still need answers to what the actual statute is and how to stay legal. That’s your right and their job. When they turn it into a bladder leaking contest, remember they work for us, the general public, we are their bosses in a round about way. Have found most, if you are truly wanting to know the law and how to stay in it will grant you that with little issue. Some just have bad hair days all life long.
Would not filleting the fish be an ” act of preparing the fish for a meal on the ice.”
Yes, however placing it into storage would not be. Which is what placing the fillets into a ziplock bag and setting it on the ice would be.
But if the oil was hot, then what?
So it can’t go in a plastic bag or a bowl or a container? Are you not allowed to soak it and bleed the fillets at all? Does it have to go from carcass straight to the pan? I find that extremely subjective to interpretation, what classifies storage?
I would fight any citation you received that day.
Too many wardens/co’s and police like to add their own addendum’s to the law so they can show you were in the wrong.
It happens too often and we sportsman should not cower to the act of overzealous law enforcement.
Ok. Bad analogy. But my point is the same. Ignorance is not an excuse. I’ve had wardens and even border crossing agents give me some pretty odd interpretations but if you remain open to their explanation, more times than not you’ll come out no worse for the wear.
I would fight any citation you received that day.
If you don’t have a job and a bottomless pit of money go right ahead. I choose to be compliant because I believe that they truly have our best interests in mind. If I screw up, I’ll pay the lesser consequence of paying the fine. It ain’t worth fighting.
I respectfully disagree, biggill. If you are trying to follow the law, and are making choices that a ‘reasonable’ person could interpret as law abiding, then yu owe it to yourself (and to the warden, and the rest of the fisherman out there) to fight the ticket. That ticket could easily become the first of two in a year if you are unlucky and meet a ticket happy warden again. I believe two fish and game violations within a certain time period is a more serious event…..
I do believe that there are certain wardens in certain areas that are more likely to write questionable tickets to fisherman that are not local, knowing full well that the likelihood of a person traveling a greater distance to fight a “minor” ticket is very low, therefore they end up with a high rate of convictions in relation to tickets written. I, for one, would not tolerate that without showing up to fight it.
Would not filleting the fish be an ” act of preparing the fish for a meal on the ice.”
Yes, however placing it into storage would not be. Which is what placing the fillets into a ziplock bag and setting it on the ice would be.
Ok, where did you find that in the regs booklet or the fish and game statutes? Is that a regulation or violation?
What I’m now curious about is what exactly was the citation issued for? And was/if there were any other extenuating circumstances?
Would like if the OP could offer more specific on the citation.
Was it for unlawful possession or what?
This is just weird… 
I would like to know why only one person was cited. Volunteering isn’t a reason for getting a ticket. Either something was wrong or it wasn’t. In any event I’m glad they have CO’s checking. This is the first instance I’ve read of people being checked on Red.
The CO probably said something to the effect of “Well I got to write you up for something” and most sportsman figure OK then this wont escalate.
And the buddy being a good guy took the ticket.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
