Noodling / Hand Fishing = Strictly hands only

[AllOut]

Again your same concept applies to mine.
Checking the hole with a stick... Then catching the fish with your hands
Didn't "catch" it with the stick, my boat or my hair doo.
Now what about the gloves?

 

[doctorjj]

Again- Title 29 and title 800 define noodling as: "the TAKING of fish by use of hands only. That means how you take the fish, not how you got there, what you are wearing, or what hair doo you have. It means what you use to take the fish. I dont see how "hands only" being the law can be argued as vague or grey. What can be argued as vague or grey is what has been allowed in the past, not what is state law.

"Taking of fish". A pole without a hook is not a violation unless it is used to take the fish. You just said it yourself. A pole with a hook can be used as prima facie evidence of a violation whereas a pole without a hook is not. So unless the pole without a hook is used to actually take the fish, then it's not a violation. I'm sorry you think it is, but you should really work to get the law changed to reflect your views if that's how you really feel.

 

[r00s7a]

AllOut, if that stick is not assisting you in the taking of that fish somehow, then why are you sticking it in a hole?

 

[AllOut]

The argument isn't in "assisting" but the actual catch itself. Just like my "typical" comment earlier about other things involved other than hands. My boat/truck got me to the hole so wouldn't it be assisting as well? I can legally use SCUBA gear right? Yes I can and do, it also assists in catching but does not do any actual catching. But non of these things are my hands. Like I said, the reg is vague and grey.

 

[RidgeHunter]

"Taking of fish". A pole without a hook is not a violation unless it is used to take the fish. You just said it yourself. A pole with a hook can be used as prima facie evidence of a violation whereas a pole without a hook is not. So unless the pole without a hook is used to actually take the fish, then it's not a violation. I'm sorry you think it is, but you should really work to get the law changed to reflect your views if that's how you really feel.

Which is exactly what he said here:

A pole WITHOUT a hook attached would need to be used while noodling to be in violation of "hands only"

and here:

If you have a "feel stick" and you are caught using it, it is then a violation of "hands only".
Nothing about this law has changed. The enforcement directive has changed from being liberal on the use of "feel sticks" to strictly hands only.

But by all means, don't let that stop you from jumping all over him. He's explained it pretty well, and there's nothing grey about it.

Typical yes but that doesn't mean it's not true.
The "hands only" is so vague and grey it can't be used or enforced the way you seem to think. This isn't just my opinion but also like I stated before GWs as well. Not only when we talked about it did they Not write us tickets but also said they couldn't because there isn't really a law against it. What DocJJ said is pretty much true to what the GWs have told us in the past.

What a game warden told you or didn't cite you for doesn't have anything to do with the law. I've been pulled over by a county sheriff for doing 17 over in a 50mph zone. He told me to take it easy and have a nice day. That doesn't mean the law hasn't always said he could have cited/arrested me for my offense. It just means he didn't. Jared says only the enforcement directive has changed from being lenient to strict adherence to hands only. Simple stuff, dudes.

 

[AllOut]

Except the fact the GWs were not just being nice and not ticketing. They have told us numerous times (multiple GW) that technically there is "no law" against using a stick as long as a hook isnt attached. The law has not changed.
Speeds limits are posted.

 

[doctorjj]

Sorry, Ridge. I didn't realize Jared was the law. I thought the law was the law backed up by years of precedents in actual enforcement.

Besides, he himself said that possession of poles with hooks is evidence of a violation. Possession of a pole is not, by itself, a violation, so he, by law, is going to have to prove that I used it to "take" the fish, or even a liberal reading would have to prove that is used it in assisting to take the fish. Because the law doesn't state that I can't have a wading pole with me. He would have to prove that I used it in the act of taking the fish. Unless he's got underwater cameras set up, well, good luck with that.

And I realize Jared is a warden, but that doesn't mean that his interpretation of the law is 100% correct. Anyone remember the OHP tellingly me I have to notify of CCW permit even when not carrying???

 

[doctorjj]

Except the fact the GWs were not just being nice and not ticketing. They have told us numerous times (multiple GW) that technically there is "no law" against using a stick as long as a hook isnt attached. The law has not changed.
Speeds limits are posted.

This!

 

[Jared]

"Taking of fish". A pole without a hook is not a violation unless it is used to take the fish. You just said it yourself. A pole with a hook can be used as prima facie evidence of a violation whereas a pole without a hook is not. So unless the pole without a hook is used to actually take the fish, then it's not a violation. I'm sorry you think it is, but you should really work to get the law changed to reflect your views if that's how you really feel.

You have repeated exactly what ive already explained, except I never said that i think that having a pole without a hook in your possession is a violation. If my reading skills are correct I stated that if you are caught using it to take a fish then it would be a violation.
I'm not giving you guys "my" interp of the law, im trying to explain what the law reads.
I'm a noodler as well, and this change of enforcement will affect my noodling as well.

 

[Jared]

Sorry, Ridge. I didn't realize Jared was the law. I thought the law was the law backed up by years of precedents in actual enforcement.

Besides, he himself said that possession of poles with hooks is evidence of a violation. Possession of a pole is not, by itself, a violation, so he, by law, is going to have to prove that I used it to "take" the fish, or even a liberal reading would have to prove that is used it in assisting to take the fish. Because the law doesn't state that I can't have a wading pole with me. He would have to prove that I used it in the act of taking the fish. Unless he's got underwater cameras set up, well, good luck with that.

And I realize Jared is a warden, but that doesn't mean that his interpretation of the law is 100% correct. Anyone remember the OHP tellingly me I have to notify of CCW permit even when not carrying???

Neither I or anybody else is trying to say that we dont have to prove the violation of using a stick without a hook.