In the scenario you describe, the person caught the fish, but did not harvest it. Culling fish is when you harvest it (put it in a cooler or a livewell-dead or alive makes no difference) and then take one out of your harvested fish and toss the previously caught fish for a different one.charlie tuna wrote:How would you imterpret this: " provided that it is measured immediately after taking, and immediately returned to the water free, alive, and unharmed if undersize or oversize."? This kind of says it is illegal to cull seatrout?
I will freely admit I have culled fish and I would have done it if an officer was in the boat with me and just taken the ticket. I have done it on redfish (reds live longer in my livewell). I have gut hooked a fish, sure to die after I had my red. I took out the fish that was very much alive in my livewell, made sure it was able to swim away and then replaced it with the sure to die fish. In both cases I did this, the gut hooked fish was smaller.
I think I will make a call to FWC when I have time and get a ruling on harvest vs catch vs limit vs culling. I think it would be very educational.
I think following one's ethics is more important than following the law. Most fisherman have a higher moral code than the law anyways. Some do not. I personally chose not to keep trout over 20", even when I am keeping them for dinner. I would not judge anyone that does so, it is just my thing. If I ever get to go to LA to fish, I guarantee I do not keep a red over 27", regardless of the law.
I still think the fisherman being chastised in this thread did nothing wrong and I hope those that are judging him will man up and admit they were wrong if they are proven to be so. If I am wrong, I will admit it and change my tactics as well.