Missouri Conservation Agents Found Him Exceeding Catfish Bag Limit

A Missouri angler who told conservation agents that all of the catfish in his possession belonged to him ended up receiving a citation after officers counted five fish in his basket at a lake where the daily limit was only four per person.

The May 19, 2025 encounter was shown in a video by the bodycam channel Arrest Cam, whose host explained that conservation agents had been patrolling Lake 7 in the Busch area of St. Charles County when they noticed five people fishing on the opposite side of the water.

According to the channel, three people got into a vehicle and left after apparently noticing agents conducting checks elsewhere around the lake, while two men remained along the shoreline.

By the time officers reached them, what began as a routine fishing-permit check quickly turned into questions about who had caught the fish, whether anyone else had been fishing without a license and why there were more catfish in the basket than the lake allowed.

Five Fish In A Four-Fish Lake

The Arrest Cam narrator explained that Missouri generally allows a higher daily bag limit for channel catfish, but individual bodies of water can have more restrictive regulations.

At Lake 7, anglers were allowed to keep four channel catfish per person.

When the conservation agents approached the two men still at the water, one of them immediately said he was the only person fishing and that the other man was simply sitting with him.

An agent then asked whether all of the fish in the basket belonged to him.

“Yeah,” the angler answered.

The officer counted five.

“I’m just making sure, ’cause you can only catch four and there’s five in there,” the agent told him.

The man acknowledged the problem, and when the officer asked whether he had caught all five or whether somebody else had been fishing without a permit, he again said the fish were his.

That admission simplified one part of the investigation, because if another person had caught one of the fish, agents would then have had to determine whether that person had been fishing legally.

Officers Wondered If He Was Taking The Blame

The agents were still concerned that somebody who had left the area might actually have caught one or more of the fish.

They questioned the second man about whether he had been fishing and asked whether the angler was possibly “taking the fall” for someone else.

The second man denied fishing and said he had not fished in about 10 years, explaining that his companion had invited him out because he had been going through some personal difficulties and needed somewhere peaceful to sit.

The officer made clear that he was not accusing the second man without evidence and even explained why he was asking.

If the second man had caught a fish and put it into the same basket, the first angler might appear to be over his limit when the real violation involved someone fishing without a permit.

The second man continued to say he had only been sitting there.

Eventually, the agent accepted the explanation and told the angler he would receive a citation for being over the legal limit.

One Catfish Had To Go Back

The conservation agent did not confiscate the remaining fish.

Instead, he photographed the catch and told the man he would have to release one fish so that he returned to the legal possession limit of four.

The angler complied and threw the smallest fish back.

The encounter could have ended there, but the conversation changed when the man acknowledged that his children had also been at the lake.

He said they were 16 and had been casting or working with the fishing poles, although he maintained that they had not caught anything.

The conservation agent explained that they still needed fishing permits.

According to the officer, Missouri residents generally need permits from age 16 through 64, while younger children and qualifying residents 65 or older can fish without one.

When the man responded that he would simply tell his children not to come fishing anymore, both the officer and the Arrest Cam host pushed back.

Officer Encouraged Him To Keep Taking His Kids Fishing

The Arrest Cam narrator said he disliked hearing the father suggest that his children should stop coming because a fishing license was inexpensive compared with many other activities and because fishing can provide valuable time outdoors with family.

The conservation agent made almost the same point directly to the man.

“No, don’t do that,” the officer said. “You got to get them fishing. Got to get them out of the house.”

He told the angler that a permit for them would cost about $13 and encouraged him to simply make sure they had licenses next time.

The exchange was notably less confrontational than many enforcement encounters, because the agent was not trying to discourage the family from returning to the lake.

Instead, he was explaining how they could keep fishing legally.

The angler said his family lived in Florida and that he normally fished with relatives elsewhere, adding that this was only his second time at the Missouri lake and that he had not known the local four-fish limit.

Agents Explained Several Rules Before Leaving

The officers continued answering the man’s questions rather than simply handing him the citation and leaving.

They explained that he could continue fishing on a catch-and-release basis after reaching his possession limit, but that once a fish was placed into his basket, it counted toward that limit.

That meant he could not keep four smaller fish, later catch a much larger one and throw one of the earlier fish back to make room.

The agent described that practice as “culling” and said it was illegal under the rules that applied there.

The angler appeared surprised when told that even if he caught a 30-, 50- or 60-pound fish after reaching his limit, he would still have to release it rather than swap it for one already in the basket.

The officers also explained the permit requirements for older relatives, noting that the age exemption for those 65 and older depended on Missouri residency.

By that point, the interaction had turned into something of an on-the-spot lesson in local fishing regulations, and the man said he would simply pack up with the four legal fish he was allowed to retain.

Court Ultimately Imposed A $25 Fine

Before leaving, the conservation agent carefully explained how the citation process worked.

He told the angler to keep the paperwork, wait roughly three weeks for the citation to enter the system and then use the listed website to either pay the amount due or request a court date.

The Arrest Cam host later provided an update on what happened after the bodycam footage ended.

According to the channel, the angler was ultimately charged with taking or possessing fish over the legal limit in a department area.

The host said he later pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay a $25 fine, which the narrator described as the lowest fine the channel had seen in this type of case.

Four points were also placed on his fishing license.

The small fine could be seen as evidence that the court treated the violation as relatively minor, especially considering that the man was only one fish over the limit and cooperated once the agents confronted him.

Still, the story did not end with the guilty plea.

Host Says The Fine Still Has Not Been Paid

The Arrest Cam narrator said that despite the modest penalty, the man still had not paid it months later.

According to the channel, the $25 fine had become five months overdue and had grown to a balance of $42.50.

The host used that update to criticize the angler, connecting it back to his earlier reaction when the man considered keeping his children away from fishing rather than buying them permits.

“Then again, if someone’s unwilling to pay $13 to take their own kid fishing, I guess I shouldn’t be too surprised,” the narrator said.

The comment was clearly the channel host’s opinion rather than part of the enforcement action, but it reflected the generally preventable nature of the entire case.

The conservation agents did not seize the man’s legal catch, did not pursue his children for citations and spent considerable time explaining how the rules worked, while the eventual court penalty was only $25.

What began with one extra catfish therefore became less a story about a serious wildlife crime than a reminder that local fishing limits can differ sharply from statewide rules, and that anglers are responsible for checking those limits before putting fish into the basket.