65 replies to this topic

[Taylor]

Posting pics are fine. It's the methodology of milking and releasing is what's causing ruckus. The hen may or may not survive after the milking and in the end, they do die. Someone mentioned about how the regulations state that it is illegal to leave fish remains behind if they're fit for human consumption. According to the MNR guide on consuming fish, bodies of water near Bronte state that ZERO chinook should be consumed if they're over 26".

It's also important to note that milking roe, no matter if it's just one tiny egg or a bag full of it, still counts towards you retaining limit.

please expand i little more n please dont use fancy words so every1 can uderstand correctly,

i think i understand u write, tell me if im wrong!!

you can milk & release a hen if she is over 26"?

if there smaller then 26" the MNR says you must keep whole fish if you want to take the eggs?

thanks for the help Frank

[Taylor]

It's also important to note that milking roe, no matter if it's just one tiny egg or a bag full of it, still counts towards you retaining limit.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

what do you mean by counts towards your retaining limit, please explain?

thanks Frank

[Mykester]

please expand i little more n please dont use fancy words so every1 can uderstand correctly,

i think i understand u write, tell me if im wrong!!

you can milk & release a hen if she is over 26"?

if there smaller then 26" the MNR says you must keep whole fish if you want to take the eggs?

thanks for the help Frank

umm what fancy words? Maybe you should read a book instead of "chasing pussy."

[NADO]

According to the MNR guide on consuming fish, bodies of water near Bronte state that ZERO chinook should be consumed if they're over 26".

So if its over 26" then release the fish and let it spawn.

I cant remember where the thread was that had an article about Bronte Creek stating that it was illegal to harvest salmon for their eggs, but the article seemed very clear to me that you cant harvest a fish just for its eggs. And I dont think that using the fish for fertilizer would satisfy the regulation either. So I think if you arent going to eat the fish let it spawn and the native fish in the rivers can eat some of the eggs and the decaying salmon can provide nutrients to multiple levels of the food chain. Ive seen tons of salmon skeletons this year that are already cleaned to the bone which goes to show how efficient the ecosystem is at using the salmon.

Remember dead salmon on the rivers should not be a surprise to anyone, the issue is how early the salmon are dead on the rivers as a result of harvesting them for their eggs. If an angler cant handle the smell then fall river fishing isnt for them.

[FrankTheRabbit]

Sometimes the regulations are difficult to understand, but basically, there's a limit on how many species of fish you can keep according to the rules set out by our province.

If you have a sports license, you can only keep in your possession of 5 salmon. If you have a conservation license, you can only have in your possession two salmon. Possession meaning having salmon on the stringer with you while you fish or stored in your freezer at home. For example, if you are fishing witha conservation license and you have two in your possession, you may not keep any more salmon, but you can only catch and release until you consume one of the salmon.

Regarding the situation with roe, that counts as part of your possession, since it's part of the salmon. Like I mentioned above, it doesn't matter if you keep one tiny roe or a bag full of roe from one salmon, it counts as ONE possession and is part of your limit. If you milk two different salmon, that counts as two possessions and if you have a conservation license, that's it—you cannot keep anymore salmon and are only allowed to catch and release.

The province has set out a guideline to follow on how much you can safely consume fish from Lake Ontario. Since you were fishing Bronte, the guide mentions that any fish over 26" is not safe to consume. We all know that it's against fishing regulations to leave a fish behind if it's fit for human consumption. So, if you land a hen over 26", gut it for roe, and leave it on the side, legally, you're not committing a crime since the fish is obviously not safe to consume. It's a double edged sword. Even if you do leave the fish behind to rot, you allow other animals to consume the fish and nutrients from the dying salmon can be absorbed by the trees around.

Even maggots that develop in the rotting salmon can be washed into the river system and feed the smaller fish.

It's an interesting cycle and I don't think there's any perfect right or wrong answer if you leave fish behind.

[fisher12]

I think the rules are you can't kill a fish and leave it there unless its a goby or parasitic fish. Even if its rotting I believe you must take it if you kill it.

[FrankTheRabbit]

Page 8 in the digital version of the guide under the heading "General Prohibitions—It Is Illegal to:"

And the last point states:
"Abandon fish or permit the flesh to spoil, if the fish is suitable for human consumption"

If you're fishing off Bronte and catch a monster over 26" and do a gut & chuck, you're not breaking the rules, since chinook over 26" is not suitable for human consumption.

Morally, I don't like it and what was mentioned before, it's better to just release it and let it be on its merry way.

[fisher12]

Page 8 in the digital version of the guide under the heading "General Prohibitions—It Is Illegal to:"

And the last point states:
"Abandon fish or permit the flesh to spoil, if the fish is suitable for human consumption"

If you're fishing off Bronte and catch a monster over 26" and do a gut & chuck, you're not breaking the rules, since chinook over 26" is not suitable for human consumption.

Morally, I don't like it and what was mentioned before, it's better to just release it and let it be on its merry way.

I'm sorry I didn't remember reading the suitable for human consumption part.
Thanks for stating what you did.

[beef]

dont let me see you doing that milking a fish and letting it go to die for what roe, come on so many other things work just as well or better if i saw you doing that you would have went swimming and never came back lol

[threeparrots]

Page 8 in the digital version of the guide under the heading "General Prohibitions—It Is Illegal to:"

And the last point states:
"Abandon fish or permit the flesh to spoil, if the fish is suitable for human consumption"

If you're fishing off Bronte and catch a monster over 26" and do a gut & chuck, you're not breaking the rules, since chinook over 26" is not suitable for human consumption.

Morally, I don't like it and what was mentioned before, it's better to just release it and let it be on its merry way.

I must plead ignorance here. Is this guide more than a GUIDE / SUGGESTION? I simply can't see how this publication's suggestion / assertion that these fish are unfit for human consumption would hold up to law. Individuals are still free to consume this fish against the advice of the MNR. Seems too arbitrary for me -- even a loophole.

[fisher12]

The safest thing to do is just keep the fish if you're unsure, would those dark Chinooks be considered not edible?

[Float down]

Pretty much a the fish out of lake O are not edible. And spawning salmon are dying. There meat is decaying and they are full of parasites and bacteria. Dont believe me? Look at a chunk of it under a microscope. Sorry if I grossed anyone out lol.

[fisher12]

Pretty much a the fish out of lake O are not edible. And spawning salmon are dying. There meat is decaying and they are full of parasites and bacteria. Dont believe me? Look at a chunk of it under a microscope. Sorry if I grossed anyone out lol.

Sorry I meant safe for human comsumption not edible.

[NADO]

With all due respect... "What you think" has no bearing on this conversation. The regs have no problems with me using the fish as I wish, as long as I am not culling and killing them for leisure, sport or monetary benefit.
I have been C&R fishing ONT tribs for the past 22 years. During this time, I have put more effort into conservation and awareness of our cherished resources than most... So please save me the Pontiff speech..

FYI- for 100's of years native fishermen from all regions of the world have been using fish emulsions as fertilizer, in fact, they sell it in stores to this day!..


/rant

With all do respect the regulation does not specifically address that issue and as a result your comment is just your opinion and I guess also has no bearing on this conversation.....

Lets try to keep it mature and keep the personal attacks to a minimum.

[FrankTheRabbit]

I must plead ignorance here. Is this guide more than a GUIDE / SUGGESTION? I simply can't see how this publication's suggestion / assertion that these fish are unfit for human consumption would hold up to law. Individuals are still free to consume this fish against the advice of the MNR. Seems too arbitrary for me -- even a loophole.

Can't plead ignorance here. It's a guide published by the Ontario government, as mentioned in my previous post.

http://www.ene.gov.o...ROD_075994.html

It's a loophole alright, but not something I agree with completely.

Every story has two sides to it, nothing is black and white.

[NADO]

LOL thank you, where did you find that thread?

The article makes it very clear, and wether it is legal or not using a 30lb salmon as bait with its eggs and fertilizer with its flesh is just a pure waste.

[FrankTheRabbit]

They've left out the part that if it's only fit for human consumption. My source came from the MNR guide, yet your source comes from a newspaper...hmmm...

[piju]

Hey FrankTheRabbit you mentioned that if you have one tiny egg or a bag full it counts as one towards your posession limit, now i'm not trying to be devils advocate but what would happen if I bought my roe at the tackle shop, I have a small jar of it, two salmon on a stringer and a conservation license? it's an honest question and i would like to be prepared should the scenario ever come up.

[FrankTheRabbit]

Dunno how you can still defend the article when they only publish one-half of the offense. I don't blame them, because a lot of news outlets tend to be biased anyways and only report on things that they feel fits in with their story. Obviously, if they published the offense in its entirety, people would probably exploit that loophole.

There's a website called, "Ask a CO" or something like that where hundreds of questions were asked & answered regarding a lot of rules and regulations on fishing. One grey example is if you came across a half-rotting salmon that was dead on the bank with skein/roe still intact, you can strip the roe and also legally leave the fish behind. Why? Well, because it's not fit for human consumption. From that Q&A post, it's a grey area because you "may" have to prove that the fish was indeed unfit for human consumption at the time you took the roe. Although the fish is dead, it still counts against your catch & retain limits for that species of fish.

I just thought it would be appropriate to point out that that there is a loophole if you abandon a fish. A loophole that does not seem to fit with the ideas of being conservative.