it wasn't me who stated roe harvesting is a 'commercial enterprise' only (without any substantiation)or expressed concerns about taking roe from a half dead fish. Mushroom picking can be a commercial enterprise but I don't need a license if I want to do it.
That is because there is no "Fungus Act" (not yet anyway). There is, however, a Fisheries Act and since roe is a part of a fish, it is covered under the Act (the Act defines a "fish" as "the whole or any part of an aquatic animal").
While a half dead fish isn't going to spawn anymore taking roe from it is almost certainly illegal.
Good, we agree then. Therefore, the question is what happens once it dies, does it remain protected under the Fisheries Act or not? If you believe it ceases to be covered under the act and I can do what I want with it (like take its roe), then you must also believe that I can take the whole fish (I mean if it is no longer protected under the Act, why not?). If I can take one fish carcass, then I must be able to take a dozen (I mean there are no quotas for dead carcasses right?). I can load up my bag with a dozen carcasses and haul them off home, and if I am stopped by a fisheries officer, then I just tell him they were dead when I found them right? Do we see any problem with this? At very least there would need to be a definition of what constituted a dead carcass (ie: visible fungal growth), so that someone could not claim they were over the possession limit because they were dead already when they found them. However, there is no such definition currently in the Act, and there is no distinction at all between live fish and dead fish in the Act, so a dead carcass is still covered under the Act and, therefore, you cannot harvest it, or the roe.
No one needs my or your permission to do anything. They can do as they wish and their conscience allows and if they contravene the fisheries act or whatever they can take the consequences.
True, but the debate over the legality of the action (taking roe from a dead salmon) might help someone make the right decision and avoid a fine or at least an awkward encounter with a sympathetic fisheries officer.
This is nothing new it's not like it has just started happening. I have been fishing around the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland for around 50 years and it goes back at least that far. Acting shocked about it phony indignation.
I am not sure where you got "shocked" from or "phony [or even genuine] indignation" from, as I am neither shocked nor indignant about people taking roe from dead salmon. I am simply interested in the legality of it, and the implications, if it is legal, of people exploiting such a loophole. I also do not think the "it has been going on for years" is really a strong argument for it being legal or acceptable. Poaching has been going on for at least 50 years too.
If it's becoming such a problem, ban fishing with roe. Ban fishing with any fish or fish parts. Very simple. There are lot's of other good baits. Personally I don't fish with roe very often and wouldn't miss it.
While I too would not miss it (I never use roe), a ban would be overkill to address this particular "problem" which I believe is already covered by the existing Fisheries Act. It is my contention that you can, under the Fisheries Act, only take "fish" (living or dead) by angling (with the hook in its mouth), and you can only take roe from fish you have taken legally. Therefore, taking roe from a carcass is not
legal (although I am not going to lose much sleep over it if I see you doing it). While you may disagree with me Ralph, and we have disagreed on many topics over the years, please provide your reasons for the disagreement, and do not accuse me of changing the topic to suit my arguments. That was a Red Herring at best.
Author
Topic: Dead coho with slit abdomen (Read 25926 times)