glen Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 If most people want it maybe that will be the way it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
misfish Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Glen,I have a large wooden spoon,want to borrow it? LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Wouldn't bother me at all if it was banned. Until then, I'll continue to selectively harvest 1 or 2 fish a year that are edible and provide roe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davey buoy Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 As long as you are allowed to keep your limit,how much more can you control?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted September 8, 2012 Report Share Posted September 8, 2012 Another thought - I would 100% back a no-kill on the rivers from August to 4th Sat in April. Of course i would also support no kill fishing period, for every species, but I realize that isnt a popular idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCTFisher9120 Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) Not a river rat myself but why ban roe? It's plentiful, can't be invasive in transport like baitfish, crawfish etc...and takes personal time to cure, tie, etc. Not to mention it's in the fish these guys catch and with proper legal harvest your entitled i would think. What is not right is taking roe and leaving fish dead on bank. Perhaps reasoning for banning as that is a sight everybody see's on the shores of creeks. Tightlines, MTBF Edited September 9, 2012 by MikeTheBassFisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spincast Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Another thought - I would 100% back a no-kill on the rivers from August to 4th Sat in April. Of course i would also support no kill fishing period, for every species, but I realize that isnt a popular idea. x2. No need to keep when they are are running to spawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocheleauc Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Not a river rat myself but why ban roe? It's plentiful, can't be invasive in transport like baitfish, crawfish etc...and takes personal time to cure, tie, etc. Not to mention it's in the fish these guys catch and with proper legal harvest your entitled i would think. What is not right is taking roe and leaving fish dead on bank. Perhaps reasoning for banning as that is a sight everybody see's on the shores of creeks. Tightlines, MTBF This is true, and if banning roe would end this I'd be 100% for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sinker Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I voted yes, just to tie it up S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tdel Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I think if you banned roe, the people who are taking the roe now and leaving the fish on the shore would not change. They would do the same thing over and over again. Only people it would affect would be the ones who use roe and follow the laws/regulations. When does a regulation stop poachers from doing what they do? Laws and regulations only affect honest people. So yeah, lets put another regulation on the backs of honest people and let the "do-gooders" stick out their chests and brag about what they accomplished by banning roe. Probably the same people that want the gun registry back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkuchmak Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 This is always a hot topic... I agree that Poachers are going to do what they are going to do...law or no law but personally I would be all for a ban on roe and here are a few instances I have come across that I would see a ban as having a positive effect. Last year I witnessed a guy with two fat hen browns on the bank on a Lake O Trib. I commented that it looked like he had a successful day which he grinned ear to ear explaining to me that him and his fishing partners came specifically to that creek because they needed to stock up on brown roe and would now have enough for the winter season. He explained that it works much better than salmon/rainbow roe. Sounds ridiculous but i have heard this many time before and well yes he was well within his legal limits taking those fish, I have to wonder how many people specifically target a species or system solely for the purpose of harvesting eggs. Another time I was flyfishing for rainbows on my favourite Gbay river and I hooked up with a nice bow. The angler nearby was nice enough to assist me in landing a 7 lb female chromer and commented that because I was fly fishing, could he take the fishes roe because he needed some. I explained that I was not planning on keeping the fish and handed him a few yarn flies instead. While no laws were being breached, I believe it comes down to selective harvest. True these fish could also have been taken for the purpose of eating but we all know it is better to harvest the smaller juvenile fish for eating like most do with bass walleye etc. All these fish were above average size spawning females and wild fish at that which we need in our systems. Fishing roe really comes down to the fact you have to kill a fish to catch a fish. A ban might not solve all our problems but really any more protection we can get on our rivers the better even if it does upset some peoples routine methods of catching fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I would agree with banning of roe but of course the limit would have to be dropped on the great lakes to a limit of 2 first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky or Specks Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) I think if you banned roe, the people who are taking the roe now and leaving the fish on the shore would not change. They would do the same thing over and over again. Only people it would affect would be the ones who use roe and follow the laws/regulations. When does a regulation stop poachers from doing what they do? Laws and regulations only affect honest people. So yeah, lets put another regulation on the backs of honest people and let the "do-gooders" stick out their chests and brag about what they accomplished by banning roe. Probably the same people that want the gun registry back. But you see they wouldn't be able to fish with it. I don't see people using baitfish in Algonquin Park or people using organic bait in the no bait sections of the Credit,Whiteman's or the Grand. Why, because its an obvious violation of a fisheries act. Eventually roe collection would become a useless effort. You don't see this happening where roe is already illegal BC and US states on the west coast. Edited September 9, 2012 by Musky or Specks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I would agree with banning of roe but of course the limit would have to be dropped on the great lakes to a limit of 2 first. Under those circumstances alone I'd agree to a roe ban as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopheraaron Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Ya, I guess I would, there are plenty of plastic roe imitators and there are glo bug flies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecmilley Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 must be september, what's the point it's a natural and productive bait being used primarily in a put and take fishery to what? stop the few poachers out there snagging salmon woop dee doo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moxie Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) I think if you banned roe, the people who are taking the roe now and leaving the fish on the shore would not change. They would do the same thing over and over again. Only people it would affect would be the ones who use roe and follow the laws/regulations. When does a regulation stop poachers from doing what they do? Laws and regulations only affect honest people. So yeah, lets put another regulation on the backs of honest people and let the "do-gooders" stick out their chests and brag about what they accomplished by banning roe. Probably the same people that want the gun registry back. Yup. More rules. More incessant finger wagging from those who might just lack the cerebral capacity to leave well enough alone. Edited September 9, 2012 by moxie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 But you see they wouldn't be able to fish with it. I don't see people using baitfish in Algonquin Park or people using organic bait in the no bait sections of the Credit,Whiteman's or the Grand. Why, because its an obvious violation of a fisheries act. Eventually roe collection would become a useless effort. You don't see this happening where roe is already illegal BC and US states on the west coast. I see people breaking those laws often in the spots you mention. Whitemans being the worst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendrix Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 2 years ago I found a dead female salmon full of eggs, washed up on the shore after a big storm. Sure it didn't smell or look great, but I harvested those juicy stinky eggs. And it was enough for my dad and I to float fish for the next 2 years, almost. No fish harmed, those eggs worked well, everyone's happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snidley Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 One of the little known "facts" about roe angling is that roe IS an "invasive". Roe carries disease and that disease transmission (VHS in Ohio's case), not conservation, was the reason that Ohio banned roe angling 3 or 4 years ago. This is particularly the case when the really selfish hackers start chumming with roe. Inevitably they use old or stinky roe for chum and stinky old roe is contaminated with bacteria, that's what makes it stinky. This is why one cures roe with an anti bacterial like Borax. Bronte Creek used to be a great Brown river but over the years the roe crowd have stripped out almost all of the Brown females, and now, no browns. The lugans at the 'Shwa did the same thing and any guess why Ontario tires get slashed at the Oak in New York State. Brown roe raiders that take eggs and toss the fish. Roe angling is the bane of steelheading and the guys that do it are the leading perpetrators of anti conservation behavior followed closely by cash trollers who must have derbys to find fishing entertaining. A pox on both groups of dicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desship Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Ban it if this is an example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Snidley, I'd love to see some facts that state Bronte was a great brown fishery and because of people taking the big females home for roe, it's now been decimated. I love some of the 'info' you pull out of your rear end, lol! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live2fish85 Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Snidley, I'd love to see some facts that state Bronte was a great brown fishery and because of people taking the big females home for roe, it's now been decimated. I love some of the 'info' you pull out of your rear end, lol! Yea really, doesn't seem to be a shortage of browns when I was fishing there last fall lol. I take it he wouldn't know really with his comment about river and derby fisherman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snidley Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Bronte was not good, it was the best at least of the west end tribs and everybody knew it hence the efforts to catch and strip browns by the roe crowd (ie you guys like you fellows). Now there's always the Oak and the other Lake O NY tribs you fellows frequent on egg trips. Like I said lame almost to the extent of trot lines and crickets (also defended, even legal, in their time) Edited September 10, 2012 by Snidley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live2fish85 Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Do you forget about all the rotting salmon and roe that is left on the shore and streams due to natural and the slaughter fest. Amazingly it actually is what feeds some fish in the rivers. I am sure that the rotting fish have bacteria in it to. And to think it is a natural cycle that has been happening for ever. Edited September 10, 2012 by Live2fish85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts