Snidley Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 The authorities in Ohio determined that the disease potential of roe was worth banning it. It's a small reason IMO as it the real damage that roe harvesting does is both scientific, killing off the future for hackers to get bait and optics such as the overall loogan behavior it breeds on rivers around the GTA. You know, slitting fish, chumming, stripping fish and throwing them back, constantly seeking fresh eggs no matter how damaging it is. Literally planning egg trips to resupply yourselves. And then complaining when other "anglers" do it on your tribs in a way you guys determine is "not right". What a crew, sportsmen all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live2fish85 Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Not even worth the time. Have fun at Mountsberg. Edited September 10, 2012 by Live2fish85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck2fan Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Should the gutting of females just for roe, then the carcass being left on the river bank be stopped ABSOLUTELY!!! How does one do that though? Banning roe would be the same as having marijuana be illegal and we all know how well that is working. As long as roe is legal I will use it and not feel the least bit guilty about it despite the rantings of others. As I have said before sometimes the catch and release guys do a lot more damage to the fishery when they go out with their 2lb leaders and thrash 20 fish a day 15 times or more a year. As if fighting the hens for 20 minutes when they are already stressed from low water and spawning isn't harmful? Then they have to get that picture of the fish just so along side their $600.00 pin reel with the snazzy pink line. I doubt many of those "released" fish contribute much in the way of spawning eggs that mature into adult fish after that. Another thing I see HUNDREDS of C and R guys fishing with roe that they replace after every 5th cast where are they getting their roe? Some of have even been brazen enough to suggest that I or someone I am fishing with put a hen back to help conserve the fishery.... they walked away when we asked about how they came by the 50 or so sacs we had seen them using that morning. So I fail to see how a person who catches and harvests maybe 5 fish a year one or two of which might be females is doing more harm to the fishery, than the type of C and R guys I see out there.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisK Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Personally I could do without roe if need be. Catch lots of fish on fly's and its more challenging as well. Been tieing stones,sucker spawn and a few other patterns for the last two weeks awaiting for the arrival of the first salmon in my trib followed up by the steel. I figure with all the rains and the cooler temps in the forecast it shouldn't be long now. Pretty exiting time of the year.... Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kemper Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 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) You keep bringing up the Oak, which is a put and take fishery.... That huge dam with the lake above it a mile from lake Ontario kinda puts a damper on any successful spawning. I'm not saying its a reason to kill em all, but doesn't it make sense to harvest stockers that wont spawn over wild fish that have a chance? Just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torco Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 I personally don't use roe anymore, have been finding it more challenging to catch fish on the fly. I would support a roe ban or some other proposed ideas like C&R only periods in the fall. The problem is even if new rules are enacted we need more resources for enforcement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torco Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 On a side note. I was vising my mom yesterday and strolled down to her local creek and to my pleasant surprise I saw a wonderful amount of salmon running up stream. And no one else was around So this large group of fish was basically in the clear and should get a good opportunity to spawn since most of the riverbank they were heading into is more difficult to access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 You keep bringing up the Oak, which is a put and take fishery.... That huge dam with the lake above it a mile from lake Ontario kinda puts a damper on any successful spawning. I'm not saying its a reason to kill em all, but doesn't it make sense to harvest stockers that wont spawn over wild fish that have a chance? Just a thought Be quiet, we all know those fish at Burt make that 70ft jump into the spawning waters!!!! I love the anti-roe crowd, relying on their own opinions instead of facts. I'd love to know their stance on the 5 fish limit out in the lake.. You want to talk about impact to the fishery? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky or Specks Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Be quiet, we all know those fish at Burt make that 70ft jump into the spawning waters!!!! I love the anti-roe crowd, relying on their own opinions instead of facts. I'd love to know their stance on the 5 fish limit out in the lake.. You want to talk about impact to the fishery? lol You do realize the irony of your statement here, right? And to clarify my position. I gave up steeleheading years ago because of the hero attitudes. My only support for the ban on roe comes from trying to stop the lugans who slit and waste fish. To me it seems like the easiest, cheapest solution. Edited September 10, 2012 by Musky or Specks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torco Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Be quiet, we all know those fish at Burt make that 70ft jump into the spawning waters!!!! I love the anti-roe crowd, relying on their own opinions instead of facts. I'd love to know their stance on the 5 fish limit out in the lake.. You want to talk about impact to the fishery? lol The 5 fish limit is ridiculous...another change that should be made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenCanada Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 I personally never use roe, so I wouldn't be too upset if they decided to ban the use of it. It would decrease the number of fish that are gutted for roe and then left to rot. Yes, I realize that some of the targeted fish are going to die anyways, but I don't think it is an ethical practice. If you are planning on consuming the fish and it happened to have eggs, then that's fine, use the eggs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live2fish85 Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) I personally never use roe, so I wouldn't be too upset if they decided to ban the use of it. It would decrease the number of fish that are gutted for roe and then left to rot. Yes, I realize that some of the targeted fish are going to die anyways, but I don't think it is an ethical practice. If you are planning on consuming the fish and it happened to have eggs, then that's fine, use the eggs. All Salmon die after they spawn. I am not saying I agree with the gutting. There will be rotting fish in the river regarldess of people gutting. Edited September 10, 2012 by Live2fish85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12footspringbok Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 I voted no. It wouldn't bother me too much if it was banned though... The way I see it the problem is with enforcement. Another point I'd like to bring up is that supposidly some of the slit for roe carcasses you see aren't necessarily for bait but for food. Apparently some people like to eat the sperm sacs too or so I've been told... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jedimaster Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Is it not already illegal to let fish rot that is edible? So how would banning roe prevent anyone from harvesting roe and letting the fish rot? Or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky or Specks Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Is it not already illegal to let fish rot that is edible? So how would banning roe prevent anyone from harvesting roe and letting the fish rot? Or am I missing something? Peer pressure/shame. If i see someone breaking a law Im going to mention it to them/call tips. Chances of catching someone one slitting fish are small. Catching them fishing with roe is much more likely to happen. Yes its punishing the ethical fisherman for the few lugans but we already do that with most fishing regs anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loadman Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 if I am gonna take row it will be from the US side where the cookie cutter fish are 'produced' and not the naturals we tend to take for granted..... I got no problem taking row from the zombies that lurk there..... I paid for them with my NY state license and I will harvest them... unless of course its not a clipper... sorry if you see that being a problem, but whats better me taking legal fish or a guy with a "Michigan Cricket" and a shark rod ripping fish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmer Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 All Salmon die after they spawn. I am not saying I agree with the gutting. There will be rotting fish in the river regarldess of people gutting. Atlantics don't die after spawning, do they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Live2fish85 Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) Some will make it back after spawning but most of them will die just like the Pacific Salmon. Edited September 10, 2012 by Live2fish85 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musky or Specks Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 Atlantics don't die after spawning, do they? Not to confuse anything but thats because its a trout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkuchmak Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 The argument that a roe ban would never be a worthwhile regulation due to a limit of law enforcement is nuts even if it may be true. All we have are our regulations to protect the fishery and we have to have faith in them. Almost all our fishing regulations are little to never enforced on a regular basis but the impact that changes have, such as slot sizes and limit changes have a positive effect on the fishery because the majority of the fisherman follow the rules and respect the resource. Im sure back in the 50's when stringers and stringers of walleye were being pulled out of nipissing for the table, if you explained to one of those fisherman what a slot size was he would have a comment along the lines of...it could never be enforced so its a bad idea. The problem with the use of roe is that even a catch and release angler is still killing a fish to catch a fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danc Posted September 10, 2012 Report Share Posted September 10, 2012 The problem with the use of roe is that even a catch and release angler is still killing a fish to catch a fish. Now stop that. That makes too much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Shirley Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 I enjoy using roe. I have been using it for over 30 years and enjoy the process of roe and tying it up to go steelheading. It is a bit nostalgic for me. I also enjoy using artificials as well. Banning roe will do nothing to help the fishery. We have an incredible fishery on Lake Ontario currently that can easily attain selective harvest. I only keep a couple fish a year for roe, and I release almost every other trout I catch. I don't even need to collect roe this year. I don't think I am damaging the steelhead or brown fishery by keeping a couple fish lol. Yes, there are some roe hogs out there, but many just collect what they will use. I also enjoy fishing the salmon derby along with tens of thousands of other salmon anglers. Without the derby, there would be a lot less anglers going out for salmon and nothing put into the salmon resources on Lake Ontario. The salmon fishery is currently the best it has been since the hayday in the 1980's. It is a thriving fishery that many enjoy. Since the rule changes a few years ago, not a lot of salmon are killed in the GOSD now. I killed one salmon this year to weigh in. Most do.Like I said, the fishery is thriving, and the salmon derby helps the fishery, not damage it. Just because you have a different elitist attitude Paul, it doesn't make the rest of the world "dicks", as you called many OFNers here. I understand you have different ideas, but you are not helping your cause by calling a lot of other people names. You got kicked off Spoon Pullers for this very thing. Many people enjoy fishing with different methods and tactics that are responsible anglers despite what you think. The bad apples out there will always be bad apples. All the best, Aaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillM Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 The problem with the use of roe is that even a catch and release angler is still killing a fish to catch a fish. Gotta explain this one to me chief, I'm shaking my head. Or are you assuming all fish that are milked die? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solopaddler Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 Well said Aaron and your post made me realize a particular fact which as far as I know has never been mentioned in any of these tiresome discussions. I use roe quite often myself, and like you may not have to harvest a fish this year because I already have enough. Why? Simply put because I don't chum. The biggest problem most here have with roe harvesting is the indiscriminate slaughter of salmon every fall. Seeing dozens upon dozens of fish with slit bellies along the banks does nothing good to promote the use of roe as bait. Who actually needs or uses this much roe? Well, there's two culprits at work here. One, the lowlifes who harvest mass quantities for ilicit sale, and two the guys who constantly throw gallons of chum into a hole attempting to induce a hit. While I'm not against chumming, the way most of these knobs do it is ridiculous. If you think there's 6 fish in a hole, throw 5 eggs, not half a gallon. In any case I neither chum nor sell roe illegally and I'd hazzard a guess that most roe users don't either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nkuchmak Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 (edited) Gotta explain this one to me chief, I'm shaking my head. Or are you assuming all fish that are milked die? I will admit I have never milked a fish. However, I have watched it done for conservation purposes and can say that at the very least, it causes unnecessary stress to an already exhausted fish and if not done correctly has potential to cause harm and only for the benefit of obtaining bait to catch more fish. I would be very curious to see actual data on survival reports of these stressed out fish being milked by non professionals but I'm not going to guess. Maybe my last statement may have not taken the "milking" of fish into account, and leaned towards the crowd that harvests fish for roe (i.e. most i see on the river) but i just don't understand why someone who takes the conservationist role can then go ahead and strip a large spawning female of future generations of fish. These are some great questions being asked on this topic and we all have different opinions and roe ban or not,its important to talk it out cause the only thing that is going to make our fisheries better are the fisherman who enjoy it. Just imagine, if those P3TA retards find out fish are being slit open and left to rot...well the future of our beloved sport would have some steep opposition. Edited September 11, 2012 by Wabusk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts