• Donate to T.B.F.

    T.B.F. is dependant on donations from users like you! Thank you to those that have made a donation! All donations go back into upgrading the site!


    25% of donation goal reached.
    Donate Sidebar by DevFuse
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Guest crede

2012 Regulations Questions

Recommended Posts

Guest crede

Looking thru the 2012 regulations on line and the had the following questions (I fish primarily Zone 2, if that matters) :

1) I would swear that it used to be illegal to use "gamefish, or parts of a gamefish" as bait. I can't find anything in the 2012 regs which prohibit using "parts of a gamefish" as bait. Is it legal to use a walleye eye or a strip of perch belly as bait? Not planning on doing so but have told others in the past that this was not legal and wondered if this was really the case.

2) I know this seems stupid, but if I have a taxidermied walleye on the wall at home, does it count towards my possession limit? Reading the regs., it would seem to. And I can't get rid of the walleye mount by selling it, as that would be illegal also. Is that correct?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MNR

1) Look at the previously answered question about perch eyes. Under the Ontario Fishery Regulations, no person can use as bait, or possess for use as bait an invasive fish (alive or dead) or live fish other than a species of baitfish (there are 46 species of baitfish beloning to classes of Minnows, Suckers, Mudminnows, Whitefishes, Troutperch, Sticklebacks, Sculpins, and Darters.

There are restrictions on the use of any fish as bait in specific lakes. These will be listed as exceptions to the zone regulattions in the fishing summary.

There could also be an issue of wastage if you were using part of a fish that would normally be considered edible.

2) The question here really is "when does a fish stop being a fish?". Under the Fisheries Act a fish is defined as including part of a fish so really an eye is a fish, roe is a fish, a fish scale is a fish etc. This opens the door to broad application but also leaves it to the MNR to be reasonable. A reasonable approach would be to consider anything that looks like an attempt to thwart the application of the law, which is in place to help manage the fishery and ensure an equitable share to everyone as a reasonable place to apply the law. Counting the mounted fish on the wall into a person's daily catch and possession limit would seem unreasonable. Counting canned or smoked fish or the fish consumed in a shore lunch into a person's daily catch and possesion limit would be reasonable. Fish mounts can't be bought, sold or bartered for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this