Defendant appeals his jury conviction of the offense of taking fish in the waters of the State of Michigan with a gill net, MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602.
On August 10, 1978, Michigan Conservation Officers observed defendant in the back of a pickup *124truck that was parked in the waters of Lake Michigan. A fishing boat, containing approximately 800 pounds of lake trout and whitefish entangled in gill nets, was parked alongside a truck. Both the boat and the nets belonged to Indian fishermen who were also present at the location. Defendant, a non-Indian, assisted the fishermen by pulling in the nets from the boat to the truck. The officers intervened and requested identification. Unlike the others, defendant did not produce a Bureau of Indian Affairs card. He was subsequently charged with violating MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602.
In affirming the decision of the district court, the circuit judge stated that the instant offense involved a series of acts which included placing the net in the water, ensnaring the fish, removing the net and fish into a receptacle such as a boat, and then transferring the fish from the boat to some means of transporting the fish from the lake.
The issue on appeal is whether defendant’s conduct fits within the statutorily proscribed activity, i.e., the taking of fish in state waters with a gill net. We hold that defendant’s actions did not amount to a "taking” of fish and defendant’s conviction must be reversed.
MCL 302.1; MSA 13.1602, provides that:
"A person shall not take, catch, or kill * * * a fish in the waters of this state with * * * a net * *
The term "taking” has been the subject of prior judicial interpretation with reference to this state’s fishing laws because fish are considered to be ferae naturae and property of the state until "taken”. Aikens v Dep’t of Conservation, 387 Mich *125495; 198 NW2d 304 (1972). In Lincoln v Davis, 53 Mich 375, 391; 19 NW 103 (1884), the Supreme Court likened taking to "capture”, and according to Sterling v Jackson, 69 Mich 488, 541; 37 NW 845 (1888) (Campbell, J., dissenting), one cannot obtain an interest in any ferae naturae until it has been taken into one’s own keeping. Similarly, in People v Collison, 85 Mich 105, 108; 48 NW 292 (1891), the Court stated that "no individual has any property right in [the fish] until they have been subjected to his control”. Finally, in Beach v Hayner, 207 Mich 93, 96; 173 NW 487 (1919), taking was described as tantamount to reducing to actual possession.
Based on these definitions, the term "taking” denotes the exertion of such control over an object that the object can be said to have come into one’s possession. Utilizing this meaning, we cannot regard defendant’s conduct as a "taking” of fish. Defendant’s participation in the Indians’ legal fishing expedition was limited solely to assistance in transferring the netted fish from the boat to the truck. Defendant did not partake in any activity in the boat which resulted in netting the fish. The term "taking” refers to the capturing or reducing to actual possession that occurred when the fish were retrieved from the water and placed in the boat. The fish had already been "taken” in the state waters when defendant became involved in the activity near the shoreline. In our judgment, defendant’s actions do not fall under the proscriptions of the statute.
In view of our disposition of this issue, we need not address the other arguments raised by defendant.
Defendant’s conviction is reversed and his sentence is hereby vacated.
*126G. R. McDonald, J., concurred.