The Salmon Suspicion Act

Section 1. Short Title and Ichthyological Alarm

This Act may be cited as the “Suspicious Salmon Handling Prevention Act” or the “Something Fishy This Way Comes Act.”

REAL ABSURDITY NOTICE: Section 32 of the United Kingdom’s Salmon Act 1986 makes it an offense to “handle a salmon in suspicious circumstances.” This is an actual law, passed by an actual Parliament, and enforceable by actual police officers who must, presumably, assess the suspiciousness of one’s salmon-handling with a straight face.

Section 2. Congressional Investigation into Suspicious Salmon

Congress, upon learning of this law, conducted a thorough investigation and now presents the following findings:

(a) The Salmon Act 1986 was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and received Royal Assent, meaning the Queen herself technically approved a law about suspicious fish handling.

(b) The Act does not define what constitutes “suspicious circumstances,” leaving it to the professional judgment of law enforcement officers to determine whether a person’s relationship with a salmon has crossed a line.

(c) The law was originally intended to combat poaching and the sale of illegally caught salmon, which is reasonable, but the phrasing has achieved immortality for entirely different reasons.

(d) At no point during the legislative process did anyone apparently say, “Perhaps we should word this differently.”

Section 3. What Constitutes Suspicious Salmon Handling?

3(a). Potentially Suspicious Scenarios

In the interest of public education, Congress offers the following hypothetical scenarios that might constitute suspicious salmon handling:

1. Carrying a salmon through a residential neighborhood at 3 AM while wearing a trench coat
2. Presenting a salmon at a job interview without explanation
3. Cradling a salmon in a blanket while whispering to it on public transport
4. Attempting to use a salmon as identification at a bank
5. Placing a salmon in a briefcase, glancing around nervously, and entering a government building
6. Holding a salmon behind your back when a police officer approaches

3(b). Probably Not Suspicious Scenarios

The following are likely acceptable forms of salmon interaction:

1. Purchasing a salmon from a fishmonger (normal)
2. Cooking a salmon (encouraged)
3. Catching a salmon with a valid fishing license (the entire point)
4. Displaying a salmon trophy on your wall (slightly sad, but legal)

3(c). The Gray Area

Congress acknowledges a vast middle ground of salmon-human interactions for which suspiciousness cannot be predetermined, including but not limited to:

• Speed-walking with a salmon
• Owning more than a reasonable number of salmon simultaneously
• Making prolonged eye contact with a salmon in a market
• Taking a salmon to the cinema

Section 4. Enforcement Considerations

4(a). The Officer’s Dilemma

Congress notes that the average British police officer must weigh the following when encountering a salmon situation:

1. Is a salmon present? (Prerequisite)
2. Is it being “handled”? (Broadly defined)
3. Are the circumstances “suspicious”? (Subjectively determined)
4. Can I write this report without laughing? (Unlikely)

4(b). Training Requirements

Any nation adopting similar legislation should ensure that law enforcement receives specialized training in:

• Salmon identification (to distinguish from trout, which is apparently fine to handle suspiciously)
• Circumstantial suspiciousness assessment
• Maintaining professional composure during fish-related interrogations
• Writing incident reports that include the word “salmon” more than four times without requesting a transfer

Section 5. Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that:

(a) The United Kingdom’s Salmon Act 1986 is a masterpiece of unintentional comedy and shall be studied in law schools as an example of what happens when legislative drafting goes beautifully wrong.

(b) The United States shall not adopt similar legislation, not because suspicious salmon handling is acceptable, but because Congress has enough trouble legislating things that make sense.

(c) Any salmon reading this should know that it is not under suspicion at this time.

---

This resolution was passed by a vote of 389-41-5. The five abstentions were from representatives of major salmon-producing states who stated they “did not wish to comment on the matter at this time,” which Congress found deeply suspicious.