definition of fishing

Carrie Wilson has answered this both ways in the past.

http://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=60314

http://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=54048

That's the second question you've asked in the last 12 hours where you are trying to get cute with the regs.

nope I'm not trying to get cute with the regs more like fishing for answers we are information based society and any and all information is valuable and pertinent.

The big question here is how do you tie a fly that's not on a hook? Or then attach to a line? DFG is very opposed to teaching worms to hold their breath.  If it looks like fishing, smells like fishing.... it's fishing.

as I stated I don'tie flies or fly fish

Sometimes the regs are written to be vauge & open to interpretation. That allows wardens the opportunity to use their discretion on a case by case basis. In most cases they probably make the right call. The guy who got cited for flyfishing w/out hooks is the exception. And unfortunate for him.

The big question here is how do you tie a fly that's not on a hook? Or then attach to a line?

1) Tie it on a hook, then cut hook at the bend so you have a straight pin. Straight, not "hooked", plus no point or barb = not a hook.
2) Tie it on a tubefly tube, then don't use a hook when you run the line through the tube. Use a split ring to tie into
3) Tie it on a spinner wire blank.

These assume you don't need the "pin" to float/submerge the fly "right side up" to "test".

Need more ways? I can think them up pretty easy.

On the other side of the coin though, I've caught a pounder largemouth while practice Spey casting with just a large wool tuft. Cast out, dealt with some issue on shore. Started retrieve and lo there was a bass on the line. It had swallowed the wool tuft and came in just as if it were hooked. Gentle tugging pulled the tuft out of its gullet.

Scott

law is all about intent, without a form of intent there is no violation. There are many forms of intent; general, specific, etc.

So, as in speeding, it is a general intent crime-you didn't mean to go over the speed limit, but you did mean to push the gas pedal to make the car go the speed you were going without regard for the speed the car actually travels at. If that speed is over the limit then you are speeding.

If you throw a line in the water, while not actually intending to fish, you are fishing if there is a hook on the line.

If you are photographing a fish as it swims by you did not "pursue" it so no violation. If you photographed it while swimming after it then that could be a "pursue" action.

All this would have to be argued in court. Just because the written word of a law seems to be so clear many times it is not. The FG officer may have his interpretation and it may be found to not be a legal arrest/citation. Happens all the time. I hear it weekly in court.

I agree with all of this. The Latin term is mens rea . The general intent of pressing down on the accelerator is a good example too.

I disagree about law being all about intent. Some crimes, like burglary, are crimes of specific intent, which must be demonstrated to obtain a conviction. In the case of burglary, prosecution must show both the entry or attempted entry into a building, vehicle, etc. combined with the intent to commit any larceny or any other felony (Entering a church with the intent to commit bigamy, for example.)Other crimes, like speeding, have no such requirement; the officer only needs to show how fast the vehicle was moving and that it exceeded either the law or safe speed for the conditions. Given that, casting a hookless fly into the water is clearly not evidence of an intent to "take" a fish. Under the special circumstance of aiding someone else take a fish, there is a different intent that must be proven.

"Harass" and "pursue" have differently defined meanings in the Fish and Game Code than "take" and "attempt to take".

I disagree about law being all about intent. Some crimes, like burglary, are crimes of specific intent, which must be demonstrated to obtain a conviction. In the case of burglary, prosecution must show both the entry or attempted entry into a building, vehicle, etc. combined with the intent to commit any larceny or any other felony (Entering a church with the intent to commit bigamy, for example.)Other crimes, like speeding, have no such requirement; the officer only needs to show how fast the vehicle was moving and that it exceeded either the law or safe speed for the conditions. Given that, casting a hookless fly into the water is clearly not evidence of an intent to "take" a fish. Under the special circumstance of aiding someone else take a fish, there is a different intent that must be proven.

Almost all crimes are about intent.  There are a small handful of strict liability crimes, but by and large intent is part of the offense.  There is more than one kind of intent.  Speeding is not a strict liability offense.  You should not be convicted of speeding if you have a mechanical problem that causes the vehicle to behave in a way that you did not intend.  If the vehicle is functioning normally, and you are speeding, then see above.  Mike explains it well.

"Harass" and "pursue" have differently defined meanings in the Fish and Game Code than "take" and "attempt to take".

They do?  Where?