AOTY C&R

Section 7.00 of the freshwater regs.

In waters where the bag limit for trout or salmon is zero, fish for which the bag limit is zero must be released unharmed, and should not be removed from the water

-Allen

OK, sounds good!

it reads: and should not be removed from the water = therefore it can not be troughed&pictured, thereby deemed NO GOOD FOR ANYTHING but a TICKET from DFG.(if they see it)

what is so hard about understanding that law? we here at NCKA aint monks or gods, so what hell does it matter if someone makes an honest mistake or boosts about something some deem wrong. One or two fish aint gonna make it or break it.....we're all human.

According to our DFG, C&R fish "should not be" removed from the water. If they wanted to make it illegal to remove C&R fish from the water, they'd have to adopt regs & wording similar to that of WA.  This quoted text from the regs is simply stating that removing a fish from the water could potentially result in harm to the fish. It's a suggestion; not a law.    This is quite a slippery slope.
Can we just cut the shit and hear from the AOTY judges...will steelhead and salmon be removed from the AOTY species list next year?

It's a suggestion; not a law

I wonder how much discretion is left to the warden? ... in other words, you're trying to remove a hook and maybe the only way you can get it done is to lift the fish out of the water vs lifting it out of the water, holding it's mouth shut in a trough while you take it's picture for a derby. I could imagine some understanding being extended in the former case, but not much in the latter. 

I'm glad Allen took the time to actually look at the C&R regs and post this. At least it shows CFG on a similar page as the Feds, if not in lock-step. In the end though, I agree, it's time for the powers that be to decide. All things considered, I'd prefer river/ocean salmon/steelhead not be included in the AOTY species list.

Ben

I support excluding native steelhead (C&R in all rivers) and any salmon runs that are classified as C&R or ESA listed from AOTY next year.  This is consistent with CDFG regs.

This would still leave hatchery steelhead, ocean salmon, and some river salmon as AOTY species.  

I really wish Joe/BF would join us but he Works for the Feds now so it could take 9 months to 13 years and counting

Mike and a few others, what do you want me to weigh in for exactly? I've actually been reading and avoiding this because it is sort of rehashing that same _hit from last year. Targeting ESA listed species is illegal under the ESA.  CDFG has no take authority for their fisheries in California.  That is the loophole.  CDFG should not be running their fisheries without take authorization from NMFS, but NMFS is not exactly proactive, but believe me a lot of NMFS and CDFG biologists and wardens would like to have this changed.  The two most glaring places are the Eel and Russian Rivers.  There a lot of fisherman on both rivers who seem to target salmon when there are hardly any steelhead in the rivers.  Seems like when CDFG rule changes are proposed they go nowhere, but that might be changing in the near future.

I feel the same way Sean felt when this went around last time, as people should not be intentionally targeting ESA listed salmon. I also have other opinions, some strong, but I've made those known to people on this site already.  I'm also a fish biologist first, then a fisherman, which many are not.

I know this is getting off topic, but it was already derailed a little.  If the DFG regs say "fish where the bag limit is zero should not be taken out of the water, then don't take it out of the water!  There is a reason for it.  Also, for AOTY, why not keep salmon and steelhead, just let people enter kings (ie. the ocean, Smith, Klamath, Sac) and steelhead (ie. Smith, Klamath, Russian, Mad, Sac tribs. ?) where there is a bag limit.  Just tell people who want to nitpick to not enter and to quit _itching!

Thanks Joe just don't understand the lack of enforcment I know it's not easy but 13yrs sound like a long time for the Feds to do nothing

I really wish Joe/BF would join us but he Works for the Feds now so it could take 9 months to 13 years and counting

Mike and a few others, what do you want me to weigh in for exactly? I've actually been reading and avoiding this because it is sort of rehashing that same _hit from last year. Targeting ESA listed species is illegal under the ESA.  CDFG has no take authority for their fisheries in California.  That is the loophole.  CDFG should not be running their fisheries without take authorization from NMFS, but NMFS is not exactly proactive, but believe me a lot of NMFS and CDFG biologists and wardens would like to have this changed.  The two most glaring places are the Eel and Russian Rivers.  There a lot of fisherman on both rivers who seem to target salmon when there are hardly any steelhead in the rivers.  Seems like when CDFG rule changes are proposed they go nowhere, but that might be changing in the near future.

I feel the same way Sean felt when this went around last time, as people should not be intentionally targeting ESA listed salmon. I also have other opinions, some strong, but I've made those known to people on this site already.  I'm also a fish biologist first, then a fisherman, which many are not.

I know this is getting off topic, but it was already derailed a little.  If the DFG regs say "fish where the bag limit is zero should not be taken out of the water, then don't take it out of the water!  There is a reason for it.  Also, for AOTY, why not keep salmon and steelhead, just let people enter kings (ie. the ocean, Smith, Klamath, Sac) and steelhead (ie. Smith, Klamath, Russian, Mad, Sac tribs. ?) where there is a bag limit.  Just tell people who want to nitpick to not enter and to quit _itching!

Thanks for weighing in Joe. I hope the AOTY rule makers, whomever they are,  take everything you said to heart and make changes accordingly. Anybody else got anything to say? jim

The topic has been forwarded to the AOTY comittee 

if this proposal is about steelies and salmon, make it about steelies and salmon. 

if it is about all C&R waters of all species then make it about that.  some lakes/rivers are open for C&R for a reason, because the DFG feels that the fish species can handle some catch and release fishing. 

it appears the community is pretty well divided on the issue so show us the way and ignore our gripes, half of us will be upset either way =)

I don't think the community is divided on this one.  I think most here generally want to do the right thing.  Which brought up the question ... will NCKA mandate what the right thing is?  We don't really have a reason to mandate going above and beyond the DFG rules.  That seems sort of big brother-ish to me and you all don't want that, do you?  If the DFG rules spell out something, we HAVE to follow them.

-Allen

i just mean that the poll has us pretty well divided on the rule as proposed originally as mike had it, (18 to 14 is a pretty even split) i think everyone agrees on certain parts of it, just depends on how it's worded.  I think that the committee has enough info here to make a rule revision. 

when i read the original proposal, i immediately though of heenan trout and some local c&r waters, i hadn't even considered eel/russian salmon as those fish are well beyond my normal range and I don't target them and don't plan on it.  now i see where some others are coming from and i understand a bit, i just feel that making the rule "you can take it home and eat it or it don't count" is a little overbearing for the types of fishing that I do since i'm primarily a c&r fisherman who selfishly would like to continue terrorizing local fish for my own enjoyment and enter them into AOTY too (they're not ESA listed either).

JC Ben your back. Look, its obvious that you can fish legally for both salmon and steelhead in certain areas of water in the state of Ca. Untill all salmon and steel are totally banned from take then its a GD non-issue.Dont fuck around in federal or state no take waters. Simple.

How can I determine if my ocean-caught king salmon is a California Coastal, Cen Valley spring run, or Sac River fall run fish?
Wait a minute, am I strengthening the argument to remove salmon from AOTY lol? Crap...oh, nevermind!

How can I determine if my ocean-caught king salmon is a California Coastal, Cen Valley spring run, or Sac River fall run fish?
Wait a minute, am I strengthening the argument to remove salmon from AOTY lol? Crap...oh, nevermind!

You can't.  Nor are you required to ... yet.  I wish CA would fin clip all hatchery salmon and require release of all non fin clipped salmon.  I predict we'll be doing that soon.

-Allen