Photographing No-Take Species

From Carrie Wilson's latest release.

-Allen

California Outdoors Q & A: Photographing No-Take Species

Question: I fish in Southern California and have a question about black sea bass. I know they are illegal to keep when caught. However, when they are caught while targeting other species, what is the regulation for releasing them? After the hook is removed and swim bladder punctured, may a picture be taken with the fish out of the water before it is released? I am under the impression they may not be removed from the water. I ask because a friend of mine accidentally caught a small black sea bass (about 30 lbs.) and after removing the hook and puncturing the swim bladder, he held it up and posed for a quick picture with the fish. I told him I didn't think that was legal and he argued it was. He did release the fish immediately after the photo was taken, and the fish swam off, apparently unharmed. I've searched the website for clarification, but have found nothing. Can you please clarify this issue for me? We are very conscientious fisherman. (Dave L.)

Answer: Giant (black) sea bass and other no-take species cannot be retained and must be released immediately. Therefore, holding the fish out of the water for a picture is unlawful. The best case scenario for the fish would be to cut the line while it is still in the water.

The definition of "take" is to "hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill an animal, or to attempt to do so" (California Code of Regulations Title 14, Section 1.80). So, by catching the fish, reeling it in, taking it off the hook and holding it up for a picture, your friend has "taken" a prohibited species. He also did not release it immediately as required.

Department of Fish and Game (DFG) Associate Marine Biologist Ed Roberts published a great article on best practices for releasing rockfish, giant sea bass and other fish with swim bladders that inflate at the surface, thus preventing them from ascending successfully following capture. The article was published in the January/February 2005 issue of Outdoor California magazine, available online at www.dfg.ca.gov/ocal/archives/J_F_05_16-19.pdf.

Needles and sharp objects should never be used to deflate a fish's swim bladder. Even though the fish may be able to descend below the surface following a puncture, many will still die due to internal damage and/or the introduction of bacteria caused by the needles.

** See underwater video of Giant Sea Bass at  https://californiaoutdoors.wordpress.com ***

Thanks Allen, that's pretty interesting.

How might this apply to AOTY?

Thanks for following up on this Allen.

things that appear arbitrary create conflict, so I appreciate the homework here.

I saw that too - definitely not at all consistent with what DFG told me about wild steelhead (a local warden says holding one out of the water for a photo is not illegal).  Also, Black Sea Bass aren't part of an open, catch and release fishery.  I guess we can all find info to support our side, too bad this info isn't from the enforcment side and has to do with a fish that would never be on AOTY.

Also, Black Sea Bass aren't part of an open, catch and release fishery.

I think the distinction that makes holding a fish out of the water illegal is the "No take" qualifier, which precludes fishing for that species to begin with.

I only asked about AOTY because, afaik, we're working under last years rules, but I'm not 100% on that.

Ben

The point is that wild steelhead and all but Smith and Klamath salmon are all ESA listed and therefore "no-take"...  BUT, as has been discussed so thoroughly here, there is a legal, open, encouraged, supported, acknowledged, approved C&R fishery for these fish, even though...

The water's definitely muddy. 

This Black Sea Bass issue does help to clarify the issue - if people were holding them up for photos in the paper week after week I think DFG would go find the folks and let them know that it's a problem - agree?

 

The water's definitely muddy.

That was my only point  -- ever get the feeling you've walked in on the middle of a conversation and that first half was *really* important?

I'm not going to participate in this debate any longer.   

NCKA AOTY follows DFG rules.  As far as I know, photographing a no take species out of the water is not allowed.  You're welcome to prove me wrong, but conjecture is not going to lead to much.

-Allen

So, what do you use to deflate the bladder that won't introduce bacteria?

So, what do you use to deflate the bladder that won't introduce bacteria?

According to the article don't deflate the fish, but use some kind of descender to get it back to depth.

AOTY rules are what they are - I've already taken my fish down and will abide by the ruling of the committee.  It's like this though, if someone wants to say what you're doing is illegal, and you have gone to great lengths to show that it is legal, it's just called defending yourself.

Anyone can see the difference between holding up a Black Sea Bass and holding up a Steelhead; just as anyone can draw parallels between the two.  If you want to defer to DFG rules, then listen to what DFG says about the species you're concerned with.

Thanks for the interesting and civil debate.

So, I'd like to think that this can be discussed, without it becoming a finger pointing session.  The process of discussing it helps everyone understand and be on the same page, but does not mean that anyone is right or wrong.  As far as I'm concerned any ruling given by the AOTY Committee doesn't even have to be specific to the laws in which we are debating.  If they say its 'so', its so! 

SO!  I think there must be some sort of regulation that superseeds 'take' when it comes to C&R fisheries.  Otherwise there could be no such thing as C&R!!  The definition of 'take' is not a DFG definition, but rather a state one:

Search:  CI("14 CA ADC S 1.80")
Database(s):  California Administrative Code
Result: 1 Document

Cal. Admin. Code tit. 14, § 1.80

Barclays Official California Code of Regulations Currentness
Title 14. Natural Resources
Division 1. Fish and Game Commission-Department of Fish and Game
Subdivision 1. Fish, Amphibians and Reptiles
Full text of all sections at this level Chapter 1. General Provisions and Definitions (Refs & Annos)
Current selection§ 1.80. Take.


Hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill fish, amphibians, reptiles, mollusks, crustaceans or invertebrates or attempting to do so.

Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 210, 219 and 220, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 86, 200-202, 203.1, 205-210 and 215-222, Fish and Game Code.

HISTORY

1. Amendment filed 1-22-86; designated effective 3-1-86 (Register 86, No. 6).

I'm no lawyer, but I would think that this means that there is no such thing as being able to catch and release a fish that is designated as no 'take', unless there is some other provision that allows an exception to this rule.  So how can there be C&R fisheries???

I'm continuing to look for this sort of rule/clause but i'm not seeming to find anything specific yet.

That's been my point for a few years now, Al.  How is it even legal to have the rivers open to fishing if the only the thing to catch is an ESA species?

As a brief review, this is where some who are closely involved with these issues professionally chimed in and said the ESA listing applies to salmon and should have never been applied to steelhead...  Ironically, some of those people have posted wild steelhead out of the water on this forum, and some have even gone on to win AOTY.  So, when I started making a big fuss over the contradiction in law, and I did research and asked questions and waited many months for an 'official' answer, it turned out that the law is not being followed and no one's doing anything about it (apparently in the name of license and tackle sales...).  At one point, one of the professionals who was offering an opinion on all of this stated that I could well become the "poster boy" for closing the rivers due to this legal problem.  I never intended to become a poster boy - I just wanted to fish if it was legal.  And, drum roll please, it is!!!!   

Perhaps the biggest irony:  if I just chose to stop sharing my (legal) adventures, no one would have to worry about this.  (until another potential poster boy brings it up...)

I can't seem to break my addiction to sharing it, so we're all in for more of the same...   

I'm glad to have brought the issue to the forefront, and it's important that everyone know that wild steelhead have been posted (out of the water) each and every year of AOTY.

My persistence on this, other than defending that I'm not an outlaw, is based on my belief that what we're talking about with Steelhead is really allowed - but I'm content to see AOTY move in the direction of not allowing it.  Whether it was made clear before or after the competition started is another debate.  I applaud Allen for deciding to make this rule solid even in the face of the allowed wild steel entries in all the past NCKA AOTY competitions.

* edited by polepole to remove attachments.  Can't even tell from the pics if they are wild so not sure what relevance they have.

The most important part of this discussion is the official ruling that ESA-listed fish can NOT be entered into the AOTY competition. All of the other stuff is debatable. This rule, however, is not debatable. Thanks for the clarification, Allen and the AOTY Committee.