One pole or two on the Napa River?

You can use 2 east of the benicia bridge and into the sloughs

The regs say the Carquinez bridge.

Sorry, I meant Carquinez

it would be difficult to prove that it was caught with a barbed hook but it could be trouble for the angler if he did not have any barbed less hook with him, I don't think the boat is in danger of being fined, just the angler and he probably took a chance but he was risking his fishing gear, big fine and fishing privileges.

They ended up releasing the salmon. Otherwise everyone on the boat would have to switch to barbless single hooks. Still if I ran a party boat I wouldn't want a reputation that I skirted the law. I would think they wouldn't even suggest any possibility of keeping it if it was caught illegally.

Was just up there at Cutting's Wharf a month ago - word on the shore was that only one pole was allowed.

I thought I was wrong but now it looks like the DF&W was wrong. After talking to the lady in the office I guess a couple rocks in my head shook loose and I figured it out. There is no limit on the number of poles in the Napa river. The warden told me the reason he thinks it is limited to one pole is because the 2nd pole permit is only good for inland waters. The Napa river is clearly not considered inland water. (At least not below the Trancas St bridge anyway.) Therefore the 2nd pole permit won't let you use two poles in the Napa river.

However the logic is flawed. What it really means is the inland 2nd pole permit and all inland water regs simply don't apply to ocean waters. Can you use two poles on the ocean? The ocean is excluded from the inland waters 2nd pole permit just like the Napa river is. You don't need a 2nd pole permit to use more than one pole in the ocean. The ocean regs say "any number of lines may be used". The Napa river is covered under ocean regs according to the inland waters book. I don't see any other way to read it. What do you think?

I would say the Napa River is covered under SF bay regulations, which is one rod, max 3 hooks.  Not ocean.

If you look at the definition of the ocean district on page 28 of the ocean regs, 27.00 it defines the district as "The Ocean and San Francisco Bay District consists of the open seas adjacent to the coast and islands or in the waters of those open or enclosed bays contiguous to the ocean, and including San Francisco And San Pablo bays plus all their tidal bays, tidal portions of their rivers and streams, sloughs and estuaries between the Golden Gate Bridge and Carquinez Bridge, and the waters of Elkhorn Slough, west of Elkhorn road between Castroville and Watsonville. Also see section 1.53." On page 22, Section 1.53 describes the inland waters and specifically excludes the SF and San Pablo bays and tidal rivers etc. Notice how they take the trouble to say SF and San Pablo bays "plus all their tidal bays, tidal portions of their rivers and streams"? Notice how on page 46, Gear Restrictions, section 28.65 (a) they only say "San Francisco and San Pablo bays between the Golden Gate Bridge and the west Carquinez Bridge where only one line with not more than three hooks may be used." Now they can call it a mistake or a misprint if they want, but as written, it seems to clearly allow any number of hooks and lines except in SF and SP bays. That would mean that any number of hooks and lines can be used in the tidal portions of their rivers and streams. I don't know how else to read it.

There are hardly any fish in the Napa to justify fooling around with two poles if allowed anyway.

I like the idea of drifting live bait while throwing a lure at the same time, fishing for Stripers. Or you could try two different baits at the same time. Live bait and cut bait at the same time.

The Napa River up to the Trancas Street bridge is considered tidewater and falls under the SF Bay and Ocean regs ... so one pole only. The river from Trancas to Oakville Cross Road IS legally fishable during certain times of the year and under certain flow conditions but there are hook and bait restrictions that vary seasonally so check the regs. The river above Oakville Crossroad is ALWAYS closed to fishing.

Hope that helps.

The Napa River up to the Trancas Street bridge is considered tidewater and falls under the SF Bay and Ocean regs ... so one pole only. The river from Trancas to Oakville Cross Road IS legally fishable during certain times of the year and under certain flow conditions but there are hook and bait restrictions that vary seasonally so check the regs. The river above Oakville Crossroad is ALWAYS closed to fishing.

Hope that helps.

The question arises because the ocean regs allow for unlimited poles. There is restriction for one pole only in the San Francisco and San Pablo bays. The rivers and sloughs are not mentioned in the wording of the regs. Therefore I believe Napa River is unlimited poles. Ask the DFW and they don't even know what reg to cite. One guy told me it was one pole only because your 2nd pole permit was no good because the Napa River is not inland waters. Go figure. One woman couldn't tell me what reg covered this and said "we just know". Double go figure. Another time they seemed to want to suggest that the Napa River is San Pablo bay and is therefore restricted. For those that followed the barbless hook/salmon topic this is similar. Poorly written regs? Maybe.

Sorry, I think I misread the direction of the initial question.

The Napa River is one rod only which I've heard directly from multiple wardens and local bait shops. I agree, the regs are definitely written in a vague manner and it seems to leave some apparent wiggle room. Per an explanation directly from a warden, the tidewater sections of all slough and tributaries attached to SF and San Pablo Bay fall under the same regs as the bays themselves. While these rules technically fall within the ocean sportfishing rule book, the rules actually differ from both ocean and freshwater regulations and are in a class all their own.

In the case of the Napa River, the regulations from Mare Island to the Trancas Bridge are the same as the regs for SF/San Pablo Bays so unlimited rods does not apply. Likewise, since we're west of the Carquinez Strait, the river  is not considered inland waters so the two rod stamp does not apply either.

Sorry, I think I misread the direction of the initial question.

The Napa River is one rod only which I've heard directly from multiple wardens and local bait shops. I agree, the regs are definitely written in a vague manner and it seems to leave some apparent wiggle room. Per an explanation directly from a warden, the tidewater sections of all slough and tributaries attached to SF and San Pablo Bay fall under the same regs as the bays themselves. While these rules technically fall within the ocean sportfishing rule book, the rules actually differ from both ocean and freshwater regulations and are in a class all their own.

In the case of the Napa River, the regulations from Mare Island to the Trancas Bridge are the same as the regs for SF/San Pablo Bays so unlimited rods does not apply. Likewise, since we're west of the Carquinez Strait, the river  is not considered inland waters so the two rod stamp does not apply either.

If that is the case I'm sure they can point to the regs that say so. Just like when we tell a fish story, no picture, it didnt happen. In this case, no regs in writing, it isn't true.

I'm not saying it isn't true, I just need to see the regs in writing. If you look at other regs that cover this area they mention rivers and sloughs, but not in this case. If all of the Napa River is under the same rules as San Pablo bay they would not need to separate them out as they do in other regs.

Again, this may be a case of poorly written regs, but if it ain't written, it ain't so. 

Also, as I mentioned, the DFW staff doesn't seem to know what is what, so I can't put much faith in their opinion on the legal interpretation of the regs. 

Just go fish 2 rods and get it over with already.

-Allen

don't forget to tell us how much your ticket will be.

I would not chance it.

Why do you seem intent on breaking the rules traildad?  Even more concerning, why do you post here in public and try to make the case that other people should break the rules by saying that there is nothing in the rules when there clearly is, in black and white?

Tell you what.  Whenever you want to post about this stuff, quote the sections of the regulations, including numbers, that you contend stand for the proposition for which you are claiming that they stand.  Once again, I again accuse you of performing a serious disservice to the community.  This is not freiendly discussion about the regs.  This is about you being wrong.

Start with this one.  Chapter and verse.