One pole or two on the Napa River?

I can't do this at work right now....

Just curious, what kind of work do you do?

Wait, are you saying that the warden was wrong? If he doesn't know that was wrong how can I trust their opinion. Or did he know it was wrong but was just lying to me to justify their position because there is no reg that prohibits using two poles on the Napa River.

My guess is that he was just really tired of bickering with you over the phone and wanted to get rid of you.

I can't do this at work right now....

Just curious, what kind of work do you do?

..........IRS Accountant, Telemarketer, Jehova's Witness, DMV Service Rep, Parking Enforcement? 

Wait, are you saying that the warden was wrong? If he doesn't know that was wrong how can I trust their opinion. Or did he know it was wrong but was just lying to me to justify their position because there is no reg that prohibits using two poles on the Napa River.

My guess is that he was just really tired of bickering with you over the phone and wanted to get rid of you.

You would be wrong. He called me while I was on the Napa River fishing (with one pole) and I didn't have easy access to the regs. There was no bickering because I actually believed him for a while. It was a few days later that I realized he was wrong.

Here is the definition of Ocean and San Fransisco Bay District.  It is defining what is included in The Ocean and San Francisco bay District as opposed to the freshwater portion of the state.

27.00.  DEFINITION. 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. . .

This is the regulation limiting the number of hooks in that portion of the Ocean and San Francisco Bay District that is in what are commonly called San Francisco San Pablo bays.
 

28.65.  GENERAL. Except as provided in this article, fin fish may be taken only on hook and line or
by hand. Any number of hooks and lines may be used in all ocean waters and bays except:
(a) 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

There is no indication that there is any third area like you contend.  None.  the simple, fair reading is that if you are in San Francisco or San Pablo Bay, between the two bridges, you can use one pole.  It requires a tortured reading to find a magic third area that is between the bridges, part of the Ocean and San Francisco Bay District covered by the ocean regs, and not in San Francisco or San Pablo bays.

I agree that you can only use one pole in San Francisco and San Pablo bays. This discussion is about the Napa River. Do you really think someone fishing at the Third St bridge in downtown Napa should look at the regs and think to himself, hey I'm fishing in San Pablo bay, I can only use one pole? If that is what they want it to mean then they should use the same wording they used when they described the Napa River to include it in the ocean district. Is that really too much to ask?

He's ether fishing in the napa river covered by the freshwater reg(between tracks bridge and the oak ville cross road bridge), where the freshwater regs say he can only use one pole, or he's fishing in the San Pablo bay, defined in the regs to include the tidewaters of the river, where he is only allowed to use one pole. There is no magic third area undefined by the regs.

And if te question was that if I expect the person fishing in the napa river to read the regulations, the answer is obviously yes. Anybody fishing anywhere is responsible for knowing the regulations. The best way I know of to do that is to read the regs.

When in doubt ... fish with 1 pole.  When in doubt on a hook, go barbless.  When in doubt on the species (aka "can I keep it or not"), toss it back.

There's the reg's in three simple steps ... wait, make it 4.

Is this area protected from fishing, when in doubt ... don't fish there!

OK, I will lay it out. Here is the first reg.

27.00. DEFINITION. 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.

Notice that they say plus. That's because they know that the rivers are not considered part of the bay and have to be added in to be included.

Then we have the restriction part.
28.65. GENERAL. Except as provided in this article, fin fish may be taken only on hook and line or by hand. Any number of hooks and lines may be used in all ocean waters and bays except:
(a) 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.

As we already know it does NOT say plus the tidal protions of their rivers. From this I conclude that is because they intended not to include the rivers in the restriction.

Now as I read this reg I have noticed one thing that so far no one has pointed to and it may be the linch pin in the argument. The reg says "Any number of hooks and lines may be used in all ocean waters and bays except:" it doesn't say any number of hooks can be used in rivers. I wouldn't think I was fishing ocean waters at the third st bridge either. I would have to check to see if all other tidal rivers on the coast are restricted to one pole. I don't really think this proves me wrong yet, but it is at least something a person wanting to actually offer evidence on their side could point to rather than making character assanations. My pointing to it shows that I seek the truth.

Next we look at the wording in other regs.
(a) Dungeness crabs (Cancer magister):
(1) Closure: Dungeness crab may not be taken from or possessed if taken from San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay, plus all their tidal bays, sloughs and estuaries between the Golden Gate Bridge and Carquinez Bridge.

Does this mean it is OK to take crab in the Napa River?

Finally we have this.
27.56. TAKE GENERAL. Except as otherwise provided, there are no closed seasons, closed hours or minimum size limits on fin fish in the Pacific Ocean including all saltwater bays except that in San Francisco Bay between the Golden Gate Bridge and the Carquinez Bridge and in saltwater tributaries to the bay within the area bounded by Interstate 80 and Highways 17, 101 and 37 finfish may not be taken between one hour after sunset to one hour before sunrise except from shore or piers.

Again they don't say San Francisco Bay and let us assume the rest. They carefully and precisely define the area the regs covers. The regulation book is a legal document. There is no room for vagueness in our laws. Does anyone really have a problem with asking that the regs clearly state the rules? I'd like to be able to fish with two poles but I'd be fine with either solution. Change the enforcement or fix the regs to clearly include the rivers. Do you guys lose something if the DFW adds "plus all their tidal bays, tidal portions of their rivers and streams, "? That's what I want. Enforce what it says or change the wording. If they think the wording covers the Napa River then clarify the wording.  I've made my case and I will try to restrict my responses to only correcting misstatements of fact or my words. I will let you know when I get a response from the DFW as this question has been submitted via email.

He's ether fishing in the napa river covered by the freshwater reg(between tracks bridge and the oak ville cross road bridge), where the freshwater regs say he can only use one pole, or he's fishing in the San Pablo bay, defined in the regs to include the tidewaters of the river, where he is only allowed to use one pole. There is no magic third area undefined by the regs.

I missed that. Where is San Pablo bay defined in the regs to include tidewater rivers. I saw where the ocean district is defined to include tidal portions of rivers that flow into San Pablo bay. Maybe I missed it. Please point it out so we can be done with this.

Actually since Section 27.00 lays out what is the San Francisco Bay District is (and this includes the rivers and tidal bays because of the "plus", when regulations in Section 28.65 state what can be used in the San Francisco Bay District, this includes the tidal bays and rivers because they were included by addition and definition in Section 27.00.


end of story.


When regulations include every possible way to read into them people complain that the regulations are too verbose, this is why regulations are written in chronological order.  Definitions before regulations.  Whereas Section 27.00 is the district definition and Section 28.65 is a regulation.


just my take on regulations (and this one in particular) from a guy that reads and interprets regulations for a living.  Any other interpretation will not hold up in court, and asking for definitions of every district within the regulation of the district is not going to go anywhere.  No matter how much you or anyone else thinks it should be that way.


Jim

Actually since Section 27.00 lays out what is the San Francisco Bay District is (and this includes the rivers and tidal bays because of the "plus", when regulations in Section 28.65 state what can be used in the San Francisco Bay District, this includes the tidal bays and rivers because they were included by addition and definition in Section 27.00.

end of story.

Jim

I think you need to re read the regs with a critical eye towards the exact wording. I don't mean to be picky just to give you a hard time, the words do actually mean something. Now for the rest of the story...

Section 27.00 defines the Ocean and San Francisco Bay district, not the San Francisco Bay district. The tidal portions of the rivers are included in the Ocean and San Francisco Bay district. It does not in any way define the rivers as being San Francisco or San Pablo bay. Being in the district simply means that the book of regulations you need to look in is the Ocean sport fishing regulations.

28.65 does not state anything about restrictions for the San Francisco Bay District. It lists gear restrictions for the Ocean and San Francisco Bay District as a whole and sub section (a) states how many poles may be used in San Francisco and San Pablo Bays which is part of the greater district. It does not say "plus tidal rivers".

Traildad:

What does the word "their" mean to you?

yes, you are correct I left out the words "ocean and" on purpose as this discussion of the Napa river focuses on the SF bay district and I am typing with a toddler on my lap.

Hey man, however you want to read the law is your prerogative, how the DFW and judges read them will not be changed until you spend the money to clarify them to your standards, and this will cost you a lot of money. 


But seriously, just accept the way the laws are written and the current interpretations, its much easier this way.


You'll hear no more from me on the subject.

yes, you are correct I left out the words "ocean and" on purpose as this discussion of the Napa river focuses on the SF bay district and I am typing with a toddler on my lap.

Hey man, however you want to read the law is your prerogative, how the DFW and judges read them will not be changed until you spend the money to clarify them to your standards, and this will cost you a lot of money. 


But seriously, just accept the way the laws are written and the current interpretations, its much easier this way.


You'll hear no more from me on the subject.

It's too bad you focused only on that one thing. What about your claim that the regs defined the rules for the SF Bay district and the river is part of that district and therefore included in the restriction. Clearly sub section (a) addresses SF Bay, not any district. No "gee maybe you are right"? Easier to go with the flow? Yes. Is that what you want out of your government? I would like to use two poles. If I can't then all they have to do is add the few words "plus tidal rivers". They print the book every year or more, how hard would that be?