One pole or two on the Napa River?

I am amazed this thread is still going. Below are quotes of the regulations stating only 1 rod is allowed when fishing on the Napa River. The lines highlighted in green are the regulations for the Napa River between Oakville Cross Road Bridge near Yountville to the Trancas Bridge. The lines highlighted in red are for The Napa River below the Trancas Bridge.

From page 9 of the 2014 Freshwater Sport Fishing Regulations:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=76652

A Second-Rod Validation is required to fish with two rods in inland waters in any sport fishery in which the regulations of the Commission provide for the taking of fish by angling, except those waters in which only artificial lures or barbless hooks may be used.

From page 15:

(129) Napa River and tributaries (Napa Co.). Also see section 8.00(b).
(A) Main stem above the Oakville Cross Road Bridge near Yountville and all Napa River tributaries.
Closed to all fishing all year.
(B) Main stem from the Oakville Cross Road Bridge near Yountville to the Trancas Bridge. Note: The Napa River below the Trancas Bridge is tidewater, and is under regulations for the Ocean and San Francisco Bay District (see Sections 1.53 and 27.00).
Fourth Saturday in May through Mar. 31. Only artificial lures with barbless hooks may be used from the fourth Saturday in May through Oct. 31. Only barbless hooks may be used from Nov. 1 through Mar. 31.

So you can only use 1 rod between Oakville Cross Road Bridge near Yountville to the Trancas Bridge. The second rod validation is not applicable here because you are allowed to use only artificial lures or barbless hooks.

From page 27 of 2014 Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=77722&inline=true

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.

And page 43:

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.

So only 1 rod allowed below the Trancas Bridge.

When in doubt, read ALL the regulations.

It seems that you have jumped in without reading what has already been posted. Clearly the freshwater regs have no meaning to this discussion and don't apply at all. The argument has been made that 28.65 some how applies to areas not mentioned in the reg. I have explained why I disagree. You say it again and tell me to read all the regs! Really? If you had read the posts above you would know that the regs have been read and discussed, quoted and referred to. 27.00 defines the boundaries of the district and 28.65 restricts fishing to one pole in San Francisco and San Pablo bays. No mention of tidal rivers in 28.65.

With that said, I think the horse is dead several times over. Pull the plug on this one.

One rod west of Benicia bridge and two rods east of Benicia bridge. 

THIS!!!! simple!! 


-Kiel

One rod west of Benicia bridge and two rods east of Benicia bridge. 

THIS!!!! simple!! 


-Kiel

Read the regs. Nowhere does it say that. I am amazed at how people think legal writings are something that can be so loosely translated.

One rod west of Benicia bridge and two rods east of Benicia bridge. 

THIS!!!! simple!! 


-Kiel

Read the regs. Nowhere does it say that. I am amazed at how people think legal writings are something that can be so loosely translated.

No need!!! cuz I already know!!! 


-Kiel

One rod west of Benicia bridge and two rods east of Benicia bridge. 

THIS!!!! simple!! 


-Kiel

Read the regs. Nowhere does it say that. I am amazed at how people think legal writings are something that can be so loosely translated.

No need!!! cuz I already know!!! 


-Kiel

If you know it doesn't say that, why say it does?

Traildad - I feel like it's time for an end to the conjecture.  Please send your questions to the DFW Q&A with Carry Wilson.

I think several of us are frustrated with your style because you're relentless in the face of anyone else's opinion or perspective, and it seems to be several different issues that you're sure everyone's wrong about.  So, sorry if it's just me, but I'd like to see you take your issues to the DFW.

Reflecting on this for a moment before hitting "Post", I don't want to come off like I'm trying to smash your views, traildad.  I value and support everyone's opinion and rights to post how they feel.  My motivation here is based on the belief that your continued ranting about the inaccuracy of the regs may lead some observers or even some club members to believe that this club has a significant contingent of folks who feel how you do.  You seem to feel strongly that the regs are wrong and that you can legally fish for salmon with barbed hooks, fish with two rods in an area that doesn't allow two rods, and keep fish caught with illegal gear or multiple rods as long as you then change to the legal methods of take for what you already kept after catching on illegal gear...

Anyway, I'm requesting that you take those three issues to DFW and report back here with their answers.  I predict that whatever answers are given you will likely still feel that you are in the right, and I hope that including their answers along with your own thoughts will allow onlookers to understand that you just represent a very extreme view.  You're a radical, and that's important to the process, but your style can ruffle those of us in the middle of the road who try to project a more cooperative and supportive attitude regarding most of the regulations.

Good luck.

It seems that you have jumped in without reading what has already been posted.

Yes, I read multiple posts indicating you have difficulty understanding the meaning of "their."

Clearly the freshwater regs have no meaning to this discussion and don't apply at all. The argument has been made that 28.65 some how applies to areas not mentioned in the reg.

The freshwater regulations DOES apply here as it specifically define the Napa River below the Trancas Bridge as tidewater and is treated as part of the bay, where only one line with not more than three hooks may be used.

I have explained why I disagree. You say it again and tell me to read all the regs! Really?

Yes, read the regulations again since you clearly do not understand what you have read.

If you had read the posts above you would know that the regs have been read and discussed, quoted and referred to. 27.00 defines the boundaries of the district and 28.65 restricts fishing to one pole in San Francisco and San Pablo bays. No mention of tidal rivers in 28.65.

That is because you failed to read the freshwater regulations. Read it again!

With that said, I think the horse is dead several times over. Pull the plug on this one.

You seem to have a hard time letting this one go.

I'm not as nice as Eric is.

I think anyone reading this thread knows that traildad is extreme, not well thought out, and just plain wrong. 

Can we get him an undertitle?  Just Plain Wrong is probably a good one.

He also never answered if he was a 9/11 truther, denied the authority of the IRS, or the authority of the federal reserve. 

It seems that some people are having a hard time if they cant tell people what to think. Do you always act this way when people disagree with you? Shame on you.

If someone posts a popcorn smiley, I'm going to lock this thread down!   

-Allen

If someone posts a popcorn smiley, I'm going to lock this thread down!   

-Allen

Ok, I will bite.

 

unfuckingbelieveable

If someone posts a popcorn smiley, I'm going to lock this thread down!   

-Allen

Promises promises. 

Wow ... geez ... good grief ...

So, I'll take responsibility for unknowingly opening this can of worms when I restarted this previously dead thread yesterday. I thought that I was helping by offering what I knew about the topic at the time, but apparently not.

Hopefully they don't flog the newbies around here.