Number of Fishing Rods With Rockcod Aboard

Traildad,

Are you just bitching about the wording or do you actually think there is a hidden meaning here?  If so, what is that meaning?

-Allen

I truly think they used different wording to convey a different meaning. The regs are legal documents and I expect are written using precise language. I don't think it is a hidden meaning, it seems pretty clear to me. I came into this without expectations or old beliefs about what the rules are. I looked it up and read it. Salmon fishing means fishing with the intent of catching salmon. Why word it that way if not? If they meant what you think it does, why not use the other wording? Do you think it was just a careless choice of words? Barbless hooks if you are targeting salmon. Then they add or if you have a salmon on board. If you unintentionally catch one and keep it you are considered to be salmon fishing.  So if you keep it you have to switch to barbless. I really don't see any other way to read it. Can you explain why they use all those "unnecessary" words if they have no meaning? All they would need to say is "barbless hooks when taking salmon" and be done with it.

The moment you see the salmon on the line, you are fishing for them.

I do agree they could use more consistent wording.

-Allen

28.65
(e) North of Point Conception (34°27’00” N. lat.), where only one rod and line may be used by each angler fishing for salmon, or fishing from any boat or floating device with salmon on board.

So if what you say is true, then anyone using two poles, the moment they have a salmon on the line they have broken the law wether they release it or not. You would consider them fishing for salmon at that point and they were using two poles.

I on the other hand believe that they use the words to mean what most people mean. Fishing for salmon means you have tailored your methods and gear with the intent of catching salmon. I went sturgeon fishing Saturday. I might have caught a striper while I was at it, but we all know what I mean when I say i went sturgeon or salmon fishing. If I had caught a striper, no one would claim that I was striper fishing.

You can't always control what bites your line, but you can control your "intent".  If you kept the salmon, your intent is obvious.

-Allen

I was thinking about this today and changed my mind. No not that!    You are fishing for Stripers if you have intent to catch Stripers or if you keep one unintentionally caught. So as I said, you are not fishing for salmon as soon as an unintentional salmon is on your line or else you would be breaking the law if you were fishing with two poles. If you keep it, then you are fishing for salmon, and then you must change to barbless hooks. If you throw it back then you are still not fishing for salmon and can continue to use barbed hooks.

If I had the money I'd love to challenge it in court. A judge is the only one that can say what the words mean. I am surprised to see a few people that seem to be unable to handle it when someone doesn't take their opinion as gospel. I was starting to worry they might throw themselves on the floor and start kicking, screaming and pounding their fists. After I finish with the DFG on the subject of one or two poles in the Napa River, I will ask them about this. In the mean time,
 

Take = Take

Traildad,

Are you just bitching about the wording or do you actually think there is a hidden meaning here?  If so, what is that meaning?

-Allen

I truly think they used different wording to convey a different meaning. The regs are legal documents and I expect are written using precise language. I don't think it is a hidden meaning, it seems pretty clear to me. I came into this without expectations or old beliefs about what the rules are. I looked it up and read it. Salmon fishing means fishing with the intent of catching salmon. Why word it that way if not? If they meant what you think it does, why not use the other wording? Do you think it was just a careless choice of words? Barbless hooks if you are targeting salmon. Then they add or if you have a salmon on board. If you unintentionally catch one and keep it you are considered to be salmon fishing.  So if you keep it you have to switch to barbless. I really don't see any other way to read it. Can you explain why they use all those "unnecessary" words if they have no meaning? All they would need to say is "barbless hooks when taking salmon" and be done with it.

The moment you see the salmon on the line, you are fishing for them.

I do agree they could use more consistent wording.

-Allen

28.65
(e) North of Point Conception (34°27’00” N. lat.), where only one rod and line may be used by each angler fishing for salmon, or fishing from any boat or floating device with salmon on board.

So if what you say is true, then anyone using two poles, the moment they have a salmon on the line they have broken the law wether they release it or not. You would consider them fishing for salmon at that point and they were using two poles.

I on the other hand believe that they use the words to mean what most people mean. Fishing for salmon means you have tailored your methods and gear with the intent of catching salmon. I went sturgeon fishing Saturday. I might have caught a striper while I was at it, but we all know what I mean when I say i went sturgeon or salmon fishing. If I had caught a striper, no one would claim that I was striper fishing.

You can't always control what bites your line, but you can control your "intent".  If you kept the salmon, your intent is obvious.

-Allen

I was thinking about this today and changed my mind. No not that!    You are fishing for Stripers if you have intent to catch Stripers or if you keep one unintentionally caught. So as I said, you are not fishing for salmon as soon as an unintentional salmon is on your line or else you would be breaking the law if you were fishing with two poles. If you keep it, then you are fishing for salmon, and then you must change to barbless hooks. If you throw it back then you are still not fishing for salmon and can continue to use barbed hooks.

If I had the money I'd love to challenge it in court. A judge is the only one that can say what the words mean. I am surprised to see a few people that seem to be unable to handle it when someone doesn't take their opinion as gospel. I was starting to worry they might throw themselves on the floor and start kicking, screaming and pounding their fists. After I finish with the DFG on the subject of one or two poles in the Napa River, I will ask them about this. In the mean time,
 

Maybe I can help enlighten you here.

In some cases, the DFG regulations are viewed as misguided.  In other case, the interpretation of the regulations is misguided.  I think the later is coming into play here.  Do you really want to be "that guy" keeping salmon caught on barbed hooks?

-Allen

If you keep it, then you are fishing for salmon, and then you must change to barbless hooks. If you throw it back then you are still not fishing for salmon and can continue to use barbed hooks.

Allen is correct.
This is how it works.  I learned this through striper fishing on the american after salmon season closed.  I had a warden approach and ask what I was fishing for, I said stripers, he asked what I was using for bait, I said anchovies.  He let me know that salmon take anchovies, but as long as I release salmon and only intend on keeping stripers I am cool.

learned how the regs work this way

I was thinking about this today and changed my mind. No not that!    You are fishing for Stripers if you have intent to catch Stripers or if you keep one unintentionally caught. So as I said, you are not fishing for salmon as soon as an unintentional salmon is on your line or else you would be breaking the law if you were fishing with two poles. If you keep it, then you are fishing for salmon, and then you must change to barbless hooks. If you throw it back then you are still not fishing for salmon and can continue to use barbed hooks.

If I had the money I'd love to challenge it in court. A judge is the only one that can say what the words mean. I am surprised to see a few people that seem to be unable to handle it when someone doesn't take their opinion as gospel. I was starting to worry they might throw themselves on the floor and start kicking, screaming and pounding their fists. After I finish with the DFG on the subject of one or two poles in the Napa River, I will ask them about this. In the mean time,
 

There is not even a question of if. You are NOT allowed to keep a salmon caught using 2 poles and barbed hooks in the ocean!  You MUST throw it back.

Right in the portion you hi-lighted is the crux. He says if you keep it, you are fishing for salmon, which means you were using illegal gear with multiple rods and barbed hooks. Because the regs clearly state if you are fishing for salmon, which he just admitted to by keeping the fish, only barbless one rod. 

man this thing has legs...

a 'reasonable person' would read the reg's once...maybe twice...and if any salmon were caught and were ' not right' toss it back and feel  darn lucky to have caught salmon,,,they would be super happy and not bummed that the beautiful fish was free to go back ...in fact the fish is within "It's rights" to go free back to it's home..
then the fisher-person might think "let me modify my gearing for salmon and hurry and try get another one..this time legal"....simple.....

where is there any room to have 8 pages of reply's...it is clear and simple

oh and one pole/one line/two hooks max...that is rockcod...even a new guy like me learned that before tossing a line in the sea....

Darn..I was trying to post enough to get to 9 pages of replies

but it's not to be I guess

Maybe I can help enlighten you here.

In some cases, the DFG regulations are viewed as misguided.  In other case, the interpretation of the regulations is misguided.  I think the later is coming into play here.  Do you really want to be "that guy" keeping salmon caught on barbed hooks?

-Allen

No I want to be the guy that follows to the letter regs that are clearly spelled out and correctly understood and enforced by DFG. I'd be happy if they used the same wording that is used regarding fishing for salmon using more than one pole. Seems to me they would already use that language if that was what they intended the rules to say.

Traildad:

"I am surprised to see a few people that seem to be unable to handle it when someone doesn't take their opinion as gospel."

Well, see that's the problem.  These guys are not just sharing an 'opinion,' they are sharing "Experience."

That's one of the awesome aspects of this forum, we can share experience and steepen the learning curve for all.   

So, how bout you give a call to DFG and ask them.  Or better, send an email so you can honestly publish their response on this board.  As an admin here, it looks like (your word) nitpicking.  I'm confident the good advice given to you here is accurate.  Isn't that enough?

Do your homework and report back.   

Also, go FISHING. For anything, even bluegills.  It'll clear out a lot of the circumlocutionary vortex. (experience)

And, finally, anyone posts a popcorn smiley here, I'm shutting it down, I swear!!!!

Bushy

 

 

I was suprised it lasted this long.

man this thing has legs...

a 'reasonable person' would read the reg's once...maybe twice...and if any salmon were caught and were ' not right' toss it back and feel  darn lucky to have caught salmon,,,they would be super happy and not bummed that the beautiful fish was free to go back ...in fact the fish is within "It's rights" to go free back to it's home..
then the fisher-person might think "let me modify my gearing for salmon and hurry and try get another one..this time legal"....simple.....

where is there any room to have 8 pages of reply's...it is clear and simple

^ What he said. (as long as we're gonna keep this thing going)