Number of Fishing Rods With Rockcod Aboard

I believe method of take is where it is spelled out. For sturgeon it says

27.90
(d) Methods of take: Only one single point, single shank, barbless hook may be used on a line when taking sturgeon.

For salmon it says
27.80
(a) Methods of take:
2) Barbless Hooks. No more than two (2) single point, single shank barbless hooks shall be used in the ocean north of Point Conception (34° 27’00” N. lat.)  when salmon fishing or fishing from any boat or floating device with salmon on board.

Why do they use different wording if they don't mean different things? They could have said

2) Barbless Hooks. No more than two (2) single point, single shank barbless hooks shall be used in the ocean north of Point Conception (34° 27’00” N. lat.) when taking salmon or fishing from any boat or floating device with salmon on board.

Then if I'm out striper fishing and I unintentionally take a salmon the rules spell it out. If I'm salmon fishing and I catch a salmon the rules spell it out. It would clearly apply to both circumstances. If you went fishing for stripers and caught a salmon, would you then tell everyone you went salmon fishing? To go salmon fishing means you intend to catch salmon. I can't say what their intent was as a matter of fact. I can say that if they wanted the rule to mean what some people seem to think it means, it would have been so easy to use wording that clearly spelled it out. They don't say method of take for sturgeon is barbless hooks if you are fishing for sturgeon or have one on board. Can't we assume as a matter of English, one rule has a different meaning than the other. Maybe mine is not the accepted interpretation of the rule. How the person with a gun, standing if front of you asking to see your catch interprets the rule is what matters most. If that is what the powers that be want the rule to be, then write it that way. I haven't even gotten into what it means if you are not salmon fishing and you are not on a boat. It is possible to fish for salmon from shore. What then?

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

The definition is spelled out in the regulations.

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

When in doubt, read the regulations:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=77722&inline=true

Its actually a fair criticism of the regs.  If you mean the same thing, you should use the same word. 

You could conceivably convince a judge that you are right.  The chance is greater than zero in my estimation.  Not much greater than zero, but greater.  How much time and energy are you willing to spend to fight the ticket, and are you willing to pay the price in the form of fines and suspensions of your privileges if you are wrong?

I suspect that the regs are written at different times by different people thus the difference in wording.   The problem I have with this thread is that someone with little to no ocean fishing experience is arguing that the regs don't mean what we know them to mean.  If you want to argue about the regs, do it with DFG.  Otherwise just offering your interpretation of the law could get yourself and others in a lot of trouble.

Josh

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.

Dont' argue the meaning with us.  Do it with DFG. 


Josh

Do you think it was just a careless choice of words?

Not only do I think this, I think that you think this too.

I've said it many times before.  The regs are not a model of clarity.  When I become philosopher king, I will rewrite the regs in plain English.  Until then, that is what we have to work with.  You are still trying to find a nail to hang this hat where none exists.  Here's how I'd argue against you if I was prosecuting you:

traildad is getting cute with semantics.

"fishing" is undefined in the regs.  "Take" is defined.  While the term "fishing" is not used in the definition of take, hunt, pursue, and kill are.  I think we can all agree that fishing is a subset of and encompassed by "take".  All fishing is an attempt to take.  Not all taking is done by fishing.

traildad insists that he had no intention of catching a salmon.  traildad misunderstands the legal concept of "intent".  General intent does not mean the specific intent to do an exact, particular thing.  General intent and specific intent are two different things, and all that is required here is the general intent to fish for a salmon.  His vehement protestations notwithstanding, his general intent to fish for a salmon is quite clear - he retained one, after fishing in waters where they are known to exist.  That demonstrates a general intent, and satisfies the requirement of the "salmon fishing" element of the regulation.

So, whether or not the language of the regulations were sloppily drafted, the regulations are clear.  traildad was fishing for salmon, with a general intent to fish for salmon, and retained a salmon while using illegal gear to do so.

Your honor, you must find for the People.  We ask for the maximum penalty.

I'll note this down for my letter to the commission.

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

I'll note this down for my letter to the commission.

You are going to ask the commission to anoint me Philosopher King?

Thanks bro. You've got a place at the table.

I always believe in commonsense regulation, plain language regulation.  If its too difficult to understand, how do they expect the average person to comply?   I used to say the same thing back when I was a regulator.

So if I am in 220 FOW and hook a salmon on a halibut rig, and switch from light beer to Guiness, does that mean I can't go back to drinking the light beer?  Sorry I had to lighten the conversation, way to serious.

So if I am in 220 FOW and hook a salmon on a halibut rig, and switch from light beer to Guiness, does that mean I can't go back to drinking the light beer?  Sorry I had to lighten the conversation, way to serious.

I've always used light beer for halibut. Should I switch?

At what depth would the compression cause your can of beer to be crushed and thus causing a gigantic party foul?