Number of Fishing Rods With Rockcod Aboard

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

now this is a question that I'm interested in! 
I do often wonder what the percentage of dissolved gases and say a soda or a beer really are.  I wonder if the headspace and percent dissolve gas in a beverage can be found online somewhere? Perhaps a little research some evening this weekend I can come up with an approximation

oh yeah and to me, the regulations are fairly simple and plain English they just have lots and lots of compound sentences.

Not to threadjack, is that the halibut spreader bar you use off your kayak? That thing is massive!

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

Just exactly how can offering my opinion on this get me in a lot of trouble? As far as getting others in trouble, anyone that reads this discussion and changes how they fish based on what is written here would be getting themselves in trouble, assuming the DFG interpretation.

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


Josh

I am already having a discussion about what seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the regs on how many poles can be used in the Napa River. I want to deal with one subject at a time. So far they have offered several lame verbal explanations and have yet to respond to my email. I am waiting to see if they make any changes in the new booklet before I contact them again.

As far as arguing with "us", is that an order?

I just don't understand how everyone is offering all there knowledge and experience as to the matter and it just doesn't sink in. Maybe a certain person just needs to experience the reality of being asked the question as to why they are not fishing according to the F.G. rules themselves, by a Fish and Game Warden.

Not to threadjack, is that the halibut spreader bar you use off your kayak? That thing is massive!

It's the biggest one I have. Big fish, big tackle 

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.

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 just don't understand how everyone is offering all there knowledge and experience as to the matter and it just doesn't sink in. Maybe a certain person just needs to experience the reality of being asked the question as to why they are not fishing according to the F.G. rules themselves, by a Fish and Game Warden.

That would be silly. Whenever there is a dispute over the meaning of the regs any reasonable person will default to the interpretation of the person with the gun. I haven't had that discussion yet.

Once again, the different types of intent come into play. You can demonstrate your lack of intent to fish for salmon by

1). Not using methods typically associated with targeting salmon exclusive to other fish; and
2). Releasing any incidentally caught salmon.

Unless expressly stated otherwise, all crimes require a general intent. In the case of fishing for a particular species, proving your intent is a whole lot easier when a member of that species is sitting in your cooler with gills ripped.

I just don't understand how everyone is offering all there knowledge and experience as to the matter and it just doesn't sink in. Maybe a certain person just needs to experience the reality of being asked the question as to why they are not fishing according to the F.G. rules themselves, by a Fish and Game Warden.

That would be silly. Whenever there is a dispute over the meaning of the regs any reasonable person will default to the interpretation of the person with the gun. I haven't had that discussion yet.

What?  That's what judges are for.

The real problem here is that anyone interested in fishing, member of this forum or not, can read these posts. You give the world the idea that it's ok to keep salmon when you catch them on illegal gear. It's not. This forum is full of useful information and is a great resource for fishermen and women in California, kayak or otherwise. If you post up bad advice unchallenged, that lurker gets a nasty $$$ ticket, and NCKA is lesser for it, because of you.

I know it's hard to admit when you are wrong, but you should stop this line before someone gets in trouble

I probably spent way too much time sifting through this thread trying to figure out what's going on  .  If anyone decides to go out on the ocean, fish with multiple rods and barbed hooks, and catches and keeps a salmon with that gear, then here's what you do: head on back to port and tell the nearest CDFW warden exactly what you did.  Then you'll find out whether your interpretation of the regulations was correct.

Even if, by some obscure chance, the judge at your hearing were to say "why yes, you are correct and CDFW screwed up on the wording in the regulations booklet," would all the hassle of taking time off work to go to the courthouse to prove a point be worth it?  We're not talking a Brown v Board of Education type of monumental landmark case here.  I could give my game warden buddy a call tomorrow to ask him about this hypothetical scenario, but I already know what he'll say: catch an ocean salmon on a barbed hook and you gotta let it go.

If you could indeed catch and keep your first salmon with any gear you wanted, then why isn't EVERY SALMON ANGLER IN CALIFORNIA taking advantage of such an egregious loophole in the regulations?  Because they know better!

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

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

There is probably a court case affirming this as well.  Perhaps this thread should be forwarded to the DFW liaison?

"I probably spent way too much time sifting through this thread trying to figure out what's going on"

you helped me so much...I want to stop reading this thread and you have set me free,,,,better now thank you