First DFW encounter and a follow up.

I was out crabbing recently and had my first encounter with DFW in the field. The warden seemed like a nice guy and he checked my license, looked in my burlap bag and my front hatch. He also measured the seven crabs I had caught. Everything was legal. Since I was asked to discuss the Napa River, one pole two pole question with the DFW and report back here, I took the opportunity to ask the warden. As I think everyone knows, the enforcement policy is that only one pole is allowed to be used on the Napa River. I never expected to hear anything different since I had discussed it with them at the time the question first came up. He thought I made some good points but he wouldn't go farther than that. It seemed that we were able to agree that 27.00 does nothing but define the waters in the Ocean and San Francisco Bay District. (Note, this is one district not an Ocean district and a separate SF Bay district.) We also agreed that the relative part of section 1.53 in the Freshwater regs says that the tidal portions of rivers flowing into San Pablo Bay are excluded from inland waters and therefore are not covered in the Freshwater regs.

Even though he could not show me anyplace in the regs that defined San Pablo Bay to include the tidal rivers that flow into it, he seemed unwilling to come out and say it. If the tidal rivers were defined to be part of San Pablo Bay it would look something like Freshwater regs 1.71 where the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta is defined. However there is nothing like that in the Ocean regs.

If I could get the DFW to listen I would ask them to note in Ocean regs 27.56 the area for restrictions of fishing hours is defined. They use the words "and in saltwater tributaries to the bay". They go out of their way to use the words "saltwater tributaries" rather than just say San Francisco Bay.

Then note in Ocean regs 29.05 they say "In San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and saltwater tributaries east of the Golden Gate Bridge invertebrates may not be taken at night except from the shore."  Note they say "and saltwater tributaries".

We also note that Ocean regs 29.85 list restrictions on taking crab. It says "San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay, plus all their tidal bays, sloughs and estuaries between the Golden Gate Bridge and Carquinez Bridge."  Again they use extra words to include waters beyond San Francisco and San Pablo Bays.

Ocean reg 28.65 (a) says "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."  It makes no mention of tidal portions of rivers or saltwater tributaries. It quite clearly says in black and white "San Francisco and San Pablo Bays" I believe it is reasonable to say that if the DFW meant to include the Napa River in the gear restriction 28.65(a) they would have included the words "tidal portions of their rivers" or "saltwater tributaries"  just like they do in the other examples I could find.

Some people view this with a predetermined belief rather than using analytical skills. It's kind of like the bumper sticker " Jesus said it, I believe it and that settles it. Only in this case, a warden said it, they believe it, so that settles it. This seems like a slam dunk to me and I can't for the life of me understand any other analysis of the regs based on the words that are used. However, at least publicly, I stand alone. I will continue to try to discuss this with the DFW commission and I will post up any new info.

According to this page, https://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mapregs6.asp the California Ocean Recreational Fishing Regulations for the
San Francisco Management Area: San Francisco Bay District
(Includes 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)

EDIT: It looks like 27.00 defines the Napa river as part of the Ocean SF Bay District. And you can only use 1 rod in that district. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your concern? Sorry I wasn't following the original discussion on this issue.
""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""

 
Cool write-up!

That is a clear and concise analysis you wrote. Seems like further definition is in order for future editions of the regulations.

Interesting how we collectively find ourselves with many questions even AFTER we've read the regulations. If I can recall it's up 112 pages as of 2014 and still confusing as hell.

I think you were smart by talking to the Wardens in the area about your questions. Ultimately they will be the ones you interact with when they roll up on you.

Thanks for keeping us informed.

Got to say @Sin Coast has a pretty strong rebuttal tho.

So can the interpretation of on officer outweigh the written law?

At the warden office in sac there is warden that handles all calls about the regs. He has the bible of regs in front of him. My friend called him about some commercial regs no one would know about and the warden had a clear answer for every question.

good write up.  I look forward to further clarification.
Congrats on 7 legal crabs

Guy named Alan Watts used to be on the radio, way late at night when I was about 15...(1966).

So he was  a Zen kinda guy and I'll never forget one of the points he made:

"I roll a marble to you 3 feet across the floor, and you catch it in your hand.  If we analyze this process by the Western scientific method, you'd have to agree that marble HAS to reach 1.5 feet before it can reach 3 feet.  And it HAS to reach .75 feet before getting to the halfway mark.  And then, it MUST hit the .375 point prior to the .75 point.  We can keep dividing in half to infinity.  Using this logic, the marble will never, ever reach you.  But of course it does." 


Bushé (rhymes with touché)

Guy named Alan Watts used to be on the radio, way late at night when I was about 15...(1966).

So he was  a Zen kinda guy and I'll never forget one of the points he made:

"I roll a marble to you 3 feet across the floor, and you catch it in your hand.  If we analyze this process by the Western scientific method, you'd have to agree that marble HAS to reach 1.5 feet before it can reach 3 feet.  And it HAS to reach .75 feet before getting to the halfway mark.  And then, it MUST hit the .375 point prior to the .75 point.  We can keep dividing in half to infinity.  Using this logic, the marble will never, ever reach you.  But of course it does." 


Bushé (rhymes with touché)

That is a great story, and one of Zeno's paradoxes circa 500 b.c.

Adam you continue to impress me.  I think it was  Zeno who also said "You may never prove the illegality of using 2 rods in the Napa River, but you will still get a ticket if you do."

Adam you continue to impress me.  I think it was  Zeno who also said "You may never prove the illegality of using 2 rods in the Napa River, but you will still get a ticket if you do."

According to this page, https://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mapregs6.asp the California Ocean Recreational Fishing Regulations for the
San Francisco Management Area: San Francisco Bay District
(Includes 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)

EDIT: It looks like 27.00 defines the Napa river as part of the Ocean SF Bay District. And you can only use 1 rod in that district. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your concern? Sorry I wasn't following the original discussion on this issue.
""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""

The regs are a bit of a maze which makes it difficult to see a clear picture. For a while I believed the one pole restriction was true based on what a warden said. Yes 27.00 defines the Ocean and San Francisco Bay district. Where you go wrong is saying the whole district is limited to one pole. This district includes the ocean and there is no limit on the number of poles you can use in the ocean. Here is how the reg 28.65 starts out. "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:". That exception is San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. So we start out with the idea that we can use 50 poles if we want in the entire district including the Napa River because as you correctly say, the Napa River is part of the Ocean district. From there we look at the gear restriction to see what limitations are placed on us and we read 28.65(a) which restricts San Francisco and San Pablo Bay to one pole only. Therefore unless they include the words (plus tidal rivers or plus saltwater tributaries) or define San Pablo Bay to include the river, the limit is only on the bays and not the rivers.

So the district the Napa River is in, allows an unlimited number of poles. There is a gear restriction for San Francisco and San Pablo Bays limiting us to one pole. I can find nothing that says the Napa River is defined to be part of the bay and I can find nothing that says the Napa River is included in the restriction. Hopefully I can get the DFW to listen and either change the enforcement or change the wording.

good write up.  I look forward to further clarification.
Congrats on 7 legal crabs

Thanks. I thought we would limit out early, but it was a tougher day that the last time I was there.

So can the interpretation of on officer outweigh the written law?

If you pay the fine and don't go to court then yes it can. If you fight it in court and an officer is on weak grounds they won't show up. Then the case is dismissed and the merits are not discussed. I've had that happen twice with traffic tickets. I won both times because he didn't show up. If the officer shows up, then the interpretation of the judge is all that counts, unless you appeal.

I think someone should fish it with two rods until ticketed, then fight it in court to find out whats what

1..2..3 not it!

I think someone should fish it with two rods until ticketed, then fight it in court to find out whats what

1..2..3 not it!

Well I'll contribute to the fund. How much is the fine?