Bang Sticks for Self-Defense Against Sharks

April 21, 2011

Question: We are spearfish divers and are wondering if bang sticks or power heads are legal to use in self-defense against sharks approaching us? They are like a fold-out stick with a bullet at the end. You press the stick against a shark if it comes in too short, and it fires. There are many companies that will ship them to California but I heard they are a firearm and must be registered. I’ve also heard that because of what they are used for, they are legal and don’t need to be registered. I’ve called a few local police departments to ask but they have no idea. (Christopher)

Answer: California Fish and Game law does not prohibit possession of these devices. However, according to Department of Fish and Game (DFG) retired Captain Phil Nelms, bang sticks and/or powerheads that use an explosive cartridge are firearms. Firearms are not a legal method of take for sharks and can’t be used to take or land sharks, or any other species of fish.

Sounds like a yes for self defense while targeting other species. Surprising given the degree to which fear is variable by individual...


ruben

Show me where the regs say that you are not allowed to use a firearm to assist in the take of anything besides a sturgeon.  That which is not prohibited, is permitted.

Also, not convinced that a powerhead is a firearm. Last I looked I I it there was scant law on point, the closest being an IRS private letter ruling from 60 years ago that says it isn't for tax code purposes.

Show me where the regs say that you are not allowed to use a firearm to assist in the take of anything besides a sturgeon.  That which is not prohibited, is permitted.

There are species for which permitted method of take is spelled out.

From page 35 of the Ocean Sport Fishing Regulations: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=77722&inline=true

27.80. SALMON.
(a) Methods of take:
(1) General Provisions. Only by angling as defined in Section 1.05.

"Take" and "assist in take" are not the same thing.

Perhaps self defense is self defense, GWS are bad guys no different from thugs?  You aren't engaged in "taking" anything, you are defending yourself from being eaten.  If a GWS comes close enough for you to successfully use one of those bang sticks, would be difficult to argue the GWS lacked intent to make a meal of you.

Perhaps self defense is self defense, GWS are bad guys no different from thugs?  You aren't engaged in "taking" anything, you are defending yourself from being eaten.  If a GWS comes close enough for you to successfully use one of those bang sticks, would be difficult to argue the GWS lacked intent to make a meal of you.

Correct. It's not different that shooting a home invader with a handgun as far as the availability of a self defense justification for your actions.

I was taking exception to the last part. You can replace  "firearms" with "net" and reach the same conclusion that Carrie Wilson and Krusty have. Nets, like firearms, are not an authorized method of take for salmon.

If my life depends on it, I'll use whatever means necessary to protect it; legal or not.

If my life depends on it, I'll use whatever means necessary to protect it; legal or not.

Should be legal to protect your life.

Perhaps self defense is self defense, GWS are bad guys no different from thugs?  You aren't engaged in "taking" anything, you are defending yourself from being eaten.  If a GWS comes close enough for you to successfully use one of those bang sticks, would be difficult to argue the GWS lacked intent to make a meal of you.

Correct. It's not different that shooting a home invader with a handgun as far as the availability of a self defense justification for your actions.

I was taking exception to the last part. You can replace  "firearms" with "net" and reach the same conclusion that Carrie Wilson and Krusty have. Nets, like firearms, are not an authorized method of take for salmon.

Just noting the interesting choice of an example, since in the case of the original question, the diver would be the home invader of the shark.

Just noting the interesting choice of an example, since in the case of the original question, the diver would be the home invader of the shark.

I don't consider entering the ocean an invasion of anything.
If the shark had the ability to be on land I'm sure it would be.

Just noting the interesting choice of an example, since in the case of the original question, the diver would be the home invader of the shark.

Just like Sharknado!

I don't consider entering the ocean an invasion of anything.
If the shark had the ability to be on land I'm sure it would be.

Maybe I'll keep one by my bed. It will work better than my Grizzly Bear spray.