New regulations for the Napa River

Updated and corrected:

§1.53

Inland waters are all the fresh, brackish and inland saline waters of the state, including lagoons and tidewaters upstream from the mouths of coastal rivers and streams. Inland waters exclude the waters of San Francisco and San Pablo bays downstream from the west Carquinez Bridge, and the waters of Elkhorn Slough, west of Elkhorn Road between Castroville and Watsonville. Also see Section 27.00.
Note: Authority cited: Sections 200, 202, 205, 215 and 220, Fish and Game Code. Reference: Sections 200, 202, 205, 206, 215 and 220, Fish and Game Code.
HISTORY
1. Amendment of section and N ote filed 2-5-98; operative 3-1-98 pursuant to Fish and Game Code sections 202 and 215 (Register 98, No. 6).
2. Amendment filed 2-29-2016; operative 3-2-2016 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4(b)(4)(A) (Register 2016, No. 10).
This database is current through 3/4/16 Register 2016, No. 10
14 CCR § 1.53, 14 CA ADC § 1.53

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I7F5BC46A4B964680B9DF30404184E766?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

§27.00

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 between Golden Gate Bridge and the west Carquinez Bridge. Also see Section 1.53.

https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IBC1FC659E84247FB999E559FA71884EF?viewType=FullText&originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=(sc.Default)

So there you go.  I imagine that it will come out in a supplement to the regulations as soon as one is printed.

The special regs for the napa river still say that the downstream water is tidewater and covered by the ocean regs, which is clearly wrong.  They just need to fix it, and I don't know how that will be fixed but for now it seems like you could very reasonably fish two rods between the bridge and the mouth with a two rod stamp.  The barbless section currently ends at the bridge under the freshwater regs under any reasonable reading.

The special regs for the napa river still say that the downstream water is tidewater and covered by the ocean regs, which is clearly wrong.  They just need to fix it, and I don't know how that will be fixed but for now it seems like you could very reasonably fish two rods between the bridge and the mouth with a two rod stamp.  The barbless section currently ends at the bridge under the freshwater regs under any reasonable reading.

Thanks for the update. I think it will take a while to clean up the different areas that cover this. I was looking online today and found the ocean district definition that still includes the Napa River and it was updated in January. I called the office in Yountville and the woman that answered was not familar with anything that change the inland waters definition. She hooked me up with voicemail of someone that is supposed to be able to answer questions. No return call yet. Thanks again.

The special regs for the napa river still say that the downstream water is tidewater and covered by the ocean regs, which is clearly wrong.  They just need to fix it, and I don't know how that will be fixed but for now it seems like you could very reasonably fish two rods between the bridge and the mouth with a two rod stamp.  The barbless section currently ends at the bridge under the freshwater regs under any reasonable reading.

Thanks for the update. I think it will take a while to clean up the different areas that cover this. I was looking online today and found the ocean district definition that still includes the Napa River and it was updated in January. I called the office in Yountville and the woman that answered was not familar with anything that change the inland waters definition. She hooked me up with voicemail of someone that is supposed to be able to answer questions. No return call yet. Thanks again.

Go ahead and fish with 2 rods (with a 2 rod stamp) between the bridge and the mouth unless and until they change the regs at §7.50(b)(129).  You're golden and good to go with the new changes.  There's no other way to read the current regs.

You won buddy.  Go fish.

Go ahead and fish with 2 rods (with a 2 rod stamp) between the bridge and the mouth unless and until they change the regs at §7.50(b)(129). 

That would work for striped bass. But I think you can only use 1 rod for sturgeon? (with single barbless hook)
And 2-rod stamp not applicable to SF Bay & ocean waters...only inland waters. 

Go ahead and fish with 2 rods (with a 2 rod stamp) between the bridge and the mouth unless and until they change the regs at §7.50(b)(129). 

That would work for striped bass. But I think you can only use 1 rod for sturgeon? (with single barbless hook)
And 2-rod stamp not applicable to SF Bay & ocean waters...only inland waters. 

I don't see a one rod restriction for sturgeon.  One single shank barbless hook, yes.  But you can use 2 rods as long as the waters where you are fishing allow it, such as the Napa River below Trancas Bridge.

Correct that the 2 rod stamp is not applicable in the ocean and SF Bay.  As of February 29, 2016 the Napa river from Trancas Bridge to the mouth is an inland water.  That's what this thread is about.  I'm sure it had everything to do with Ken's efforts, and he's taking a well deserved victory lap.

It would be nice if the two rod stamps worked let say beyond the 37 bridge instead like the Carquinez bridge.

Jedmo

It would be nice if the two rod stamps worked let say beyond the 37 bridge instead like the Carquinez bridge.

Jedmo

Do you mean above the 37 bridge? I believe now anything inside the breakwater is good for two poles.

Awesome news if that is the case. Thanks Ken!

Jedmo

It would be nice if the two rod stamps worked let say beyond the 37 bridge instead like the Carquinez bridge.

Jedmo

Do you mean above the 37 bridge? I believe now anything inside the breakwater is good for two poles.

It's the mouth of the river. Which I'm pretty sure is toward the south end of Mare Island well south of the 37 bridge.

Got an encore planned Ken?  I know there's other regs that bug you. bmb had a list going a while back, maybe it's time to dust that thing off.

Unintended consequences:

Was there any type of saltwater fishery in the Napa River that wouldn't be allowed in inland waters, such as a herring run where people use cast nets or crabbing for dungies?

First of all Kudos to Ken to get this in there, major accomplishment.

I've often wondered about things that were covered by saltwater regs but existed above the Carquinez bridge, specifically bay shrimp (grass) and dungies. strike that, found those in the inland regs.

Way back like the 70s during severe drought conditions I used to catch dungies almost keeper size in the Martinez area. 

Also shrimp regs are in the saltwater book but they also (and I have caught) exist above there.

I recently ran into a warden in Martinez and he gave me the impression that shrimping off the Martinez pier was OK. We were standing in Martinez discussing shrimping off the wharf and he indicated methods that were OK, I assumed geographically he was indicating Martinez location was good.

It would be nice if the two rod stamps worked let say beyond the 37 bridge instead like the Carquinez bridge.

Jedmo

Do you mean above the 37 bridge? I believe now anything inside the breakwater is good for two poles.

It's the mouth of the river. Which I'm pretty sure is toward the south end of Mare Island well south of the 37 bridge.

Got an encore planned Ken?  I know there's other regs that bug you. bmb had a list going a while back, maybe it's time to dust that thing off.

Well now that you mention it. I would like to see the regs on Salmon bycatch clarified. Much like sturgeon regs they could say you can't catch salmon with barbed hooks. In my opinion the way it is worded allows someone that might be fishing for stripers etc to catch and keep a salmon as long as they only use barbless after keeping the salmon. "Barbless if you are targeting salmon or have one on board " I can see no reason for the difference between the way the salmon and sturgeon regs are worded except to allow for keeping the first bycatch.

It would be nice if the two rod stamps worked let say beyond the 37 bridge instead like the Carquinez bridge.

Jedmo

Do you mean above the 37 bridge? I believe now anything inside the breakwater is good for two poles.

It's the mouth of the river. Which I'm pretty sure is toward the south end of Mare Island well south of the 37 bridge.

Got an encore planned Ken?  I know there's other regs that bug you. bmb had a list going a while back, maybe it's time to dust that thing off.

Well now that you mention it. I would like to see the regs on Salmon bycatch clarified. Much like sturgeon regs they could say you can't catch salmon with barbed hooks. In my opinion the way it is worded allows someone that might be fishing for stripers etc to catch and keep a salmon as long as they only use barbless after keeping the salmon. "Barbless if you are targeting salmon or have one on board " I can see no reason for the difference between the way the salmon and sturgeon regs are worded except to allow for keeping the first bycatch.

As we've talked about before, the regs are not a model of clarity. They could certainly use some language revision to use the same words to mean the same thing, probably easily solved by replacing references to "fishing" and "angling" with "taking".

From an enforcement standpoint i doubt that DFW would want to adopt a "first bycatch " rule like the one you read into the regs. I've also been wrong before.

Anything that adds clarity to the regs is a win. Getting the inland vs ocean regs simplified and clarified was a real win and a real service to California anglers.  I'm happy to offer input. I even promise to be nicer about it going forward.

It would be nice if the two rod stamps worked let say beyond the 37 bridge instead like the Carquinez bridge.

Jedmo

Do you mean above the 37 bridge? I believe now anything inside the breakwater is good for two poles.

It's the mouth of the river. Which I'm pretty sure is toward the south end of Mare Island well south of the 37 bridge.

Got an encore planned Ken?  I know there's other regs that bug you. bmb had a list going a while back, maybe it's time to dust that thing off.

Well now that you mention it. I would like to see the regs on Salmon bycatch clarified. Much like sturgeon regs they could say you can't catch salmon with barbed hooks. In my opinion the way it is worded allows someone that might be fishing for stripers etc to catch and keep a salmon as long as they only use barbless after keeping the salmon. "Barbless if you are targeting salmon or have one on board " I can see no reason for the difference between the way the salmon and sturgeon regs are worded except to allow for keeping the first bycatch.

As we've talked about before, the regs are not a model of clarity. They could certainly use some language revision to use the same words to mean the same thing, probably easily solved by replacing references to "fishing" and "angling" with "taking".

From an enforcement standpoint i doubt that DFW would want to adopt a "first bycatch " rule like the one you read into the regs. I've also been wrong before.

Anything that adds clarity to the regs is a win. Getting the inland vs ocean regs simplified and clarified was a real win and a real service to California anglers.  I'm happy to offer input. I even promise to be nicer about it going forward.

They could use language similar to the sturgeon regs if they don't want "first bycatch" allowed.

The current reg is worded...

(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.

If they don't want us to keep any "bycatch" they could simply say...

(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.


i see intent in the choice of words. The fact that they mention boat or floating device shows they carefully considered the words to avoid loopholes. The word "take" covers it all as seen in the definition.

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

Instead they chose to say "when salmon fishing". Fishing isn't defined in the regs that I see. To me it means trying to catch salmon. If I'm trying to catch a striper, I'm not "salmon fishing". If I catch a salmon as "bycatch" I am "taking" salmon. Using the words "salmon fishing" instead of "taking salmon" changes the meaning of the reg. From my point of view they chose the words with the intent of allowing us to keep the "first bycatch". The reason I am convinced is because I can think of no other reasonable reason for choosing the words they did when they easily could have used the word "take".

If I am striper fishing I am not salmon fishing. If I have caught nothing I have no salmon on board. I can use barbed hooks. I bycatch a salmon, now what? I release it and keep fishing. If I keep it, I have salmon on board and must now use only barbless, even if I continue to fish for Stripers. According to the regs it is only my intent to catch salmon or having them on board that triggers the requirement to use only barbless hooks as my method of take.