Incidental Salmon Regs

I emailed DFG about my interpretation of the barbless restriction when fishing in the ocean north of point Conception. He asked me what outcome I would prefer if the regs were clarified. Would I rather be allowed to keep one incidental salmon or no salmon retained on barbed hooks? He said salmon don't survive well when caught on barbed hooks and released. I said if the salmon has a poor chance of surviving it would be better to retain the salmon so it isn't wasted. I would like to know how you feel about it.

The regs should reflect the best interests of th fish, not ease of law enforcement.

I'd be ok with requiring barbless hooks and mandatory descenders too. That fixes both problems.

The regs should reflect the best interests of th fish, not ease of law enforcement.

I'd be ok with requiring barbless hooks and mandatory descenders too. That fixes both problems.

half of plus one as many more regulations need to be addressed

No retention of salmon if it's caught on gear that is illegal to use for salmon.

The problem I see with allowing retention of a salmon caught on a barbed hook is that people would take advantage of that regulation by routinely using barbed hooks every time they go salmon fishing.  Undersized Chinook and no-take coho mortality would increase due to barbed hooks being used.

I thought we already beat this horse to death?

I thought we already beat this horse to death?

No kidding...

If you don't know the difference between following the regulations and not following them, please don't go fishing.

This is crazy and sounds like a poll that belongs on the Capitola boat and bait fishing report.

(if I'm not targeting salmon and happen to catch one, I hope that the hook isn't in deep or would cut the line and hope that it survives)

I thought we already beat this horse to death?

No kidding...

If you don't know the difference between following the regulations and not following them, please don't go fishing.

Guys, the poll is what you would like to see happen, it's not a question about what is the law now.  In a perfect world, should you be able to retain incidentally hooked salmon while targeting something else with barbed gear?

It's a fair question and as far as I know a discussion that hasn't been had here.

I did misread the poll, but I still feel the same because I don't feel the regs need clarifying at all with regard to this issue.

I did misread the poll, but I still feel the same because I don't feel the regs need clarifying at all with regard to this issue.

I'm with Ken on the regs needing clarification.  The regs as a whole are a dumpster fire of poor drafting.  With the incidental salmon take question, the regs use different undefined words to mean the same thing, when the regs should be using the same word to mean the same thing, and it should be defined.  That is what Ken is up to and he's right, its a fair criticism. 

So for purposes of the poll lets pretend that we get to draft the law on a clean slate.  What would you have done and why?

This isn't an exercise in Ken being right or wrong or the regs needing clarification though.  Instead think of it as a choose your own adventure book where you get to make a choice then turn to that page.

What would you, as philosopher king, have the regs say with respect to retention or not of incidentally hooked salmon on barbed gear, and why?

I made my case to them on why I think it needs to be clarified. I can say that so far they have not taken a position contrary to that. He said salmon don't survive being incidental catch well because they tend to bleed out. Is it better for the fishery to release a dying salmon or retain it and switch to barbless? What we are discussing does not allow anyone to put out their rotary salmon killer with a barbed hook and call it incidental catch. Would anyone fish with rockfish gear and a barbed hook as a way to increase their chances of catching salmon? Crash is right. All through the regs they use definitive terms and then they use different terms for this. If you think all salmon should be taken only on barbless, why would it be bad to clarify it. The reg currently says "while fishing for salmon". Changing it to "taking" salmon would not be a bad thing as I see it. I for one am glad the DFG is open to ideas on clarifying the regs.

Is it better for the fishery to release a dying salmon or retain it and switch to barbless?

Let's say in any given year, under current regulations, that 50% of the salmon that are released from barbed hooks (incidental catch) die from hook injury.  If the regulation was changed to say "you can keep a salmon if you hooked it with barbed hooks", then that 50% survival rate for incidental salmon immediately drops to 0% because it's likely that every one of those barbed-hook-caught fish would be bonked.  So you already have increased mortality compared to that resulting from the previous regs.  And that's not even taking into account the number of anglers that'd be willing to skirt the regs by fishing with barbs for the first half of their salmon limit, and who could also inadvertently kill juvenile Chinook and coho since they're using barbed hooks on something that salmon find attractive (although they could claim they're not targeting salmon).  So the mortality rate due to this regulation change goes even higher.  I don't think anyone in management would be supportive of a change in the regs that 1) could likely lead to increased CnR mortality (it sure as hell wouldn't decrease) and 2) provide loopholes for some unscrupulous anglers to utilize and increase the risk of killing undersized Chinook or Federally listed coho (and I could GUARANTEE federal regulatory agencies would not support anything that could lead to increased mort of CA coho).

What we are discussing does not allow anyone to put out their rotary salmon killer with a barbed hook and call it incidental catch.

Just because RSK has "salmon" in the name doesn't mean it can't be used for other species.  They could claim they're fishing for anything: white seabass, bonito, whatever.  And in some cases, they may be telling the truth.  So then it'd all fall onto the warden's discretion to figure out who's telling the truth when they claim they're targeting bonito, and who's skirting around the regs so they can easily bag a salmon (and potentially increase mortality on undersized and coho that latch onto those barbed hooks while they're looking for that first 'keeper').  Wouldn't this be an enforcement nightmare?

Would anyone fish with rockfish gear and a barbed hook as a way to increase their chances of catching salmon?

Do you believe that nobody would drop an anchovy or herring down on a 2-hook barbed mooching rig for salmon in late summer (when many salmon are near the bottom), and claim they're fishing for rockfish or halibut?


I'm not against clarification of the regulations.  But really, are the current regs regarding ocean salmon fishing that difficult to understand?  If they say I can only fish for salmon with barbless hooks, and I catch a salmon on a barbed hook, then I interpret that as I have to release that salmon because I caught it using gear that is illegal to use for them.  If one were to poll salmon anglers at every port along the coast and ask them how they interpret this regulation, I have a feeling that the vast majority of them would agree with my interpretation...

But then again, they have to spell out how to use the toilets in Japan, so maybe I'm wrong and it really is that confusing.

Clayman, you are running my plan to fill my freezer.
I really want to keep that rocksalmon I caught on a double treble hook rigged anchovie squid sandwich I was using for sanddabs

I think clayman brings up the main point. Is it a such benefit for catching salmon that it would cause people to use rockfish gear just to use barbed hooks? If the barbed hook really out weighs not using standard salmon gear then it probably would lead to cheating. If that is the case I would support clarifying the regs to say no take of salmon without barbless hooks.

As far as understanding the meaning of the words, as we all know fishing and catching are two different things. In the reg "fishing for" means targeting. So if you are not targeting salmon, then what? According to the regs you don't need barbless. (as I read it)

How do you want the regs overall to be written? Should dfg cite you because you're not one of the people that assumed it means what they meant to say. Everywhere in the book they use "take" if they mean fishing and catching. Why not here? Poorly written? Maybe, some people seem to believe that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. The law must be clear and straightforward so everyone can reasonably get the same meaning when reading it. What would be the harm in changing "fishing" to "taking"?

No retention of salmon if it's caught on gear that is illegal to use for salmon.
The problem I see with allowing retention of a salmon caught on a barbed hook is that people would take advantage of that regulation by routinely using barbed hooks every time they go salmon fishing.  Undersized Chinook and no-take coho mortality would increase due to barbed hooks being used.

This is exactly what I was gonna say!!!

Allowing people to retain salmon that were caught on barbed hooks will not improve the fishery. It would probably have the opposite effect. Plus, many people would take advantage of this loophole. And, unfortunately, when they write these regs, they have to take into account the lowest common denominator.

Do the current regs indicate that barbed hooks are an allowable method of take for salmon?