Incidental Salmon Regs

DFG created the fishing term "take" by expanding the definition beyond what you find in a regular dictionary. They use that word to close loopholes. For example, fish and release is not allowed in a no take area. They use the term throughout the book. Then we have the term "fishing for", which to me means targeting. If you are fishing with barbed hooks and you tell the Warden you are fishing for salmon, you broke the law even if you haven't caught anything. So we see " take " and we see "fishing for" (targeting) and we are supposed to conclude it means the same thing? Look down at (4) in the salmon regs. Salmon may be taken by angling with no more than one rod. "Take" means fishing for, "fishing for" doesn't mean take.  Take has special meaning and they clearly know how to use it. If that is what they meant to say, they should change it.

As with all regulatory agencies, if the term is not defined, you use the common definition, most often used in hearings is the Webster's dictionary. I have not looked, but is "take" defined in Title 14?

"Fishing" isn't defined in the regs.

As with all regulatory agencies, if the term is not defined, you use the common definition, most often used in hearings is the Webster's dictionary. I have not looked, but is "take" defined in Title 14?

Yes it is.

Dictionary definition of "fishing for" supports trail dad's reading.

Has the confusion in the regulation language regarding what is legal gear for salmon resulted in increased citations for anglers?  Has this occurred multiple times?  Because I feel if it has, then it would've been brought up in a court room at least once in the past several years--ever since ocean salmon fishing was changed over to barbless hooks-- and (likely) been elevated from there, until we actually saw a change in the regulation language.

Unless I hear that the "muddled" regulation language has adversely affected at least one angler via a citation, I feel like this topic is trying to come up with a solution for an unidentified problem.

Has the confusion in the regulation language regarding what is legal gear for salmon resulted in increased citations for anglers?  Has this occurred multiple times?  Because I feel if it has, then it would've been brought up in a court room at least once in the past several years--ever since ocean salmon fishing was changed over to barbless hooks-- and (likely) been elevated from there, until we actually saw a change in the regulation language.

Unless I hear that the "muddled" regulation language has adversely affected at least one angler via a citation, I feel like this topic is trying to come up with a solution for an unidentified problem.

If I am right and the wording allows the incidental take of salmon, then every angler that released his incidental catch because of muddied langauge could be considered adversely affected.

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

I think it's very clear as written, but if any clarification is added it should simply say:

Any fish caught on gear that is illegal for targeting that fish species must've released immediately.

This is the only way to avoid further confusion, if there is any.

Tie an RSK behind a 1-lb ball and troll around outside Santa Cruz harbor... Are you bounceballing for butts or trolling for net pen salmon? Who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has the confusion in the regulation language regarding what is legal gear for salmon resulted in increased citations for anglers?  Has this occurred multiple times?  Because I feel if it has, then it would've been brought up in a court room at least once in the past several years--ever since ocean salmon fishing was changed over to barbless hooks-- and (likely) been elevated from there, until we actually saw a change in the regulation language.

Unless I hear that the "muddled" regulation language has adversely affected at least one angler via a citation, I feel like this topic is trying to come up with a solution for an unidentified problem.

If I am right and the wording allows the incidental take of salmon, then every angler that released his incidental catch because of muddied langauge could be considered adversely affected.

Alright.  I wish you the best of luck.  IMO, issues identified as having adverse effects on conservation goals are going to have much more clout with regulatory agencies than the potential "adverse" effects on someone's freezer.  Especially during a year with crappy salmon forecasts.  But who knows, maybe you'll catch em during a slow week.

I think it's very clear as written, but if any clarification is added it should simply say:

Any fish caught on gear that is illegal for targeting that fish species must've released immediately.

This is the only way to avoid further confusion, if there is any.

Tie an RSK behind a 1-lb ball and troll around outside Santa Cruz harbor... Are you bounceballing for butts or trolling for net pen salmon? Who knows?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For that reason they will most likely choose to change "fishing for" to "taking" and then the reg will match the enforcement. Can we all agree that the wording in the regulations should match the enforcement? That is the goal of bringing it to their attention. They get to decide what is best, change the wording or change the enforcement. It seems that most people here so far think the enforcement should remain the same.

Has the confusion in the regulation language regarding what is legal gear for salmon resulted in increased citations for anglers?  Has this occurred multiple times?  Because I feel if it has, then it would've been brought up in a court room at least once in the past several years--ever since ocean salmon fishing was changed over to barbless hooks-- and (likely) been elevated from there, until we actually saw a change in the regulation language.

Unless I hear that the "muddled" regulation language has adversely affected at least one angler via a citation, I feel like this topic is trying to come up with a solution for an unidentified problem.

Jesus man.

Being proactive is always better than being reactive. Ther is a clear problem with the language that is easily fixed. It should be fixed be aus that in and of itself is a worthy end. Just waiting until there is a problem is extremely lazy.

Traildad has the ear of someone at DFW. He hasn't started down any kind of road like before with the flat statements that could get people in trouble if taken without research. Why is everyone so quick to just say no, and give him a ration of grief for it?  Even back when we had that thread that got heated he brought up the wording problem and I looked at it and he's right.

The written regs should match the enforcement. Leave unwritten rules for baseball and dating.

Has the confusion in the regulation language regarding what is legal gear for salmon resulted in increased citations for anglers?  Has this occurred multiple times?  Because I feel if it has, then it would've been brought up in a court room at least once in the past several years--ever since ocean salmon fishing was changed over to barbless hooks-- and (likely) been elevated from there, until we actually saw a change in the regulation language.

Unless I hear that the "muddled" regulation language has adversely affected at least one angler via a citation, I feel like this topic is trying to come up with a solution for an unidentified problem.

Jesus man.

Being proactive is always better than being reactive. Ther is a clear problem with the language that is easily fixed. It should be fixed be aus that in and of itself is a worthy end. Just waiting until there is a problem is extremely lazy.

Traildad has the ear of someone at DFW. He hasn't started down any kind of road like before with the flat statements that could get people in trouble if taken without research. Why is everyone so quick to just say no, and give him a ration of grief for it?  Even back when we had that thread that got heated he brought up the wording problem and I looked at it and he's right.

It is possible that a few on these forums work for resource agencies and have to deal with an Army of Kens on a regular basis. The salmon reg is clear. It could be worded better, but it seems to me that everyone knows that it's illegal to retain a salmon if you are fishing with barbs. So... it seems to be a giant waste of time for the poor schmuck at CDFW who has to deal with you guys.

There are lots of poorly written laws and regulations out there, I guess I just don't see any priority in what you are doing.

Has the confusion in the regulation language regarding what is legal gear for salmon resulted in increased citations for anglers?  Has this occurred multiple times?  Because I feel if it has, then it would've been brought up in a court room at least once in the past several years--ever since ocean salmon fishing was changed over to barbless hooks-- and (likely) been elevated from there, until we actually saw a change in the regulation language.

Unless I hear that the "muddled" regulation language has adversely affected at least one angler via a citation, I feel like this topic is trying to come up with a solution for an unidentified problem.

Jesus man.

Being proactive is always better than being reactive. Ther is a clear problem with the language that is easily fixed. It should be fixed be aus that in and of itself is a worthy end. Just waiting until there is a problem is extremely lazy.

Traildad has the ear of someone at DFW. He hasn't started down any kind of road like before with the flat statements that could get people in trouble if taken without research. Why is everyone so quick to just say no, and give him a ration of grief for it?  Even back when we had that thread that got heated he brought up the wording problem and I looked at it and he's right.

It is possible that a few on these forums work for resource agencies and have to deal with an Army of Kens on a regular basis. The salmon reg is clear. It could be worded better, but it seems to me that everyone knows that it's illegal to retain a salmon if you are fishing with barbs. So... it seems to be a giant waste of time for the poor schmuck at CDFW who has to deal with you guys.

There are lots of poorly written laws and regulations out there, I guess I just don't see any priority in what you are doing.

I don't know if you read my recent post on the changes on the one pole Napa River question. CDFW is now considering the usefulness of having nighttime and one pole restrictions in the bay. No one in the department even knows why they exist. The questions I have asked them come directly from my interactions with the regs and my fishing. I am not looking for nit picky word problems in the regs. The Lieutenant I spoke to did not seem to be a schmuck. We had a very respectful indepth exploration of the topic. I had some disappointing interactions with DFG over the Napa River issue. More recently they seem to have a new attitude. I don't think the captain and the lieutenant I have been speaking to see this as a problem. Do we want law enforcement in general to enforce the law or enforce what they think the law should be? Is the law something we all "know" it is, or is it written in a book? I understand that most people don't care what the words are. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sportsmen can't hire lawyers to interpret the regs for us. They must be written to meet a legal standard. If they get a little sloppy or choose to enforce regs different than as written, I think it is worth correcting. We are not talking about a misplaced comma.

They are making changes to regs and reconsidering the value of restrictions that have been in place for years. If those restrictions are repealed, it would be a benefit to Bay Area fishermen. Maybe some people see this like the guy on the forum that criticizes someone's grammar or spelling. If that is how you feel, so be it. I expect fish and wildlife officers to enforce the law as written. Removing loopholes only helps them to do their job.

Just as an exercise-

Skim the reg book for other states. California's is a hot mess compared to most. I guess you guys are saying that you are used to them so it's ok.

It's not ok. It's an embarrassment.

Just as an exercise-

Skim the reg book for other states. California's is a hot mess compared to most. I guess you guys are saying that you are used to them so it's ok.

It's not ok. It's an embarrassment.

That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that clarifying the incidental salmon reg isn't a priority as far as I am concerned.

There is a current effort underway to clarify and simplify California's fishing regs. When you compare our regs to other states please take into consideration that California, unlike most other states has an ocean, anadromous fisheries, and commercial fisheries all with lots of listed species, which necessitates more complicated regulations.