Incidental Salmon Regs

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.

My questions for Traildad were very reasonable.  The answers to those questions would be invaluable for anyone pursuing this issue.  And if Traildad doesn’t have those answers when CDFW asks him, how far do you think the Department will actively pursue this?  It’ll turn into a ‘side project’, where people might work on it when they have spare time…which is a fleeting thing in CA right now.

Both state and federal agencies are dealing with a LOT of issues right now that have measurable, well-documented consequences.  Water rights, fishing quotas, Delta tunnels, etc.  This issue isn’t as simple as “hey guys, let’s just add some new text in the regulations booklet and call it a day.” There are hearings, committee reviews, amendments, sign-offs from the higher-ups…it takes a LOT of effort to pull this stuff off.  CA is still reeling from a devastating drought, grappling with the near-extinction of winter-run Chinook, and trying to balance the needs of fish and fishermen during yet another dismal forecast for fall-run Chinook, among a myriad of other issues.

Having worked with these agencies for the last several years, I can assure you their plates are very full.  Believe me, I don’t like being pessimistic about this and I think Traildad’s mission here is a noble one.  But I’m also a realist.  His best shot at pulling this off will be for him to do most of the homework.  He cannot bank on the Department doing it for him.  He has to show that the language in the regulation is having a measurable effect on salmon anglers.  If that’s undocumented, then expect this issue to sink to the bottom of the pile, below the hundreds of other issues that the Department is dealing with right now.

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.

This is another reason that Traildad needs to show that this particular regulation stands above the rest of the "hot mess" you describe and has a more urgent need for review than all the other ones.


This all may come off as me trying to stomp on Traildad's cause, but I'm actually trying to HELP the guy by asking him the questions that matter.  The world is filled with problems.  We don't have the time or the resources to address all of them, so the problems are prioritized in terms of importance.  Traildad's identified a problem.  His next step is to elevate this problem to a PRIORITY problem by illustrating the bad things that have happened/will happen with the misunderstanding of the salmon regulation.

Do any of you know what it really takes to petition to modify, add, or remove a regulation from CCR Titke 14? I know what it takes for CCR Title 8, and I am the tip of the spear on explosives enforcement, and have 35, THIRTY FIVE, form 9's in. The oldest one is 8 years in the works. Logic seldom plays into what is legal. Not to mention what clayman said about impact to species, the economical impact of the proposed change of regulation, and some require a complete environmental impact review even before they can be submitted for department review.
With the potential impact on the resource, gaining consensus from all affected (commercial included) will be tough.
Then there is the directive on enforcement. Regs that are intentionally vague allowthe wardens more flexibility during enforcing regs. Again, what Iis legal isnt always the most logical. You have to look at EVERY word in the text, and interpret the reg as such. The intent of the law is often different than what is ultimately approved.

Do any of you know what it really takes to petition to modify, add, or remove a regulation from CCR Titke 14? I know what it takes for CCR Title 8, and I am the tip of the spear on explosives enforcement, and have 35, THIRTY FIVE, form 9's in. The oldest one is 8 years in the works. Logic seldom plays into what is legal. Not to mention what clayman said about impact to species, the economical impact of the proposed change of regulation, and some require a complete environmental impact review even before they can be submitted for department review.
With the potential impact on the resource, gaining consensus from all affected (commercial included) will be tough.
Then there is the directive on enforcement. Regs that are intentionally vague allowthe wardens more flexibility during enforcing regs. Again, what Iis legal isnt always the most logical. You have to look at EVERY word in the text, and interpret the reg as such. The intent of the law is often different than what is ultimately approved.

I can't answer your specific question. I asked about getting a 2nd Rod stamp for the bay and they said it required legislative action. Some things it would seem are easier to change than others. The lieutenant I spoke to is reviewing title 14 to determine from the departments perspective if I am right or wrong. The reg book is the reg book, title 14 is the actual law. I'm not sure if you mean to say the barbless section is vague or just regs in general. I don't think it is vague, just a little difficult to read. If you're targeting salmon you must be barbless. If you're not targeting salmon, then what? It is a hole in the regs if their intent was to make all salmon take only barbless. If there is something in title 14 that closes that hole, my guess is they will leave it be. If not, I'd expect them to change the word to "take" or change the enforcement to allow incidental catch. It is my opinion that it specifically says, barbless if targeting salmon or salmon on board. Therefore if you're not targeting salmon and don't have any on board, barbed is allowed for one incidental catch.

No one has spent much time talking about how an angler might abuse it if incidental catch was allowed. There is always the chance for abuse. I could fish for Stripers with salmon roe etc. The only way I'd get in trouble is if they came up on me as I put a sturgeon on the stringer while the barbed hook was in its mouth. The same with salmon. As long as you switch to barbless after catching one its not very likely you'll get caught assuming you're using rockfish gear. They'd have to come up on you after you put it on the stringer and before you crimped your barbs, or at least watch you crimp them. So if people want to cheat by using barbed rockfish gear, I'm not so sure allowing incidental catch would really make a difference. I am happy to listen to the experienced people as to why it might make it a lot easier to cheat. I'm ready to change my vote if that was shown to be true.

The part about barbless if salmon on board shows me they were thinking about cheaters. That part prevents people from fishing barbed and saying I caught those salmon on barbless and now I'm rock fishing if questioned by a warden. If six guys are fishing with barbed hooks, as soon as one person keeps a salmon they all must switch to barbless. Would catching one salmon with a barbed hook on that boat be worth cheating over. Hey everybody, let's use barbed rockfish gear till we catch our first salmon so we can get one on a barbed hook. Is that really going to improve your total catch compared to using barbless salmon gear from the start? One fish out of a limit of 12? You tell me. I'm curious.