CA fishing law

[Oldschool]

The law may have been written originally for salmon fishing, however today it applies to all species. You may not believe it's a logical law and doesn't appy to you, however it does until the law is changed.
It's hyprocritical, to apply the no snagging rule to spawners, because that seems logical and not obey the same law the rest of year.
Tom

[Gary Dobyns]

The law may have been written originally for salmon fishing, however today it applies to all species. You may not believe it's a logical law and doesn't appy to you, however it does until the law is changed.
It's hyprocritical, to apply the no snagging rule to spawners, because that seems logical and not obey the same law the rest of year.
Tom

There is nothing hyprocritical about snagging one in the guts on a bed that you are looking at, or catching one in the head that hit a topwater or ripbait over 30 foot of water that you can't see. You call youself oldschool............it's always been done this way for as long as I've fished tournaments ( 28 years ). That is the oldschool way. Again guys don't fret. CBC is done the old way.

[Oldschool]

The law may have been written originally for salmon fishing, however today it applies to all species. You may not believe it's a logical law and doesn't appy to you, however it does until the law is changed.
It's hyprocritical, to apply the no snagging rule to spawners, because that seems logical and not obey the same law the rest of year.
Tom

There is nothing hyprocritical about snagging one in the guts on a bed that you are looking at, or catching one in the head that hit a topwater or ripbait over 30 foot of water that you can't see. You call youself oldschool............it's always been done this way for as long as I've fished tournaments ( 28 years ). That is the oldschool way. Again guys don't fret. CBC is done the old way.

I don't tournament fish and therefore don't have a problem with snagging a bass on a jerk bait, they all get released if healthy.
I can remmeber when the first Diawa minnows came out with those sharpe hooks, we caught a lot of "snagged" bass. The DFG rule is older than 30 years, so those fish had to be released, if tournament fishing, even back on the dark ages.
How many spoon fished get stuck under the chin, lots!
It's your tournaments, fished them any way you please, I personally could care less. Until the snagged fish rule changed, keeping the bass isn't legal, even if it is going to be released.
Tom

[Andy Giannini]

You are going to have to prove the intent of the fish.

And the way I work lures, the fish cannot help itself.

It would probably testify under oath that I triggered an "involuntary genetic response" to strike at the lure.

That the fish simply could not help itself, any fish would have hit that.

Thus making all my catches, whether hooked inside or outside the mouth not legal catches.

[ASD]

You are going to have to prove the intent of the fish.

And the way I work lures, the fish cannot help itself.

It would probably testify under oath that I triggered an "involuntary genetic response" to strike at the lure.

That the fish simply could not help itself, any fish would have hit that.

Thus making all my catches, whether hooked inside or outside the mouth not legal catches.

[clayton meyer]

If the post with the ruling is correct I would have to read it as the angler HAVING INTENT to snag the fish and each species having its own ruling. Our tournament fish do not body slam a bait. They take it in their mouths and are very good at it. I fish jigs so most of this really doesn't apply to me since my fish are usually throat hooked. But if a fish hit your reaction bait, it didn't hit it with its butt. There might be a few cases but that fish probably had that bait in its mouth at the start... no matter where it ended up and as the law states "voluntarily taken the bait or artificial lure in its mouth". Take into account we let them go and there is no point in all of this.

I can see it now... Lucky Craft suspends all sales inside California due to new regulations making all baits with high probability of snagging illegal

[Scott Shambre]

If the post with the ruling is correct I would have to read it as the angler HAVING INTENT to snag the fish and each species having its own ruling. Our tournament fish do not body slam a bait. They take it in their mouths and are very good at it. I fish jigs so most of this really doesn't apply to me since my fish are usually throat hooked. But if a fish hit your reaction bait, it didn't hit it with its butt. There might be a few cases but that fish probably had that bait in its mouth at the start... no matter where it ended up and as the law states "voluntarily taken the bait or artificial lure in its mouth". Take into account we let them go and there is no point in all of this.

I can see it now... Lucky Craft suspends all sales inside California due to new regulations making all baits with high probability of snagging illegal

Finally, in all of these posts a voice of common sense.

If the fish hits your bait, it is by definition of the law "voluntaily taking the bait" into it's mouth.

When we "intentionally" place our bait in a position so the fish does NOT have the chance to take the bait and WE snag the fish in the side or in the tail....we are in violation of this law.

This law was NEVER intended for bass fishing, but some smart thinking people saw where it may be a problem during the spawn and addressed it. Any other time of the year, when a fish "voluntarily" attempts to eat your lure and gets a hook in or around the opening of the mouth, it would be safe to assume that it was trying to eat your lure. Therefore, you are not in violation of the law and you are not snagging the fish because there is NO intent to do so.

Use your head here guys...this is not rocket science.

[CN]

I've read it over and over and to me there is no other way to interperate the law.

Even if you fish a topwater or jerkbait in 30' of water the hook must be in the mouth.

Do I care if you keep the the fish.........no not really.

[1biggbass]

I was fishing a club tournament at El Capitan.I was using a jig and pig.I was sitting in tight trowing out to 25-30 ft. and hopping up a rockpile.Its about 7;00A.M. winter time ,dirty, cold water.I get slammed.You how they SLAM a jig sometimes.!
I set -fish on !!! Its pulling good I say to my partner-Get the net its a good one.I dont net fish too often but I knew right away it was a nice fish.It was cold too , so I thought I would let my partner in on the action.
Well after a short while my line suddenly goes slack. Instinct takes over- I reeled like hell- it got tight again and I slamed the hook home-Again.The battle continues ,we get it in the net and I couldnt understand it at the moment-but the hook was stuck in the belly of that bass!!
It appears the hook came out during the fight, possibly wrapped the line around the fish, when I set the second time I stuck it in the belly.
So your telling me to let that fish go?
NO WAY JOSE !!!!
THAT FISH GOES IN THE WELL.At the end of the day it was big fish, I collected the big fish pot.(4.75 lbs. )
I told everyone what happened and I didnt hear anything bad except for how I was such a lucky SOB.
**** happens when fishing - especially in tournaments.
So go ahead and release all those fish that are hooked outside the mouth, it will make it easier for me to win some dough!!!

[bryanmc]

I've read it over and over and to me there is no other way to interperate the law.

Even if you fish a topwater or jerkbait in 30' of water the hook must be in the mouth.

Ok, you get the same challenge as ASD. Please show me the word hook in the verbage of 2c which is posted below:

(c) It is unlawful to kill, or retain in possession any fish which has not voluntarily taken the bait or artificial lure in its mouth. Any fish not taken pursuant to these regulations, shall be released immediately back into the water.

It's not there, never was. Your "no other way to interperate the law" statement is flawed. You insert the word hook into a regulation that doesn't have it and say that's the correct interperatation?

[CN]

I've read it over and over and to me there is no other way to interperate the law.

Even if you fish a topwater or jerkbait in 30' of water the hook must be in the mouth.

Ok, you get the same challenge as ASD. Please show me the word hook in the verbage of 2c which is posted below:

(c) It is unlawful to kill, or retain in possession any fish which has not voluntarily taken the bait or artificial lure in its mouth. Any fish not taken pursuant to these regulations, shall be released immediately back into the water.

It's not there, never was. Your "no other way to interperate the law" statement is flawed. You insert the word hook into a regulation that doesn't have it and say that's the correct interperatation?

If the lure or bait must be in the mouth I would assume the hook would also be in the mouth.

Your telling me that if a fish has all three treble hooks of a jerkbait outside of the mouth lets say one in the head and the others along its body this law would not apply.

But agian I say keep the fish I do agree it attemted to eat your lure.

[tunaman]

For those who chose not to read the original thread, which included this response from the Director of the DFG's's office:

[quote]Here is the response on behalf of the Director of the California Department of Fish and Game:

Mr. Nelson,
I am responding to your email on behalf of Director Broddrick, requesting clarification on California Code of Regulation section
2.00(c)

Section 2.00 in the Freshwater Sportfishing Regulations describes and limits the "Methods of Take" for sport fishing. Section 2.00 is intended to maintain the sporting nature of "angling" and clearly separate it from commercial methods of take. Angling as defined in section 1.05 means to take fish by hook and line with the line held in the hand, or with the line attached to a pole or rod held in the hand or closely attended in such manner that the fish voluntarily takes the bait or lure in its mouth. This means the fish must take the bait, lure or hook “in the mouth.â€

[bryanmc]

Roger... 2 points.
1. The law is not interpreted by law enforcement officers, it is interpreted by Judges. I think especially in this case where the regulation is so vague, an officer may cite you on "his" interpretation of the law, you can accept that or appear before a Judge who will determine the true meaning of the law.

2. Again, even Lt. Longwell did not say the hook had to be inside the mouth. He said in the mouth has been applied to mean inside the mouth ie the lure must be taken in the mouth. Surely you have seen occasions where the fish had the body of the lure inside his mouth but the hooks were outside the mouth. Do you really believe that was the intent of 2c ? Had he said the hook of an artificial lure must be inside the mouth, I would have no argument here, but he did not. He actually did nothing more than state what "in the mouth" has been defined as, in the interpretation of game and fish.

My personal opinion is that the rule should be amended to state: The intentional or deliberate foul hooking or "snagging" of fish is illegal. Tournament organizations can then add the sight fishing "in the mouth" caveat for their tournament participants.

It's always interesting when this topic comes up. The argument seems to form 2 sides, those who add the word "hook" into 2c and those who read it as it was written. It would be interesting to see how a Judge would decide. In my experience, Judges aren't real big on adding words into statutes, they decide by reading what was written.

[tunaman]

Bryan, my counter two points:

1.) All tournament organizations that I am familiar with adhere to DFG rules, and being cited by an officer or volating a rule is subject to disqualification.

2.) I do NOT agree with the rule - it is stupid as it applies to black bass and stripers. However, it is on the books and until it is either amended or removed altogether, it is a rule that is in effect.

Last word I have on this is that, IMHO, Steve Kennedy got it right and is to be commended. Fortunately for him, he was rewarded by continuing to catch enough fish to break the records and win the tournament.

Roger

[bryanmc]

Roger...
I can't argue with either of your counter points, the question still remains, however, what exactly does the rule say. That's what all the debate centers around, not if it's a foolish rule or whether violating the rule should get you dq'd.

Bryan

[CN]

Funny adult men debating whether a fish is a legal catch or not.

Happy New Year everyone

[Oldschool]

When money is the issue; grown men have been known to push the limits of the law. IF Mac Weakley didn't snagg Dottie the WRB would have been his alone and worth a few $$$.
Who knows how many CA bass tournys have been won with snagged bass??? If there isn't a hook in the basses mouth ( in or around mouth) its snagged regardless of what the bass or anglers intention was.
Happy New Years.
Tom