Went to the pier recently to try for lobsters because the season is nearly over and my son has never hooped this pier. I stopped hooping SC because of dwindling catches and maybe the reason is rampant poaching at least what I saw in a couple of hours ! We caught and released four undersized bugs . Unfortunately , we saw two groups near us both illegally taking . One group pulled their bugs without even measuring and threw it in their bucket and quickly put a lid on it . I asked if they measured and they claimed that they already did . The other pulled one in on a hook and line and promptly cut it's tail off and quickly walked to his car . I mentioned the legality on catching with a baited hook to a deaf ear . Sadly I now know that this poaching must be happening frequently if I saw this just within two hours. I should have called the dfw , but since it was late at night on a weekend I knew I probably wouldn't even got picked up . I have tried calling in poaching at another location to never even getting my call answered. On a positive note I did hear of another fisherman catch and release a bug earlier because he knew he caught it illegally. Sorry for the rant , but it's so sad to see this all happening in just a couple of hours. Can you imagine what happens all year at night there ?
Poachers at San Clemente Pier
- Thread starter alagami
- Start date
We've preached ethical angling for years but it seems too many people just turn deaf when it comes to messages like ours. Unfortunately, in part it's simply a reflection on our society and those who think it's OK to pick and choose which laws to obey (totally ignoring the moral and ethical part of the equation).
The only way to stop this is to require a fishing license on piers which will give wardens more incentive to visit the piers more often. After a few dozen of them get fined and their gear confiscated the word will get around. I just recently saw one try to take an undersized bass, trying to play stupid like they didn't know it was too small. Everyone is being politically correct but everyone knows 90% of the time it's a certain demographic of people who are doing this.
How would requiring a license impact this in any way? You get your gear confiscated and/or fined for poaching whether you
have a license or not. Poachers are not, I think, going to be concerned about having a license to take species/sizes/specimens
that they shouldn't. A criminal, by definition, doesn't obey the law. The main difference between breaking a law like speeding
or breaking a law like poaching undersized fish is that one is arbitrary whereas the other can lead to deleterious effects for an
entire species. But having wardens visit piers more often would definitely help with the problem.
have a license or not. Poachers are not, I think, going to be concerned about having a license to take species/sizes/specimens
that they shouldn't. A criminal, by definition, doesn't obey the law. The main difference between breaking a law like speeding
or breaking a law like poaching undersized fish is that one is arbitrary whereas the other can lead to deleterious effects for an
entire species. But having wardens visit piers more often would definitely help with the problem.
So the best thing the individual fisherman can do is buy a license. That's how the law is funded by the fisherman. How those funds are used is a vague notion for most of us.
It's not a perfect answer, but it's the one we've got. Here's how one source describes it in general terms.
It's not a perfect answer, but it's the one we've got. Here's how one source describes it in general terms.
- Law Enforcement:
License fees help fund law enforcement efforts to ensure compliance with fishing regulations and protect fish resources from poaching and illegal fishing activities.
Comparing Idaho and California is an apples vs. oranges issue, but here's an example of how funds are used here:
How Fishing Benefits
Half of the new annual revenue raised by the new Access/Depredation Fee will be used to improving fishing and hunting on private land from willing landowners.
In addition, Fish and Game will spend a larger portion of each fishing license sold to improve fishing in Idaho from $2 to $5 without increasing the price of a fishing license.
The increase in the angling improvement portion of fishing license sales increases the fund used to improve fishing in Idaho by about $750,000 annually.
Fish and Game’s Access/Depredation Fee benefits anglers by improving access to favorite rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs, and it dedicates more funding to improve and maintain hatcheries and popular fishing spots.
How Fishing Benefits
Half of the new annual revenue raised by the new Access/Depredation Fee will be used to improving fishing and hunting on private land from willing landowners.
In addition, Fish and Game will spend a larger portion of each fishing license sold to improve fishing in Idaho from $2 to $5 without increasing the price of a fishing license.
The increase in the angling improvement portion of fishing license sales increases the fund used to improve fishing in Idaho by about $750,000 annually.
Fish and Game’s Access/Depredation Fee benefits anglers by improving access to favorite rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs, and it dedicates more funding to improve and maintain hatcheries and popular fishing spots.
You obviously didn't clearly read what I said and/or you haven't fished in states where they don't have free pier fishing. I clearly stated it would give wardens more incentive to be out checking for licenses and hence that means they would be catching more poachers, and catching more poachers means said poachers will learn the hard way.
You didn't say that the purpose would be just checking for licenses... But I still think it would just make for a different class of poacher that doesn't
go to piers. People who knowingly poach will still do it. It would be interesting to see some statistics on the impact of types of poaching... How
much of an impact do casual poachers on piers have vs. poachers who are more serious about it? Either way, education and outreach is apparently
not much of a solution to the problem. Most public piers I've visited have at least some charts with sizes/regs on them clearly posted and just
as clearly ignored.
go to piers. People who knowingly poach will still do it. It would be interesting to see some statistics on the impact of types of poaching... How
much of an impact do casual poachers on piers have vs. poachers who are more serious about it? Either way, education and outreach is apparently
not much of a solution to the problem. Most public piers I've visited have at least some charts with sizes/regs on them clearly posted and just
as clearly ignored.
An old thread —
Date: Nov 12, 2001
To: PFIC Message Board
From: Leapin Bass
Subject: An Idea
Personally I've always believed that licenses should be required on piers. One of my reasons for this was the hope that more people would possibly learn the regs. I got a lot of flack when I posted this opinion before and some good reasons why licenses shouldn't be required on piers.
Well I just had better idea. Instead of requiring people to have licenses on piers how about requiring pierfishermen to have a regulation booklet with him/her. They are free so there will be no excuses. Anyone see anything wrong with this idea?
Posted by Songslinger
I Would Be Up For That
Posted by Leapin Bass
Seeing as piers are probably one of the top places fishing regulations are violated I'm definetely going to talk with the DFG about this idea.
Posted by baitfish
Sounds good to me! If they knew the regs enough to know you don't need a license to fish there, then they should know them enough to carry a reg book. I'm all for it. Adam
Posted by Leapin Bass
I'll add it to my list:
Slot limits for calicos
Outlaw snagging in saltwater (already outlawed in fresh)
Volunteer Warden Program
Catch and Release areas instead of complete closures
Regulation booklets required (in place of licenses) on piers
Name: baitfish
Pier License only. Why not a pier fishing license? $5 for the year...
Posted by lucy
I agree with your idea of requiring licenses on piers. Why should a license be required on the shore right next to the pier, but not on the pier itself? Ridiculous! I also think the no-license nonsense encourages poaching -- a lot of people seem to think that if the fishing is "free," that means there are no rules and they can do as they please and that fish & game laws don't apply.
Posted by Leapin Bass
THANK YOU!!!!
"I also think the no-license nonsense encourages poaching -- a lot of people seem to think that if the fishing is "free," that means there are no rules and they can do as they please and that fish & game laws don't apply." When I first came to this board I posted my opinion that licenses should be required on piers and got slammed for it because a lot of people believe there should be at least one "free" way to fish. Your statement is exactly the point I was trying to get across. I think requiring them to carry a regulation booklet would be a free way to fish and still get the message across that the regulations still apply.
Posted by minnowcatcher
I agree whole-heartedly that pier fishing should be licensed since it is regulated. The case is always going to be made however, that the less fortunate need a place to fish for food. Most of the anglers I see on the piers don't fall into that category but, none-the-less, there are some that do. Why not have an application for a free license based on low income. They already have special licenses for the disabled ... That way everybody is responsible whether they are knowledgeable or not. What do you think?
Posted by thomas
I totally agree with this idea. I've seen some fellas at Candlestick pier using 3 to 5 rods each! There were so many, I hardly had a place to fish and get this, there were only 7 people on the whole pier. Later, Thomas
Posted by acevesf
Great idea minnowcatcher! Minnow catcher brought up a good point about a fishing license at a discount price for the less fortunate. I feel a license should be required as well as reg. book. DFG also need to get on the ball and start writing some citations. It is pathetic to see these guys out there using 5 rods for one guy.
Posted by wrxfisher
Leapin' I'm OK with anglers having a book (or having it memorized) IF they are cutting up their catch for bait, or taking fish. If they are catching and releasing, then I do not believe a) licenses on public piers or jettys should be required, or b) that everyone on the pier needs to carry a book.
Posted by Ken Jones
An idea...& philosophic offshoots...I believe the original no license policy was instituted for several reasons: (1) The majority of pier anglers were youth and/or the elderly. Since no license was required for youngsters it helped free up some of the limited time that game wardens had available to catch adult law breakers. As for the elderly it was a a subtle nod of appreciation (rare in state laws) but also a belief that most were law abiding anglers. (2) A belief that the results on piers were inferior to other types of saltwater angling and thus perhaps did not require the same fees as more productive types of fishing. (3) Piers were primarily used by less affluent members of the angling fraternity and thus they had less money to buy licenses. (4) Piers were very crowded and somewhat difficult to patrol.
I think there are some serious problems with each of these assumptions -- although there is also some truth to them. Unfortunately, these laws were made many, many years ago and do not represent much of today's reality.
However, even with these faults I have no problem with the no license requirement. And, I have no problem with requiring licenses. The bigger problem is getting all anglers, those with a license as well as those without a license to honor the laws. I do not think it makes much of a difference to either side. I've seen many people with licenses break laws and many without carefully follow the laws.
In my humble opinion the following MIGHT lead to improvement and long range improvement to the fishery:
(1) Certification before a person can can start fishing. What it would mean would be classes in ecology, the environment, fish identification, angling laws and how to catch fish. Onorous and draconian? You bet. But some countries now follow such a scheme and they have far less problems with law breakers than we do. Of course there are problems with such an approach. Of course I would like to take my granddaughter (grandson, son, daughter, etc.) fishing without first having to take them to some classes. But wouldn't they become better anglers in the process?
(2) Base fishing license fees on criteria that are reasonable and explainable to anglers. If you're going to protect striped bass and have a hatchery to insure their survival then you have a sriper stamp; in not, you don't. The same regarding freshwater trout and any other number of species. Let the angler know that he/she is actually getting some sort of benefit for the money invested in a license.
(3) Take the Fish & Game out of the hands of politicians AND give priority to fish survival and habitat improvement over the needs to placate the commercial fisheries. Until Fish and Game shows that it can control the commercial fisheries there is little room to believe that our fisheries will improve -- or even survive. As currently mandated the Fish and Game can not be effective and it has shown that repeatedly by their actions over the last 20-40-60-80 years.
(4) Enforce the laws.
(5) Listen to angling groups when decisions and new laws are made, Too often decisions are left to the "scientists" and too often they are wrong.
What will really happen? Probably none of these things. The environment will continue to degrade and the overall number of fish (especially quality fish) will continue to decline. But I pretty much have taken a Taoist attitude and try to accept the world as it is. I will continue to fish the piers, continue to catch far more than I did in the '60s and '70s, and simply try to lead an individual life respecting the laws and the environment. Am I happy about the type of angling world I see on my visits to the piers? Sometimes no — sometimes yes. But I think if we each operate on a personally honorable basis it's a good start. Then if we can convince one other person in the right approach we've made progress. And hopefully, it could multiply. But do I really see a huge improvement being possible? I don't think so but I truly hope I am wrong.
Posted by rock it man
Well, this is one of those some black, some white and a whole lotta gray arguments. What I mean by that is that everyone (except poachers who probably don't stay on the board long) is right; or at least no one is wrong. Now, the DFG has a good idea in having free fishing days. That is to encourage people to try fishing and, therefore, support California fisheries by buying licenses. There are 2 free days a year. How about July/August free pier fishing months? Or maybe certain weeks throughout that add up to...say 28 days/year? My "logic" for this is that if it weren't for free pier fishing, I'd be fishing without my wife. Now that she fishes, sees poachers, sees (feels) the excitement of nature, etc., etc.; I was able to justify both of us buying a license to support the continuation, or chance of continuation of these experiences to our children. Even though I often disagree significantly with the DFG's methods, actions and choices.
Ken, I'll have to think about that testing idea. Offhand it seems right. Every other California license requires some type of test, however minimal.
Posted by lucy
Draconian? Not at all! I was thinking that fishing licenses should be treated much as driver's licenses are -- you have to take a course in "fishing ed" and pass a written test before you can get a license. The written test would cover things such as I.D. of local species, conservation principles, handling and release procedures, and size/bag limits.
Posted by stinkyfingers
Pass tests? You know what? It's so funny how easy it is to get your hands on a GUN — I really doubt we could accomplish anything better with a fishing test.
After all, to pass the Basic Firearms Safety Test, you can miss up to 7 out of 30 questions. This is ridiculous! I think if you miss more than one, you should wait 6 months until you take the test again. I simply cannot believe that there are people out there that own a gun and actually missed 7 of those questions! VERY SCARY.
And with fishing, I'm sure we could not do better...Pesemistic? perhaps...or perhaps I've seen how low the expections for responsibility are for "regulated" tests.
Posted by lucy
Yeah, so? Driver's license tests are pretty Mickey-Mouse, and the percentage required to pass is probably not very high (no more than 70% or so), but is that a reason to forego testing entirely?
The mere fact of having to take and pass a test is sufficient to force most people to at least read the driver's handbook, which many of them would not do otherwise. Having to take and pass a fishing test would motivate people to read the regulations, which far too many of them do not now do. That's the whole point of the testing.
I agree that the standards should be more strict for firearms safety tests, and considerably more strict for driver's license tests. But even a Mickey-Mouse test is better than none.
Posted by Red Fish
That's the best idea I've heard.
Posted by tokyo72
The Idiot Factor! I am definitely on the side of the Fish and Game Dept., but I think that the literature should be more clear. I once took a technical writing class from a professor that boasted that he could make $500.00/hr. on the outside. I had to write instructions for maintaining a jet-fighter engine. The paper got an "F." I was astounded. "What went wrong," I asked, "I really worked hard on this." My professor told me, "Ken, the average jet mechanic has only a 5th grade education and has been smoking pot all day. Most pilots insist on taking their mechanics up with them on the first run."
Posted by Ed
No Money For Enforcement. I love a lot of these ideas, and would be very happy to see them instituted, but there's not a chance. The DFG simply doesn't have the money to do it.
From what I see on piers, I'd bet it would be a rare day that a warden couldn't take a walk down any of them and nail people left and right. Geez, I think a career could be made on Pacifica Pier alone. The piers are rarely checked now, even though everyone knows that poaching is rampant there.
My understanding is that the money from tickets that are issued goes to the local governments and not DFG, so they couldn't pay for wardens by giving out more tickets for these infractions. Can anyone verify that?
Posted by rock it man
No emphasis on Enforcement. I can't verify that, but...Charge $5 for the test, but not for renewal testing. Keep the trial and error people way. You miss 2 years in a row you pay again.
Licensing for pier anglers equals more revenue. Also...Every Warden that I have ever seen, except one, has had a partner. So, they could pretty much double their efficiency in enforcement just by going solo with almost no increase in cost. And don't tell me it's because of vehicles. Load a van with 12 wardens, drop them of at different locations and let 'em walk around along the piers, shores, rocks and jetties. Pick 'em up at the end of the day. They are all armed, but local police, sherriffs and CHP can be called for back-up if they're nervous.
Posted by baitfish
Most places where the wardens have partners is becase of the danger to the wardens. DFG officers have the highest rate of assault then any other enforcement agency in the US.
Posted by rock it man
Therefor my last sentence. Or shouldn't all law enforcement agencies enforce laws? With a DFG official there jurisdiction is covered.
Posted by Leapin Bass
Personally I've always believed that licenses should be required on piers. One of my reasons for this was the hope that more people would possibly learn the regs. I got a lot of flack when I posted this opinion before and some good reasons why licenses shouldn't be required on piers.
Well I just had better idea. Instead of requiring people to have licenses on piers how about requiring pierfishermen to have a regulation booklet with him/her. They are free so there will be no excuses. Anyone see anything wrong with this idea?
Date: Nov 12, 2001
To: PFIC Message Board
From: Leapin Bass
Subject: An Idea
Personally I've always believed that licenses should be required on piers. One of my reasons for this was the hope that more people would possibly learn the regs. I got a lot of flack when I posted this opinion before and some good reasons why licenses shouldn't be required on piers.
Well I just had better idea. Instead of requiring people to have licenses on piers how about requiring pierfishermen to have a regulation booklet with him/her. They are free so there will be no excuses. Anyone see anything wrong with this idea?
Posted by Songslinger
I Would Be Up For That
Posted by Leapin Bass
Seeing as piers are probably one of the top places fishing regulations are violated I'm definetely going to talk with the DFG about this idea.
Posted by baitfish
Sounds good to me! If they knew the regs enough to know you don't need a license to fish there, then they should know them enough to carry a reg book. I'm all for it. Adam
Posted by Leapin Bass
I'll add it to my list:
Slot limits for calicos
Outlaw snagging in saltwater (already outlawed in fresh)
Volunteer Warden Program
Catch and Release areas instead of complete closures
Regulation booklets required (in place of licenses) on piers
Name: baitfish
Pier License only. Why not a pier fishing license? $5 for the year...
Posted by lucy
I agree with your idea of requiring licenses on piers. Why should a license be required on the shore right next to the pier, but not on the pier itself? Ridiculous! I also think the no-license nonsense encourages poaching -- a lot of people seem to think that if the fishing is "free," that means there are no rules and they can do as they please and that fish & game laws don't apply.
Posted by Leapin Bass
THANK YOU!!!!
"I also think the no-license nonsense encourages poaching -- a lot of people seem to think that if the fishing is "free," that means there are no rules and they can do as they please and that fish & game laws don't apply." When I first came to this board I posted my opinion that licenses should be required on piers and got slammed for it because a lot of people believe there should be at least one "free" way to fish. Your statement is exactly the point I was trying to get across. I think requiring them to carry a regulation booklet would be a free way to fish and still get the message across that the regulations still apply.
Posted by minnowcatcher
I agree whole-heartedly that pier fishing should be licensed since it is regulated. The case is always going to be made however, that the less fortunate need a place to fish for food. Most of the anglers I see on the piers don't fall into that category but, none-the-less, there are some that do. Why not have an application for a free license based on low income. They already have special licenses for the disabled ... That way everybody is responsible whether they are knowledgeable or not. What do you think?
Posted by thomas
I totally agree with this idea. I've seen some fellas at Candlestick pier using 3 to 5 rods each! There were so many, I hardly had a place to fish and get this, there were only 7 people on the whole pier. Later, Thomas
Posted by acevesf
Great idea minnowcatcher! Minnow catcher brought up a good point about a fishing license at a discount price for the less fortunate. I feel a license should be required as well as reg. book. DFG also need to get on the ball and start writing some citations. It is pathetic to see these guys out there using 5 rods for one guy.
Posted by wrxfisher
Leapin' I'm OK with anglers having a book (or having it memorized) IF they are cutting up their catch for bait, or taking fish. If they are catching and releasing, then I do not believe a) licenses on public piers or jettys should be required, or b) that everyone on the pier needs to carry a book.
Posted by Ken Jones
An idea...& philosophic offshoots...I believe the original no license policy was instituted for several reasons: (1) The majority of pier anglers were youth and/or the elderly. Since no license was required for youngsters it helped free up some of the limited time that game wardens had available to catch adult law breakers. As for the elderly it was a a subtle nod of appreciation (rare in state laws) but also a belief that most were law abiding anglers. (2) A belief that the results on piers were inferior to other types of saltwater angling and thus perhaps did not require the same fees as more productive types of fishing. (3) Piers were primarily used by less affluent members of the angling fraternity and thus they had less money to buy licenses. (4) Piers were very crowded and somewhat difficult to patrol.
I think there are some serious problems with each of these assumptions -- although there is also some truth to them. Unfortunately, these laws were made many, many years ago and do not represent much of today's reality.
However, even with these faults I have no problem with the no license requirement. And, I have no problem with requiring licenses. The bigger problem is getting all anglers, those with a license as well as those without a license to honor the laws. I do not think it makes much of a difference to either side. I've seen many people with licenses break laws and many without carefully follow the laws.
In my humble opinion the following MIGHT lead to improvement and long range improvement to the fishery:
(1) Certification before a person can can start fishing. What it would mean would be classes in ecology, the environment, fish identification, angling laws and how to catch fish. Onorous and draconian? You bet. But some countries now follow such a scheme and they have far less problems with law breakers than we do. Of course there are problems with such an approach. Of course I would like to take my granddaughter (grandson, son, daughter, etc.) fishing without first having to take them to some classes. But wouldn't they become better anglers in the process?
(2) Base fishing license fees on criteria that are reasonable and explainable to anglers. If you're going to protect striped bass and have a hatchery to insure their survival then you have a sriper stamp; in not, you don't. The same regarding freshwater trout and any other number of species. Let the angler know that he/she is actually getting some sort of benefit for the money invested in a license.
(3) Take the Fish & Game out of the hands of politicians AND give priority to fish survival and habitat improvement over the needs to placate the commercial fisheries. Until Fish and Game shows that it can control the commercial fisheries there is little room to believe that our fisheries will improve -- or even survive. As currently mandated the Fish and Game can not be effective and it has shown that repeatedly by their actions over the last 20-40-60-80 years.
(4) Enforce the laws.
(5) Listen to angling groups when decisions and new laws are made, Too often decisions are left to the "scientists" and too often they are wrong.
What will really happen? Probably none of these things. The environment will continue to degrade and the overall number of fish (especially quality fish) will continue to decline. But I pretty much have taken a Taoist attitude and try to accept the world as it is. I will continue to fish the piers, continue to catch far more than I did in the '60s and '70s, and simply try to lead an individual life respecting the laws and the environment. Am I happy about the type of angling world I see on my visits to the piers? Sometimes no — sometimes yes. But I think if we each operate on a personally honorable basis it's a good start. Then if we can convince one other person in the right approach we've made progress. And hopefully, it could multiply. But do I really see a huge improvement being possible? I don't think so but I truly hope I am wrong.
Posted by rock it man
Well, this is one of those some black, some white and a whole lotta gray arguments. What I mean by that is that everyone (except poachers who probably don't stay on the board long) is right; or at least no one is wrong. Now, the DFG has a good idea in having free fishing days. That is to encourage people to try fishing and, therefore, support California fisheries by buying licenses. There are 2 free days a year. How about July/August free pier fishing months? Or maybe certain weeks throughout that add up to...say 28 days/year? My "logic" for this is that if it weren't for free pier fishing, I'd be fishing without my wife. Now that she fishes, sees poachers, sees (feels) the excitement of nature, etc., etc.; I was able to justify both of us buying a license to support the continuation, or chance of continuation of these experiences to our children. Even though I often disagree significantly with the DFG's methods, actions and choices.
Ken, I'll have to think about that testing idea. Offhand it seems right. Every other California license requires some type of test, however minimal.
Posted by lucy
Draconian? Not at all! I was thinking that fishing licenses should be treated much as driver's licenses are -- you have to take a course in "fishing ed" and pass a written test before you can get a license. The written test would cover things such as I.D. of local species, conservation principles, handling and release procedures, and size/bag limits.
Posted by stinkyfingers
Pass tests? You know what? It's so funny how easy it is to get your hands on a GUN — I really doubt we could accomplish anything better with a fishing test.
After all, to pass the Basic Firearms Safety Test, you can miss up to 7 out of 30 questions. This is ridiculous! I think if you miss more than one, you should wait 6 months until you take the test again. I simply cannot believe that there are people out there that own a gun and actually missed 7 of those questions! VERY SCARY.
And with fishing, I'm sure we could not do better...Pesemistic? perhaps...or perhaps I've seen how low the expections for responsibility are for "regulated" tests.
Posted by lucy
Yeah, so? Driver's license tests are pretty Mickey-Mouse, and the percentage required to pass is probably not very high (no more than 70% or so), but is that a reason to forego testing entirely?
The mere fact of having to take and pass a test is sufficient to force most people to at least read the driver's handbook, which many of them would not do otherwise. Having to take and pass a fishing test would motivate people to read the regulations, which far too many of them do not now do. That's the whole point of the testing.
I agree that the standards should be more strict for firearms safety tests, and considerably more strict for driver's license tests. But even a Mickey-Mouse test is better than none.
Posted by Red Fish
That's the best idea I've heard.
Posted by tokyo72
The Idiot Factor! I am definitely on the side of the Fish and Game Dept., but I think that the literature should be more clear. I once took a technical writing class from a professor that boasted that he could make $500.00/hr. on the outside. I had to write instructions for maintaining a jet-fighter engine. The paper got an "F." I was astounded. "What went wrong," I asked, "I really worked hard on this." My professor told me, "Ken, the average jet mechanic has only a 5th grade education and has been smoking pot all day. Most pilots insist on taking their mechanics up with them on the first run."
Posted by Ed
No Money For Enforcement. I love a lot of these ideas, and would be very happy to see them instituted, but there's not a chance. The DFG simply doesn't have the money to do it.
From what I see on piers, I'd bet it would be a rare day that a warden couldn't take a walk down any of them and nail people left and right. Geez, I think a career could be made on Pacifica Pier alone. The piers are rarely checked now, even though everyone knows that poaching is rampant there.
My understanding is that the money from tickets that are issued goes to the local governments and not DFG, so they couldn't pay for wardens by giving out more tickets for these infractions. Can anyone verify that?
Posted by rock it man
No emphasis on Enforcement. I can't verify that, but...Charge $5 for the test, but not for renewal testing. Keep the trial and error people way. You miss 2 years in a row you pay again.
Licensing for pier anglers equals more revenue. Also...Every Warden that I have ever seen, except one, has had a partner. So, they could pretty much double their efficiency in enforcement just by going solo with almost no increase in cost. And don't tell me it's because of vehicles. Load a van with 12 wardens, drop them of at different locations and let 'em walk around along the piers, shores, rocks and jetties. Pick 'em up at the end of the day. They are all armed, but local police, sherriffs and CHP can be called for back-up if they're nervous.
Posted by baitfish
Most places where the wardens have partners is becase of the danger to the wardens. DFG officers have the highest rate of assault then any other enforcement agency in the US.
Posted by rock it man
Therefor my last sentence. Or shouldn't all law enforcement agencies enforce laws? With a DFG official there jurisdiction is covered.
Posted by Leapin Bass
Personally I've always believed that licenses should be required on piers. One of my reasons for this was the hope that more people would possibly learn the regs. I got a lot of flack when I posted this opinion before and some good reasons why licenses shouldn't be required on piers.
Well I just had better idea. Instead of requiring people to have licenses on piers how about requiring pierfishermen to have a regulation booklet with him/her. They are free so there will be no excuses. Anyone see anything wrong with this idea?
Requiring a license that doesn't require an exam to obtain isn't going to help with any of the actual poaching problems
because the poachers just don't care. All it will do is force them to move to the non-pier places that have less pressure
on them to avoid the law... Even then, poachers will still poach. It would only be punishing honest people by either
force them to start fishing illegally or to stop fishing at all.
As for the people doing the actual poaching, I don't think poachers who are doing it to survive or to feed themselves or
family are the problem. Poachers who keep things they shouldn't when they 1) don't need to, 2) are most likely going to
wind up letting it sit in their freezer and eventually dispose of it without eating it, 3) Have the mindset that "I caught it
and I want to keep it" whether they will be eating it or not. Well, and of course the biggest problem of all are the commercial
poachers who take thousands of pounds of illegal take each.
I just deleted a lot of material discussing this issue because it can be summed up rather simply... Is casual poaching, as it
occurs now, a problem to begin with, or do the current regs and enforcement (and peer (pier?) pressure from other
fishermen) keep the rates low enough to be a non-issue regarding the health of the fishery? If the answer is Yes, then it's
fine. Focus on the true problem (commercial and volume poachers). When I think about casual pier-poaching I think the
reason it is so viscerally disturbing is because outside observers will cast me, when I spend a decent amount of effort to
behave in a safe, sustainable, and ethical manner, in the same light as someone poaching and who has no regard for the
fishery. But when considered rationally I think the reaction is more emotional than logical.
because the poachers just don't care. All it will do is force them to move to the non-pier places that have less pressure
on them to avoid the law... Even then, poachers will still poach. It would only be punishing honest people by either
force them to start fishing illegally or to stop fishing at all.
As for the people doing the actual poaching, I don't think poachers who are doing it to survive or to feed themselves or
family are the problem. Poachers who keep things they shouldn't when they 1) don't need to, 2) are most likely going to
wind up letting it sit in their freezer and eventually dispose of it without eating it, 3) Have the mindset that "I caught it
and I want to keep it" whether they will be eating it or not. Well, and of course the biggest problem of all are the commercial
poachers who take thousands of pounds of illegal take each.
I just deleted a lot of material discussing this issue because it can be summed up rather simply... Is casual poaching, as it
occurs now, a problem to begin with, or do the current regs and enforcement (and peer (pier?) pressure from other
fishermen) keep the rates low enough to be a non-issue regarding the health of the fishery? If the answer is Yes, then it's
fine. Focus on the true problem (commercial and volume poachers). When I think about casual pier-poaching I think the
reason it is so viscerally disturbing is because outside observers will cast me, when I spend a decent amount of effort to
behave in a safe, sustainable, and ethical manner, in the same light as someone poaching and who has no regard for the
fishery. But when considered rationally I think the reaction is more emotional than logical.
The Venusians will reveal themselves once our greenhouse gas levels are beyond any hope of changing and the Earth is well along
the path towards being Venusiformed.
The fish we try to catch will be extremophiles that no longer are stuck sticking close to volcanic vents as the ocean chemistry changes,
acidifies, and heats up.
Our major catches will be algae/jellyfish like hybrid creatures that we shoot at from piers with non-corrosive harpoons as they drift by.
They will have to be processed extensively, but will become a major source of protein since there won't be much that can grow edibly in
the ground any more without major interference.
The fishing stories we tell will be about fishing with simple rod, reel, and line that we didn't have to worry about dissolving before we
could reel in the cast and being able to eat what we caught without having to detoxify it extensively before eating. Stories about eating
sushi, sashimi, and ceviche will be met with disbelief and incredulity.
This won't be as much of an issue as it seems though because with few exceptions most of the population will have passed away or
will be permanently logged into virtual reality in a desperate attempt to escape from the horrible reality that is the world.
The really scary part of the above is that the only truly unlikely part of the scenario is the bit about the Venusians... and maybe the 25 year
time frame is just a tad bit too brief...
the path towards being Venusiformed.
The fish we try to catch will be extremophiles that no longer are stuck sticking close to volcanic vents as the ocean chemistry changes,
acidifies, and heats up.
Our major catches will be algae/jellyfish like hybrid creatures that we shoot at from piers with non-corrosive harpoons as they drift by.
They will have to be processed extensively, but will become a major source of protein since there won't be much that can grow edibly in
the ground any more without major interference.
The fishing stories we tell will be about fishing with simple rod, reel, and line that we didn't have to worry about dissolving before we
could reel in the cast and being able to eat what we caught without having to detoxify it extensively before eating. Stories about eating
sushi, sashimi, and ceviche will be met with disbelief and incredulity.
This won't be as much of an issue as it seems though because with few exceptions most of the population will have passed away or
will be permanently logged into virtual reality in a desperate attempt to escape from the horrible reality that is the world.
The really scary part of the above is that the only truly unlikely part of the scenario is the bit about the Venusians... and maybe the 25 year
time frame is just a tad bit too brief...
Some history regarding licenses for pier fishermen —
The new State law requiring people fishing for game fish to secure a license has caused considerable agitation among pier fishermen. It has been rumored around that all people fishing for salt water or fresh water fish would have to take out a license.
A letter received by George Cline from the State Game and Fish Commission clears up this misunderstanding and will put the pier fishermen at ease. The letter states that only people fishing for game fish and members of the Rod and Reel Club will have to secure a license. The game fish includes all fresh water fish and certain salt water fish. The tuna, jewfish and other game fish at Catalina will be protected by this law and yellowtail come under the ban.
People fishing off the piers will not have to secure a license. All salt water fishing for profit is exempt from this tax. This license is to help protect the game fish and to raise funds for the purpose of keeping up the hatcheries and restock the fishing grounds.— Los Angeles Times, February 19, 1914
Fishing Boats and barges were empty and Pine Avenue pier deserted by all but a handful of fishermen as a result of the State Fish and Game Commission enforcing the old law requiring licenses for ocean angling; scores of tourists announced they were going to the Gulf of Mexico and Florida where taxation was not required. —Long Beach Independent, February 8, 1930
Pier Fishing Puzzle Solved — Newport Beach — Questions of fishing licenses were answered today to the satisfaction of anglers.
Anyone may fish from piers of Newport Beach and Balboa, or other coastal cities, without purchasing a state license, according to notice received from J.P. Cassidy, assistant secretary of the California Fish and Game commission. It is required that sport fish caught in surf-fishing be thrown back into the ocean. Fishing from sport boats requires a license. —Santa Ana Register, March 2, 1938
Santa Cruz sportsmen were alarmed Friday over the proposal of Assemblyman Harrison Call of San Mateo to submit a bill to the state legislature which would require salt water fishermen to pay $1 for an angling license to fish from wharves or in the surf in California.
The assemblyman, chairman of the assembly interim fish and game committee, said the bill, which would tax anglers who fish off the local municipal wharf $1, will be introduced at the 1942 session of the legislature. (Under existing laws, there is no license required to fish off the wharf or in deep sea for non-game fish).
Call said the plan is “exactly what the sportsmen and commercial fish and game interests in California want in the way of a new law,” the United Press reported.
Merle Briggs, president of the Santa Cruz Rod and Gun club, said that “on the surface the bill sounds like a good thing. The fish and game commission spends money to protect these fish that are caught from the wharf, they fight for preservation of sardines, and I feel that those who fish should pay something for that right.”
Secretary Mike Morelli of the same organization took an opposite stand on the proposal.
Morelli pointed out that the enforcement angle of the bill would be a problem and he pointed out also that a fisherman, by buying a $1 license, would be eligible to fish for game fish, which now costs any angler $2.
Present law, which permits fishing without a license from piers, requires that no game fish be taken. In order to catch game fish a $2 license is required. The proposed law would probably be to the liking of San Francisco’s 60,000 striped bass fishermen, Morelli said, in pointing out that they are now required to buy a $2 license.
Malio J. Stagnaro, active in all sportsmen’s affairs, said he was against any move to tax “poor man’s fishing,” as deep sea fishing for non-game fish is called.
“It is all wrong to charge for poor mans’ fishing,” he said. “Deep sea and wharf fishing has always been regarded as poor man’s fishing and with a license required, you will see the number of fishermen decrease greatly.
He pointed out that if the proposed bill should become a law, anglers could wade out into the mouth of the San Lorenzo river and fish with a $1 license, half the price of a regular license.
The San Lorenzo river, mecca for anglers during the winter steelhead run which starts in January, will be able to be fished for $1 in its tidal water areas. However, it would cost $2 to advance up the stream to do any angling for the same fish in fresh water.
Senator H. R. Judah, declining to comment on the bill until he had read it, said he wants to talk with Assemblyman Call in regard to the motive of the bill.
“There is a growing sentiment in Sacramento opposing taxation of inherent rights of Californians and this would apply to those who fish from wharves and surfs of the state,” the senator added.
One sportsman said he believed the proposed bill was written to favor southern California anglers who do not have streams nearby from which to fish for fresh water fish. Most of the angling in the south is done from barges and small boats. Fishing for game and non-game fish would appear legal under the early interpretations of the proposal, he said.—Santa Cruz Evening News, November 7, 1941
Sports And Wharf Fishermen To Need License After Friday
Deepsea sports and wharf fishing will probably drop 25 to 50 percent when a new fish and game law, passed by the last state legislature, goes into effect Friday, Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing corporation predicts.
The law will require persons 16 years of age and over to buy a $2 fishing license before they can legally drop a line into salt water here and throughout the state. After January 1, the license fee will increase to $3, Stagnaro said, adding that the assembly bill, 610 and 745, will affect not only pleasure fishermen who may only practice the sport here once a year but also aged and convalescents.
It will put an end to the last tax fee privilege of the people of California and will retard business in the entire Santa Cruz bay area, Stagnaro pointed out. Already, according to the commercial fishermen, many people have called the wharf protesting the law in the last four or five days.
“This act will not be felt by the commercial fishermen, but will, without doubt greatly hinder the sports and poor class of fishermen,” Stagnaro added. —Santa Cruz Sentinel, September 19, 1947
Sacramento, June 21 (AP)—A bill permitting you to fish in the ocean from a public pier without a license was signed today by Governor Warren. But the fishing must be for fun, not for profit, says the new law, proposed by Assemblyman Gordon R. Hahn, R., Los Angeles. The statue goes into effect in September. —Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 21, 1951
Anglers who frequent the Santa Cruz Wharf for fishing the year around are wearing broad smiles in anticipation of free fishing beginning September 1. Governor Earl Warren last week signed the measure which will permit public pier fishing without a license, as long as the fishing is for fun and not for profit. Those who fish for profit must continue to purchase a license.—Santa Cruz Sentinel-News, June 24, 1951
No License for Pier Fishing
Thousands of persons who annually enjoy fishing in ocean waters at Princeton and in San Francisco bay waters forming the eastern boundary of San Mateo county, will not have to provide themselves a state fishing license if the fishing is done from a public pier, State Attorney General Edmund G. Brown had ruled today.
The ruling will affect particularly those who fish from the Patroni pier at Princeton and those who fish from the Redwood City municipal yacht harbor piers. An estimate made at Hazel’s Seafood Tavern at the entrance to Patroni’s pier, Princeton, was that more than 24,000 persons annually fish from this pier. The average is 15 to 20 daily and more than 400 each on Saturday and Sunday, almost the year round. No estimate was available at the Redwood City harbor. At the present time smelt, perch, flounder and king fish are being caught in abundance at the Princeton pier.
Brown made his ruling at the request of the state division of fish and game to clarify changes in fish and game provisions made at the last session of the legislature, He said ocean waters of the state include all enclosed bays along the coast which are contiguous to the ocean, such as Humboldt, Tomales, San Francisco, San Pedro and San Diego bays.
Also included are open roadsteads such as Santa Monica, Monterey and San Luis Obispo bays.—San Mateo Times, October 10, 1951
Anglers Need No License On Piers—Fishermen of distinction. That’s what you might call anglers who fish on public piers in ocean waters, because these anglers are not required to have a state license to fish. However, if the pier is not open to the public then a license is required.—Los Angeles Times, April 3, 1960
Pier Fishermen Need No License
The new State law requiring people fishing for game fish to secure a license has caused considerable agitation among pier fishermen. It has been rumored around that all people fishing for salt water or fresh water fish would have to take out a license.
A letter received by George Cline from the State Game and Fish Commission clears up this misunderstanding and will put the pier fishermen at ease. The letter states that only people fishing for game fish and members of the Rod and Reel Club will have to secure a license. The game fish includes all fresh water fish and certain salt water fish. The tuna, jewfish and other game fish at Catalina will be protected by this law and yellowtail come under the ban.
People fishing off the piers will not have to secure a license. All salt water fishing for profit is exempt from this tax. This license is to help protect the game fish and to raise funds for the purpose of keeping up the hatcheries and restock the fishing grounds.— Los Angeles Times, February 19, 1914
Fishing Boats and barges were empty and Pine Avenue pier deserted by all but a handful of fishermen as a result of the State Fish and Game Commission enforcing the old law requiring licenses for ocean angling; scores of tourists announced they were going to the Gulf of Mexico and Florida where taxation was not required. —Long Beach Independent, February 8, 1930
Pier Fishing Puzzle Solved — Newport Beach — Questions of fishing licenses were answered today to the satisfaction of anglers.
Anyone may fish from piers of Newport Beach and Balboa, or other coastal cities, without purchasing a state license, according to notice received from J.P. Cassidy, assistant secretary of the California Fish and Game commission. It is required that sport fish caught in surf-fishing be thrown back into the ocean. Fishing from sport boats requires a license. —Santa Ana Register, March 2, 1938
Move Called Slap At ‘Poor Man’s’ Fishing
Santa Cruz sportsmen were alarmed Friday over the proposal of Assemblyman Harrison Call of San Mateo to submit a bill to the state legislature which would require salt water fishermen to pay $1 for an angling license to fish from wharves or in the surf in California.
The assemblyman, chairman of the assembly interim fish and game committee, said the bill, which would tax anglers who fish off the local municipal wharf $1, will be introduced at the 1942 session of the legislature. (Under existing laws, there is no license required to fish off the wharf or in deep sea for non-game fish).
Call said the plan is “exactly what the sportsmen and commercial fish and game interests in California want in the way of a new law,” the United Press reported.
Merle Briggs, president of the Santa Cruz Rod and Gun club, said that “on the surface the bill sounds like a good thing. The fish and game commission spends money to protect these fish that are caught from the wharf, they fight for preservation of sardines, and I feel that those who fish should pay something for that right.”
Secretary Mike Morelli of the same organization took an opposite stand on the proposal.
Morelli pointed out that the enforcement angle of the bill would be a problem and he pointed out also that a fisherman, by buying a $1 license, would be eligible to fish for game fish, which now costs any angler $2.
Present law, which permits fishing without a license from piers, requires that no game fish be taken. In order to catch game fish a $2 license is required. The proposed law would probably be to the liking of San Francisco’s 60,000 striped bass fishermen, Morelli said, in pointing out that they are now required to buy a $2 license.
Malio J. Stagnaro, active in all sportsmen’s affairs, said he was against any move to tax “poor man’s fishing,” as deep sea fishing for non-game fish is called.
“It is all wrong to charge for poor mans’ fishing,” he said. “Deep sea and wharf fishing has always been regarded as poor man’s fishing and with a license required, you will see the number of fishermen decrease greatly.
He pointed out that if the proposed bill should become a law, anglers could wade out into the mouth of the San Lorenzo river and fish with a $1 license, half the price of a regular license.
The San Lorenzo river, mecca for anglers during the winter steelhead run which starts in January, will be able to be fished for $1 in its tidal water areas. However, it would cost $2 to advance up the stream to do any angling for the same fish in fresh water.
Senator H. R. Judah, declining to comment on the bill until he had read it, said he wants to talk with Assemblyman Call in regard to the motive of the bill.
“There is a growing sentiment in Sacramento opposing taxation of inherent rights of Californians and this would apply to those who fish from wharves and surfs of the state,” the senator added.
One sportsman said he believed the proposed bill was written to favor southern California anglers who do not have streams nearby from which to fish for fresh water fish. Most of the angling in the south is done from barges and small boats. Fishing for game and non-game fish would appear legal under the early interpretations of the proposal, he said.—Santa Cruz Evening News, November 7, 1941
Sports And Wharf Fishermen To Need License After Friday
Deepsea sports and wharf fishing will probably drop 25 to 50 percent when a new fish and game law, passed by the last state legislature, goes into effect Friday, Malio Stagnaro of the Stagnaro Fishing corporation predicts.
The law will require persons 16 years of age and over to buy a $2 fishing license before they can legally drop a line into salt water here and throughout the state. After January 1, the license fee will increase to $3, Stagnaro said, adding that the assembly bill, 610 and 745, will affect not only pleasure fishermen who may only practice the sport here once a year but also aged and convalescents.
It will put an end to the last tax fee privilege of the people of California and will retard business in the entire Santa Cruz bay area, Stagnaro pointed out. Already, according to the commercial fishermen, many people have called the wharf protesting the law in the last four or five days.
“This act will not be felt by the commercial fishermen, but will, without doubt greatly hinder the sports and poor class of fishermen,” Stagnaro added. —Santa Cruz Sentinel, September 19, 1947
A bill is before the state legislature to allow pier fishing without the customary $3 license fee. That will make great copy for another sermon which we'll do in our next column, entitled "What’s Wrong With the License Setup?" —Andy Anderson, Fishin’ Along The Coast, The Long Beach Independent, June 1, 1951Governor Signs Non-License Public Pier Fishing Bill
Sacramento, June 21 (AP)—A bill permitting you to fish in the ocean from a public pier without a license was signed today by Governor Warren. But the fishing must be for fun, not for profit, says the new law, proposed by Assemblyman Gordon R. Hahn, R., Los Angeles. The statue goes into effect in September. —Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 21, 1951
Anglers who frequent the Santa Cruz Wharf for fishing the year around are wearing broad smiles in anticipation of free fishing beginning September 1. Governor Earl Warren last week signed the measure which will permit public pier fishing without a license, as long as the fishing is for fun and not for profit. Those who fish for profit must continue to purchase a license.—Santa Cruz Sentinel-News, June 24, 1951
No License for Pier Fishing
Thousands of persons who annually enjoy fishing in ocean waters at Princeton and in San Francisco bay waters forming the eastern boundary of San Mateo county, will not have to provide themselves a state fishing license if the fishing is done from a public pier, State Attorney General Edmund G. Brown had ruled today.
The ruling will affect particularly those who fish from the Patroni pier at Princeton and those who fish from the Redwood City municipal yacht harbor piers. An estimate made at Hazel’s Seafood Tavern at the entrance to Patroni’s pier, Princeton, was that more than 24,000 persons annually fish from this pier. The average is 15 to 20 daily and more than 400 each on Saturday and Sunday, almost the year round. No estimate was available at the Redwood City harbor. At the present time smelt, perch, flounder and king fish are being caught in abundance at the Princeton pier.
Brown made his ruling at the request of the state division of fish and game to clarify changes in fish and game provisions made at the last session of the legislature, He said ocean waters of the state include all enclosed bays along the coast which are contiguous to the ocean, such as Humboldt, Tomales, San Francisco, San Pedro and San Diego bays.
Also included are open roadsteads such as Santa Monica, Monterey and San Luis Obispo bays.—San Mateo Times, October 10, 1951
Anglers Need No License On Piers—Fishermen of distinction. That’s what you might call anglers who fish on public piers in ocean waters, because these anglers are not required to have a state license to fish. However, if the pier is not open to the public then a license is required.—Los Angeles Times, April 3, 1960