Recreation
Is lobster poaching from commercial traps a felony?
Question: I recently heard that a recreational lobster diver who takes lobster from a commercial lobster trap could be arrested and booked into jail on felony charges. Is this true? (Anonymous diver, Orange County)
Answer: Yes, it's true. California Penal Code, section 487 includes several subsections that describe grand theft, which is in fact, a felony.
A recreational diver who steals fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp, algae or other aquacultural products from a commercial or research operation which is producing that product of a value exceeding $250, has committed a felony.
So in addition to theft from commercial lobster traps, this also covers theft from commercial crab traps, and theft from an aquaculture facility.
You'd be surprised how easily the value of those lobsters can add up. The per pound price of California harvested spiny lobsters is as much as $32 per pound in November 2017. But even theft of less than $250 worth of lobster from a commercial trap potentially involves misdemeanor-level violations, including theft, and disturbing another person's traps (California Fish and Game Code, section 9002).
Technically the penalties and fines for each misdemeanor conviction could amount to a sentence of six months in jail and a fine of up to $1,000.
Another important note: two or more recreational divers who conspire together to commit the misdemeanor violation of stealing lobsters from a commercial trap, and steal a total amount of lobsters that exceed the $250 threshold, are also both potentially guilty of felonies.
California law and California wildlife officers take the violation of stealing from commercial fishermens' traps very seriously. In addition to being illegal, this behavior is unethical and unsportsmanlike.
If you come across an underwater trap, leave it alone!
Using a rangefinder on a compound bow
Question: Is it legal to mount a rangefinder on a compound bow when hunting deer or bear? (Roger)
Answer: Scopes with laser rangefinders are not prohibited. Just be sure the device does not project any visible light or electronically intensified light for the purpose of either visibly enhancing an animal or providing a visible point of aim on an animal (California Code of Regulations Title 14, section 353(i)).
These devices may be used only for the take of nongame and furbearing mammals as provided in the Mammal Hunting Regulations (CCR Title 14, section 264.5).
Trapping minnows for bait
Question: Is it legal under a California fishing license to trap minnows using basic minnow traps? The minnows would be used for targeted game fish (striped bass). I see regulations for commercial minnow trapping but not non-commercial. (Michael N.)
Answer: The term "minnow" often is used to refer to many different species of small baitfish, some of which belong to the minnow family.
Depending upon where in the state you plan to use the minnows and, more specifically, which species of minnow (e.g. longjaw mudsucker, fathead minnow, Mississippi silverside, etc.), you will need to check the appropriate baitfish regulations that apply to the specific waters where you intend to fish (CCR Title 14, section 4.25).
That said, approved baitfish may be taken by hand, with a dip net, or with traps not over three feet in greatest dimension (CCR Title 14, section 4.05).
If you have a question for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, email
- Details
- Written by: Carrie Wilson
SACRAMENTO – Leading a bipartisan coalition of 11 attorneys general, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra this week expressed his strong opposition to the National Park Service’s (NPS) proposal to dramatically increase entrance fees at 17 national parks, including four parks within California: Yosemite National Park, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Joshua Tree National Park.
Under the proposal, the per vehicle entrance fee during the five-month peak season would increase to $70 from $25 or $30. Motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian entrance fees would also increase by double or more.
“Our goal as a nation should be to make our national parks supremely inviting and encourage more families to visit them. Instead, the Trump Administration proposes the complete opposite – making our treasured lands less accessible to many Americans,” said Attorney General Becerra. “In particular, this proposal would disproportionately impact modest-income families that are already underrepresented among national park visitors. It is incumbent upon all of us to take any and all necessary action to oppose this dramatic increase in park entrance fees and to protect communities that rely on national parks as important economic engines.
"It is simply disingenuous for the Trump Administration to claim that this proposal to charge families more is needed to help address the maintenance backlogs at our beautiful national parks. For every dollar the punitive fee increase raises from families, the Trump Administration intends to cut more than 4 dollars from the National Park Service’s budget — almost $300 million. That backdoor math simply does not add up. It's a cruel deception for millions of hardworking families,” added Attorney General Becerra.
In their comment letter to the NPS, Attorney General Becerra and his fellow attorneys general make three main points:
– NPS’s stated justification for the fee increase is to address the serious maintenance backlog facing the national park system. However, the proposal could well reduce revenue by lowering visitation rates, and it comes at the same time that the Trump Administration is proposing to cut NPS’s budget by far more than any increased fees might generate;
– NPS has failed to consider or provide any data to support the criteria it must consider pursuant to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004, including the “aggregate effect of recreation fees on recreation users” or “the public policy or management objectives served by the recreation fee”;
– NPS’s Washington-centric approach, announcing the proposed fees for 17 parks without any detailed analysis or prior outreach to impacted communities and setting a short comment period that includes major holidays, is designed to minimize input from the American public to whom the national parks belong.
Joining Attorney General Becerra in sending the comment letter were the Attorneys General of Arizona, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
A copy of the comment letter is available at www.oag.ca.gov/news.
Under the proposal, the per vehicle entrance fee during the five-month peak season would increase to $70 from $25 or $30. Motorcycle, bicycle and pedestrian entrance fees would also increase by double or more.
“Our goal as a nation should be to make our national parks supremely inviting and encourage more families to visit them. Instead, the Trump Administration proposes the complete opposite – making our treasured lands less accessible to many Americans,” said Attorney General Becerra. “In particular, this proposal would disproportionately impact modest-income families that are already underrepresented among national park visitors. It is incumbent upon all of us to take any and all necessary action to oppose this dramatic increase in park entrance fees and to protect communities that rely on national parks as important economic engines.
"It is simply disingenuous for the Trump Administration to claim that this proposal to charge families more is needed to help address the maintenance backlogs at our beautiful national parks. For every dollar the punitive fee increase raises from families, the Trump Administration intends to cut more than 4 dollars from the National Park Service’s budget — almost $300 million. That backdoor math simply does not add up. It's a cruel deception for millions of hardworking families,” added Attorney General Becerra.
In their comment letter to the NPS, Attorney General Becerra and his fellow attorneys general make three main points:
– NPS’s stated justification for the fee increase is to address the serious maintenance backlog facing the national park system. However, the proposal could well reduce revenue by lowering visitation rates, and it comes at the same time that the Trump Administration is proposing to cut NPS’s budget by far more than any increased fees might generate;
– NPS has failed to consider or provide any data to support the criteria it must consider pursuant to the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2004, including the “aggregate effect of recreation fees on recreation users” or “the public policy or management objectives served by the recreation fee”;
– NPS’s Washington-centric approach, announcing the proposed fees for 17 parks without any detailed analysis or prior outreach to impacted communities and setting a short comment period that includes major holidays, is designed to minimize input from the American public to whom the national parks belong.
Joining Attorney General Becerra in sending the comment letter were the Attorneys General of Arizona, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and the District of Columbia.
A copy of the comment letter is available at www.oag.ca.gov/news.
- Details
- Written by: Editor
How to resolve AdBlock issue?