Quote:
Originally Posted by GregB
So I laid in the coords for LB up through Malibu, and it appears that point-to-point, there's a lot of water within the boundary that's deeper than 600 feet/100 fathoms. I'm going to call CA DFG Monday to get some input but I'm wondering if that means that one could actually be fishing deeper than 600 feet and still be within the 600 ft/100 fathom curve legally. I'll update if/when I get more info.
|
Per the regs, "(a) The 100-fm (183-m) depth contour used between the U.S. border with Canada and the U.S. border with Mexico is defined by straight lines connecting all of the following points in the order stated. . . ."
If the CFR define the "100 fathom line" by a series of waypoints, then the waypoints should control over the description by metes and bounds, i.e. calling it the "100 fathom depth contour." My informed guess is they drew the line accordingly becuase the bathymetry is not exactly consistent, and trenches or seamounts on one side of the line or the other could make for enforcement hurdles. I could see an interesting case come up where somebody gets tagged by law enforcement for fishing in deeper water, but which water is
not seaward of the 100fm line. You'd basically have to have enforcement misunderstanding the regs or something, which is unfortunately more common than it should be. I'd probably bet on a court (or more likely an ALJ) ruling in favor of the fisherman there because of how the regs are written.
On the contrapositive, fishing on the wrong side of the waypoints violates the regs regardless of water depth. That seems counterintuitive to some, but it's how the reg was promulgated. Thus if the line passes through an area where depth is 500' or so, you could still get tagged for fishing in sub-100fn waters because of how the waypoints are drawn.
I'd also be interested in the application of the rules to a fisherman unable to comply because of a lack of GPS, either permanent or temporary. I'm uncertain how that one would shake out.