• Looking to buy a cephalopod? Check out Tomh's Cephs Forum, and this post in particular shares important info about our policies as it relates to responsible ceph-keeping.

California Marine Reserves Collection and Fishing Regulations

SanClementeEric;129181 said:
From what I read in your letter from Ed, there are two species of octopus that you CANNOT take (Octopus
bimaculoides and O. bimaculoidoides) and any others can only be taken with a marine aquaria collector's permit, as repeated in my letter from Carrie.

So, no debate.

I don't see how you can interpret this passage from Ed's letter that way:

So, these two species of octopus may not be taken legally for the California marine aquaria trade.

These two species of octopus can be taken under the authority of a sport fishing license. There are no regulations that would prohibit you from displaying live specimens of O. bimaculatus and O. bimaculoides in your home aquarium for your hobby. You may run into problems if your intent is to supply specimens for fellow hobbyists or businessess.

particularly given that the letter was specifically in response to a query about people collecting for their own use. I'm not saying Ed is right and Carrie is wrong, just that Ed seemed to explicitly say it was OK for personal use as long as you don't give the octo to anyone else... Ed's response was specifically in regards to a question about "suppose I wanted to collect a live bimac for my own aquarium?" so I'm fairly confident in reading that as "there's no problem with catching a live bimac with a sport fishing license and displaying it in your own home aquarium."

Perhaps it would be best to ask them what they meant rather than argue among ourselves; I don't know much at all, but until you reported the information from Carrie, I thought Ed's letter was pretty unambiguous in saying it would be OK. I don't want to get anyone in trouble by telling them it's OK to collect their own bimacs if it isn't, but I also don't want to tell people it's illegal until we're sure that it is, since it seems like something a number of California TONMO folks would be interested in taking advantage of if it is allowed.
 
I sent an email to Ed Roberts and Carrie Wilson asking them to look at this discussion and clarify, so, perhaps we can get some more clarification. I hate to bug professionals, but I hope that if we can get an unambiguous answer once and for all we'll be able to point people at the answer here without having to bother the DFG in the future.
 
monty;129192 said:
I sent an email to Ed Roberts and Carrie Wilson asking them to look at this discussion and clarify, so, perhaps we can get some more clarification. I hate to bug professionals, but I hope that if we can get an unambiguous answer once and for all we'll be able to point people at the answer here without having to bother the DFG in the future.

I'd prefer not have further clarification! Ed's original email was rather unambiguous. I could produce that email with clear conscience if I was challenged while collecting.

Now, given that; I don't recall seeing this "murder clause" in there, either. Honestly, I'd trust Ed--a specialist--over the Outdoors Q&A Columnist. Used to dealing with John Q. Public, she might even be stretching because she doesn't want you to go out and start grabbing octopuses.

Dan
 
DHyslop;129223 said:
I'd prefer not have further clarification! Ed's original email was rather unambiguous. I could produce that email with clear conscience if I was challenged while collecting.

Now, given that; I don't recall seeing this "murder clause" in there, either. Honestly, I'd trust Ed--a specialist--over the Outdoors Q&A Columnist. Used to dealing with John Q. Public, she might even be stretching because she doesn't want you to go out and start grabbing octopuses.

Dan

Yeah, I was a bit feeling like I would have preferred to stick with the answer I *liked* the most, but making sure we don't misrepresent the laws to people is probably more important. Carrie sent me a nice email saying she's looking into it in more detail, so keep your fingers crossed that she finds out it's OK...

Also, she's an Associate Marine Biologist in addition to a columnist, although I imagine there's not anyone who's "Chief Officer in charge of Octopus Matters" or anything...
 
I suspect my company could get away with calling me an "associate" marine biologist :)

And I really don't mean anything against her, but what impressed me of Ed's initial response was how he seemed to be intimately familiar not just with the code itself, but the intention for with which it was written. I think it is likely that 99% of enforcement people you ask would give an answer similar to hers even without consulting the code just because they naturally want to discourage that kind of collection, especially by any nuts like us.

"Yeah, I don't think you're supposed to do that... Maybe I'll look into it and let you know if I find out otherwise..."
 
Carrie Wilson a CA DFG got back to me with this information just now:

Our Law Enforcement Division determined the following:

1. Maintaining live sport-taken octopus in a home aquarium should not be considered "display" as used in FG sections 8596-97 re: Marine Aquaria Pet Trade. Therefore, octopus may be maintained in a personal aquarium and do not fall under the provisions requiring a Marine Aquaria Collectors permit.

2. People may collect octopus under the authority of a sport fishing license and transfer them live as long as the animal is exclusively for that person's personal aquarium display.

3. Octopus collected under the authority of a sport fishing license may not be used to establish breeding colonies for sale or trade with other collectors. This activity requires the collectors to have marine aquaria permits authorizing this activity. Even trading animals brings the activity under the provisions of Sections 8596-97 because selling is a common part of any commercial activity especially as used in the Fish and Game Code. And possession for sale or trade are included in the definition of "sell" in Fish and Game Code Section 75.

4. Finally, display alive in a home aquarium is not restricted because Title 14 Section 1.62 only applies to the movement of live "finfish" and not to mollusks and crustaceans. And, there is no other general prohibition against transporting or possessing alive legally taken shellfish. Invertebrates can be kept alive forever, or a very long time whichever comes first.

Generally, that seems like good news, although #3 is rather unfortunate for breeding... I had hoped that people wanting to start captive breeding programs could sell or trade their octo babies. I wonder if "giving away" counts as "trade"?
 
monty;129897 said:
Carrie Wilson a CA DFG got back to me with this information just now:



Generally, that seems like good news, although #3 is rather unfortunate for breeding... I had hoped that people wanting to start captive breeding programs could sell or trade their octo babies. I wonder if "giving away" counts as "trade"?

yes! great news for me.
 
marineboy;129915 said:
wait, if the area is protected, can you still take under a sport fishing license?

There may be different kinds of "protected" areas, but most preserves and such don't allow any sort of fishing. Check Cuttlegirl's original link in the first post for status of particular areas.
 
hmm, ok. Well this beach I normally visit allows fishing so I assume thats an indication that its not a preserve. Their are also no signs saying anything about it being a protected.
 

Trending content

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top