Tool for mapping the 100 fathom curve regs point to point

[GregB]

Does anyone have suggestions on a good tool to map the point-to-point lines that define the new 100 fathom curve depth limit for rockfish. The points are laid out in 50 CFR Part 660, Subpart C, but it's not the most user-friendly approach. Want to stay inside the lines come rockfish opener.

[Nicko]

Just add the way points onto your GPS and you will have an outline of the 100 fathom curve! I mapped out the 40 most southern way points provided by DFW using EasyGps software and built a file to share of the 100 Fathom curve. See Attached

[SoCalEDC]

You can also try google my maps. There you can add waypoints and shade a certain section.

[GregB]

Originally Posted by SoCalEDC

You can also try google my maps. There you can add waypoints and shade a certain section.

Thanks guys!

[GregB]

Originally Posted by GregB

Does anyone have suggestions on a good tool to map the point-to-point lines that define the new 100 fathom curve depth limit for rockfish. The points are laid out in 50 CFR Part 660, Subpart C, but it's not the most user-friendly approach. Want to stay inside the lines come rockfish opener.

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.

[Gflann]

Have you tried the Navionics Boating App?

[GregB]

Originally Posted by Gflann

Have you tried the Navionics Boating App?

Yeah. Got it. Love that app. Laid in the point-to-point coords for the 100 fathom curve and set routes between each to get a line on the boundary. helpful.

[SoCalEDC]

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.

Cool, in for updates

[FullFlavorPike]

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.

[GregB]

Originally Posted by FullFlavorPike

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.

Yeah; haven't heard back from DFG yet, but I agree that any adjudicator probably will side with a fisher who is inside the boundary, regardless of actual depth. Of course that doesn't mean enforcement will be uniform but that's what the court is for. The system generally works, and the hassle factor of making it work is a minor price to pay for BIG CHUNKY REDS caught legally.

Oh - and a reminder to all the SoCal fishing bretheren and sisteren—using descenders for the babies makes for more and bigger fish tacos on the out years!

[GregB]

DFG confirms that all areas, not matter what depth, inside of the federal 100 fathom line are fair game:
"Yes, there may be times when you are shoreward of the line created by connecting the Federal waypoints and the water is deeper than 100 fathoms since the line is just an approximation of the fathom curve. You would not be in violation as long as you were shoreward of the line no matter what depth you were fishing. Likewise, you could be fishing seaward of the line in waters shallower than 100 fathoms and be in violation since you were seaward of the line."

[stevie951]

so let me get this straight, In certain areas you can now fish 500+ feet of water but other areas you may be limited to 200+ feet of water regardless of any circumstance (besides MLPA)? FTW (Fuck The What??)