I was at the Shelter Island meeting. The DFG wardens didn't have much to offer in way of an explanation as to why this was being done. The one thing that they made clear is that they need a clear definition as to what a "hoop net" is and is not. It is not spelled out clearly in the current regulations and that is a problem for the DFG. I think it is a good idea that they are trying to define the gear. The main opposition to this whole issue is that the proposed changes appear to be an attempt to make it more difficult to catch a limit, while leaving the limit unchanged. The most commonly raised complaint was that there has not been a scientific study of lobster population trends to determine if the limits (or the ability to catch limits) should be restricted. The DFG's marine biologists did a very limited test to determine the effectiveness of each type of net. As the DFG wardens explained it, the 57% greater efficiency of the conical nets is what drove the proposals to ban them or limit the number that can be used. There was no population study cited as a rational for the proposals. As the first season's (3.5 months) lobster cards have not been fully counted or analyzed yet, it is hard to say that this could have provided sufficient reason to make the change. The wardens could not say if there were any other studies or commercial catch reports to provide data that would support changing the gear. I think that was the issue that most in attendance had a problem with. A change is being proposed that was apparently based on a very limited study. In the wake of the MLPA abomination, I think most fishermen are somewhat skeptical when the government (DFG) wants to make changes to fishing regulations without providing very sound evidence of a need for such change.
Seeing the dramatic increase in the popularity of hoop netting over the last few years, I wouldn't be surprised if lobster numbers are down. I think that conclusion is intuitive and may be supported by the data, if a proper study were conducted. The problem here is that the proposed gear changes appear to have been driven by what is intuitive and not what has been determined by actual data collection. This proposal might have gone over better if the DFG could provide some conclusive data on lobster population numbers and trends. Even if they just proposed outlawing the conicals, while leaving the limits unchanged, the DFG might have avoided much of the rancor. They could say that they were just closing a loophole in the regulations.
The DFG wardens had copies of the proposed changes at the meeting. Unfortunately, they only brought 60 copies and nearly 100 people showed up. They allowed people to return the forms with their comments. I may be wrong, but I haven't seen any pages on the DFG website for public comment on this specific issue. The space on the right-hand side of the
DFG Homepage is where they usually invite public comment on specific issues. I would continue to check the DFG homepage to see when they will be accepting public comments. You might also want to contact the DFG Information Officer to find out how to provide feedback on this issue. Somebody at the meeting gave out the name of the DFG marine biologist who is responsible for many revisions and changes in the fishing regulations. I didn't get the name, but you might be able to get it from the PIO.