Possible Future Lobster Regs

[food4less562]

Diver blames hoopers for less lobsters at his honey hole, but "we’ve got recreational divers that make up 30 to 50 percent of the lobster fishery"

Looks like the new style hoops will get banned.

http://www.presstelegram.com/busines...as-value-grows

Bucking its tail and shaking its antennae with menacing clicks, a foot-long male California spiny lobster tried to free itself from Paul Romanowski’s tight grip.
The nocturnal animal wanted to be returned to the black nighttime ocean, where it had ventured out of a cave perhaps in search of sea urchins or mussels to eat along the giant, sloping rocks that form the Los Angeles Harbor breakwall. But Romanowski tossed it into the bait-tank of his sportfishing boat with six others that he and a friend hunted Saturday night in unseasonably warm waters in view of the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach.

“They only have like two brain cells,” Romanowski said. “He was kicking my ass. He just stabbed me right through the nipple.”
Unlike its clawed Maine relatives, 10-legged spiny lobsters don’t have pincers and are more like spiders than crawfish. Still, “everything eats them,” Romanowski said. So the few lobsters that grow to be adults hide in rocky caves during the day and carefully hunt at night. Egg-bearing female lobsters release hundreds of thousands of plankton “babies” each time they reproduce, but only a couple of those survive to adulthood. Those that grow to be adults are hunted by humans, fish, birds, marine mammals, sharks, eels, octopuses and even larger lobsters.

Increasing fishing pressure due to their high-dollar value has worried environmentalists and ecologically minded fishers. The Chinese market, which prefers the more meaty spiny lobster to Maine lobster, has driven up the animal’s value since 2010 as demand from the country soared because the live crustaceans are such a delicacy. Since they can be sold for about $25 per pound right off the boat, poachers are rampant.
The state Department of Fish and Wildlife is in the process of developing its first Fishery Management Plan for the species to address the increasing popularity of lobster hunting by adding protections for the animals. State regulators have worked with fishers and environmentalists for more than a year to develop a plan that will please those who want to sustain the ecosystem with less fishing, and those who want to hunt. A rough draft of the fishery plan is expected by next month, and the final plan should be finished next year.

“The Lobster Fishery Management Plan will maintain certain lobster fishing regulations that have been in place for decades in SoCal and serve to refine others,” said Travis Buck, a Fish and Wildlife marine biologist working on the plan. “The FMP will also review fishery management methods used in lobster fisheries in other parts of the world and examine any other conservation and management measures that should be considered.”
The California lobster fishery stretches only from Monterey Bay to Mexico, but it is one of the state’s most lucrative fisheries because they can be sold for such high prices. In 2013, the commercial fishery landed 772,305 pounds of spiny lobster, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Estimates for the recreational lobster take are more murky, since those fishers only report their kill on state-mandated “lobster cards” that they are supposed to return to fishery managers each year but rarely do.

“Fishers have seen more take from their lobster fisheries, and they’re worried what will happen if the commercial sector continues to grow,” said Sarah Sikitch, Heal the Bay’s science and policy director.
“In this highly populated, very urban population, we’ve got recreational divers that make up 30 to 50 percent of the lobster fishery. That’s really unique to California because other places that have spiny lobster fisheries — South Africa, the Caribbean, New Zealand and Australia — don’t have that recreational pressure.”

Commercial fishers get lobsters using baited metal traps on the ocean floor with a long line attached to a buoy. Free divers like Romanowski search for them in relatively shallow waters from 10 to 40 feet deep using their hands. Scuba divers similarly fish lobsters one at a time, by hand. But, since 2007, most recreational fishing has been done using hoop nets — a newer technology that allows people to leave baited nets in the water to grab lobsters so they don’t have to actually swim for them.
“Hoop nets are a very effective form of getting lobster, it’s almost too effective,” said Michael Gould, a longtime free diver who is representing California divers in this statewide fishery planning process. “The Ventura breakwall is a place that’s near and dear to my heart because I’ve dove it since I was a child, and it’s always full of lobster. Now, because of the hoop netters, you might find only two or three (on a dive).”

Recreational lobster hunting has a long history in Southern California. In the 1800s, lobsters were so abundant off the coast that “a single person could catch 500 pounds in just two hours,” according to a Department of Fish and Wildlife assessment. When the season opens each year, divers line up all along the coast to fill their nets.
But there are costs associated with the risky hobby. Seven divers reportedly have died already this season from underwater heart attacks or diving accidents since the season opened on Sept. 28. It closes March 20.

The fishery management plan may change the season’s start time from midnight on a Friday to 6 a.m. Saturday to make it less dangerous since so many people get in the water on the first day, Gould said.
The plan likely will also address hoop-net fishing by limiting the number of nets allowed on a single boat. Romanowski suggested requiring the nets to be marked with the fisher’s identification to prevent illegal poaching, and banning conical hoop nets because they are too much like commercial traps and kill too many animals. Recreational fishers are only allowed to take seven lobsters total per trip but poachers have found ways around the limit, said Romanowski, who recommends that the state limit recreational take to 70 lobsters per season. Limits on the number of commercial traps allowed are also under consideration.

“We need to keep the fishery viable and productive and exciting for everybody,” Romanowski said. “Right now, it’s 1 percent of fishermen taking 90 percent of the fish. These guys know what they’re doing and that’s what makes it so dangerous.”
Lobsters are also important to the ecosystem, which has drawn demands for protections from environmental groups. Lobsters eat sea urchin, which have proliferated so much that they now dominate the Santa Monica Bay’s coastal sea bed. Environmentalists and fishers are working to clear the urchins so kelp forests will grow back and the ecosystem will be rebuilt.

“In order to have a healthy lobster population in the long run, both recreational and commercial sectors need to be addressed,” Sikitch said. “We have a huge opportunity in that the lobster populations are doing OK right now but, if we wait much longer, they may start to degrade.”
On Romanowski’s most recent lobster diving trip Saturday, he and fellow diver Austin Derry snagged seven lobsters in less than an hour in crevices along the Los Angeles Harbor breakwall. Both men are longtime divers and members of the Los Angeles Fathomiers, a Torrance-based dive club.

Romanowski has been lobster diving and spear-fishing locally for 20 years, and averages dives of 80 to 100 seconds — a feat since he’s holding his breath in dark, often cold water while his body is being compressed by a wet suit. His longest recorded dive is more than four minutes, and one of his biggest catches — a 12-pound male — is mounted on his wall.
On Saturday, he followed the giant rocks of the breakwall, pushing tall kelp vines aside and shining a flashlight to reveal cracks in the rocks where the lobsters (which he calls “bugs”) congregated. Then he grabbed them firmly by the carapace and put them into a net he carried until he was ready to swim back to the boat.

Back on the boat, he and Derry measured their catch to make sure they were large enough to take legally, and loaded them into the boat’s bait tank. Romanowski took them home and put them in the freezer until Tuesday, when he pulled them out, soaked them in butter and grilled them for fellow dive club members.
The hourlong dive yielded seven “bugs” weighing about 12 pounds altogether. They could have made about $300 from the take if they sold them, but Romanowski prefers sharing his kill with friends and family. Derry said he doesn’t even eat lobster, though he hunts them most seasons.

“I like hunting them more than eating them,” Derry said. “It’s seasonal, and right now lobster is really the only thing to dive for.”

[ful-rac]

On one hand they're no lobsters left solely because of recreational lobster fishing with hoop nets....on the other hand mr. Romanowski caught 7 legal lobsters in less than an hour...and he then measured them on the boat to make sure that they are legal...Hmmm something sounds fishy...!

[jorluivil]

There are to many parts of this article that make me believe he's being a selfish prick........he can't catch a limit so its the hoopnetters fault?

[PAL]

Originally Posted by jorluivil

There are to many parts of this article that make me believe he's being a selfish prick........he can't catch a limit so its the hoopnetters fault?

You are perceptive. I'm sure Saba Slayer will weigh in before long. He's well aware of this web of self-interested lies. It's a real shame. Kayak anglers and free divers worked hand in hand in defense of the MLPA. Now their Waterman's Alliance is working with commercial lobster interests to push hoopers off the water. It's a straight up allocation grab.

Why should hoopers have a net limit when commercials can fish as many traps as they like?

[ryan111]

excuses. Im sure I'm not the only one who has gone hooping before and not got one keeper. I personally do more free diving than hooping and think on average its an equal result.

[Saba Slayer]

You can't believe everything you read on the net...


Wow…that Daily Breeze article was an amazing science fiction read!

This is my opinion not the opinion of the LAC.

First…a reality check…

The following info is from a conference call on October 10th with 2 DFW reps and an enforcement rep along with the 3 recreational chairs from the Lobster Advisory Committee. Paul (the alternate chair) came on the call about half way through.
Kai Lampson coordinated the call and gave us the following information…
This is a direct quote, <<>> “We’re not proposing a seasonal limit nor a ban on conical hoopnets. Those were not consensus recommendations.”
He followed that comment up with this disclaimer…”that’s not to say the Commission can take them up, they can do what they want.”
The following reg change PROPOSALS were discussed during the call to be presented to the Commission for implementation in the 16-17 lobster season…
1 - Clipping or punching the middle fin on the tail of the lobster to show that it was a recreationally caught lobster
2 – Mechanical pullers WILL NOT be restricted as originally proposed by the commercial reps. (There were no tickets or convictions to prove the proported poaching)
3 – The time of the opener will be changed to either a Saturday morning or early Friday evening rather than a midnight opener. Enforcement is a major proponent of this time change and the dive boats are the biggest force against this change.
4 – Hoop Net marker/surface floats will have to be legibly marked with your GO#.
The GO# is the identification number that is on your fishing license and lobster report card. This is a VERY GRAY area type of reg as it leaves it up to the Warden to determine if it’s legibly written and there are so many types of floats out there being used. I hope enforcement and legal take a good long look at the wording of this reg.
5 – A wording change on the hooked device for divers.
6 – A spearfishing reg wording change to remove the word hand.

We were told that the report card returns were at about 49% and that the total rec catch and per trip catch numbers keep going down as the report card data increases. We’re ESTIMATED at about 28% of the total catch last season (with a 51% guess rate).

Here’s another quote from the call…”we’re not as worried about the recreational sectors catch”.

Now a little back-story on the LAC and the FMP meetings…
The first public info meeting was held on April 18th 2012 since then the Lobster Advisory Committee was formed and meetings were held about every 3 months or so. We spent a lot of time being educated on the biology and various methods of take (both in Calif. and other places) and the various shareholders involved.
We had a few private meetings between the recs and the DFW to develop proposed changes, as did the commercial guys.
Michael Gould and myself attended all the meetings. Al Stasukevich attended most of the early meetings but missed a few at the end due to family health problems. Paul Romanowski was an Alternate chair and he also missed a few of the meetings especially at the end when many decisions were being discussed. Paul (the alternate diver rep) did propose 3 hoop net reg changes at the last meeting.
He suggested that we mark our floats, closely attend our floats, and he also suggested we reduce the number of hoopnets allowed per person or boat.
He did not make any recommendations to reduce the divers take in any way.
Michael and Paul voted to ban conical nets along with the rest of the LAC, excluding myself and Al.
The 2 dive reps also voted for the 70 seasonal limit, along with the rest of the LAC, again excluding myself and AL.
Although I personally liked the idea of a 100 bug seasonal limit (100 was the originally proposed number), I could not vote for the seasonal limit because it became a major debate point when presented to the LAC. The Ecos wanted a lower limit around 40 per season, and the commercials mentioned 30 as a seasonal limit. It scared me to imagine the battle over a seasonal limit number that could take place when presented to the public at a Commission meeting. Unless the commercial guys were ready to go to allocations I personally felt it was unfair to put a limit on the recs. We already have a 7 in possession limit and we already have gear restrictions…5 nets each or 10 max. A trap limit on the commercials is long overdue.

Please attend the MRC or Commission meetings if you have anything that you feel is important to say! They are always open to public comment and written statements.
It may take a little work but you can go to the Commission or the DFW websites and lookup the Marine Resources Committee meeting dates and locations and the DFG Commission’s meeting dates also.

[Saba Slayer]

Divers and hoop netters together are taking an estimated 28% of the total catch. I believe the ratio of divers to hoopers is estimated at 60% hoop to 40% dive in a 2012 data report. So IMHO any changes that effect hoopers should also be straight across the board to effect divers too! This 28% is derived from only 49% data returns on the report cards...they are still guessing on 51% of our catch. The other interesting data is the high percentage of unused cards.
22% did not even use the report card. Here are a couple of other interesting numbers..the average number of trips per card was 3.4 and the average number of lobsters taken per trip was 1.6.

We as consumptive users, are always going to be impacting this resource, but in their last stock assessment the Department has deemed it a Sustainable resource.

Unlimited commercial take and unlimited commercial gear in the water is the biggest issue the Department needs to get a handle on.

We need better data on the recreational take and the only way to do that is to get our report card returns up well above 49%.

[Saba Slayer]

Here's a little bit more info from Joe Exline that he posted on BD...

Well what to say in this thread that would make a difference...

The state (DFW/FGC) has been tasked by the Marine Life Management Act (MLMA) to create Fishery Management Plans (FMP) for all species of recreational or commercial value. Some were mandated to be done immediately and have been in affect for years.

There is now a push to get the rest done and the state picked lobster due to a recent stock assessment that said they were not in trouble and appeared to be a sustainable resource. Jim/Paul have outlined some of the "meaty" issues that were brought up during the creation of the proposed FMP for recreational fishers. BTW: I also attended the LAC meetings and followed the process closely.

During the LAC process as I see it the focus was to document the life history of lobster, devise a model to estimate the stock and trigger management actions, and clean up some issues of "public perception". I can see by some of the posts here there are still some "public perception" issues

The first official presentation of the FMP will be on November 5th in Los Alamitos at that meeting is when I expect to hear/see the result of all the hard work by the LAC and State, and also get a feel for what the Commission members may feel like "adding". There will then be a regulatory process that will take about a year to make any changes they feel are needed to put the FMP into regulation which will provide several opportunities for everyone to chime in...

From my perspective I never talk to reporters because they always bend what they hear to the perspective they want to promote, others do but that is their choice. Let me tell my perspective on what I heard during the process as it relates to issues in this post for the recreational fishery:

70 annual limit: LEO has a huge issue with a few "bad apples" that are taking lobster for profit or personal gain. Some of the stories they told were very interesting from direct selling to all kinds of "bartering". From my understanding the seasonal limit was proposed as a way of possibly giving a "tool" for LEO to control this type of activity. But once that idea hit the table all kinds of "limits" were proposed some quite low without a scientific reason for their support. This appeared to me more a "public perception" issue and was not supported and should not be presented as part of the FMP regulation package.

Conical nets: Some research hinted that conical nets may be slightly more affective but not drastically. Since the hoop net regulations were just completed and no scientific reason was given for removing them was presented this again appeared to me to be a "public perception" issue, others may feel differently.

Clipping/punching a hole in the tail: This appeared to be a tool LEO could use to identify recreational caught lobster that are sold or bartered for personal gain. This was widely supported by the LAC, is used in other lobster fisheries, and seems reasonable to me.

Marking the gear: This was suggested as another tool LEO could use to find people "abusing" the system. I already mark my gear but I do have some concerns over the wording that could be in regulations. What if I borrow gear, what if I take other people with me do I have to remark the gear? Can I have 10 traps on my boat all with my ID on them or someone who is not on the boat?

Not taking females: The purpose of the FMP was to make sure that the population was sustainable and that "triggers" were put in place to indicate there was a problem and what type of action to take should a trigger be met. Since the population appears healthy no immediate changes in take are needed. Not taking females was not presented as an option as I recall nor was it proposed as a possible response to a trigger. I do not think the science was discussed but I may be wrong....

Diver changes: These have always been confusing and appear to be needed.

Change open time/date: Some safety concerns over the midnight start have been raised and the number of calls to DFW is ridiculous about when can I start fishing. Along with the normal "fishing for crab" response brought about a discussion of making the start date during daylight hours. I will wait to see what is presented at the MRC...

There are other issues on the commercial side which I will not cover as I am not a commercial fisherman but none of the changes have anything to do with reducing the catch as the stock appears to be healthy.

You have to remember that the LAC had people from different points of view "don't we all" but what I expect to see addressed are not regulations to reduce catch but tools to identify catch and gear for LEO and possibly some safety issues on opening night...

BTW there are about 30,000 lobster cards sold each year and there is no limit to how many can be sold. This number seems to be fairly stable over the last few years. With less than 50% of those cards reported this leave a "large" data hole. If you want to know how fishery regulators deal with missing data? They put more restrictive regulations in place to make sure there is no chance for a problem... Lack of data is the 800 pound gorilla in this process.

[Saba Slayer]

If I haven't bored you yet...here's some more hot off the press info from the DFW...
Spiny Lobster Fishery Management Plan Lobster Advisory Committee
Recreational Lobster Fishery Management Recommendations
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) recently met with the Lobster Advisory Committee (LAC) Recreational Representatives to discuss details regarding implementation of the proposed regulatory changes to the recreation lobster fishery recommended by the LAC. Input from CDFW Marine Region and Law Enforcement Division (LED) is provided in Blue Font below. This information is being disseminated to refine the details prior to the formal regulatory process which takes place after the Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) has been adopted in 2015. The LAC recommendations will be part of the Lobster FMP implementing regulations that will be formally introduced to the Fish and Game Commission (Commission) in mid-2015. It is expected that any new regulations adopted by the Commission would be implemented at the start of 2016-2017 lobster season.
Please Note: Proposals to prohibit or “ban” the use of conical hoop nets or to establish a seasonal limit were not part of the LAC’s consensus recommendations for the recreational fishery. CDFW will not be forwarding these proposals to the Commission as part of the LAC recommendations.
Full consensus was achieved by the Lobster Advisory Committee for the following:
Issue: Lobster caught by recreational fishermen is being illegally sold in the commercial market place. Requiring sport fishermen to clip or punch the center tail flap makes it possible for law enforcement to identify lobsters caught in a recreational fishery that end up in the market and take appropriate legal action. This proposal will give law enforcement a tool to address buyers and markets that purchase lobster from recreational fishermen.
Proposal: Recreationally caught lobsters are to be tail-clipped (removing the bottom half of the central tail flap) or tail-punched in the central tail flap (Australia requires a 10 mm minimum hole). Additional details will be worked out with LED (e.g. clipped when landed?).
LAC Action: The LAC achieved consensus on the tail-clipping proposal above.
CDFW Proposed Details:
 Allow both tail clipping and tail punching as an option: remove at least the bottom half of central tail fin or single hole punch the center tail fin with a hole no less than 1⁄4 inch in diameter

 The tail must be clipped or punched at the same time the catch information is reported on the report card (T14 29.91(C): When the cardholder moves to another location code, or finishes fishing for the day, he or she must immediately record on the card the number of lobster kept from that location

Issue: Use of mechanized pullers has made it easier to rob from commercial traps.
Proposal: Restrict the use of mechanized pullers only to persons in possession of proof of disability/medical (Disabled Mechanized Hoop Net Puller Permit). This restriction would only pertain to power driven mechanized pullers and not hand operated davits with single pulley systems.
Clarification: This restriction only applies to individuals targeting or in possession of lobster, not persons solely targeting crab.
Proposed CDFW Disabled Mechanized Hoop Net Puller Permit Form:
The following conditions must be met to qualify for issuance of a Disabled Mechanized Hoop Net Puller Permit: “For the purposes of this permit a disability means a permanent loss, significant limitation, or diagnosed disease or disorder, which substantially impairs an individual’s ability to physically pull by hand and retrieve a hoop net for the purpose of targeting lobster.” A medical physician must sign the permit application form.
LAC Action: The LAC achieved consensus on the mechanical puller restriction proposal above.
Some members noted that the broad wording of the disability option could render the management measure ineffective and suggested that the LAC work with LED to ensure the new rule has “teeth” when it is applied.
CDFW Recommendation:
 Mechanized pullers should not be restricted beyond current legal use
 The potential for illegal use given the circumstance is not viewed as a reasonable
justification for restriction
 Illegal use of mechanized pullers is not a commonly observed problem. LED reported
one case over ten years ago, with four lobsters taken from a commercial trap using a
mechanized puller
 The creation of disabled hoop net puller permit creates an unnecessary burden on
disabled persons through the potential added expense and time to obtain the necessary note from a physician in order to obtain a permit

Issue: The midnight opener creates a “rush” mentality that fuels conflicts between recreational users and poses a safety risk. The current lobster opener date and time can be difficult to understand (confusion regarding when the season actual “starts”) and constituents are having trouble following the law. CDFW has been asked to consider an alternate start time.
Proposal: Make the lobster opener 6:00 a.m. on Saturday instead of 12:01 a.m. on Saturday.
Key discussion points:
 New time is workable for LED
 Proposal improves safety conditions
 Regulatory change has no impact on the resource
 Commercial season dates would not change
LAC Action: The LAC achieved consensus on the lobster opener proposal above. The group acknowledged concerns regarding the economic impact this proposal may have on some dive charters.
LAC recommendation is for a 6:00 a.m. Saturday start time (lobster opener)
CDFW Recommendation:
 Proposed 6:00 am Saturday start time is easier to facilitate enforcement patrols
 Promotes a safer environment for both boaters and divers on opening day
 Reduces the “rush” mentality which fuels negative diver/hoop netter interactions at
harbors and jetties

Issue: Marking hoop net floats will improve accountability and safety among recreational fishermen, and may help reduce illegal commercialization.
Proposal: Hoop net floats should be marked with unique ID (DL, Go ID, etc. — details to be worked out with LED).
LAC Action: The LAC achieved consensus on the marked hoop net proposal above.
CDFW Proposed Details:
 Buoy identification should be required with GO ID number. This number shall be legible, but there will be no size or color specification. Go ID number helps maintain fishermen’s confidentiality, and minimizes the risk of identity theft
 LED can easily verify this number in the field as it can be cross referenced with the fishing license

Issue: Spear fisherman have been harassed or cited for carrying a spear gun while in the pursuit of lobster. Constituents have asked for clarity on the definition of a “hooked” device.
Prepared by CDFW, October 28, 2014 Page 3 of 4
Proposal: Keep change simple. Ensure regulatory language focuses on how lobster can be taken (i.e. “skin and scuba divers may take lobsters by hand only”) and not how it cannot be taken; remove “hooked device” term from current regulations. The proposal allows for possession of a spear gun or pole spear underwater while hunting lobsters. Misuse of this equipment to take lobster (lobster can only be taken by hand) would remain illegal.
LAC Action: The LAC achieved consensus on the hooked device proposal above. CDFW Recommendation:
 Remove “hooked device” for clarification

[Saba Slayer]

Lots of info there!

[jorluivil]

Good stuff Jim! !


Regarding the female lobster.

Have they ever considered a female to male catch ratio? As an example, for every three males you can only keep one female?

[ful-rac]

I like the hole punch/clip idea, that would really curb illegal commercialization...

[Cbad Mike]

Thanks Jim for always taking the time to educate us and for keeping us up to date on everything.


I have one word for Paul Romanowski....... WHAAAAAAAAA.

[danjor]

Originally Posted by ful-rac

I like the hole punch/clip idea, that would really curb illegal commercialization...

i don't believe this will work. If they are poaching they arnt going to hole punch them they would just sell them like they normally do. And on the other hand that opens it up to people hole punching and releasing to prevent commercial catch which would be bad but I could see it happening.

[El Vato]

Just read spearboard, they are anti-hoopnetters, you guys are just a bunch of drunk A-holes, the dive reps, continually vote against recreational hoopnetters on every issue, recommend unreasonable hoopnet regulations, and for some reason support commercial lobster fisherman. while we were united in MLPA process, watch your back on LAC process. Trust Jim S., I'm surprised this is not more publiczed between kayak sites, n BD.

[ful-rac]

Yeah divers and commercials share a common enemy...and that's hoopnetters. Commercials don't fish where divers dive (shallow), generally...and divers don't dive where they fish, generally (deep)....but hoopers fish shallow and deep so they compete with both the commercials and divers...So were all assholes....

[YTHunter]

Originally Posted by ful-rac

Yeah divers and commercials share a common enemy...and that's hoopnetters. Commercials don't fish where divers dive (shallow), generally...and divers don't dive where they fish, generally (deep)....but hoopers fish shallow and deep so they compete with both the commercials and divers...So were all assholes....

Good observation Fulrac.

I've got a short attention span, but best as I can tell, in a nut shell, what is being proposed is "no new regulations", but simply finding better way to enforce the regulations already on the books. As far as I'm concerned - good! Go get them f'ing cheaters!