Lobster Hoop Net Gear changes?

[Saba Slayer]

Hi Guys
The DFG is considering a change in the regulations for Lobster Hoop Net gear.
There will be two informational meetings and you can comment at that time: Tuesday Sept.22 at 7pm at the Outboard Boating Club at Shelter Island Boat Ramp facility, 2210 Shelter Island Drive in S.D.
Thursday Sept.24th at 6:30pm at the Upper Newport Bay Ecological Reserve, 600 Shellmaker Road in Newport Beach.
I am trying to contact the DFG and schedule another meeting that is closer for the LA and Ventura County guys. I'll post if something comes up!
If you are interested and want some more info here is the link to the DFG site with some pdf downloads...
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/ne...dregs09.asp#sf
Scroll down to the following and you'll get caught up on all the info.

Gear Restrictions - Salt Water Crustaceans (Hoop Nets)
Amend Section 29.80
Initial Statment of Reasons for Regulatory Action (.pdf format) Proposed Regulatory Language (.pdf format)
Spiny Lobsters (Lobster tailing)
Amend Section 29.90
Initial Statment of Reasons for Regulatory Action (.pdf format) Proposed Regulatory Language (.pdf format)

If you would like to contact the DFG commission before Oct. 1st which is the next meeting date and express how you feel and which proposal you like or if you have some alternate info to offer please do so. Here is the contact info...
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Phone # (916) 653-4899

Fax # (916) 653-5040

E-Mail fgc@fgc.ca.gov
(Please include the subject of the regulations in the E-Mail subject line.)
Section 29.80, Title 14, CCR, Gear Restriction Option #1 or Option #2 (Lobster Hoop Nets)

[wade]

Thanks for the heads up..Pursuant to the Governnator, The FngG has the 1st ..2nd.. & 3rd Fridays off...How will this ultimately effect this years Eclipse "HOOP" net usage?.. The land proposal /tailing/ is fine with me..but will these upcoming natzi-rules aka Gear Restrictions/ammendments, possibly go into effect 09 or 2010?...

[T Bone]

Can someone explain what they want to do?I tried to download the pdf but couldnt.Are they going to ban eclipse nets?I knew that there legality was allways a bit hazy.The DFG book says nets must lay flat.I thought the eclipses nets still didnt "Trap" lobster since they should be able to climb back out but that if spooked by the pull they would tail flick themselves further into the net.Am I wrong?

[Rik]

Originally Posted by T Bone

Can someone explain what they want to do?I tried to download the pdf but couldnt.Are they going to ban eclipse nets?I knew that there legality was allways a bit hazy.The DFG book says nets must lay flat.I thought the eclipses nets still didnt "Trap" lobster since they should be able to climb back out but that if spooked by the pull they would tail flick themselves further into the net.Am I wrong?

The way Jim explained it to me yesterday is that the DFG has come up with 2 options for hoop net gear regulations.

Option 1 would ban all "conical" type nets (Eclipse, Ambush, and Danielson)
and would allow 5 flat nets per person or a total of 10 per boat.

Option 2 would allow us to continue to use all " conical" type nets, but would be limited to 3 per person or total of 6 per boat.

that's the gist of it, if you can attend the meeting at Shelter Island on Tuesday @ 7pm, you can find out more.

-hope that helps a bit

[T Bone]

thanks

[BT]

Well I plan on stopping by and talking to the DFG. I think the second alternative of limiting you to 3 nets is silly. Lets say I want to fish just flat style nets. So now I can only take out three flat nets if I read that alternative correctly? There is really no compromise in either option. It is ban the eclpise, or lower the nets to 3. I was going to get a few more eclipse this year but will now wait it out.

And even the tailing thing is a little silly. Does the DFG really think that telling people they cant tail them until being prepared for immediate consumption will do anything except take up more room in my freezer? I can understand not tailing them until you get home, but making you keep them whole is a little silly once you get home.

Hope this doesnt hurt the guys that have been making us the nets.

[T Bone]

Ive never heard of an ambush net.With a name like that it has ban written all over it...

All I have ever used are flat nets,are the conicals that much better?

[dsafety]

I read an interesting article in the UT on this subject. I do not currently try to catch lobster from my kayak, (night time launches and landings scare me a bit). Anyway, I was considering picking up a few hoop nets and giving it a try until I read this article. http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stori...g-regulations/

If it is true that we are decimating the lobster population just as we did the abalone, I am all for adding some limitations. This is not a subject that I know much about so please educate me.

Bob

[BT]

Good article. I like the comment about the limit still being 7, and that the average lobster fisherman will just stay out longer and fish more often to get his/her limit. I can understand that there might be an impact on the fishery due to the popularization of the sport over recent years, but to blame it on a net is pretty silly. If they used this info as a baseline and studied it over a few years then I would be more understanding.

For years fishermen have been building the better “mouse trap” and even by their own definition, the conical nets are not a trap.

[PAL]

It is premature to claim the lobster resource is over-exploited. Let's see the data first. If a downward trend is indicated, changes will be justified.

Lobster is one of the DFG's best success stories due to intensive management. As Jim Salazar points out in Ed Zieralski's UT story, it is more effective and approrpriate to reduce limits and adjust minimum / maxium sizes rather than change gear types.

Here's the thing about hooping that those divers and commercial lobstermen who resent sharing the resource fail to mention (this is shaping up to be an allocation war, but they don't all hate hoopers - some believe in fairness ). For most people, the technique has a de facto depth limit. The majority of hoop netters give it up before they get into deep water - the nets are too much work to haul. Just like abalone, a portion of the resource is always in safe harbor (from hoopers anyway). It's not an issue for the commercial fleet.

One part of this proposed action is tremendously overdue - a definition for hoop net. Let's just hope its reasonable. If conical nets are targeted, it would be much better to propose a fished limit rather than ban products that have been on the market for years. Ouch $$$$.

But the idea of a hoop net posession limit is unreasonable, like saying you can't have more than 5 fishing rods on deck, whether fished or not. No more supporting kayaks from a bigger boat if this is approved. All they need to do to fix this is change the regulation from baited to fished or deployed in the water. And come on! If a net has been baited it's pretty obvious, even if the bugs have already gone to town on it:

The current wording in subsection 29.80(b) needs to be written in a way that makes the intention of the section more enforceable. Currently a person may not fish with more then 5 baited hoop nets south of Piont Arguello while taking crabs and lobsters. The wording “fished” and “baited” make this section hard to enforce. In order to meet the elements of a crime, the nets in the water have to be baited. If the lobster
or crabs eat the bait when in the water prior to the warden pulling the hoop net, there would be no violation since the net is not baited. New wording needs to be added to the section making the limit for hoop nets, a possession limit, not a “fished” limit. This way the section can be enforceable.

[wade]

"The cards revealed that there are between 22,000 and 25,000 recreational lobster fishermen in the state"

well thats somewhere around the same # of actual TRAPS these commercial guys can have compared to my five sportsmanlike HOOP nets!!, and they ARE literally cleaning the bottom up..The F&G needs to take their head out of their arse & leave the recreational guys alone who arent putting a dent in the bug world, and start imposing some standards towards the commercial guys who are getting away with pure murder.

"“What's bothering me is they're proposing regulation changes with so little science to show anything,” Salazar said. "

(the mlpa & f&g must be reading from the same book?..)
"Amending So-Cal Fishing Regulations.. Sans Science.."

-Science without religion is lame.
-religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein
& These Closures and Restrictions without any Science is Ignorance at its finest..

I wish I could attend but have already a set studio session tonight.give em hell even though it seems they have already made their empty minds up from the report cards, & are just giving the people a chance to speak..

__________________________________________________ ______





San Diego "Inshore Fishing Club 2010"

[T Bone]

Did anyone catch any of these meetings?What has or is becoming of this?

[dgax65]

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.

[food4less562]

Does anyone have an update to whether the gear is no limited or banned?

[deepdvr]

We'll see next year.

[Oolie]

mannnnnnn, all i want to do is catch a bug, my dog loves playing with them.

[wiredantz]

Just to get this right? Still no changes on the hoop nets right? We can still use them.

[Tman]

I will give my take on this, and probably catch some grief from one side or the other.

This is going to be a long read, last chance to back out, you have been warned.

I have a history with bugs, not on the same level as some of the more seasoned and knowledgeable people, but I have been around them for a long time, over 20 years in the LJ area. I still know my honey holes in LJ from my free-diving days and I am going back to my roots. I started yak bugging a long time ago, back when hoop nets came into their own. With evolution comes progress. When hoop nets (not the crab type, with the fold down sides) first came out, it was easy, you just had to have the right bait and know where the kind spots were.

Knowing reefs and spots and tides was easy, and there was never any pressure. The lobster boats could never get in tight for fear of prop damage, and only the hard-core divers stayed shallow, that was where the bigger boys were, tucked in tight. Progress came in the form of better traps, more yakkers doing it, and more boaters doing it. And with that came the scuba divers, to add to the increase of pressure.

Actually, I knew this was coming. This is just another obstacle that we will have to face. You can read through their recommendations all you want, but the bottom line is they had this planned a long time ago. Hence the reason the bug permit is now an extra cost, and one that is not an annual permit. Bug season typically starts in October and lasts to March. It has always been that way, the only difference being that years ago, the right to catch bugs was included in your CA fishing license.

Now, that has all changed, and to which I think personally, it is just a way to increase revenue since the most logical way to go about it would be to define limits and methods to catching. So the best way to increase revenue is to set your own rules. By this I mean that no longer is your right to catch lobsters a guarantee with the fishing permit, it is a separate cost, just as an abalone card is up North. But it goes beyond that.

Now you pay for an extra lobster license, not annual, but bi-annual. A permit for October to December, and then purchase another January to March when the season ends. Why is a lobster permit valid for only a couple months, the height of lobster season, just to have you renew it again when catches taper off?

Now the shocker...just as in the whole MLPA fiasco, why do you think they have the lobster cards?

Tell me that unless you were not stopped by a DFG pawn you did not fill out how many bugs you caught and at what location, just to turn in the mandatory lobster card. Twice...at the end of the year, and at the end of lobster season. It was done for one simple purpose, to see what area was producing, and a way to monitor your habits, just as what was tried with the initial phase of the MLPA process.

What has been done N of San Fran in regards to the abalone population, they limited times of the year when you could hunt for the abs, a good thing to replenish the stock and not have man interfere with the breeding and growing periods. To which I fully agree, as many others do, the population has rebounded. But they took it a step further - you can only free-dive for abs...no tanks, no scuba.

What has become of your honey hole for bugs has been decimated, not by poaching, but indulgence brought about by rules not defined, all in the name of increasing revenue to ultimately set rules. Had they first made changes, I know us yakkers and boaters would have welcomed them as we did in in the MLPA process, agreeing to setting limits to our catches. Had they mirrored what was done in regards to the abalone gathering, maybe all of us would see more bugs in our traps.

Bottom line, there are alot more of us yakkers now, and a ton of us are going to go hooping. So we are just as guilty, even though we have a couple weeks reprieve before the commercial guys set out their traps. We are guilty only for our numbers and the traps we set and our ease of access to our holes.

More boaters have gotten into hooping for bugs, as they should. They have the benefit of being able to cover more territory and can cover more ground. But to limit the number of traps to 10 per boat is absurd, do the numbers. So you have 'only' 10 traps, but you have 3+ people on the boat, do the math. What if you have 5 people?

Bug limit possession is 7...how many of those '7 per person' are not females, not breeding old males, or egg bearers? Enlighten yourself and read The Secret Life of Lobsters, which I think should be a must read for any lobster fisherman.

Why is scuba diving for bugs legal? That to me is weak...really, how fair is that? Where is the sport to that?

As I said, I knew this was coming, from the days of being on the water and not seeing another kayak except buddies who went out with me, to seeing a couple more yaks in the area which was welcomed (esp. knowing they had to get through the surf), to seeing all the lights and bubbles beneath me, near my nets. I even had to help a diver out one night since he had lost his 'dive buddy'...and that was in shallow water.

You can't stop progress, you can't stop evolution, but you can prevent it from getting to the point of being ridiculous. Unfortunately, we are at that ridiculous stage...

As with the MLPA process, we all know the 'logic' behind their ideology...

Time for me to get back to my roots, the lad is getting of that age...

[jorluivil]

Good read.........spoken from experience and not theory.

[maui jim]

Interesting read....I want one of those nets as wide as the boat.......