Lobster Hoop Net Gear changes?

[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.