New Dungeness Crab Marker buoy requirements

Rumor has it that the purpose is so when there are whale entanglements one could quickly ID whether it was sport vs commie pot.

It's not a rumor.  It's directly from the initial statement of reasons for the proposed regulations.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=183155&inline

I have marker buoys on much my gear - they indicate what direction the tide/current and wind are moving, so, in turn, they also indicate what direction the line extends under water.  Very helpful when pulling up my rings/hoops because I want to approach from down wind/current so I can get right over the piece before pulling it up. 

General public/boaters can use the same observations to attempt to avoid entanglement as they navigate through gear.

oh, that makes sense

Rumor has it that the purpose is so when there are whale entanglements one could quickly ID whether it was sport vs commie pot.

It's not a rumor.  It's directly from the initial statement of reasons for the proposed regulations.

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=183155&inline

got it.

Does anyone know if the 3"x5" second buoy is a minimum size?  In other words if I have a second buoy that is bigger than 3"x5" which is all red, can I use that?

Enhanced Gear Marking: The proposed regulation would require all recreational crab
traps be marked with a main buoy that is at least 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches in
length and that a red marker buoy that is 3 inches in diameter and 5 inches in length be
attached no more than three feet from the main buoy in order to help identify gear as
originating from the recreational crab fishery should it entangle marine life. (Proposed
subsection 29.80(c)(3))

In the three times that it happened, would this have made a difference in the entanglement knowing whom to blame?  So confused...

Enhanced Gear Marking: The proposed regulation would require all recreational crab
traps be marked with a main buoy that is at least 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches in
length and that a red marker buoy that is 3 inches in diameter and 5 inches in length be
attached no more than three feet from the main buoy in order to help identify gear as
originating from the recreational crab fishery should it entangle marine life. (Proposed
subsection 29.80(c)(3))

In the three times that it happened, would this have made a difference in the entanglement knowing whom to blame?  So confused...

Enhanced Gear Marking: The proposed regulation would require all recreational crab
traps be marked with a main buoy that is at least 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches in
length and that a red marker buoy that is 3 inches in diameter and 5 inches in length be
attached no more than three feet from the main buoy in order to help identify gear as
originating from the recreational crab fishery should it entangle marine life. (Proposed
subsection 29.80(c)(3))

In the three times that it happened, would this have made a difference in the entanglement knowing whom to blame?  So confused...

The rest of the quote is important.

"Between 1982 and 2019, there have been 506 separate large whale entanglements along the
U.S. West Coast which have been confirmed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS;
Saez et al. 2020; NOAA Fisheries 2020; NOAA Fisheries 2019). Of those entanglements, the
gear type could not be identified in 44% of the cases. The California recreational crab fishery
has been responsible for three known entanglements, and potentially more due to the
difficulties of identifying recreational gear as outlined above. "

Enhanced Gear Marking: The proposed regulation would require all recreational crab
traps be marked with a main buoy that is at least 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches in
length and that a red marker buoy that is 3 inches in diameter and 5 inches in length be
attached no more than three feet from the main buoy in order to help identify gear as
originating from the recreational crab fishery should it entangle marine life. (Proposed
subsection 29.80(c)(3))

In the three times that it happened, would this have made a difference in the entanglement knowing whom to blame?  So confused...

Enhanced Gear Marking: The proposed regulation would require all recreational crab
traps be marked with a main buoy that is at least 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches in
length and that a red marker buoy that is 3 inches in diameter and 5 inches in length be
attached no more than three feet from the main buoy in order to help identify gear as
originating from the recreational crab fishery should it entangle marine life. (Proposed
subsection 29.80(c)(3))

In the three times that it happened, would this have made a difference in the entanglement knowing whom to blame?  So confused...

The rest of the quote is important.

"Between 1982 and 2019, there have been 506 separate large whale entanglements along the
U.S. West Coast which have been confirmed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS;
Saez et al. 2020; NOAA Fisheries 2020; NOAA Fisheries 2019). Of those entanglements, the
gear type could not be identified in 44% of the cases. The California recreational crab fishery
has been responsible for three known entanglements, and potentially more due to the
difficulties of identifying recreational gear as outlined above. "

So of 56% * 506 = ~283 entanglements, 3 of the entanglements, or 1.1% of the total identifiable, were attributed to recreational gear.

-Allen

Gotcha.  So they do want to be able to tell, although I'd think the GOID requirement would solve for that, but then kept reading 

Identifying the fishery responsible for an entanglement is essential to reducing future
incidences. The current marking requirements for the recreational crab fishery are less
stringent than those for the commercial crab fisheries. Buoy(s) attached to a recreational crab
trap must be marked with the operator’s GO ID (i.e., the “Get Outdoors Identification number”,
a unique number issued by the Automatic License Data System (ALDS) that is permanently
tied to an individual), or, when deployed from a Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel
(CPFV), the CPFV’s commercial boat registration number. However, the GO ID and CPFV
numbering does not have a specific number size requirement, making the numbers difficult or
impossible to read from a distance. As such, the ability to distinguish recreational crab trap
gear from other fishing gear during a marine life entanglement response is limited. In contrast,
commercial Dungeness crab trap buoys must be marked with state-issued buoy tags, which
are more easily observed on entanglements involving commercial gear.

Enhanced Gear Marking: The proposed regulation would require all recreational crab
traps be marked with a main buoy that is at least 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches in
length and that a red marker buoy that is 3 inches in diameter and 5 inches in length be
attached no more than three feet from the main buoy in order to help identify gear as
originating from the recreational crab fishery should it entangle marine life. (Proposed
subsection 29.80(c)(3))

In the three times that it happened, would this have made a difference in the entanglement knowing whom to blame?  So confused...

Enhanced Gear Marking: The proposed regulation would require all recreational crab
traps be marked with a main buoy that is at least 5 inches in diameter and 11 inches in
length and that a red marker buoy that is 3 inches in diameter and 5 inches in length be
attached no more than three feet from the main buoy in order to help identify gear as
originating from the recreational crab fishery should it entangle marine life. (Proposed
subsection 29.80(c)(3))

In the three times that it happened, would this have made a difference in the entanglement knowing whom to blame?  So confused...

The rest of the quote is important.

"Between 1982 and 2019, there have been 506 separate large whale entanglements along the
U.S. West Coast which have been confirmed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS;
Saez et al. 2020; NOAA Fisheries 2020; NOAA Fisheries 2019). Of those entanglements, the
gear type could not be identified in 44% of the cases. The California recreational crab fishery
has been responsible for three known entanglements, and potentially more due to the
difficulties of identifying recreational gear as outlined above. "

So of 56% * 506 = ~283 entanglements, 3 of the entanglements, or 1.1% of the total identifiable, were attributed to recreational gear.

-Allen

There's a ton of variables though.  I don't think its fair to extrapolate.  It isn't even fair to think that the number is necessarily small.
 Commercial gear has long been better marked.  If the unidentifiable gear was clearly recreational but unknown if it was crab, shrimp, lobster, or octopus gear then it went into unknown.  There wasn't a category of "recreational gear of unknown type".  Only Washington has been requiring rec gear to be marked with specific type buoys.  That is changing.

Admittedly I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.  But food for thought ...

Anyone who has spent some time on the water can tell at but a glance if a buoy is commercial or sport.  If there is no determination, I sort of believe it's likely that a buoy wasn't involved, in which case, these requirements don't really affect the outcome much.  But there is only one way to find out, and this alternative is much cheaper than requiring auto release mechanisms for everyone, or some rope marking scheme.  The truth is we really don't know the answer, as it was determined they couldn't tell in 44% of the cases.  These regulations are in the hope of gathering more data.

Anyone know what the overall breakdown is between total number of commercial and sport pots on the ocean?

-Allen

Admittedly I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.  But food for thought ...

Anyone who has spent some time on the water can tell at but a glance if a buoy is commercial or sport.  If there is no determination, I sort of believe it's likely that a buoy wasn't involved, in which case, these requirements don't really affect the outcome much.  But there is only one way to find out, and this alternative is much cheaper than requiring auto release mechanisms for everyone, or some rope marking scheme.  The truth is we really don't know the answer, as it was determined they couldn't tell in 44% of the cases.  These regulations are in the hope of gathering more data.

Anyone know what the overall breakdown is between total number of commercial and sport pots on the ocean?

-Allen

My WAG is that the overwhelming majority of traps on the west coast are commercial. Approaching 90% if not more.

Admittedly I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.  But food for thought ...

Anyone who has spent some time on the water can tell at but a glance if a buoy is commercial or sport.  If there is no determination, I sort of believe it's likely that a buoy wasn't involved, in which case, these requirements don't really affect the outcome much.  But there is only one way to find out, and this alternative is much cheaper than requiring auto release mechanisms for everyone, or some rope marking scheme.  The truth is we really don't know the answer, as it was determined they couldn't tell in 44% of the cases.  These regulations are in the hope of gathering more data.

Anyone know what the overall breakdown is between total number of commercial and sport pots on the ocean?

-Allen

My WAG is that the overwhelming majority of traps on the west coast are commercial. Approaching 90% if not more.

So what is your thought then on the percentage of entanglements due to commercial traps vs sports?

-Allen

Admittedly I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.  But food for thought ...

Anyone who has spent some time on the water can tell at but a glance if a buoy is commercial or sport.  If there is no determination, I sort of believe it's likely that a buoy wasn't involved, in which case, these requirements don't really affect the outcome much.  But there is only one way to find out, and this alternative is much cheaper than requiring auto release mechanisms for everyone, or some rope marking scheme.  The truth is we really don't know the answer, as it was determined they couldn't tell in 44% of the cases.  These regulations are in the hope of gathering more data.

Anyone know what the overall breakdown is between total number of commercial and sport pots on the ocean?

-Allen

My WAG is that the overwhelming majority of traps on the west coast are commercial. Approaching 90% if not more.

So what is your thought then on the percentage of entanglements due to commercial traps vs sports?

-Allen

I think it’s low but we don’t know and the data doesn’t tell us.  We don’t know where the entanglements occur, if there is a pattern, or any other information that could help mitigate entanglements.  California’s stated goal is zero, which seems impossible to me but getting close to it without draconian measures seems like it’s a laudable goal.

We’re talking about $2 a year and some minimal costs for buoys in order to establish some data points.  At least we aren’t using $1,000 per trap sonar releases like we were talking about last year before Bonta got his promotion.

Admittedly I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.  But food for thought ...

Anyone who has spent some time on the water can tell at but a glance if a buoy is commercial or sport.  If there is no determination, I sort of believe it's likely that a buoy wasn't involved, in which case, these requirements don't really affect the outcome much.  But there is only one way to find out, and this alternative is much cheaper than requiring auto release mechanisms for everyone, or some rope marking scheme.  The truth is we really don't know the answer, as it was determined they couldn't tell in 44% of the cases.  These regulations are in the hope of gathering more data.

Anyone know what the overall breakdown is between total number of commercial and sport pots on the ocean?

-Allen

My WAG is that the overwhelming majority of traps on the west coast are commercial. Approaching 90% if not more.

So what is your thought then on the percentage of entanglements due to commercial traps vs sports?

-Allen

I think it’s low but we don’t know and the data doesn’t tell us.  We don’t know where the entanglements occur, if there is a pattern, or any other information that could help mitigate entanglements.  California’s stated goal is zero, which seems impossible to me but getting close to it without draconian measures seems like it’s a laudable goal.

We’re talking about $2 a year and some minimal costs for buoys in order to establish some data points.  At least we aren’t using $1,000 per trap sonar releases like we were talking about last year before Bonta got his promotion.

Sorry, you think what is low?  We do know that 98.9% of the 56% identifiable are commercial, so at least ~55% of the entanglements are attributed to commercial.  This "we don't know" argument is a FUD argument that doesn't pass my sniff test.

This tactic is to appease the commercial fishermen who are arguing "we don't know".   It's also a delaying tactic to keep Center for Biological Diversity at bay from pushing for stronger measures, which they will continue to do, but it's convenient to say wait for the data.

https://www.nationalfisherman.com/west-coast-pacific/california-crabbing-changes-draw-fire-from-both-sides

Platt of the crab association says the state’s calculation of the risk unfairly penalizes fishermen.
“It simply isn’t true that 50 percent of all unknown gear interactions are attributable to commercial gear and, in fact, commercial gear will be easily eliminated as a source of the unknown gear in most of those instances,” Platt said in his testimony to the agency. “We also encourage the department to improve the gear marking regulations to require that commercial crab lines, in addition to buoys, be marked, because this would effectively eliminate commercial gear as a source of all unknown entanglements.”

Of course the above argument totally ignores the fact that at least 55% of ALL entanglements are shown to be attributable to commercials.

This sort of stuff makes my head hurt.

-Allen

I think if the overall plan is supposed to be save the whales. If this is  a fact then there should be observors on each large ship (container ships) to record the  number of whale to prop  interactions. Or perhaps a  survey of  large prop rebalancers to see how often props are bought or rebalances to estimate the number of  killed or maimed whales from these ships. It says  everything that the  authorities do not seem to give  crap about these whale interactions. Crabbers are a convienient scapegoat. Will braid fishing line be next or downrigger cables?

Admittedly I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here.  But food for thought ...

Anyone who has spent some time on the water can tell at but a glance if a buoy is commercial or sport.  If there is no determination, I sort of believe it's likely that a buoy wasn't involved, in which case, these requirements don't really affect the outcome much.  But there is only one way to find out, and this alternative is much cheaper than requiring auto release mechanisms for everyone, or some rope marking scheme.  The truth is we really don't know the answer, as it was determined they couldn't tell in 44% of the cases.  These regulations are in the hope of gathering more data.

Anyone know what the overall breakdown is between total number of commercial and sport pots on the ocean?

-Allen

My WAG is that the overwhelming majority of traps on the west coast are commercial. Approaching 90% if not more.

So what is your thought then on the percentage of entanglements due to commercial traps vs sports?

-Allen

I think it’s low but we don’t know and the data doesn’t tell us.  We don’t know where the entanglements occur, if there is a pattern, or any other information that could help mitigate entanglements.  California’s stated goal is zero, which seems impossible to me but getting close to it without draconian measures seems like it’s a laudable goal.

We’re talking about $2 a year and some minimal costs for buoys in order to establish some data points.  At least we aren’t using $1,000 per trap sonar releases like we were talking about last year before Bonta got his promotion.

Sorry, you think what is low?  We do know that 98.9% of the 56% identifiable are commercial, so at least ~55% of the entanglements are attributed to commercial.  This "we don't know" argument is a FUD argument that doesn't pass my sniff test.

This tactic is to appease the commercial fishermen who are arguing "we don't know".   It's also a delaying tactic to keep Center for Biological Diversity at bay from pushing for stronger measures, which they will continue to do, but it's convenient to say wait for the data.

https://www.nationalfisherman.com/west-coast-pacific/california-crabbing-changes-draw-fire-from-both-sides

Platt of the crab association says the state’s calculation of the risk unfairly penalizes fishermen.
“It simply isn’t true that 50 percent of all unknown gear interactions are attributable to commercial gear and, in fact, commercial gear will be easily eliminated as a source of the unknown gear in most of those instances,” Platt said in his testimony to the agency. “We also encourage the department to improve the gear marking regulations to require that commercial crab lines, in addition to buoys, be marked, because this would effectively eliminate commercial gear as a source of all unknown entanglements.”

Of course the above argument totally ignores the fact that at least 55% of ALL entanglements are shown to be attributable to commercials.

This sort of stuff makes my head hurt.

-Allen

In the fight between commercial crabbers and the center for biological diversity I'm firmly in the commercial crabbers camp.  I don't want to end up with ropeless gear. 

As far as 55%. that isn't true either. Commercial crabbers accounted for less than that because net entanglements are also counted.  Follow the links in the DFW document i linked above.  This is the historical one from 2017:

https://media.fisheries.noaa.gov/2021-03/tm-opr-63a-final-031921.pdf?VersionId=null

It should also be clear from that link that we don't have good data.  So lets go get good data.  Sorry about your headache.