New hoop net regs?

https://www.norcalfishreports.com/fish_reports/193942/additional-changes-coming-for-hoop-net-crabbing.php


Anyone have any more details on this?

There was a link in the article:

https://www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=204688&inline

Hi all,
Well just got my promar ambush traps from Bass pro shops at what I thought was a pretty good deal.....got 2 so now I have 4 traps 2 of the old rings that lie flat and two of the ambush traps.

I reading the links it seems like I may have gotten the ambush rings just to have them outlawed..... I think the problem is that they have 3 rings..... one at the bottom of 10 to 12 inches which is similar to my other old rings and then the 32" ring midway with an 18 inch ring at the top..... attaching screen shot.

In the old regs they make mention of the bait ring (which may be the 10 to 12 inch ring) which did not count against the 3 rings max..... the new proposed regs don't seem to make this distinction and seems to make the ambush non legal?

I guess if this is so I could cut the small bait ring out making them legal?

Just wanted to check with other to see if that is how they reading it?

Really seems like the new proposal assumes that folks will break the rules of the 2 hours if the traps work better..... really weird for regulation to assume guilt as part of their methodology to codify.....  I guess the whole fishing for rock or halibut with salmon on board is another example. I can not imagine that the little 8 to 10 inch bait ring to be much of a problem for whales more than the rope attached to a buoy but I am not a marine biologist.

Any how if any of you more experienced fisherfolks have a feel for this I would be interested.  Really seems like there would be a better way using much less complicated non overlapping language to get this done..... Same said for the new rockfish regs.

I work with many jurisdictions for housing and it does seem like the regulators love complicated regulation as it makes them seem more important..... don't get me wrong I follow all regulations but making them odd and complicated while rarely  enforcing and punishing poachers etc really makes me wonder.
People who will be regulated easily like most of our fisherfolks seem to take the brunt of this type of thinking with jurisdictions while those who do not care about regulations do not fear enforcement and are rarely punished it seems.



Troy

I found the following excerpt here:

https://wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Ocean/Regulations/Sport-Fishing/Invertebrate-Fishing-Regs#crustaceans

(B) Type B: Fishing gear that is comprised of two to three rigid rings (not including the bait ring), with each ring measuring no greater than 36 inches in inside diameter and the top ring measuring no less than 15 inches in inside diameter. The upper ring or rings shall be connected to the bottom ring and supported by no more than six rigid support arms, and the assembled frame shall measure no more than 10 inches tall. The rings and support material shall not be thicker than one inch in any dimension. All rings shall be connected by soft mesh, thereby forming a net with an enclosed bottom, and lift lines shall be attached only to the top ring. When suspended from lift lines the enclosed bottom portion of the net shall be even with or hanging below all other rings, and the entire net shall measure no taller than 30 inches. A bait ring may be attached to the net as long as the ring is not part of the rigid frame.

Lets hope the "bait" ring still gets a free pass.

The whole idea behind this is that only gear that is being actively fished will fulfill the intent of the regulation.  So ambush traps, which obviously don't need to be actively fished like typical, collapsible rings, may be a problem.  It's something I figured from the beginning, since the issue of gear being actively fished was the main point of leaving rings open when traps were prohibited.

FWIW, if you haven't fished traditional rings, they're way better than traps, in my opinion.  Actively fishing for crabs, where you pull your gear up and the crabs may actually be able to escape, is so much more sporting than trapping them.  The ambush traps probably do allow some chance of escape, but it's a very small chance, compared to rings.

More sporting, less harvest = more challenging and more fun.

Diving on the crabs is pretty fun too.   

DFG also had an opportunity to make crab hawks legal, and failed to do so. 

Why not make it so any lay-flat device less than 36" in any dimension is legal and has to be checked every two hours?  If they keep trying to define things out of being legal by regulation, then there will be more and more clever work arounds.  How about just have it lay flat and call it good?

It seems they want to make it all soo complicated that you need your lawyer to go fishing..... I am all for responsible limits and protecting whales..... but a crab hawk and a ring such as an ambush will not have anything to do with that.

It seems the new rockfish regulations fall into this category as well.

Oh well done with trying to figure out the agenda that DFG follows.

It could be that they think the more complicated the regulations are the more intelligent they seem?

Troy

Thanks for the heads up.

For those of us with the ambush nets, if I read it correctly, the TL;DR is:
- this is an emergency proposal, not a change of regulations
- the proposal is to require a service period (like 2 hours) so that the ambush nets are not soaking for too long (which increase entanglement risk)
- the proposal also includes restrictions on additional openings and use of non-soft (e.g., wire) mesh

Not sure, sounds to me like they are targeting ambush nets.  Didn't know the diff between type A and B, found a document that gives a convoluted explanation.   Seems the major differential is type A has a top ring of no less than 10" and no greater than 15".  Larger than 15" becomes type B.  I don't own any ambush but was just about to, think I'll pass for now.

I think the emergency proposal is intended to address workarounds like the ones pictured here

https://www.norcalkayakanglers.com/index.php?topic=99306.0

After reading the proposal it doesn’t appear to be targeting ambush hoops, to me at least.

I am really unclear on this text that was attached in the first post of this thread.... I am attaching it with my highlights.... And this is a proposed emergency regulations and as far as I can tell has not yet been adopted.

It seems to limit type b rings to two (with no mention of a bait ring as current regs do I think?)....

The rest is not an issue with me as marking my buoys and the two hours soak all seem easy and really to me anyhow makes sense to help the whales.

My only question at least right now is can I use my new  promar ambush traps as is or do I cut the bait ring out to comply.....either way I am waiting until the emergency regs are in effect in case this get reversed before they are implemented.

Seems pretty clear to me that type b rings can only have two hoops according to these emergency regs as written.  So the easiest way to comply while still using these traps would be to cut the smallest ring out and tighten up the netting on the bottom hoop.

This might effect performance of the rings but right now not much of a concern for me... just trying to be able to use my newly purchased rings while not causing harm to whales etc. 

Troy

I am really unclear on this text that was attached in the first post of this thread.... I am attaching it with my highlights.... And this is a proposed emergency regulations and as far as I can tell has not yet been adopted.

It seems to limit type b rings to two (with no mention of a bait ring as current regs do I think?)....

The rest is not an issue with me as marking my buoys and the two hours soak all seem easy and really to me anyhow makes sense to help the whales.

My only question at least right now is can I use my new  promar ambush traps as is or do I cut the bait ring out to comply.....either way I am waiting until the emergency regs are in effect in case this get reversed before they are implemented.

Seems pretty clear to me that type b rings can only have two hoops according to these emergency regs as written.  So the easiest way to comply while still using these traps would be to cut the smallest ring out and tighten up the netting on the bottom hoop.

This might effect performance of the rings but right now not much of a concern for me... just trying to be able to use my newly purchased rings while not causing harm to whales etc. 

Troy

I'm going with em’…the bait ring better be excluded due to any efficacy of trappage…though, I’m super tempted to leave em’ over night and am not capable of self regulation

In the definition of type A and B hoops, it states: Fishing gear that is comprised of two to three rigid rings (not including the bait ring)

I can only imagine that when the emergency proposal says that the definition will be amended from "Two to three" to "two" it will also include the provision that excludes the bait ring. The proposal does not say "including bait ring." Hence why I don't think ambush hoops are affected by this, even if it is adopted.

Hi Julian,
Yep I am with you as I really don't want to remove a ring of a new crab ring.... and adding insult to injury I doubt the extra pound or so for this ring would have any additional effect for the supposed intentions of saving whales....especially when I plan to do the less than 2 hour interval any way...

Just checking to see if anyone else has any insight but will wait till the emergency regs are in effect to see how best to deal with them.

Troy

With large ships killing 3 to 10 whales per year in California I totally understand banning sport crab traps and  commercial crabbing. I know they follow the Science in all of the regulations.