lobster nets

Moderators: primo808, 96743, bluefinmod

Brian F.
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by Brian F. » Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:05 pm

fishyfishy wrote:Actually Brian, I was just making an analogy, I did'nt actually here of this being a problem....I hope what you heard was just rumor. You guys may want to check with Oahu DOCARE to clarify this....one thing bad about rules and enforcement issues is rumors, we need facts if possible. Please check on this.
Actually, not a rumor but I do have a clarification from a friend:

When the new Bottom Fish Restricted Areas (BFRAs) were created, it included language that would make possession of certain gear types illegal in those areas. Just so happen net was one of them. As you know Kona Crab nets are considered nets.

This issue was called to DLNR's attention during the comment period prior to the law being approved. They did want to delay the rule any further so the comment was "we "DAR" can easily fix that after the rule is passed". So instead of making the changes prior to the rule being approved "they" left it in.

So till this day Kona Crab "nets" are not allowed in or transiting through the BFRA's. Needless to say the rule has not been changed so fishermen are again stuck with rules that don't make sense. With the old BFRA's this issue was not too critical, since they were in smaller and in deeper waters.

But now that the "NEW" BFRA's will be larger and closer to shore, it will affect certain Kona Crab grounds. The BFRA's extending from shallow out to 3 miles was DLNR's idea. (MPA's) give me a break many of those deepwater bottomfish don't even come close to shallower water, with the exception of the juvenile paka's that come into some shallow (120') sandy baron areas, like just outside of Kaneohe Bay.

Here again it is a matter of definition and or wording.
Aloha,
Brian F.

"No House, No Fish"
"Hypocrisy is not a fault these days - it is a lifestyle"
http://fishtoday.org (the views expressed above are my own and do not specifically represent that of PIFG)

kona-ulua-style
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3770
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Holualoa, Big Island

Post by kona-ulua-style » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:02 am

Hello Brian, Thank-you for correcting us and informing us of the official rules.

Does this mean Opelu \"NETS\" too? Many fisherman carry gear that could be consider \"USE' for bottom fishing.

Man make the laws, many times NOT written wisely. United States is govern by laws, laws made by MAN. Each year a thousand more laws are written excepted, than more new laws are needed to correct the old laws that was passed.

The word \" shallow to 3 miles out? What is consider \"shallow waters?\"
A good example of a poor written law.

and 3 miles out measure from where? our lands are not straight, your boat could be close to someones else yet one of you could be outside of 3 miles by a few inches. Who determines this measurement?

Again \"THANK-YOU BRIAN\" keeping us inform with the correct information. ............Aloha

PS: Ever tried kim-chee raw Kona crab? or just eat the backs of Kona crabs? Yummy!!

Palolo Fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by Palolo Fisherman » Sun Sep 09, 2007 9:37 am

From the DAR bottom fishing regulation page;

Gear restrictions
Unlawful to take bottomfish with any trap, trawl, bottomfish longline or net. Scoop nets may be used to bring on board a vessel any bottomfish that has already been caught. Unlawful to possess, while on board a vessel, both bottomfish and any trap, trawl, bottomfish longline, or net other than scoop net.

To me, it looks like kona crab nets are allowed as long as bottom fish are not on board.

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Sun Sep 09, 2007 10:56 am

Unlawful to possess, while on board a vessel, both bottomfish and any trap, trawl, bottomfish longline, or net other than scoop net.

To me, it looks like kona crab nets are allowed as long as bottom fish are not on board.
Good Job Palolo!!!, you are right indeed, here is a good example of a rumor amongst fishermen. I'm glad you took the time to look this up. Much Mahalos.

As for my arguement against the lay net ban including lobster nets, well, I see where the lobster nets can indeed be included as a lay net, and the word \"entangle aquatic life\" kills my arguement........so the only arguement left is that no mention of lobster nets as an affected practice of netting were made during the hearings. It was not the intent of the rule to include lobster nets.

And as far as the new BFRA starting from shallow waters out to 3 miles.....well, I'm gonna go look up some rules and take this one up later after I educate myself a bit.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

Palolo Fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by Palolo Fisherman » Sun Sep 09, 2007 11:46 am

While these rules were being drafted, it may be that the DAR was not aware that lobster nets were percieved as being different compared to lay nets to net fishermen. Once the rules were drafted, it may have been determined that trying to distinguish between a net used to catch fish and a net used to catch lobster would be too difficult to enforce so they decided to leave it as is.

Palolo Fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by Palolo Fisherman » Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:16 pm


fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:32 pm

After further review of the BFRAs starting from shallow water out to 3 miles, I can't seem to find any problems with this, frankly, it makes good sense from an enforcement standpoint.
While these rules were being drafted, it may be that the DAR was not aware that lobster nets were percieved as being different compared to lay nets to net fishermen. Once the rules were drafted, it may have been determined that trying to distinguish between a net used to catch fish and a net used to catch lobster would be too difficult to enforce so they decided to leave it as is.
Palolo, don't underestimate DAR, they are a bunch of smart guys, too smart for their own good sometimes. They know that lobster nets are different. As far as determining the enforcement problems, I spoke with DOCARE, they did'nt seem to have a problem with the enforcement of lobster nets vs. lay nets....One net catches fish, the other net catches lobster....simple......currently the way I see it, within a lay net banned zone, if a lobster net is used and catches a fish, the fish must be released, such as here on Maui.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

Palolo Fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by Palolo Fisherman » Sun Sep 09, 2007 1:31 pm

I guess that means the DAR outsmarted the lobster net fishermen. The lobster netters should have realized when these rules were being proposed that lobster nets would be subjected to the same rules as gill lay nets because the way gill lay nets were discribed in the proposal, lobster nets clearly falls within the discription.

I have no problem with lobster nets being included with the gill lay net regulations. Having different rules for one net that targets lobsters and one net that targets fish just adds to the confusion because nobody has answered my original question of what are the clear differences that would make one net a lobster net and another a gill lay net? I don't want to hear just one net is wider and has smaller mesh. How much wider and how much smaller? Where are the cut off points?

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:36 pm

The lobster netters should have realized when these rules were being proposed that lobster nets would be subjected to the same rules as gill lay nets because the way gill lay nets were discribed in the proposal, lobster nets clearly falls within the discription.
It should not have to be upto us fishermen to always have to \"realize\" who and what will be affected by a rule, the state, in all of their wordly knowledge, should tell us upfront, this is not a small slip up but a giant violation of public trust.
I have no problem with lobster nets being included with the gill lay net regulations.
Actually Palolo, I don't have a problem with banning lobster nets either, I was told by DAR that when lobster have 2 or more appendages broken off, they have a 80% mortality rate, and given the new law protecting female lobsters, lobster nets now become wasteful practice if not done properly.......the problem at hand is the way DAR went about \"defining\" the rule to conviently include lobster nets after the public hearings, when that was not the original intent......as fishermen, it is our duty to question such behavior and not allow the state to add things in after the public hearings, that is a potential violation of civil rights.

And you do have a point as to why no one can answer your question about the differences between the nets, mostly because the state never took the time to define nets.....lobster nets are not known to catch fish very often, occassional Kala from what I've heard.....but the simple fact remains that lobster nets are specifically designed to catch lobster....they are not like lay gill nets where the same net can be used to moe moe, pai pai or surround. One cannot take a lobster net and use it to catch Akule for example....and I think this to be a most significant difference between a lobster net and a lay net....lobster nets should still be regulated (endangered species protection) and if fish are caught in them they should be released.

Point of all this is we cannot let DAR get away with questionable behavior. Though this ruling may be in our favor, what about the next time?
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

Brian F.
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by Brian F. » Sun Sep 09, 2007 3:22 pm

Palolo Fisherman wrote:..what are the clear differences that would make one net a lobster net and another a gill lay net? I don't want to hear just one net is wider and has smaller mesh. How much wider and how much smaller? Where are the cut off points?
Actually, the key is height of the panel, not width and the chord used to make it, not mono. Obviously, the people deciding on new rules don't fish at all or, at very least, don't do all types of fishing and can't be experts on different techniques. I have to ask then, where did DLNR get information to formulate these rules? Did they consult fishermen? If they consulted with fishermen about these techniques and gear types, could it be they were ignored? I think having people asking these questions only now after the fact clearly demonstrates the point that DLNR either did not do their homework or discounted some important input.

Fishy, you are absolutely right - it's a question about the process. If the process was done correctly, the right things would be done to protect our resources and we could be working together with DLNR and everyone else without this type of distrust. It's right up there with the attitude one person had when telling me "If fishermen cannot follow rules we have now, how can we expect them to follow more complicated rules?".

As for the bottom fish / kona crab net thing, I guess there's nothing wrong because you wouldn't be bottom fishing in the BFRA if you are going after kona crab or hoopnetting opelu. Maybe no problem unless you are setting nets for kona crab outside of the BFRA, decide to go bottomfish while you're waiting, and then now because you have both on board, you have to make a pretty good detour to avoid the BFRAs?
Aloha,
Brian F.

"No House, No Fish"
"Hypocrisy is not a fault these days - it is a lifestyle"
http://fishtoday.org (the views expressed above are my own and do not specifically represent that of PIFG)

Palolo Fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by Palolo Fisherman » Sun Sep 09, 2007 4:17 pm

My mistake, I should have been more specific. What I was taught in school was when measuring objects the longer dimension was called length and the shorter dimension was called width. But since nets are measured in 3 dimensional space height would be the more proper term. But I thought everybody would know I meant height and not length when I said wide.

I guess this is an example where confusion can come about by not choosing the absolute correct words or terms. But I still think if you read the DARs discription of what constitutes a gill lay net, lobster nets as discribed by those on this thread still falls under said discription. I don't think the DAR was trying to fool anybody and are just trying to clarify the rules to avoid confusion.

Brian F.
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by Brian F. » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:21 pm

Thanks Kona, Fishy and Palolo, your help is much appreciated. One thing I've learned on this forum is that if you hear something around town, ask about it here, rumor or not. You will have driven and determined people who will be quick to get to the bottom of things and more people learn/benefit from it. If you don't ask or talk about it, if it is indeed a rumor, it continues to spread and, like Fishy says, perpetuate a problem for enforcement.

Kona, I'll relay your thanks to the website owner. I think that is one of the goals that he had in mind, where people can talk about things and are able to have exchanges in an instant (and civil) manner. Seems to me, he's achieved that goal and then some.
Aloha,
Brian F.

"No House, No Fish"
"Hypocrisy is not a fault these days - it is a lifestyle"
http://fishtoday.org (the views expressed above are my own and do not specifically represent that of PIFG)

Brian F.
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm

Post by Brian F. » Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:16 pm

Palolo Fisherman wrote:From the DAR bottom fishing regulation page;

Gear restrictions
Unlawful to take bottomfish with any trap, trawl, bottomfish longline or net. Scoop nets may be used to bring on board a vessel any bottomfish that has already been caught. Unlawful to possess, while on board a vessel, both bottomfish and any trap, trawl, bottomfish longline, or net other than scoop net.

To me, it looks like kona crab nets are allowed as long as bottom fish are not on board.
A friend of mine that likes to do both kona crabbing and bottomfishing pointed out that the way this is written seems to make it illegal to have both bottomfish and any of the items listed on board at any time, even if you are not in a BFRA and even while trailering your boat. That means people can no longer do different types of legal fishing, on the same trip. Like almost happened with the NARS at Kaena Pt., ban the gear and you effectively halt fishing too. My friend was at the BFRA hearings and specifically recalls hearing the DAR official stating that he recognized the gray area and promised they would correct it "later". Just resurrected this because I think it was lost that it was another case where DAR promised something and never followed up.
Aloha,
Brian F.

"No House, No Fish"
"Hypocrisy is not a fault these days - it is a lifestyle"
http://fishtoday.org (the views expressed above are my own and do not specifically represent that of PIFG)

fishyfishy
Mega poster
Mega poster
Posts: 528
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 9:44 pm

Post by fishyfishy » Wed Sep 12, 2007 6:32 pm

Brian, your friend should have DOCARE clarify this in writing whether or not they enforce this rule as it seems, cause as it seems, you are right, cannot have kona crab nets and bottomfish on the same vessel.....should get clarification from both DAR and DOCARE, would be interesting to see if they agree with eachother.
"No Resource, No Fisherman"
A post by Darrell Tanaka

Palolo Fisherman
VIP Poster
VIP Poster
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: Oahu

Post by Palolo Fisherman » Thu Sep 13, 2007 4:55 am

I thought Kona crabs were caught in waters much less deep than the 7 regulated bottom fish species :?:

Post Reply