Mr. Colvin led the Council through a review of the public comments received on the specific changes to the current State regulations for lobster and crabs being proposed by the Department.

Lobster Regulations

Issue:  Ban the setting of lobster pots within 25 feet of a navigation channel.  Mr. Colvin reminded the Council that, when it first saw this proposal, the “set back” was 200ft but, because of the discussion and recommendation of the Council, it has been reduced to 25ft.

Comments:  Twelve comments were received.  Seven were in relation to restricting the placement of lobster pots within 25ft of designated navigation channels.  Four comments were in support – three were opposed.  One recommended the distance should be in reference to the center of the channel.  Another comment in support mentioned the potential navigation hazard to boating public.  Of the comments in opposition, two said it would be impossible to determine if the trap was within 25 ft, and the other two felt the pots should be allowed to be set in the channel as long as the buoys and lines were outside the channel.  It was suggested that this latter approach is the one adopted by the US Coast Guard in this matter, which looks at the issue on a case-by-case basis.

Issue:  Increase the diameter of the circular vent in lobster traps set in Lobster Conservation Management Area 4 (Atlantic Ocean off Long Island) to 2 5/8”; it is presently 2 ½”.

Comments:  Three comments were received.  One in support, one in opposition, and one with suggested modification such as changing the wording of the express terms of the regulation to have it take effect 30-60 days after implementation of the regulation.

Issue: Require that lobster pot escape panels should be so designed that they fall outward and do not block the opening, allowing lobsters inside to escape

Comments:  One in support and one suggesting a later implementation date than the 01 June 2006 contained in the proposed regulation.

Issue:  Modifies the qualifying period for those seeking an allowance of lobster trap tags for use in Lobster Conservation Management Area Six (Long Island Sound)

Comments:  Two comments were received; both opposed the proposed change, saying that all previous trap tag allocations in Long Island Sound were based on the years 1996 – 1998, not 1995.  They felt the inclusion of 1995 would increase the overall trap tag allocation in LCMA 6.

Issue:  Allows a lobster license holder to designate another lobster license holder to tend their gear during a medical emergency.

Comments:  Three comments were in support and one in opposition.  The person in opposition suggested that anyone claiming this privilege be required to submit a note from a certified physician testifying to the individual’s incapacitation.

Issue:  Requires that a person possessing a lobster bait gillnet permit, which are only issued to licensed lobstermen, submit Vessel Trip Report-based information (catch & effort) on their menhaden catch, as is required of any foodfish license holder.

Comments:  One in support.

Issue:  As per the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for American Lobster, when a person receives a permit, they must specify which lobster management area(s) they intend to fish in.  This gives the DEC the regulations to assure the lobstermen abides by the most restrictive regulations among the areas he designated.  It also adds that DEC will give written notice to a lobster license-holder what the size and possession limits are  at the time they secure their permit.

Comments:  No comments were received.

Horseshoe Crab Regulations

Issue:  Requires those harvesting horseshoe crabs for biomedical purposes to either return the animals to the waters from which they were taken or sell them as bait and so report to the Department.

Comments: Four comments were received, 1 in support, 3 in opposition.  Those in opposition did not believe that horseshoe crabs harvested from New York waters should be allowed to be shipped out of state; they should only be used locally.

Issue:  Authorizes the Department to close shoreline areas to hand harvesting of horseshoe crabs, if there is evidence that the areas are important habitat for migratory shorebirds or the area is managed as a public recreation area.

Comments:  Fifteen comments were received; 6 in support of the proposal and 9 opposed to it.  Of those opposed to the proposal, the basic concern expressed was that the proposal was so broadly phrased that it could potentially empower DEC to close any area of Long Island’s shoreline to the hand harvest of this species. Among those supporting the proposal were a State Senator and State Assemblyman.

Councilor John Davi, Jr., a commercial lobsterman, felt that the criteria proposed by DEC to determine whether or not an area contained a significant interaction between migratory shorebirds and breeding horseshoe crabs were too vague and subject to variable interpretation.  Mr. Colvin responded that many environmental groups were urging a precautionary approach to dealing with the horseshoe crab/migratory shorebird issue and favoring very broad area closures to horseshoe crab harvesting in New York.  DEC has opted for a science-based approach that relies on information on where shorebirds and horseshoe crabs co-occur and focuses on those areas, only.  He noted that red knots are not typically found in most shoreline areas of New York.  Any area closure would be made only upon the presentation and evaluation of concrete observation/monitoring, etc.  Mr. Pat Augustine cited evidence that major reductions in horseshoe crabs harvested in the Mid-Atlantic area had little impact on the abundance of migratory shorebird populations, especially the red knot.  He indicated that some new research has suggested that red knots have altered their migratory stopovers to spend more time in the Carolinas than in New Jersey.  Mr. Colvin commented that he did not believe that the proposed authority to establish shoreline areas closed to hand harvest will materially affect the ability this year of New York horseshoe crab fisherman to catch their quota of 150,000 crabs under the ASMFC’s interstate fishery management plan for the species.

Blue Crab Regulations

Issue:  Establishes a definition of a “crab pot” as a box-like device, not more than twenty-four inches in any dimension …etc.

Comments:  The one comment received was in opposition to this definition.  It was noted that pots used to take crabs other than blue crabs (which was the species targeted by the regulation) are often longer than 24”.

Councilor Danielson noted that many bait & tackle shops sell crab traps longer than 24”and they are used to harvest blue crabs.  Mr. Colvin responded that representatives of the commercial crab industry have never cited a problem with the proposed 24” maximum length.  Mr. Danielson said that the larger traps are not used by commercial fishermen.  Mr. Colvin responded that the proposed regulation would affect only commercial crab fishermen.

Councilor Relyea noted that his aquaculture company uses pots extensively to harvest crabs on their shellfish beds, although usually not blue crabs.  He questioned whether and to what extent the proposed regulation would apply to his company.  Chairman Wise suggested that perhaps the language of the regulation should be revised to reflect the fact that it applied only to traps used to harvest blue crabs for commercial purposes.  Councilor Thomas Jordan stated that he was aware of several persons engaged in the commercial blue crab fishery that used traps longer than 24”.

Council Danielson moved that the Council recommend to DEC that the 24” length limit be removed from the proposed regulation.  Mr. Danielson’s motion carried; the vote was 10 in favor; 0 opposed; 2 abstentions.

Issue:  One commenter suggested that the proposed regulations should include a prohibition on the use of metal or steel cable as “sinking line.”

Mr. Colvin indicated that the Department would consider this recommendation.

Issue:  Provide requirements for acceptably marking commercial crabbing gear.

Comments:  Seven comments were received, most recommending modification to the proposed marking requirements.  Two commenters made suggestions regarding the required size and color of crab line buoys.  Several persons commented on the need to ensure the visibility of buoys at night through the use of reflective tape, flags, etc.

Issue:   Proposal to ban the setting of commercial crab pots within 25 feet of a navigation channel.  The Department had originally proposed a 200-foot restriction.

Comments:  Nine comments were received, five of them supporting the proposed restriction. Several of those favoring the 25-foot restriction urged further restrictions of this sort, up to 1 mile from a channel.  Those opposing the rule said either that it would not be feasible to determine whether a pot was or was not within 25 feet of a channel or that the rule should be modified to allow the pots themselves to be in the channel, but not their associated buoys and/or lines.  State Senator Owen Johnson commented in support of the proposed 25-foot restriction and recommended that it be increased to a 75-foot setback.  The NYS Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic preservation commented favorably on the proposed rule.

Mr. Colvin noted that, unlike is typically the case in Long Island Sound re the interference of lobster gear set in navigation channels, crab pots set in the shallow channels of Great South Bay can often, themselves, be an impediment to navigation at low tide, notwithstanding any hazards posed by connecting lines and buoys, or vessels tending gear in these narrow channels.

Mr. Relyea again noted that his operation in Oyster Bay does lease shellfish beds that include navigation channels and they do use pots to control crab abundances in those areas.  He asked for an exemption to the restriction on setting pots in/near navigation channels for aquaculture operations.  Mr. Colvin noted that such an exemption would represent a “substantial change” to the proposed rule and could not be undertaken as part of the present rule-making.

Councilor Witek noted that, in South Shore areas, boaters often casually deploy one or more crab traps over the side while anchored right along the channel edge.  Outside the channel, the water is to shoal for these vessels.  The proposed rule would make this illegal although the crab gear itself is not an impediment to navigation because the boat is there.  He suggested that the Department consider some type of exemption from this rule for personally attended crab pots/traps.

In response to Mr. Witek, Mr. Colvin expressed concern about the Department taking an action that would, effectively, sanction boaters anchoring in designated navigation channels.  That said, he expressed willingness to consider some type of exemption based on a limited number of crab traps deployed, all of them being immediately attended by one or persons.

Mr. Witek moved that the Council recommend to the Department that it examine a limited exemption from the 25-foot channel exclusion rule for crab pots under the immediate attendance of a person.  In response to a question from Mr. Pat Augustine, Mr. Witek clarified that his motion was meant to include a situation when a crab trap(s) is being tended from a dock, although the proposed rule already exempts traps set from bulkheads.  Mr. Jordan suggested just extending that exemption to traps deployed from anchored vessels.  Mr. Witek’s motion carried; the vote was 7 in favor; 0 opposed; 4 abstentions.

Issue:  Require by 01 January 2007 that all crab pots except those made entirely of a biodegradable material have one on side an escape panel with an opening of 6.5” x 5.”

Comments:  Four comments were received.  One recommended that pots used for personal consumption be exempted from this requirement.  Another responder recommended that crab traps whose sides fall open to allow crabs ingress be exempted.  One person commented that cull rings are as effective as escape panels.  A final comment questioned the length of time required for the hog  tie used to keep the escape panel closed to degrade.

Mr. Relyea again asked about an exemption to this requirement for aquaculturists who use traps to control crab predation on shellfish beds.  Ms. Kim McKown of DEC observed that these regulation are meant to apply to traps used to take blue crabs for commercial purposes.  If this can be made clearer throughout, there should be no need for specific exemptions for traps used for other purposes, such as control of crabs as shellfish predators.

Issue:  Authorizes the Department to require, by Executive Order, the installation of Turtle Excluder Devices (TED’s) in crab pots if it determines that the incidental mortality of diamondback terrapins in such gear is causing the decline in the population of this reptile in a specific water body or area.

Comments:  Two comments were received in support of this requirement and four in opposition to it.  One of the supporting comments recommended a smaller size for the TED’s to be used in crab pots (1.75” x 6”).  Among those opposed to the proposed TED requirement, one person stated that TED’s don’t keep turtles out of traps, but they do limit the catch of blue crabs in a trap.  Two persons stated that they had never caught a diamondback terrapin in a crab trap.  The final comment opposing the TED requirement expressed concern that A TED would let green crabs out of his traps.

Issue:  Establish the following minimum sizes for blue crabs:  hard shell crab, 4.5” carapace width; soft shell crab, 3.5” and peeler/shedder crab, 3”.

Comments:  Six comments were received supporting the proposed rule, although frequently suggesting some modification to it.  Five comments opposed the rule.

Mr. Davi asked about crabs entering New York from out-of-state.  Do these other states also have minimum size limits?  Mr. Colvin replied that they do.  None of these states have smaller minimum size limits than those being proposed by the Department.  Mr. Danielson noted that some anglers used small blue crabs as bait.  Mr. Colvin responded that, if the proposed minimum size limits were adopted, this practice would no longer be legal.  Mr. Danielson noted that snapper bluefish can be used as bait, although beyond the first ten caught, all recreationally harvested bluefish must be at least 10 inches in length.

Mr. Witek expressed disappointment that the DEC didn’t propose a 5” minimum size for hard shell blue crabs; this is the figure in place for many states along the US East Coast.  Mr. Relyea inquired about an aquaculture exemption to the proposed minimum sizes for blue crabs.  Mr. Colvin stated that it might be possible to modify the permits issued to aquaculture operations to exempt them from the proposed minimum size limits, as long as any blue crabs they take are not subsequently sold.

Councilor McBride moved that the Council recommend to the Department that, in setting the final language of the lobster & crab rule-making, it give serious consideration to the views expressed by the Council on the several parts of the rule-making, as described above. Mr. McBride’s motion carried; the  vote was 6 in favor; 0 opposed; 5 abstentions.

 

Page last modified Saturday, July 8, 2006 by George E. Carroll