Ghost Pots - We don't need to pay anymore...

[chesbay2]

(Hoping to continue with a respectful discussion)

So what is the oversight on # of pots? Is it an honor system?

NRP is spread too thin. I can't believe Griffin said NRP doesn't need more funding. At our legislative breakfast each year we ask for more officers. There is a lot of things in this world that are honor system. But seriously- I REALLY dont think extra pots is an issue. I can't speak for the whole Bay.

[Scott McGuire]

I think it would be illogical to conclude that extra pots are not an issue if we have no way of confirming that potters are sticking to their limits. It sounds to me that pot limits are not enforceable. This brings to question - is there a way to make the limits enforceable? or is there a need to have limits at all?

[Matt]

successfully managed crustacean fisheries have moved away from effort management, to total allowable catch. I think lobster, stone crab and alaskan king crab have all moved to TAC. Managing gear or effort has no history of success.

[paxfish]

So. This thread has run off course a bit, though there are many good issues that should be discussed. Perhaps in other threads?

To get back on track:

We've been paying for a couple of years to recover ghost pots. This is something that we weren't sure was an issue 3 years ago. The program to recover has served as a defacto study that proves there is a big problem with commercial potting in that there is a known a large abandoned/lost pot ratio. The program also showed that those pots continue to catch and kill for a long time after they are lost or abandoned.

I propose that those of us who are concerned about this fishery drive for regulations requiring the use of easily-installed degradable panels in pots. This won't address the fact that pots are lost or abandoned, but it will eliminate most of the wanton waste associated with lost and abandoned pots. This takes the burden of that waste off of the taxpayer, and the fisheries that are impacted. It could be phased in over 3 years such that all NEW pots would be required to have the panels. Requiring degradable panels is a common practice in other states that allow crab pots.

Given the known facts, are there any viable arguments against such a change? And no, TRADITION is not a viable argument....

[Cabyn Fever]

paxfish,

The only objection I could see anyone having is possibly added expense. Does a biodegradable panel even exist that would work?

Chuck

[Matt]

moving away from effort management is a viable argument. Placing meaningful quotas or catch shares on qualifying crabbers would change the behavior in such a way that losing gear would no longer be economically feasible, or necessary. I could write another 10,000 words on why. Instead, I guess I'm wondering why corrosive panels isn't just treating symptoms. I mean, what is it that makes the loss of commercial crab pots acceptable. By the time we factor in the cost of a pot, the rope, the float, and all the work to maintain and move a crab catching device, losing pots can hardly be a desirable outcome. I'm thinking a system that incentivizes careful deployment and professional management of gear is a better solution.

[Cabyn Fever]

Never mind I just Googled it. Sounds like they are $1 each.

http://www.rareplanet.org/en/solutio...d-lobster-pots

Chuck

[buckshotgumbo]

I think the panels are a good idea.
I can't see why anyone would not want to keep from loosing pots, but I would imagine that in an effort to maintain fwd momentum, the don't want to stoo crabbing, deploy the grapple, etc...
Plus, with the ghost pot recovery program (which i think is silly), what incentive is there at all to recover at your expense?
I was talking with a waterman recently about it.
I said, boy, I wish I could throw a party in a state park, charge a cover charge to attend, leave my mess, then have the state pay me to come back later and clean it up...

[paxfish]

Buckshot - That's not a bad analogy. And that's why I think this is important.

Matt - I think you could pursue your solution, and someday you might get it implemented successfully. Long term, it might be optimal, depending on how it is implemented. I agree that losing 20% of your one's pots each year is ridiculous and should not just be considered "the cost of doing business." Nor should we as taxpayers pick up the burden as "a cost of having a crabbing industry."

That said, degradable panels is something that can be implemented immediately that will reduce the impact of lost/abandoned pots in the very NEAR TERM. It is proven technology and doesn't seem to have any real downside.

[27 sailfish]

Pax - The only down side will be if a panel rots away too quickly during crabbing season - crabber will bitch to no end ( can not blame him ). Crew forgets to change the panel - it can happen.

Our bay water salinity changes year to year - that can slow or hasten corrosion of panels.

The trotline rigs are OK but have drawbacks. I've seen boats snag anchors on them and bottom fishermen can lose hooks to them.

This adds a serious danger to crabber as a 2 - 5 oz weight comes flinging into the cockpit.

The dark floats are visible on cloudy / rough days but when do most pleasure boaters go out ?

Ghost pots is a tough problem to fix - no one simple answer. Crabbers move gear a lot so any type of semi permanent anchoring is ruled out. Larger floats would help but could drag pots away.

One good thing - the new side scans do make finding lost ones much easier.