Possible New Hoopnetting Regulations Coming

**fishnfool** · Oct-20-2009, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LearnRemember

For the record: The California Lobster & Trap Fishermen's Association has not taken a stance on the hoop net issue.

Did you even bother to read comment#7? Looks to me that they "have" taken a stance. I will concede that I may be reading it wrong but I don't believe I am.

rivertake · Oct-21-2009, 12:06 PM

JAS,

Where can I find a published report from the DFG that states we were good to go with the conicals. I might be using that in the future as I can guarantee I would file a small claims action to recoup the money I spent on my conicals last year.

"I mean CA DFG did clarify and even publish that we were good to go with the conicals."

rivertake · Oct-21-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

You guys want to see who is helping push the conical ban? See the attachment below.

Hey Marcus,

when and where did you get that information?

**Marcus** · Oct-21-2009, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivertake

JAS,

Where can I find a published report from the DFG that states we were good to go with the conicals. I might be using that in the future as I can guarantee I would file a small claims action to recoup the money I spent on my conicals last year.

"I mean CA DFG did clarify and even publish that we were good to go with the conicals."

I'm not sure that would do any good.

Here's an example why, electronic spinning wing decoys came out a couple of years ago. When they first came out they were pretty much legal everywhere. The issue was in the early season they were deadly on ducks, you couldn't keep the ducks out of your area when you were using one. Some states decided to ban them, some states prohibited you from using them before a certain date. Since the regulation changed I don't think you have any recourse to sue.

In the case of the spinning wing decoy, a limit is still a limit but they decided that it violated fair chase issues. I think this is the same thing the DFG is doing with conicals.............

**Marcus** · Oct-21-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivertake

Hey Marcus,

when and where did you get that information?

From a guy I know over at spearboard.

rivertake · Oct-21-2009, 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus

I'm not sure that would do any good.

Here's an example why, electronic spinning wing decoys came out a couple of years ago. When they first came out they were pretty much legal everywhere. The issue was in the early season they were deadly on ducks, you couldn't keep the ducks out of your area when you were using one. Some states decided to ban them, some states prohibited you from using them before a certain date. Since the regulation changed I don't think you have any recourse to sue.

In the case of the spinning wing decoy, a limit is still a limit but they decided that it violated fair chase issues. I think this is the same thing the DFG is doing with conicals.............

Honestly Marcus I could care less what you think about wether or not I would have any recourse to sue. I guarantee you I will find out in a court of law,,, and I seriously doubt I will be alone with a lawsuit!

Fact is I spent over $400 on conicals and planned on using them for years. If DFG bans them I will have my say in small claims court! I think information in writing that JAS speaks of,,,,,,
"I mean CA DFG did clarify and even publish that we were good to go with the conicals."
would be beneficial.

**Marcus** · Oct-21-2009, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rivertake

Honestly Marcus I could care less what you think about wether or not I would have any recourse to sue. I guarantee you I will find out in a court of law,,, and I seriously doubt I will be alone with a lawsuit!

Fact is I spent over $400 on conicals and planned on using them for years. If DFG bans them I will have my say in small claims court! I think information in writing that JAS speaks of,,,,,,
"I mean CA DFG did clarify and even publish that we were good to go with the conicals."
would be beneficial.

Good luck with that but I can guarantee you are going to lose.

Bigfish69 · Oct-21-2009, 07:39 PM

River take dont get your panties all waded up. Didnt you hear that you can modify the conicles by cutting the legs and using the sack part only, no worries youll be fishing flats in no time.

One more thing, the DFG never actually allowed the conicles from the beginning at least not where it has come across my desk. Please feal free to correct me if i'm wrong.

69R

spottie slayer · Oct-21-2009, 09:11 PM

what is going on????

LearnRemember · Oct-22-2009, 10:00 AM

Fishnfool-

CLTFA has not taken a stance, but we have been talking with the Dept. about an FMP(Fisheries Managment Plan) which DFG is mandated to do for the lobster fishery. I was sitting with John Guth(former Pres. of CLTFA) a couple days ago and we talked about this. We attended both of the DFG hoop net meetings they had a few weeks back and merely listened and asked questions. We also met with the Dept. back in June to talk about the impending FMP which will effect all of us, sport and commercial.

By the way, Danielson does advertise there conical net as a "trap", as advertised in last months Pacific Coast Sportfishing magazine.

jas · Oct-22-2009, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LearnRemember

Fishnfool-

By the way, Danielson does advertise there conical net as a "trap", as advertised in last months Pacific Coast Sportfishing magazine.

I saw that and called somone at the magazine to discuss. PCS did not help the cause by publishing that. What was just as lame was that it showed up under a section called "New On Deck". That conical was probably catching crabs before I was born and he placed them in "New On Deck"? They published a consolation in this months issue...a letter I whipped up in a few secs (not my best work) giving a brief overview of the process/situation.

jas

gonzo25 · Oct-22-2009, 07:35 PM

Has anyone else noticed that what comes up using the links when first posted have changed? Talk about a song and dance of total confusion and deception, they had the changes listed with a summary of what they were, why they were doing it, and what they meant. That it was a joke. Telling people that they were writing the regs so they could use there eclipse nets by simply cutting off the metal stands, when the regs they had listed clearly said two hoops with the top one being no more than 36” and the top hoop being the biggest. SO is what they put out there what it will say or is it what they might say? And this is going to clear it up? Option 2 was even worse for not being clear about what it said. Fisherman would only be allowed to use three of the conical nets. What the hell does that mean? Three conical and two flat, five flat with no conical, or three nets period? And what does this do other than just fuck anyone who isn’t using the conical design? It isn’t going to change the amount of lobster taken Now for something I have wondered about from the very beginning, what is it that they really have a problem with? In one breath they state the problem is with the metal legs that support the net off the ocean floor, in the next they don’t say anything about that but the problem is with the conical nets. So is it the support or the net design or is it both, which I have not read anything that states the problem was a combination of net design AND being supported with the metal legs, it was always one or the other. Before the email starts, yes I know that they were using the term conical design to describe the new style net, but I think it just adds to the confusion, and what is it that they really want? It seems to me that a hoop net can lay flat on the ocean floor with a conical shape and the lobster can still walk in or out as they please…. So what is it really? And how are people supposed to just cut off the metal legs and the nets will be okay, if conical nets aren’t? at least the last time they put up the changes proposed they didn’t include the bull shit summary along with it. What a joke, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, this should be changed to the land of big business where money talks and the individual gets fucked. The concern should be putting more concern towards the sport fisher than the commercial, after all isn’t the common man what makes up sport fishing? Shouldn’t it be in his concern and be made to get more individuals and families involved? Hoop netting is one of the few things out there that is still reasonable enough that almost anyone can get into it, shouldn’t that be of concern? All they would have to do is make the commercial guys keep males only and let the females go and in three to four years there would be more lobster for everyone. I know, I know, that is the logical way of thinking about it and that isn’t going to happen. And NO commercial guys this idea and hoop netters in general aren’t costing you a lot of money. \ Okay I am done with my rant and the shit will start about how fucked up I am etc…. but that is my opinion and I could be wrong, I was wrong once before. 25 out… see ya on the water SORRY about the lack of punctuation, I did a cut and paste and it put it all together and I can't change it. I am sure it must be in a html setting somewhere, maybe one of you mods that are smarter than I am can dial me in on what's up.