MA regulation changes for lobsters
- Thread starter Balboa
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Thanks for understanding.
Keep it PG, with no political rants or insults.
Discussion of the regs with pros and cons, scientific support for or against, that sort of stuff.
Clean slate time.
Have fun, but keep it clean.
Keep it PG, with no political rants or insults.
Discussion of the regs with pros and cons, scientific support for or against, that sort of stuff.
Clean slate time.
Have fun, but keep it clean.
MSilvia
Contributor
Diver 294, I understand you have a problem with these new regulations. They seem pretty fair to me, and I think will have a negligible impact on most recreational lobster diving. Care to comment on what bothers you about it? (That is, if it isn't just regional politics that annoy you)
Tall Tails
Guest
For two reasons:
1. As others have said - very few people are lucky enoght to get 15 per day per licensed diver anyway. This makes it legislation for nothing and targeting those who are only really impacting the population at around 1% of the catch.
2. Those of us divers that also use our license to fish ten traps. We may get good days of more than 15 keepers. The cost of lobstering ten traps is high, so it is nice to get a good bounty for the family cook out to off-set the costs. Simple to get around, just another ten pot license for the spouse or buddy. But, again, it is all for legislation that doesnt help the population much on a % basis.
Lets all go diving
1. As others have said - very few people are lucky enoght to get 15 per day per licensed diver anyway. This makes it legislation for nothing and targeting those who are only really impacting the population at around 1% of the catch.
2. Those of us divers that also use our license to fish ten traps. We may get good days of more than 15 keepers. The cost of lobstering ten traps is high, so it is nice to get a good bounty for the family cook out to off-set the costs. Simple to get around, just another ten pot license for the spouse or buddy. But, again, it is all for legislation that doesnt help the population much on a % basis.
Lets all go diving
Diver294
Contributor
MSilvia:
A regulation that is designed to serve no purpose is, by it's own definition, irrelevant. During the last attempt to change the regulations the "officials" argued that since the annual catch reports for divers indicated catches of no more than 5 or 6 per day, the "new" regulations they were trying to pass really wouldn't "hurt" anyone.
My stance then, as it is now, is... then why change it??
It is simply a governmental limitation on a minority group, aimed not at ensuring meaningful conservation of a species, but in fact is bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. It is a tool used to placate the commercial lobby at the expense of recreational divers (and family 10 pot license holders).
I am opposed to any governmental infringement where there is clearly no need for it, and it serves NO PUBLIC INTEREST to do so. If they really wanted to conserve the Lobster as a resource they would focus on the central cause of its decline (if any), and that is commercial overfishing, as is the case with ALL overfished resources. The government (state or otherwise) cannot make a case on a single species that was, is, or will become threatened due to recreational overfishing....
What they did this time is quite clever. Last time it was an attempt to change traps from 10 to 5... unable to accomplish that, they effectively eliminate the catch potential of 5 and as such have done an "end run" around us.
As I stated, I moved from Massachusetts for a host of reasons, but primarily due to its political incompetence and here we have a classic example. "Let's force it on them because we can.... not because it needs to be done".
Just one man's opinion- :42:
Diver294:
Intresting view and I agree with almost all of it. I have not really kept up on the statistics and the "Why's or How's" of Lobster management, so I cant do a point by point discussion. I certainly do agree though, that they are caving to pressure from the most obvious source of species declination-Commercial Harvesting.
They did NOT however, lower the number of pots that a commercial harvester can have. It appears as though they are trying to reduce harvesting through the ones that take the least.
I got my education on lobster management from this site- http://www.crewdog.net/lobsterpage/index.shtml
He's put allot of time into it and has dedicated his career to Lobsters and their management. Makes for intresting reading and raises some questions as to how Mass arrived at their decision.
Diver294:
You're forgetting that nearly every fishing regulation in United States freshwaters is geared for the recreational fisherman in mind. You can most assuredly overfish species from recreational interests alone.
Your intention I believe was to comment that recreational catches usually play second fiddle to commercial ones. And this is generally true. But there are well documented instances of recreational take being having a significant impact in marine waters. Tarpon for instance, abalone for another. Nassau and goliath groupers. Red snapper. Conchs. Helmet shells. Florida spiny lobster. It's a very long, convoluted, and politically charged list.
It's Bathynomus, the infamous deep sea pillbug. Just like the pillbugs in your garden, but a "wee bit" larger. That one's not even full grown, they get to 18 inches in length!mikswi:
There's no market (either recreationally or commercially) for this critter, as they apparently taste like butt.
Diver294
Contributor
archman:
My intent was as stated. None of the species you listed reside in Massachusetts waters and you do not list any supporting documentation or links so I will research them until or unless you post additional info. I wont even comment on the freshwater issue as it has no bearing on Lobster unless you live in Tasmania somewhere.
If you can point to a Massachusetts species, a single one... that has been overfished by recreational anglers, I will stand corrected.
But thanks for your reply, interesting sideline.
Similar threads
