CCA NY Policy on Blue Crab and Diamondback Terrapin

May 2, 2006

Kim McKown
Department of Environmental Conservation
205 Belle Meade Road
East Setauket, NY 11733

Dear Ms. McKown:

Coastal Conservation Association New York (“CCA NY”) is taking this opportunity to comment on proposed changes to Part 44 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”). Many of CCA NY’s members are participants in or otherwise affected by the blue crab fishery, and CCA NY will limit its comments to such of the Proposed Regulations as address such fishery.

I
MARKING CRAB POTS AND TRAPS

CCA NY urges the adoption of sections 44.8(b)(1), (2) and (3) as written. Crab trap markers present a substantial hazard to navigation, particularly in the South Shore bays of Long Island, where relatively narrow channels often provide the only navigable water. Under such circumstances, the typical neutral-colored marker buoys are often difficult to see, particularly when the surface of the water is broken up by a wind chop or the profusion of boat wakes that is the norm on most weekends between May and September. Often, trap buoys are not spotted at all (or, in the case of non-standard buoys such as bleach bottles, are originally dismissed as floating debris), or are noticed when it is too late to safely maneuver to avoid them. The result is that the vessel runs over the trap, which frequently results in the vessel being disabled with fouled running gear, requiring someone to either dive under the hull to cut the line away—a hazardous practice in a busy channel—or forcing the boat to limp back to port, perhaps under tow, to hire a diver or pay for a short haul in order to free propellers, shafts and/or rudders of the entangling line. When a trap line is hit by outboard propellers traveling at high RPMs, such line is often severed rather than fouled. While severing a trap line is generally a more benign outcome for the boater, who might have felt nothing but a momentary slowing of the vessel as the propeller blades slice through the pot warp, the ultimate result is another lost pot left to “ghost fish” for an indeterminate period, and some number of marine organisms entrapped and wasted as a result (See Sections III and IV of these comments).

II
PLACEMENT OF CRAB POTS AND TRAPS

CCA NY urges the adoption of a modified version of section 44.8(b)(4).

The basic premise of the section, that unattended crab pots and traps must not be set within 25 feet of a channel, is valid and should be retained in the final regulations. Again, this issue is of particular import in the narrow, shallow channels that cut through the flats of Long Island’s South Shore bays, as well as in deeper channels that see heavy recreational vessel traffic. As stated in Section I of these comments, it is not unusual for vessels to run afoul of trap markers in such waterways, and members of CCA NY’s state board have personal knowledge of crab pots set too close to the channel causing problems off the Babylon Village dock, where a number of vessels leaving before first light to participate in a fishing tournament have been disabled; in the Babylon, Lindenhurst and, most particularly, Amityville Cuts; near the intersection of Dickerson Channel and the main east-west channel just east of the Robert Moses Bridge and near the “Narrows” in the area of the Smith Point Bridge. The 25-foot restriction should not be limited to marked traps, as unmarked traps in shallow channels pose a hazard as well, particularly for inboard-powered boats. One CCA NY member who resides in Copiague had his stern drive-powered vessel disabled after striking an unmarked trap in the Amityville Cut during a period of unusually low tide.

CCA NY appreciates the DEC’s consideration of the recreational crab fishery expressed in the section’s limited exemption for traps fished from a shoreline or bulkhead from the 25-foot restriction. CCA NY suggests, however, that a broader exception be provided for personally-attended traps being fished by recreational users. It is not unusual for recreational fishers to drop a few crab traps beneath their boats, either when anchored and fishing for various finfish (most typically winter flounder or snapper bluefish) or while picnicking or otherwise relaxing aboard their vessels. Because many of Long Island’s South Shore bays provide scant navigable water past the channel edges, it is not unusual for such vessels to anchor just outside the marked channel, either on the channel slope or on the deep edge of the flat, and in any event within 25 feet of the channel edge. Such a practice is common in areas such as Reynolds Channel, the State Boat Channel (where the markers often abut the sod bank, and vessels anchor along the channel edge), the east/west channel running along the north side of Great South Bay, the various north/south “cuts” of Great South Bay, the east/west channel in Moriches Bay, Dickerson Channel, Range Channel, West Channel, etc. In such circumstances, the presence of the vessel—in a practical sense, the largest and most visible “trap marker” imaginable—and the fact that the traps are being personally attended eliminates the hazard to navigation presented by unmarked traps or those evidenced only by small floating markers. From a law-enforcement viewpoint, it also recognizes a practice that has historically been engaged in by countless casual crabbers, who might otherwise unintentionally become violators, when prohibiting their traditional activities does not advance the purpose of the regulation in question. (Note that the same issue arises in some shoreside locations as well, and is not adequately addressed by the “shoreline or bulkhead” exemption in the Proposed Regulation. A good example is provided by the fishing pier that defines the western and northern extent of the boat basin at Captree State Park; it is a popular crabbing location, yet the northern section of the pier also forms the southern boundary of the State Boat Channel, which would, should the Proposed Regulation be adopted, make crabbing there illegal. Is the intent to have law enforcement cite recreational crabbers who continue to use that traditional—and publicly provided—location? If not, CCA NY suggests that it would be preferable to draft a broader “shoreline and bulkhead” exemption, perhaps recognizing the special case of personally-attended traps—than to adopt a regulation with the expectation that there will be inconsistent enforcement of its provisions).

III
ESCAPE PANELS

CCA NY generally supports the provisions of Section 44.8(c), and urge their adoption. “Ghost fished” traps, whether crab traps or those used to target other species, are a very real problem and one which should be remediated. However, given that the proposed definition of a “’crab pot’ or ‘trap’” in Section 44.8(a)(1) includes those “with sides that fall open to provide ingress,” and that the sides of such traps are essentially escape panels that are fully open at any time that there is no tension on the trap line, CCA NY requests that the DEC consider an exemption or other clarification exempting such traps from the escape panel requirement. Such a clarification would both comply with the intent of the Proposed Regulation and help ensure that a recreational fisher employing such trap would not find him or herself cited for a technical violation of the escape panel requirement.

IV
TERRAPIN EXCLUDER DEVICES

CCA NY strongly supports the provisions of Section 44.8(d), which would permit the DEC to require terrapin excluder devices in crab pots used in any waters where the DEC, in its discretion, deems the use of such devices necessary to reduce terrapin mortality.

The issue of terrapin mortality in crab pots is real. It is merely another manifestation of the hazard that pots, and in particular lost, “ghost” pots, present to marine organisms, regardless of the species for which the pots are set. CCA NY has attached two photographs depicting dead and, in some cases, decaying terrapin killed in an unmarked crab pot encountered by a CCA NY member in the Amityville Cut, in the southwestern corner of Suffolk County, to these comments. Such photographs clearly evidence the threat that unmodified pots present to terrapin in Long Island waters.

The argument in favor of terrapin excluders is strengthened by research which demonstrates that such devices effectively protect terrapin while not impeding crab harvest (“Impact of a Bycatch Reduction Device on Diamondback Terrapin and Blue Crab Capture in Crab Pots,” Willem M. Roosenburg and Jason P. Green, Ecological Applications, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 882-889). Having said that, CCA NY urges that the DEC reconsider the size of the terrapin excluder devices required by the Proposed Regulation. While the previously cited research suggests that the two-inch by six-inch funnel restriction proposed by DEC could cut terrapin bycatch in half, it also indicates that a further reduction to a one-and-three-quarter-inch by six-inch opening would be nearly twice as effective, without reducing the pots’ ability to catch blue crabs of every size.

V
BLUE CRAB SIZE LIMITS

CCA NY is pleased that the DEC has finally decided to propose a minimum size for blue crab, but believes that Alternative 11(b), which would set the minimum size for hard shell crabs at five inches, is the preferable option. CCA NY also suggests that the limit for soft shell crabs raised to no less than four inches.

Certainly, the 5-inch minimum size for hard crabs has become the coastal standard, as it has already been adopted by Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia. New York has been too slow to adopt a minimum size of any sort; it would be unfortunate if, in finally moving to prohibit the harvest of small crabs, it would follow the lead of New Jersey (hardly a leader in marine conservation matters) and adopt a size limit that is smaller than that accepted by nearly every other Atlantic-coast state within the blue crab’s range. Alternative 11(a), taking no action with regard to a size limit, notes that without a minimum size limit, “New York markets are…a potential sale of sub-legal blue crabs from other east coast states.” While a 4 1⁄2-inch size limit would certainly help in that regard, the better course would be to adopt the same size limits as nearly all of the “other east coast states” (within the blue crab’s customary Atlantic-coast range, only Massachusetts, New Jersey, Florida and, of course, New York have failed to adopt a 5-inch minimum size for hard crabs) and completely close the regulatory gap between New York and the great majority of its southern New England, Mid- and South Atlantic neighbors.Thank you for considering CCA NY’s comments on the above matters. Sincerely, Charles A. Witek, III
State Chair