Lobster Pots in the middle of a channel

[psneeld]

no lobster pots inshore here in NJ....

but it is illegal to put them in marked channels and manmade lagoons by fish and game regulations.

there may be more restrictions...I would have to investigate.

if 99.9 percent of the water is outside of channels and lagoons...seems like that is a reasonable compromise towards safety for all....

 

[DDW]

That's my video, and in no way represents the worst areas (can't hold a camera in those areas, too busy).

I've been through R.I. and there are virtually no pots there compared to Maine. As TT said, there's Maine, then there's the rest of the world.

Lobstermen may have a right to fishing, but co-opting the oceans by making them unsafe to navigate for others oversteps that right. I have a right to transit marked channels and anchor in marked anchorages, so if some of the lobster gear is destroyed in the process, that's a risk of fishing they willingly take. Tourism is actually a bigger contributor to Maine's economy than lobster fishing, so policies that drive tourists away ("don't come if you don't like it") are seemly counterproductive for Maine.

 

[Sailor of Fortune]

I used to tow the cement barge from Rockland Maine to Boston. 50' beam on the barge,loaded she was drawing 15' . Chain bridles were in the water leaving rockland,Pen bay etc. Bridles were sweeping a 50' path (in the channel) and picking up gear all the way. When we would come back with barge light (empty), lots of buoy,pot warp and traps would be hanging off and visible to local lobsterman. They weren't very happy. Its surprising that we didn't get shot at. Lots of 1 finger greetings though...

 

[Northern Spy]

For the record, in Pacific Canada:

Navigation channels must be kept clear of lines and buoys. Use sinking line and/or weights, or coil excess line to keep it below the surface during all tide levels without sinking the buoy. Any fishing gear that interferes with safe navigation can be removed under the Navigation Protection Act.

 

[koliver]

For the record, in Pacific Canada:

Navigation channels must be kept clear of lines and buoys. Use sinking line and/or weights, or coil excess line to keep it below the surface during all tide levels without sinking the buoy. Any fishing gear that interferes with safe navigation can be removed under the Navigation Protection Act.

We had a problem in Ganges Harbour a few yrs ago with crab floats in the channel that has to be kept clear for float planes landing and taking off. That sort of interference with safe navigation could have spectacularly bad results. Seems OK now, so publicity helps.

 

[psneeld]

.......

3.2 Maine
Maine explicitly authorizes local governments to establish, regulate, and keep open channels and anchorage areas.12 Fishing gear is not allowed in locally-established channels, and can be enforced by the harbormaster: “n the event fishing gear is within the boundary lines of a channel in violation of local rules, the harbor master may issue a warning of navigational interference and may commence court action to order removal of that gear.”13 Such gear would also be a nuisance, as Maine has provided by statute that obstruction of navigation (by any means) is a nuisance unless legally authorized.14

From this article.....

8-2017
Preventing Fishing Gear Loss from Vessel Interactions in New England

Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow Program, Marine Affairs Institute (MAI), Roger Williams University School of Law
Jamison Jedziniak
Roger Williams University School of Law, J.D. 2017

 

[TDunn]

A harbormaster in Maine who enforced that wouldn't last long. The local harbormaster used to live next door to me. A few years ago he enforced the requirement that all dinghys tied up at the town dinghy float have a permit ($10 per year). His enforcement was to put notes on dinghys saying that he would start issuing fines in a month. Immediately his cars started getting vandalized at home or anywhere he parked. Had he actually issued the $20 fine (which included a permit for the year), much worse would have happened.

.......

3.2 Maine
Maine explicitly authorizes local governments to establish, regulate, and keep open channels and anchorage areas.12 Fishing gear is not allowed in locally-established channels, and can be enforced by the harbormaster: “n the event fishing gear is within the boundary lines of a channel in violation of local rules, the harbor master may issue a warning of navigational interference and may commence court action to order removal of that gear.”13 Such gear would also be a nuisance, as Maine has provided by statute that obstruction of navigation (by any means) is a nuisance unless legally authorized.14

From this article.....

8-2017
Preventing Fishing Gear Loss from Vessel Interactions in New England

Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow Program, Marine Affairs Institute (MAI), Roger Williams University School of Law
Jamison Jedziniak
Roger Williams University School of Law, J.D. 2017

 

[psneeld]

I wasnt saying that it was a good law.......it was obviously written to not be enforced/enacted at the local level....it is one of those "feel good" .... or "appeasement laws".

But it is there if reason ever finds its way to lobster country.... there is a foot in the door. Just enough roar has to be heard for long enough....

 

[CaptTom]

I think a lot of the animosity toward recreational boaters comes from the entitlement attitude we see expressed in some posts here.

Look at it this way. You're playing, they're working.

Do people show up at your job site to engage in their hobby, damage your equipment, get in your way, and then start whining about their "rights"? If they did, how would you react?

I think it's like the sailor vs. power boater thing. Show a little respect for the constraints that others are operating under, and everyone can get along a little better.

 

[CMS]

.......

3.2 Maine
Maine explicitly authorizes local governments to establish, regulate, and keep open channels and anchorage areas.12 Fishing gear is not allowed in locally-established channels, and can be enforced by the harbormaster: “n the event fishing gear is within the boundary lines of a channel in violation of local rules, the harbor master may issue a warning of navigational interference and may commence court action to order removal of that gear.”13 Such gear would also be a nuisance, as Maine has provided by statute that obstruction of navigation (by any means) is a nuisance unless legally authorized.14

Title 17 sub-section 2802 actually reads:

"2802. Miscellaneous nuisances - The erection, continuance or use of any building or place for the exercise of a trade, employment or manufacture that, by noxious exhalations, offensive smells or other annoyances, becomes injurious and dangerous to the health, comfort or property of individuals or of the public; causing or permitting abandoned wells or tin mining shafts to remain unfilled or uncovered to the injury or prejudice of others; causing or suffering any offal, filth or noisome substance to collect or to remain in any place to the prejudice of others; obstructing or impeding, without legal authority, the passage of any navigable river, harbor or collection of water; corrupting or rendering unwholesome or impure the water of a river, stream, pond or aquifer; imprudent operation of a watercraft as defined in Title 12, section 13068-A, subsection 8; unlawfully diverting the water of a river, stream, pond or aquifer from its natural course or state to the injury or prejudice of others; and the obstructing or encumbering by fences, buildings or otherwise of highways, private ways, streets, alleys, commons, common landing places or burying grounds are nuisances within the limitations and exceptions mentioned. Any places where one or more old, discarded, worn-out or junked motor vehicles as defined in Title 29-A, section 101, subsection 42, or parts thereof, are gathered together, kept, deposited or allowed to accumulate, in such manner or in such location or situation either within or without the limits of any highway, as to be unsightly, detracting from the natural scenery or injurious to the comfort and happiness of individuals and the public, and injurious to property rights, are public nuisances."

I suspect the catch here is "without legal authority".

You can read the actual Marine Resources Law Book here:

http://www.maine.gov/dmr/laws-regulations/documents/2017MarineResourcesLawBook.pdf




.

 

[psneeld]

I think a lot of the animosity toward recreational boaters comes from the entitlement attitude we see expressed in some posts here.

Look at it this way. You're playing, they're working.

Do people show up at your job site to engage in their hobby, damage your equipment, get in your way, and then start whining about their "rights"? If they did, how would you react?

I think it's like the sailor vs. power boater thing. Show a little respect for the constraints that others are operating under, and everyone can get along a little better.

well I am not in Maine yet...but the vast majority of the time I have been on the water as a commercial captain. pots in channels ARE a problem for everyone but the guy placing those pots, even other fishermen.

sorry ....but I dont see the fishermen needing 100 percent of the water when the other 99 percent of vessels are requesting 1 percent of the water.

 

[BDofMSP]

Do people show up at your job site to engage in their hobby, damage your equipment, get in your way, and then start whining about their "rights"? If they did, how would you react?

I think the point is that the channel is NOT their job site. It's regulated to be available for another purpose - safe navigation. Everyplace else is available to them.

 

[DDW]

I think a lot of the animosity toward recreational boaters comes from the entitlement attitude we see expressed in some posts here.

Look at it this way. You're playing, they're working.

Do people show up at your job site to engage in their hobby, damage your equipment, get in your way, and then start whining about their "rights"? If they did, how would you react?

The problem with that is, it isn't "their" jobsite. Under the MLLW line is public, and outside 3 miles isn't even Maine's to regulate. They co-opted it, and their rights are no greater than others rights. The "entitlement attitude" is something they own.

Let's turn this upside down. Suppose in Maine it was an industry to harvest seagulls, and the way it was done was to anchor tethered blimps in the air up to 10,000 ft, wherever they felt the seagulls could be caught. Including all around airports and on the published Victor airways. This creates a hazard to navigation for light planes and commercial air traffic alike, but hey, they're making a living right? Just try not to hit them and don't fly at night or in rainy weather? Would you (or the Federal government) allow that too?

If I'm working at whatever job, and my work infringes other's rights, I'm out of bounds. It would not put the slightest dent in Maine's lobster yield, if marked channels and harbors were kept clear.

I do not find it endearing that Maine's boating population reacts to inconvenience with threats, intimidation, and vandalism. In all fairness, most aren't like that but a minority are.

 

[Shrew]

well I am not in Maine yet...but the vast majority of the time I have been on the water as a commercial captain. pots in channels ARE a problem for everyone but the guy placing those pots, even other fishermen.

sorry ....but I dont see the fishermen needing 100 percent of the water when the other 99 percent of vessels are requesting 1 percent of the water.

Many thanks. Both for reassuring me that I'm not crazy and to more clearly illustrate my point. There is so much available 'real estate', does the 400 feet between a can and a nun need to be accessed as well?

We're not dodging cornrows on the highway either. Some of the points detailed earlier about the fragile nature of the Harbor Master's job security is also a huge concern. The Harbor Master's are frequently in fear of losing their job, so they bow to the unreasonable demands of the local citizens. This is the root of why we're losing anchorages as well.

This is the root of why Judges are not elected but appointed. Could you imagine what our legal system would look like if it were subject to elections?

The Harbor Master position should be a State or Federally Appointed position, removed from local political influence. I only saw State, because taking it out of the voter's hands and into the city council, mayor, or town manager is still too easily corrupted.

 

[jleonard]

Fortunately for us recreational guys the recent years water temp has risen and lobsters migrated north. I see
Maybe 5 to 10 percent of the lobster buoys there were 10 years ago.
That is in Long Island sound fisher Island sound Block I sound areas.
That said I had spurs for 14 seasons
on my ex Mainship. Cut 3 lines that I know of. Very reliable on a single line imo.
My current boat has a cutting disk but to my knowledge it has not been tested.
I did get one buoy that got hung up on my stern thruster while sitting on a private mooring on block island. Talk about a really stupid lobsterman. I now use it as an anchor marker if needed.

 

[dhays]

We had a problem in Ganges Harbour a few yrs ago with crab floats in the channel that has to be kept clear for float planes landing and taking off. That sort of interference with safe navigation could have spectacularly bad results. Seems OK now, so publicity helps.

A couple years ago, not far from koliver’s place, I passed a crab pot float that was maybe a foot under water. It was a combination of using too short a line, high tide, and strong tidal current. It was just luck that I didn’t run over it.

 

[dhays]

I think a lot of the animosity toward recreational boaters comes from the entitlement attitude we see expressed in some posts here.

Look at it this way. You're playing, they're working.

Do people show up at your job site to engage in their hobby, damage your equipment, get in your way, and then start whining about their "rights"? If they did, how would you react?

I think it's like the sailor vs. power boater thing. Show a little respect for the constraints that others are operating under, and everyone can get along a little better.

I’ve never boated in Maine so don’t know the situation. However, it seems to me that if there is a narrow, marked navigational channel, putting crab pots in that would be a legitimate concern. I don’t see how a fisherman is terribly constrained by not being able to place traps in a channel. However, a boater, recreational or commercial, is constrained by having to use that channel, sometimes at night.

Seems akin to a trapper in Washington placing traps on a hiking trail. The trap would be a hazard to the recreational hikers using that trail. Sure the trapper has a license to take animals from public lands in season, but does right mean they can endanger others with legitimate use of the trail?

 

[boomerang]

The problem with that is, it isn't "their" jobsite. Under the MLLW line is public, and outside 3 miles isn't even Maine's to regulate. They co-opted it, and their rights are no greater than others rights. The "entitlement attitude" is something they own.

Let's turn this upside down. Suppose in Maine it was an industry to harvest seagulls, and the way it was done was to anchor tethered blimps in the air up to 10,000 ft, wherever they felt the seagulls could be caught. Including all around airports and on the published Victor airways. This creates a hazard to navigation for light planes and commercial air traffic alike, but hey, they're making a living right? Just try not to hit them and don't fly at night or in rainy weather? Would you (or the Federal government) allow that too?

If I'm working at whatever job, and my work infringes other's rights, I'm out of bounds. It would not put the slightest dent in Maine's lobster yield, if marked channels and harbors were kept clear.

I do not find it endearing that Maine's boating population reacts to inconvenience with threats, intimidation, and vandalism. In all fairness, most aren't like that but a minority are.

Your analogy is skewed. Your balloons in airspace scenario would pose a deadly hazard. Me running over a buoy because I wasn't paying close enough attention to where I was headed is an inconvenience but a catastrophic event it is not.
Also,I've been seeing people on here complaining about these underwater "hazards" of submerged trap markers. Naturally watermen don't do that on purpose. I'm sure they're just as pi$$ed about it as the recreational boaters are.

 

[DDW]

Your analogy is skewed. Your balloons in airspace scenario would pose a deadly hazard. Me running over a buoy because I wasn't paying close enough attention to where I was headed is an inconvenience but a catastrophic event it is not.
Also,I've been seeing people on here complaining about these underwater "hazards" of submerged trap markers. Naturally watermen don't do that on purpose. I'm sure they're just as pi$$ed about it as the recreational boaters are.

The pot warp I hooked in Maine disabled the boat 12 miles offshore with a 50 knot gale forecast. Diving over the side into 55 degree water with a seaway running to free it is potentially deadly (and in fact no local Maine diver wanted to come out for that reason). It can be more than an inconvenience.

Running over a buoy because of "not paying close enough attention" does not contemplate night time with whitecaps. In some conditions they are effectively invisible, it's only the 'big ocean' theory that keeps you clear of them - usually.

How inconvenient could it be to ask that the buoys be kept clear of marked channels and anchorages?

 

[boomerang]

Wait a sec... Is your complaint traps 12 miles offshore or in the middle of a channel? Who exactly is at fault if you didn't see a marker in a 50 knot gale?

 

[psneeld]

1 percent wanting 100 percent .... 100 percent of the time, fog, snow, darkness, etc...

I am only talking channels and immediate vicinity.

yep, reasonable.... I cant think of any other group in the US that gets their way that much...except maybe Congress....

 

[South of Heaven]

Clearly you haven’t been to Maine. But I couldn’t agree more about them being a hazard to navigation. They should be prohibited from designated channels, but frequently completely block them.

Sharp cutters and more throttle.

Or Massachusetts! Say Hull to Plymouth....

 

[markpierce]

Sounds like Maine's navigational channels should be cleared by "mine sweepers."

 

[DDW]

Wait a sec... Is your complaint traps 12 miles offshore or in the middle of a channel? Who exactly is at fault if you didn't see a marker in a 50 knot gale?

The gale was forecast. We did not see them at night, 12 miles offshore. Nor could you. If they're going to be that dense, that far offshore, and that invisible on the approaches to a major harbor, I'd like to see a clear channel to harbor. I'm curious, have you been up to Maine with your boat to observe the problem first hand? Plenty of people I've met (and even on this thread) have said, "oh yeah, we have to deal with those in LIS and the Chesapeake too" - but you don't really.

Sounds like Maine's navigational channels should be cleared by "mine sweepers."

I've suggested that way upthread.

I now have the tools to deal with them. I put a line cutter on the saildrive, not easy but possible. I was also pointed at this by the locals. It works much better than the sawsall blade taped to a boathook which I was trying to use.

 

[BruceK]

On similar lines, we have a substantial railway bridge to pass under which reputedly attracts lots of fish. There are identifiable port and starboard channels boats use between a number of support pylons. Fisherpersons in boats often anchor with lines from rods lying with tide between the pylons, obstructing safe passage.
Is it a fair argument they are entitled to fish where they like? I`ve not looked for any Regs on the practice,but don`t appreciate the abuse if I use the only ways to safely transit the bridge. Of course the difference here is the lobster fisherman is at home building more traps, whereas the fisherpersons are right on scene ready to hurl abuse.