150 ft trot line

[mattio41]

Each trotline shall be marked at both ends with a clearly visible stake or buoy.

I think the biggest problem is, they are applying a definition for a trotline that would be used to catch fish to a crabbing trotline.

In my activism activities with the New Jersey legislators regarding firearm laws, to many times subordinates are left to write a description without actually knowing what they are writing about. If you want a good chuckle and proof, just ask me how "Slingshots" became illegal and "Slungshots" are legal to carry!!!

 

[Ron]

 I sent an email to NJ F&W this evening asking for a written determination.   I asked specifically these questions to put an end to this madness.

What constitutes the total length of a trotline?    The baited portion of the line itself or chain and anchor line included?

Can two trotlines be linked tied together without buoys at the end of each line?

If no, can two trotlines be linked together via common anchor line between the two, so long as each end of each line is marked by a buoy (four buoys in all.)

I'll let you know when I receive my response and post it here.

Just received an email that my message was received at F&W and forwarded on to someone who will provide a written response.   

[mattio41]

Just received an email that my message was received at F&W and forwarded on to someone who will provide a written response.   

I submitted a request two days ago... Still have seen nothing... =(

[shedhunta]

It is probably worth the drive to Delaware or Maryland.  Seems way to short to be worth the effort to me.

[CaptMoose]

You can't just read and hang your hat on the portions of regs you like and ignore the ones you don't.  AGREED   The regulations do define a single trotline as not more than 150' and 25 baits AGREED and define how the ends for each trotline need to be identified.  Eh, not so clear!

As written:  In the Summary, NOT in the Marine Digest

Each trotline shall be marked at both ends with a clearly visible stake or buoy.

It clearly states that the ends of EACH LINE must have a clearly visible stake or buoy.     When you link together the ends of two lines instead of marking the beginning and end of each trotline with a stake or buoy, then you aren't adhering to the regulations because you are only marking one end of each of the lines in that scenario.

My citations were right out of the 2015 Marine Digest.  Curious that the statement above is written in the SUMMARY of crabbing regulations but not in the digest.  Especially in light of the following:
From the digest page 19: "Recreational crab pot/trot line license:  $2 Harvest limit of one bushel per day. Refer to the shellfish regulations on page 16 for ALL recreational crabbing regulations".   Houston, we have a problem!  We can't count on the Marine Digest received with our license to contain ALL the regs one needs to know?

In short, a trotline is defined as no more than 150' w 25 baits and the ends of each trotline line must be marked by a clearly visible buoy.  OR STAKE     Since you'd need to have four total buoys, it makes no sense to me to tie them together UNLESS the two lines are allowed share a common center anchor line.  

I sent an email to NJ F&W this evening asking for a written determination.   I asked specifically these questions to put an end to this madness.  Madness indeed sir!  Why the connecting of two separate and distinct trotlines is absurd and tantamount to using sparrows to house-train puppies!  Although if Mr. Disney is to be believed, this is possible.

What constitutes the total length of a trotline?    The baited portion of the line itself or chain and anchor line included?  The mere need to clarify this basic principle makes the body of NJ trotline regulations and some forum commentary suspect.  See the earlier mathematical and common sense discussion points.

Can two trotlines be linked tied together without buoys at the end of each line?

That is a loaded question as two ideas are presented.  It's like asking voters to approve a budget AND to arm all school basketball coaches.  Can 2 lines be linked together a singular issue for those of us trying to incorporate trotlining into our NJ crabbing experience.  I think we all agree that marking the ends is required.  Whether the actual Regulations require EACH end of EACH line to be marked is questionable: not listed in the digest but stated in the Summary.  Is the summary enforceable?  Technically, isn't strict compliance with the Summary of Regs met if one were to clip two lines together but utilizing a 3rd buoy where the two lines meet?  Hmmmmmm.....

If no, can two trotlines be linked together via common anchor line between the two, so long as each end of each line is marked by a buoy (four buoys in all.)

I'll let you know when I receive my response and post it here.

Certainly the madness will continue if the State publishes only partial regulations in the digest which appears to be the case at present.  

Is it reasonable that a crabber can follow the letter of the regulations posted in the Digest which by its own print describes the regs on page 16 as ALL the recreational crabbing regulations, but then be penalized for not: having knowledge of the Summary of Regs; finding it; and following that separate guidance document?


Below is off-topic from the OP question about the regs, but illustrates the odd nature of NJ trotline regs.

I'd like to stop the madness by the regulations being amended to permit a tenable length of trotline which is reasonable to make the effort worth it.  150' is a joke.  Four buoys in the water to mark 300' of trotline is more a hazard to navigation than two.  300' of line is less of a joke but still prohibitive.  500' or 600' would be reasonable and realistic from the cost/benefit between effort and reward.  Running a line is physically different than running traps.  Making trot lines realistic in NJ would open up crabbing to more people who may be physically unable to pull traps, but can man a net at the rail.  

The strict restriction on trot line length also seems to run counter to the unlimited number of allowable crab traps.  

Regardless the type of gear, number of traps, or length of line, the creel limit remains the same so the limit on the length of line seems arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive.  

Maybe instead of petitioning for longer trotlines, we should petition for a restriction on the number of allowable crab traps.  Maybe we should petition for a limit of 2 traps per crabber and a maximum of 10 traps per boat.

[crewstation]

Uh, was that last line sarcasm?!?!?!   

[CaptMoose]

... are left to write a description without actually knowing what they are writing about.

BINGO!   

[CaptMoose]

Uh, was that last line sarcasm?!?!?!    

I don't see why the regs for traps should be any less ridiculous or prohibitive than the trotline regs.

But now that you mention it CS, just level the playing field.  Maybe allow up to 50 traps, but only in 2 lines covering up to 150' of water in a continuous line.  Can't cover any more ground than that at a time.

Anyone care for some popcorn?

[mattio41]

Anyone care for some popcorn?

Yummmmmmmmmmm, Popcorn !!!!!

[Testhec10ck]

Regardless the type of gear, number of traps, or length of line, the creel limit remains the same so the limit on the length of line seems arbitrary and unnecessarily restrictive.  

NJ crabbers rarely limit out using traps and pots, unless they are maintaining other's pots as an agent.
So increasing the trot line length would definitely increase the number of people limiting out.
And this may make it even hard for crabbers who cannot use a trot line.

[Ron]

Certainly the madness will continue if the State publishes only partial regulations in the digest which appears to be the case at present.  

Is it reasonable that a crabber can follow the letter of the regulations posted in the Digest which by its own print describes the regs on page 16 as ALL the recreational crabbing regulations, but then be penalized for not: having knowledge of the Summary of Regs; finding it; and following that separate guidance document?

The Marine Digest does not state, by it's own print, that the regs on page 16 are ALL the recreational crabbing regulations.     In fact, the on page 10 at the beginning of the regulations summaries, the Marine Digests states:

For the most current regulations go to NJFishandWildlife.com/njregs.htm#marine

When you visit that page, you will find this link for Non-Commercial Crab Pot Regulations:

www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/non-comm_crabpot_regs.pdf

When you read those regs, it calls out the requirements for buoys at the end of each of a trotline.

Since the Marine Digest openly directs people where to find the current regulations on the state's website, I don't agree that regs are hidden or incomplete.   In fairness, however, the state should clarify the document by adding the phrase "Recreational Trotlines" to it's title.

That is a loaded question as two ideas are presented.   It's like asking voters to approve a budget AND to arm all school basketball coaches.

Disagree because I do not possess Jedi mind-trick abilities or the ability to glamour humans as if I were a vampire.     They know what their regs are and what they are not, so no word craft is going to influence the answer.

Simply put, if the answer is "yes they can be linked" then the 'if no, then' portion of the question is void.      

[crewstation]

The link still points to nothing more than a summary of the regs, not the actual regs.  It explicitly states that "it is not the full law".  So where would we all find the full law?

[CaptMoose]

The Marine Digest does not state, by it's own print, that the regs on page 16 are ALL the recreational crabbing regulations.

It does state that, on page 19 as I quoted.  "Refer to the shellfish regulations on page 16 for ALL recreational crabbing regulations."  Maybe splitting hairs but for this, it's accurate.

In fact, the on page 10 at the beginning of the regulations summaries, the Marine Digests states:

For the most current regulations go to NJFishandWildlife.com/njregs.htm#marine

When you visit that page, you will find this link for Non-Commercial Crab Pot Regulations:

www.state.nj.us/dep/fgw/pdf/non-comm_crabpot_regs.pdf

When you read those regs, it calls out the requirements for buoys at the end of each of a trotline.

Yes, that is where the digest is found and also the summary of regs to which I referred.  At the top of the Summary to which you provided a link:
"THIS IS A SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY RECREATIONAL CRAB POT AND TROT LINE LAWS.  IT IS NOT THE FULL LAW, CONSULT THE DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE FOR FURTHER DETAILS."

My question still stands.  The marking requirement is not found in the digest aka "The Regs", but only in the Summary which by its own leading statement refers back to the regulations, aka digest.  Ambiguous indeed.   For the sake of my own compliance and interest I've searched diligently and objectively and can't find in any of the documents posted on the Fish & Wildlife page the specifics about marking each end of each line, other than the Summary.  So, I am still left to question whether the Summary text is enforceable. 

If its a matter of two line or one, I can prove two separate lines simply by unclipping them in front of a F&W officer.  Gee officer, wish you were here earlier.  Some jet skiers were buzzing my buoys and sank two of them so I had to connect the lines together so I could keep crabbing...  wink, wink.  

Since the Marine Digest openly directs people where to find the current regulations on the state's website, I don't agree that regs are hidden or incomplete.   In fairness, however, the state should clarify the document by adding the phrase "Recreational Trotlines" to it's title.
Disagree because I do not possess Jedi mind-trick abilities or the ability to glamour humans as if I were vampire.     They know what their regs are and what they are not, so no word craft is going to influence the answer.

Simply put, if the answer is "yes they can be linked" then the 'if no, then' portion of the question is void.     

I agree to disagree on the clarity of the regs kind sir.  I don't see where "recreational trotlines" will help since in NJ there is no separate regulation for "commercial" trotlines. 

[Ron]

The link still points to nothing more than a summary of the regs, not the actual regs.  It explicitly states that "it is not the full law".  So where would we all find the full law?

A summary of the laws are still the laws.    It not being "the full laws" doesn't take away the validity of regulations stated in the summary, nor does it mean that items stated there aren't valid.

The second part of the "full laws" statements says "Consult the Division of Fish and Wildlife for further details" which is what we are doing.

As far as the full laws, if you continue to read, it says "all persons are reminded that the statutes, codes and regulations are the legal authorities."

Reading through voluminous amounts of statutes and codes isn't something I plan on doing any time soon, so I'll wait for the written determination from NJ F&W.

[mattio41]

So here is a question. If what comes back written from F&W describes a trot line that would be used for fish, does anybody know of a mechanism to petition them to establish an actual code for crab lines...

I'm a common sense look at the regulation, it would accurately describe a fishing line. Where in the examples given earlier in the thread for the control lines would greatly take away the effectiveness. Even more so, there would be no manner in which to actually set up your line until you knew your precise location and depth.

[Ron]

It does state that, on page 19 as I quoted.  "Refer to the shellfish regulations on page 16 for ALL recreational crabbing regulations."  Maybe splitting hairs but for this, it's accurate.

I stand corrected.   I still think that Page 10's direction to the website for the most current regulations trumps because it clarifies where the most current regulations can be viewed.

   

At the top of the Summary to which you provided a link:
"THIS IS A SUMMARY OF NEW JERSEY RECREATIONAL CRAB POT AND TROT LINE LAWS.  IT IS NOT THE FULL LAW, CONSULT THE DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE FOR FURTHER DETAILS." [/qupte]

Not the "full law" means not the complete law.   It doesn't make the rules summarized any less enforceable.

[quote[My question still stands.  The marking requirement is not found in the digest aka "The Regs", but only in the Summary which by its own leading statement refers back to the regulations, aka digest.  Ambiguous indeed.  

The Marine Digest refers to the website as the source for the most current regulations.    I believe that statement trumps any omissions in rules in the Marine Digest.

If its a matter of two line or one, I can prove two separate lines simply by unclipping them in front of a F&W officer.  Gee officer, wish you were here earlier.  Some jet skiers were buzzing my buoys and sank two of them so I had to connect the lines together so I could keep crabbing...  wink, wink.  

Let me ask you, if you, Mike, me and Kevin went out on a boat, would it be ok for us in your mind to tie eight 150' long trotlines together because each of us can have two lines at 150 foot?    I mean, why stop at two?

I agree to disagree on the clarity of the regs kind sir.  I don't see where "recreational trotlines" will help since in NJ there is no separate regulation for "commercial" trotlines.  

I don't think you understood my point. The document is called Recreational Crab Pot Regulations  yet contains rules about trotlines.   If someone was scanning that page to look for a link to trotline regulations, it would be helpful if the document was called Recreational Crab Pot and Trotline Regulations. so they could easily identify that there were trotline regs contained therein.

[CaptMoose]

The Marine Digest refers to the website as the source for the most current regulations.    I believe that statement trumps any omissions in rules in the Marine Digest.

Let me ask you, if you, Mike, me and Kevin went out on a boat, would it be ok for us in your mind to line eight 150 long trotlines together because each of us can have two lines at 150 foot,?

Digest/website is somewhat of a circular reference IMO.  As far as I know the online digest is THE current regs and there is no separate listing of regulations on the web page outside of the digest.  I believe the reference in the digest accounts for printed versions lacking updates made since printing.  It is likely that the online version is updated and contains the most up-to-date regulations. 

Your scenario would be acceptable to me in the same way as every person could bring their traps and deploy them.  Right now anyone could take 200 or 2000 traps out and carpet-bomb any given creek and be well within the law and with no license required.  So no, I don't have a problem with license holders connecting their lines together.  I also would have no problem with regulating the maximum connected length such as 600', 950', 1200', etc.

Connecting the trotlines has a convenience factor, yes, but in my book it is also based in common sense.  It reduces the number of buoys and lines hanging near the surface to impede navigation. 

Let me ask you, Do you have a problem with connecting lines together?

[Ron]

Digest/website is somewhat of a circular reference IMO.  As far as I know the online digest is THE current regs and there is no separate listing of regulations on the web page outside of the digest.  I believe the reference in the digest accounts for printed versions lacking updates made since printing.  It is likely that the online version is updated and contains the most up-to-date regulations. 

Your scenario would be acceptable to me in the same way as every person could bring their traps and deploy them.  Right now anyone could take 200 or 2000 traps out and carpet-bomb any given creek and be well within the law and with no license required.  So no, I don't have a problem with license holders connecting their lines together.  I also would have no problem with regulating the maximum connected length such as 600', 950', 1200', etc.

Connecting the trotlines has a convenience factor, yes, but in my book it is also based in common sense.  It reduces the number of buoys and lines hanging near the surface to impede navigation. 

Let me ask you, Do you have a problem with connecting lines together?

Let me rephrase my question because I wasn't looking for your preference as opposed to what you think is currently legal.   Under the current regs, do you believe it would be legal for multiple license holders to link trotlines together in the fashion I described above?

As far as my preferences, I'd welcome an increased the trotline length here in New Jersey.    In terms of linking the trotlines, if we receive a written determination that two lines can be linked together, the prop stick would be on my boat in a millisecond. 

I do, however, believe without a written determination in had that the current regs are 150 feet per trotline terminated by a visible buoy on each end and that linking two lines together makes them a single line that would be out of legal compliance.   So to answer your question would I have a problem with it, the answer is yes because I believe that flies in the face of the regulation, as opposed to me being "anti-trotline" in anyway. 

Hopefully we'll finally receive a written determination from F&W to clarify it.   

[king crab 48]

I'll just stick to my two handlines with chicken legs on them.  Plenty of crabs for me to eat, Why do you need a bushel ??

[Ron]

Why do you need a bushel ??

 

Blasphemy.