Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Turtle Excluders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advisory members weigh targeted turtle‑excluder mandates for critical habitat, not blanket recreational rule
Summary
Committee discussion focused on whether turtle excluder (TED/narrow‑funnel) requirements should apply to all recreational crabbers or only in identified critical habitat; members urged staff to analyze area‑specific data and gear specifications before any regulation.
Members of the Marine Resources Commission advisory committee debated whether requiring turtle excluders for recreational crab pots should be a statewide recreational mandate or limited to identified critical habitat.
Speaker 1, who identified himself as the lone recreational crab representative on the committee, said mandatory TED‑style gear for all recreational potters would substantially change the catch mix and reduce the ability of recreational fishers to catch larger, marketable crabs. He suggested targeting mandates to critical breeding or nesting habitats — for example, the flats around Plum Tree Island — instead of a blanket requirement in all creeks.
Committee members asked for clear gear specifications. Speaker 6 and Speaker 11 discussed "narrow funnel" designs and mesh counts (11–14 meshes versus 10 meshs cited in different jurisdictions) and said the committee would need to standardize acceptable funnels or TED styles early in rulemaking. Several members noted that many retail outlets already sell recreational pots with federal excluders installed, but others cautioned that durability, materials (plastic vs. wire), and retail availability vary across regions.
Speakers repeatedly contrasted commercial and recreational practices: commercial fishermen typically check pots daily and maintain gear, while recreational potters often leave pots for extended periods or check less frequently, which increases derelict‑gear mortality risk for terrapins and sponge‑bearing crabs. The committee asked staff to investigate targeted areas for mandatory excluders, clarify enforcement language, and return with data that would support an evidence‑based, geographically targeted rule rather than a universal recreational requirement.
No motion to change turtle‑excluder requirements was adopted; staff were asked to research critical habitats, review gear specifications from other states (including New Jersey and South Carolina examples noted in the discussion), and present options at a future meeting.
