ADMINISTRATION RENEGES ON NATION'S PROMISE TO RESTORE COLUMBIA/SNAKE RIVER SALMON

 

In September 2023, the Biden administration issued a “Memorandum on Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and Other Native Fish Populations in the Columbia River Basin.”  The Memorandum acknowledged that

“Actions since 1855, including the Federal Government’s construction and operation of dams in the Basin, have severely depleted fish populations.”

The Memorandum went on to declare a federal policy

“…to carry out the requirement of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Public Law 96-501) to operate, manage, and regulate the [Columbia River System] to adequately protect, mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife affected by Federal dams in the Basin in a manner that provides equitable treatment for fish and wildlife with the other purposes for which the Federal dams are managed and operated.”

The Biden administration followed up three months later by announcing an agreement that

“when combined with other funding that the Administration is anticipated to deliver to the region, will bring more than $1 billion in new Federal investments to wild fish restoration over the next decade and enable an unprecedented 10-year break from decades-long litigation against the Federal government’s operation of its dams in the Pacific Northwest.”

That agreement, entered into between the United States and other parties to ongoing litigation, was filed in the Federal District Court for the District of Oregon, and was to be implemented through a memorandum of understanding between the United States, the states of Washington and Oregon, four Native American tribes, and various environmental organizations.

However, the Trump administration has recently caused the United States to breach its written agreement with the other parties, and destroy much of the progress that has been made in reaching agreement on how to conserve and, ideally, rebuild native fish stocks in the Columbia River Basin.

A so-called “fact sheet” issued by the White House on June 12 announced that

“President Donald Trump Stops the Green Agenda in the Columbia River Basin.”

The “fact sheet” began:

“STOPPING RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISM:  Today, President Donald J. Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum revoking an executive action issued by the prior administration that called for ‘equitable treatment for fish.’”

Bullet points in the “fact sheet” noted, among other things, that

“Today’s Memorandum revokes the Biden Administration’s ‘Restoring Healthy and Abundant Salmon, Steelhead, and Other Native Fish in the Columbia River Basin’ Memorandum, which placed concerns about climate change above the Nation’s interests in reliable energy resources,”

and

“The specified agencies will coordinate with the Council on Environmental Quality to review and revise environmental review processes related to matters in the [Memorandum of Understanding filed with the Federal District Court], save federal funds, and withdraw from the [Memorandum of Understanding].”

And that was the last time that the “fact sheet” even mentioned the words “salmon,” “steelhead,” or “fish,” words that the rest of the document made clear were hardly in the administration’s vocabulary.  Instead, it immediately went on to blare,

“RESTORING AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE AND SECURING AMERICAN PROSPERITY:  President Trump continues to prioritize our Nation’s energy infrastructure and use of natural resources to lower the cost of living for all Americans over speculative climate change concerns.”

The salmon and other depleted fish stocks are given a little lip service, with the statement that

“President Trump recognizes the importance of ensuring the future of wildlife populations in the Columbia River Basin, while also advancing the country’s energy creation to benefit the American public.”

Which may well be true.  Trump might truly recognize “the importance of ensuring the future of wildlife populations in the Columbia River Basin,” but there is a big difference between merely recognizing something, and taking meaningful action, and when it comes to wildlife—in just about any context, not just the Columbia River—it’s pretty clear that Trump has little desire to take any action to preserve its future, particularly if that actions might make corporate interests uneasy.  Thus, the “fact sheet” complains that

“The [Memorandum of Understanding] required the Federal government to spend millions of dollars and comply with 36 pages of onerous commitments to dam operations on the Lower Snake River,”

and that

“Dam breaching would have resulted in reduced water supply to farmers, eliminated several shipping channels, had devastating impacts to agriculture, increased energy costs, and eliminated recreational opportunities throughout the region,”

but never mentions how dishonoring the Memorandum of Understanding, and not breaching the lower Snake River dams, will impact the future of wildlife—and most particularly the runs of anadromous fishes—in the Columbia River Basin. 

Because, if we want to be honest, he doesn’t particularly care.

Instead of even mentioning the future of currently threatened and endangered salmon runs, or of promising some sort of action that might preserve their future, the fact sheet ignores the fish entirely, and instead trumpets that

“President Trump signed an Executive Order reinvigorating America’s beautiful clean coal industry to support grid stability and hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs.”

We are assured that

“President Trump’s commonsense approach to environmental conservation empowers the American people to take full advantage of our nation’s vast and great natural resources.”

At least, so long as those resources last.

Various corporate spokesmen endorsed the administration’s actions.  The Seattle Times reported that Kurt Miller, the CEO of the Northwest Public Power Association, said that

“This withdrawal is a necessary course correction toward energy reliability, affordability, and transparency.  In an era of skyrocketing electricity demand, these dams are essential to maintaining grid reliability and keeping energy bills affordable.”

Similarly, the executive director of Northwest River Partners, the trade association representing those who use and profit from the dammed river, said that

“Now is the time to come together and chart a sustainable path toward effective solutions that protect salmon and maintain affordable and reliable hydropower needed by millions of people in the Pacific Northwest.”

It is probably notable, however, that he didn’t even try to suggest what such solutions might be.

But the various industries with a financial incentive to support the status quo aren’t the only people to speak out on the issue.  Anyone focused on the river’s value to salmon, rather to various corporate uses, probably condemned the current administration’s decision.

The four Native American tribes that had been involved in the long-lived litigation that had was, temporarily, stayed after the Biden-era agreement was filed with the Federal Court—the Yakima, Nez Perce, Warm Springs, and Umatilla—were among the most aggrieved of the parties; such tribes had been guaranteed access to the river and to its salmon in treaties dating back to the 19th century.

Gerald Lewis, chairman of the Yakima Tribal Council, stated that

“The federal government’s historic river management approach is unsustainable and will lead to salmon extinction.  Courtroom battles cannot provide the innovative, holistic solutions we need.  This termination will severely disrupt vital fishery restoration efforts, eliminate certainty for hydro operations, and likely result in increased energy costs and regional instability.”

But perhaps the most succinct, and most appropriate, comment came from the chair of the Yakimas’ Fish and Wildlife Committee, Jeremy Takala, who observed that

“We reserved the right to actually catch fish, not merely the right to dip our nets into barren waters.”

But Native Americans aren’t the only people who expect to get hurt.

Liz Hamilton, the policy director for the Northwest Sportfishing Industry Association, responded to that action by saying

“It was a big loss for the Northwest’s economy, and a dagger to the heart of our industry.”

More criticism appeared in an article in Outdoor Life magazine.  Although the hook-and-bullet press tends to be a little right-leaning, and often takes a conservative stance, that article had nothing good to say about the White House abandoning the Memorandum of Understanding.  It reported that, in 2021, 68 leading fisheries scientists wrote a letter to policymakers stating that

“The survival problems of various [Endangered Species Act]-listed salmon and steelhead species in the Columbia Basin cannot be solved without removing four dams on the Lower Snake River.”

The letter came to the conclusion that

“These four dams must be removed to not only avoid extinction, but also to restore abundant salmon runs.”

The Outdoor Life piece went on to observe that

“In its June 12 memorandum, however, the Trump Administration chalked up those conclusions to ‘speculative climate change concerns.’  It explained that by pulling the federal government and its funding out of the [agreement], it was ‘stopping radical environmentalism’ and ‘securing American prosperity.’  In addition to fundamentally mischaracterizing the agreement itself, Thursday’s announcement appeared to imply that speaking up for fish and considering alternatives to the status quo is part of a green agenda meant to harm the American public.  [emphasis added]”

 The Outdoor Life piece continued,

“Conservationists and wild fish advocates are deeply disappointed by Trump’s decision to axe the agreement, which also paused a series of ongoing lawsuits that have dragged on for decades, and would have contributed more than a billion dollars in federal funding to solving a big, hairy problem.  They say the move sets back our country’s salmon recovery efforts substantially, returning us to a zero-sum game of endless litigation that pits energy against fish.”

The magazine quotes Chris Wood, the president of Trout Unlimited, who lamented that

“It was one of the first times that we had a collaborative effort where people agreed to come together—nobody’s hand was forced, there wasn’t a judge or a court insisting on this.  Now, we’re back to the beginning—where we had been for the previous 20 years, which is just relying on the Endangered Species Act to keep these most amazing of God’s creatures from blinking out.”

To provide some context to the issue, the magazine article notes that

“The Columbia-Snake River system was once the most productive salmon and steelhead fishery in the world.  Today, these anadromous runs are a shadow of their former selves, with wild fish returning at less than two percent of their historical abundance…

“The main objective of the 2023 agreement, Wood adds, was for stakeholders to work together to increase those returns.  It was not a decision to breach the Lower Four Snake River Dams, nor did it support legislation to authorize dam breaching.  The dams are owned by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and removing or redesigning them would require an act of Congress…

“In many ways, the agreement reached in 2023 provided a road map for…difficult conversations.  It established a Tribal Energy Program to help the Columbia River Treaty Tribes develop their own renewable energy sources.  It provided federal guidance for replacing and/or redesigning the current irrigation and transportation systems in the Lower Snake region.  And it provided the funds to make those solutions workable.  Perhaps more importantly, though, it paused the Gordian knot of ongoing lawsuits around the Lower Four dams in an effort to bring stakeholders back to the negotiating table.”

Now, it appears that the litigation will continue.  Amanda Goodin, an attorney with Earthjustice who has represented plaintiffs in the legal action, has observed that

“So without the agreement, there is no longer any basis for a stay [of the ongoing litigation]."

The litigation will almost certainly resume.

It’s not a great solution.  But when plaintiffs are forced to deal with a nation willing and seemingly eager to break its word and dishonor its promises, it is the only solution that they have.

 

 

 

MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHERMEN: OVERWEENING ENTITLEMENT

 

About a month ago, the New York Times reported that a charter boat captain in the Gulf of Mexico was sentenced to 30 days in federal prison, and required to pay a $51,000 fine, for violations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

Apparently, the captain—Zackary Barfield, who operated the Panama City. Florida-based boat Legendary New Beginning—didn’t like the fact that bottlenosed dolphin were snatching some red snapper off his clients’ lines, and felt that such thefts entitled him to retaliate by intentionally shooting and poisoning the dolphin when the opportunity arose.

According to a press release issued by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida,

“…From 2022-2023, he poisoned and shot bottlenose dolphin on multiple occasions.

“In the summer of 2022, Barfield grew frustrated with dolphins eating red snapper from the lines of his charter fishing clients.  He began placing methomyl inside baitfish to poison the dolphins that surfaced near his boat.  Methomyl is a highly toxic pesticide that acts on the nervous system of humans, mammals, and other animals, and is restricted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control flies in non-residential settings.  Barfield recognized methomyl’s toxicity and impact on the environment but continued to feed poisoned baitfish to the dolphins for months.

“While captaining fishing trips in December 2022 and the summer of 2023, Barfield saw dolphins eating snapper from his client’s [sic] fishing lines.  On both occasions, he used a 12 gauge shotgun to shoot the dolphins that surfaced near his vessel, killing one immediately.  On other occasions, Barfield shot, but did not immediately kill, dolphins near his vessel.  On one trip he shot a dolphin while two elementary-aged children were on board, and another with more than a dozen fishermen on board.”

The New York Times noted that

“…Barfield shot at least five dolphins, with one confirmed killed…

“The poisonings most likely resulted in many more deaths, the authorities said.

“’Based on evidence obtained in the course of the investigation, Barfield fed an estimated 24-70 dolphin poison-laden baitfish on charter trips that he captained,’ NOAA said. ‘Barfield stated he was frustrated with dolphins ‘stealing’ his catch’”

And, the Times reported, Barfield’s actions weren’t particularly unusual.

“From 2014 to 2024, at least 21 dolphins were killed by gunshot wounds, arrows, explosives, and other sharp objects, according to NOAA data.  Officials said that figure is most likely a severe undercount.”

Because too many folks in the recreational fishery feel that all the fish in the ocean belong to them, and they are entitled to do what they need to to protect their supposed property.

The situation is, if anything, worse when it comes to sharks.  Although most shark species off the East Coast of the United States saw significant declines in population during the late 20^th century, a few stocks such as the blacktip remainabundant, and it appears that others, such as the sandbar, may be well on their way to recovery (although a new sandbar shark stock assessment has been  indefinitely delayed due to both a reduction in funding for the National Marine Fisheries Service and a reduction in the scientific staff at the Southeast Fisheries Science Center, which will be conducting the assessment when the needed resources are finally available).

As some shark numbers begin to increase, shark interactions with anglers have also spiked, as sharks, no less than dolphins, are not above stealing a struggling fish from an angler’s line.  As a result, such “shark depredation” is now at the forefront of the angling debates.

And, probably to no one’s surprise, too many charter boat captains and recreational fishermen respond to shark depredation in the same way that Capt. Barfield responded to bottlenose dolphin stealing his clients’ red snapper—they want to kill them off.

I first wrote about this a couple of years ago, when a tournament down in Florida was established, seemingly for the primary purpose of thinning out the shark population.  According to one report on the Floridan news website WSTPost,

“officials at the event said that the shark population needs to be controlled and they hope the tournament will draw public attention to it.  Captain Jason, who helps organize the tournament, said it was affecting their livelihood.  ‘Any boat that comes out and parks on the local reef immediately has 10 or 12 sharks under your boat every second of every time you go out there and fish,’ said Captain Jason.  ‘You can’t bring fish to the boat anymore because once you’re hooked, they’ll eat them.”

Comments on a Facebook page announcing the tournament evidenced the hostility many anglers have for the ocean’s apex predators, as recreational fishermen posted things like

“I’ll kill a few of those beasts in honor of your tournament even though I won’t be in it.”

“…I don’t kill sharks because they kill humans.  I kill them because there are WAY TOO MANY.  They have overpopulated themselves and I for one am doing any and everything I can to help bring down that population.  How many sharks die an hour IN THE USA?  Answer:  NOT ENOUGH.  Bring back the long liners!”

“Make sure you leave some dead ones on the reef, that way the rest of em get the message.”

And

“Make a huge pile!!!!”

The ironic thing is that, even if some shark populations are larger than they were twenty-five years ago, they are probably still significantly smaller than they were in the mid-20^th century, and that it might be the increase in recreational fishing activity, as opposed to an increase in the number of sharks, that is the prime contributor to the problem

A little over a year ago, a paper titled "Depredation:  An old conflict with the sea,” written by Dr. James Marcus Drymon, et al, appeared in the journal Fish and Fisheries.  The authors observed that

“[Some studies]  suggest that increases in shark populations and/or learned behavior in sharks do not fully explain the increase in shark depredation documented by anglers.  Something else may be contributing to the increased conflict.  Using angler effort NOAA’s Marine Recreational Information Program, we can see a clear increase in the number of charter-for-hire fishing trips off Alabama in recent years.

“While far from a smoking gun, the above exercise highlights the complexities of this human-wildlife conflict.  In 1936, Hemingway was one of a small group of anglers fishing a virgin stock of bluefin tuna in Bimini.  Today, there are more anglers on the water than any time in history, and the stocks they target are far from virgin biomass.  Are there more sharks in the [Gulf of Mexico] than there were 20 years ago?  Very likely.  Are there more sharks in the [Gulf of Mexico] than there were in Hemingway’s time?  Likely not.  [citations omitted]”

The paper goes on to note that the current generation of anglers has probably never seen a healthy shark population, and so, based on their limited experience, sees today’s recovering populations as an “overabundance” rather than a return to more normal population levels.

“[In another study], there was clear evidence of shifting baselines; that is, the gradual acceptance of a reduction in the abundance or size of a species.  Older anglers viewed changes in shark sizes more accurately than younger anglers; specifically, only individuals over 60 years of age remember a time when larger sharks were more common.  [citations omitted]”

Dr. Drymon has called such misperception of overabundance, driven by past experiences with only depleted stocks, the “lifting baseline syndrome,” and explains,

“conservation and management efforts [lead] to population increases.

“Instances where populations have been overfished and then rebuilt can create a perception of overabundance.  When the species that’s recovering is a predator, that can lead to human-wildlife conflicts.”

In the case of sharks, far too many anglers want such conflicts resolved by removing many of the sharks from the ocean.

Of course, sharks aren’t the only fish facing such hostility.  Recreational fishermen down in Florida have a strong dislike for goliath grouper, for about the same reasons—the big grouper eat some of the same fish that the anglers want to catch, and aren’t shy about grabbing the odd snapper or grouper from a fisherman’s line.  Recently, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission posted on its Facebook page, announcing the arrest of a spearfisherman who illegally killed a smallish goliath grouper, that weighed something over 100 pounds, only to have many of the people who commented take the poaching spearfisherman’s side.

Their the comments sounded much like those made in favor of killing more sharks.

“Goliath Grouper AND Gators need to be open season, no size limit or bag limit.”

“the [sic] goliaths are far from extinct my friend.  We can’t even get away from them 80 miles off shore.  They have been protected to the point of over population.”

“we [sic] need to have a Catch them day to thin them out.  They are everywhere.”

And, finally,

“The jewfish [the former name for goliath grouper] are eating everything.  Do your part and use a power head.  Mine is .44 mag.  Then leave them.  They won’t open the season?  Fine.”

But at least the people who don’t care for sharks have an antipathy based on some sort of personal interaction—the sharks stole one or more fish that they wanted for themselves.  In the case of goliath grouper, some seem to see them as a scourge of the sea, writing things like

“Goliath grouper are destroying all the fisheries by eating everything in sight.  They aren’t endangered, they’re overtaking all the fish population at all the wrecks and artificial reefs.  If you dive any of them, you would know that is a fact,”

And

“Goliath grouper have ruined most dive spots because they eat everything there.  Including, snapper, hogfish, grouper; basically anything they want.  They take over areas and no other species can survive.  More open days for Goliath grouper are needed.”

Which, of course, raises the question of how any of the reef fish survived prior to April 1513, when Juan Ponce de Leon first landed on the shores of what is now the Sunshine State, and began a migration of people to that region that continues yet today.  Because back then, there was virtually no one fishing for goliath grouper, except, perhaps, for a few Native Americans fishing with wooden spears and nets woven from the local vegetation, who probably didn’t put much of a dent in the population.

If the goliaths really did eat everything else in numbers sufficient to deplete the reefs, the reefs should have been just about empty by the time the Europeans arrived, but from all accounts, that wasn’t the case.  Even when I was a boy vacationing in Florida with my parents during the 1960s, I remember going down to the docks and seeing the party boats come in with loads of big snapper and grouper. 

So maybe something else is going on.

And maybe there are a lot of recreational fishermen—and I’ll include spear fishermen, too—who need to blame the goliath grouper for declining fish populations, because the only other thing they might have to blame for the decline…are themselves.

Still, I don’t want to make it sound as if it’s only Florida Man who has a dislike for marine predators.  While the folks in Florida are getting much of the press, similar attitudes prevail elsewhere.

Up in New England—and, to some extent and at some times of year, in New York and New Jersey, too—a resurgent population of seals, that are more than willing to steal a striped bass or bluefish from an angler’s line, are attracting recreational fishermen’s ire.  In May 2021, On the Water magazine published an article, “Cape Cod’s Seal Problem,” in which charter boat captain Willy Hatch complained,

“Ten years ago, we never saw seals, but now they’re everywhere.  They’re at Squibnocket Beach, Vineyard Sound, the Elizabeth Islands, Woods Hole, the Muskeget Channel.  Often, the seals hear me anchor up and set up behind my boat.  If I manage to hook a fish, a seal takes it right off my line.  It gets worse every year as their population increases and their range expands.”

His laments sound much like those of “Captain Jason,” when he was complaining about sharks.

However, unlike most angler-oriented articles on depredation, the On the Water piece tries to present a reasonably balanced view of the issue, noting that

“So many seals were bounty-hunted (or ‘nuisance killed’) or were victims of bycatch by commercial fishers that by the mid 20-th century, gray seals had been almost eliminated from U.S. waters.  Some old-timers probably remember the days when someone could go to town hall in Chatham and collect a $5 bounty per seal nose.  They were called ‘seal buttons.’  Despite this carnage, gray seals retained a breeding population in Canadian waters, while just a few hundred harbor seals survived off the coast of Maine.

“Massachusetts passed legislation to protect seals in 1965, but the big game-changer was the passage of the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972…The blanket protection provided by this legislation is singularly responsible for the comeback of seals in Massachusetts waters…”

So, as is the case with sharks and goliath grouper, what anglers are seeing is a predator population that is merely rebuilding to historic levels, not a population that has somehow exploded to new and unprecedented highs.

But still, there is no doubt that the increasing number of seals is causing difficulties for anglers.  The On the Water article ends in a reasonable place, observing that

“We can’t hang [the striped bass’] current problems on the seals.  As Mike Bosley [a Cape Cod charter boat operator] put it, ‘In the last 10 years, I’ve seen absolutely atrocious predation of stripers, but it’s all been by people in boats.”

But most striped bass anglers don’t take such an enlightened view; instead, they are more likely to share the sympathies of Mark Blazis, and outdoor columnist for the Worcester [MA] Telegram and Gazette, who wrote

“Cape fishermen…have come to loathe gray seals—and with good reason.  They’ve pretty much ruined much of the once-great surf fishing from Chatham all the way to P-town.  Seals scare fish away and regularly steal fish that anglers try to reel in.  If a seal can eat 11 pounds of fish a day, that’s a lot of competition for local fishermen, especially considering the thousands of seals in the commonwealth.”

Thus, in a thread titled “Seals:  Love them or Club them?” on the website Stripers Online, we see comments like

“There are way too many seals in our waters.  The numbers have gone up way too high since they became overprotected…I believe these sea mutts are eating all of our bass…”

“I guess it’s time to start harvesting them again.  Fur and meat.

“If people don’t like clubbing then something more optically humane like…shooting them in the head.”

And, from someone unconcerned with the “optically humane,”

“Club them…  They are now ‘pest’ status.”

Even birds fail to escape some anglers’ vitriol.  The May 2020 edition of The Fisherman magazine carried an article titled, “The Cormorant Threat,” in which the author argued that

“we have a large-scale problem with cormorants affecting our fisheries.”

To support his claim, he offers no hard data, nor any scientific research, but only three personal observations.  In the first, he claims that he was fishing on an eastern Connecticut sand flat when

“Many baby summer flounder are swimming on the sand, easily seen from my boat.  There are thousands of them and swimming after them and eating them are hundreds of cormorants.  They consume every baby fluke in the area.”

And perhaps they did.  Or perhaps the little fluke did what little fluke do, went down to the bottom and dove into the sand, camouflaging themselves so neither the birds nor the author could see them.  Absent a post-cormorant survey of the area, there is no way to know.

In another alleged example of cormorant predation, the author claims that he was fishing in Connecticut’s Thames River when

“We observe a flock of about 50 cormorants diving and catching small wintering striped bass (in the 12 to 15 inch range).  For several hours the birds are seen bringing striped bass to the surface and gulping them down whole.”

And maybe that’s what he really saw, although a 15-inch striped bass will weigh close to a pound and a half, so if the cormorants were gulping down fish of that size for “several hours,” they probably weren’t able to fly for couple of days.  Color me skeptical.

Although I’m not at all skeptical about his final observation, when he claims to have seen a flock of about 100 cormorants chowing down on recently stocked hatchery trout.  After all, I walk local streams in the spring helping out with a river herring survey, and I can always tell when the stocking truck has passed by, if not by the number of empty niblet corn cans scattered on the streambanks, or the amount of fishing gear suddenly tangled in streamside trees, then by the sudden appearance of not only cormorants, but ospreys, great blue herons, and great egrets in and above the water.  There’s nothing like dumping a few hundred naïve, bewildered hatchery trout into a waterway to get the various piscivorous birds excited.  Although I’ve yet to see one, I’ll bet the newly-established population of river otters appreciates the stocking, too.

Anyway, the author’s conclusion is completely predictable:

“We have a situation now where cormorants are overpopulated and have no meaningful natural predators to control their population.  While fisheries management struggles to create bag, size and seasonal limits on both recreational and commercial fishermen, a growing problem of cormorant predation on the fish stocks is not being addressed.  Any attempts by fisheries management to control cormorant populations are vehemently opposed by [the National] Audubon [Society].  There needs to be some balance here so fish stocks can be protected from the now overpopulated cormorants.”

While bottlenose dolphins, various shark species, goliath grouper, gray seals, and cormorants are very different species, recreational fishermen’s animosity toward all of them share some common threads. 

First, all of five of the species are deemed, by hostile anglers, to be “overabundant” or “overpopulated” (although Capt. Barfield was never reported to have expressed such sentiments with regard to bottlenose dolphin, other recreational fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico have; as an example, one comment on a fishing website declared that

“Dolphins worse than sharks for me.  I absolutely hate dolphins.  Last weekend of the fall season last year, I hit 11 different [fishing spots] trying to get one last limit of snapper because of fighting dolphin.”)

Anglers often believe a stock to be “overpopulated” when, in fact, a formerly depleted stock (e.g., many sharks, goliath grouper, gray and harbor seals, and possibly cormorants) are merely returning to former levels of abundance.  The “overpopulation” is not evidenced by scientific studies, but rather by the fact that the animal in question is either stealing fish off recreational fishermen’s lines, or because abundance of a target species is in decline, and increasing predator numbers offer a convenient explanation for anglers unwilling to admit that their own activities may be contributing to the diminishing numbers.

But underlying all the hostility toward predators is an overweening sense of entitlement; the attitude that the fish in the ocean exist primarily to satisfy recreational fishermen’s appetites.  Thus, if sharks and anglers compete for grouper and snapper on a Florida reef, the fact that such fish are the natural prey of local shark populations means nothing to the recreational fishermen; they want to catch those fish for their own entertainment and for personal consumption, and if any sharks get in the way of their doing so, then it is the sharks that must be removed, ocean food webs be damned.

It’s not an attitude unique to recreational fishermen.  Some hunters have the same sense of entitlement, and display it in their demands that gray wolf populations be reduced so that recreational hunters have less competition for the available elk and deer.  Some of them have adopted the mantra of “shoot, shovel, and shut up” to describe how such wolves should be treated.  Similarly, I have heard stories of hunters here in New York who, afraid that abundant coyotes might kill too many whitetail fawns and thus reduce the deer population, hang large treble hooks baited with chunks of meat from wires on their upstate properties, hoping that the coyotes will jump up and take the bait, get hooked, and end up dying slowly and painfully as they hang in the air.

Law enforcement, of course, does not approve of such efforts.

But the attitude remains.  It goes back to the days of the gamekeepers of Victorian England.  Then, of course, the people who owned the land really were entitled in fact—royalty, or at least nobility—and could get away with just about anything.  As a modern-day gamekeeper explains,

“The history of gamekeepers and their control of predators has at best been appalling, a legacy we are still paying for.  Our forefathers not only trapped, shot and poisoned any bird, or animal that was even remotely suspected of taking game, but travel back far enough and man traps were perfectly legal for poachers and trespassers alike.”

Man traps.  Something like a bear trap, but intended to do more harm.

“In our forefathers’ defense, it is simply the way things were.  Wild game was all-important and a healthy surplus was achieved by removing anything that posed a threat, there were not just keepers and warreners, but people employed solely to hunt ‘vermin.’  Payment was often for a head count and accurate records were kept and inspected, a gibbet featured on every beat and showed that the job of predator control was being carried out.

”Quite simply the gibbet was a display of every bird or animal killed to protect game.  I not only remember them well as a small boy but kept my own gibbet running for many years.  Attitudes have changed and they are no longer acceptable, but they simply reflected the hard work that a good keeper undertakes to achieve a successful season.  Different times, different attitudes, different standards.”

We don’t have man traps any more, but the gibbet lives on at shark tournaments, in the form of the rack of dead fish that sit in the sun, feeding the flies and showing off the fish that the entrants have killed.

It is time for the gibbet—the displays of dead sharks—to join man traps in the annals of time, as testaments to the arrogance of men who thought that nature existed just for their pleasure and use.  And it is well past time for recreational anglers to stop acting like arrogant hereditary lords, entitled to reshape ecosystems to serve their wants and desires.

Yes, there are predators out there.  And yes, they have evolved to feed on the same fish that anglers value.

That’s the way that nature means things to be, and only an entitled fool would seek to alter the system, validated by eons of evolution’s endless trial and error, just to suit their own personal whims.

 

 

MARINE RECREATIONAL FISHERIES: IS "ACCESS" OVERRATED?

 

For the past decade or so, one of the big buzzwords in recreational fishery management has been “access.”

Thus, when the Cape Cod Charter Boat Association wrote to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission in December 2023, requesting special regulations for charter and party boats that were more favorable than those that applied to everyone else, they argued that such special rules would provide

“the necessary conservation restrictions while enabling us to continue to provide access to the fishery for our customers.  [emphasis added]”

The Stellwagen Bank Charter Boat Association made similar comments, supporting

“mode management measures with separate slot limits for each mode type that recognizes that each mode type has its own goals, objectives and financial constraints that impacts ones access to the fishery…the for-hire fleet needs to operate a financially viable business as well as provide a mechanism for recreational anglers to be provided access to the fishery.  [emphasis added]”

In neither case, when asking for more "access," are the charter boat associations talking about their customers’ ability to merely fish for and actually catch striped bass.  No special regulations are required for that; the customers would be completely free to do so under the regulations applicable to all other anglers.  What the associations were really seeking were special regulations that allowed their customers to kill and take home striped bass that all other anglers would be required to release.

But if the Cape Cod folks said that they sought special management measures “enabling us to continue to kill more bass for our customers,” or the Stellwagen charter boats said that they sought “a mechanism for recreational anglers to be provided with more dead fish from the fishery,” it would sound kind of harsh and self-serving.  So they ask for more “access” instead, hoping that asking for more public “access” to a public resource would sound like the sort of motherhood and apple pie issue that no regulator would ever want to be against.

Similarly, out in California, the local chapter of the Coastal Conservation Association—a group one might think, judging from its name, would primarily be concerned with conservation issues, posts on its website that

“Our Mission Statement Is:  ‘Conserving The Resource and Anglers’ Access To It.’  Our Three Main Goals Are To Keep Our Fisheries Open With Pro-Fisheries Legislation And Preventing Arbitrary No-Fishing Zones, Building Artificial Reefs, And Increasing the Finfish Hatchery Program.  [emphasis added, capitalization in original]”

While the mission statement may give lip service to conservation issues, the chapter’s goals don’t speak to conservation at all, but rather seek to “Keep Our Fisheries Open With Pro-Fisheries Legislation,” presumably without regard to whether the condition of some fish stocks might justify closing some fisheries, at least for part of the year; to build artificial reefs that make it easier for anglers to find, catch, and take home fish; and to expand the state’s saltwater fish hatcheries, which serve no purpose other than to artificially mass-produce fish that anglers can then catch, kill, and take home.

So once again, we see an organization seeking to increase recreational landings, and doing so under the rhetoric of maintaining “access.”

A final example from the Gulf of Mexico saw the American Sportfishing Association—the recreational fishing tackle industry’s largest trade organization—organize a conference it called the Gulf Angler Focus Group, to discuss recreational red snapper management and other related issues.

At the time the meeting was held, recreational fishermen, primarily from the private boat sector, had been chronically exceeding the annual catch target, and often the entire recreational quota, for Gulf of Mexico red snapper, forcing federal fisheries managers to impose increasingly strict regulations.  Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, and admitting that they were exceeding the specifications put in place to protect the long-term health of the red snapper stock, the organized recreational fishing community struck out at federal fisheries managers.

Thus, Kellie Ralston, then the Florida Fishing Policy Director for the trade association, stated that

“The Gulf Angler Focus Group presents a more unified recreational fishing community that will result in clear management recommendations to ensure healthy red snapper and reef fish stocks while providing equitable and reasonable public access...

“In recent years, decreasing recreational fishing opportunities for Gulf red snapper have caused the recreational fishing community to become increasingly frustrated with federal management of the fishery.  The Gulf Angler Focus Group consists of representatives of angler organizations, unaffiliated private anglers, for-hire operators and recreational fishing industry members.  In consultation with all five state fisheries managers from the Gulf region, the Focus Group is developing a package of consensus management recommendations by the recreational sector for reasonable access and sustainable harvest of Gulf reef fish, with an emphasis on the red snapper fishery.   [emphasis added]”

One might argue that, if the recreational sector was already exceeding its annual catch target, and often its annual catch limit/recreational quota, on a regular basis it already had “reasonable access” to the resource, but that misses the point that the word “access,” when used by “anglers’ rights” organizations and many recreational industry groups, has become a gentle euphemism for killing more fish, whatever the species in question.

One might also note that, while the American Sportfishing Association might talk about “present[ing] a more unified recreational fishing community, such unity was only achieved by inviting only those members of the recreational fishing community who agree with the ASA’s goals and objectives for the red snapper fishery.

But lately, some members of the Gulf’s recreational fishing community, who never made the American Sportfishing Association’s A-list of compliant invitees, are beginning to speak out on red snapper management, and opining that the steady expansion of “access” has probably gone too far.

Such concerns were expressed in an opinion piece that appeared in the June 23 edition of The Destin [FL] Log, titled “Red snapper:  The need to balance access with healthy fishery.”

Written by Capt. Jim Green, the son and grandson of for-hire vessel operators and himself the operator of a 90-foot party boat docked on Florida’s Gulf Coast, the piece notes that

“a lot of the fishermen and women, including myself, feel there are issues with the [Gulf red snapper] stock.  The data—both federal and Gulf states—backs this up.

“For a few years, reports of ‘localized depletion’ have come from all over the Gulf.  At what point can we just call it what it is:  depletion?  All of us want longer seasons, but we want them because of a healthy stock.  The truth is, we’re catching smaller fish more frequently, and more of those fish must be discarded due to size restrictions.  These discards often don’t survive, contributing to mortality—further weakening the stock.

“Once the state recreational and for-hire seasons got over 70 days we started seeing the stock struggle to replenish itself.  Over the last three years the average size fish has decreased, reducing the abundance of large breeding fish, which is the cornerstone of a resilient fish stock.

“As we begin to see the stock decline it creates a chain reaction.  As the older age classes of fish are removed from the stock, it starts to affect the stock’s ability to replenish itself.  A 3-pound fish will provide around 2.5 million eggs, a 7-pound fish almost 50 million, and a 16-pound fish around 125 million eggs per year.

“Longer seasons give opportunity for bigger breeding fish to be harvested, crippling the ability to replenish.  Mature fish produce higher quality eggs, providing greater opportunity to provide a healthier fishery.

“Without enough of these fish, we lose the quality of the next generation.  It’s the reason we need management practices that build resilient stocks with quality access instead of just managing for access alone.”

I’ve written about the situation before, because there seems to be real evidence that the state management measures that have been integrated into the federal recreational red snapper management process have not been the panacea that many recreational spokesmen suggest.  Instead, there is a real possibility—very likely a probability—that the extension of the recreational fishing season, and the increased recreational landings that resulted, have had a negative impact on the Gulf’s red snapper stock.

We’ll know for certain in about a year, when SEDAR 98, a new assessment of the Gulf’s red snapper stock, is released.

In the meantime, the angling industry and various allied organizations are seeking greater “access” to other fish stocks.  I’ve already written about how Michael Waine, another spokesman for the American Sportfishing Association, has questioned efforts to rebuild the striped bass stock, which remains overfished and, since 2019, has experienced recruitment failure in its most important spawning area, saying

“where we, where we’re currently focused is where do we go from here?  We want to avoid the scenario like southern flounder and a scenario like red snapper [where recreational seasons are either very short or fully closed].  We want to make sure…that management is aware of the headwinds but also allows for access for anglers to go out and catch a fish, and so how do we balance these values?  How do we balance building back a population to a conservation level that we can all agree on, which we never likely will, with fishing access, with the ability to actually go out and catch these fish, and what worries me, worries me specifically, is like we’ll go too far, meaning we’ll actually tell people to stop fishing for striped bass…”

Because, of course, when a stock remains overfished, and abundance is falling because the last six years saw the worst spawning success of any six-year period dating back to 1958 or so, when managers first began keeping records, the most important thing is to preserve angler “access” to the dwindling resource.  

And let’s be clear about one other thing:  Although Waine links “access” to anglers’ “ability to actually go out and catch these fish,” it’s not mere “catch” that he’s concerned with, because it’s difficult to imagine a situation where managers decide to completely shut down the entire striped bass fishery, including the catch-and-release component, for the course of the year.

That didn’t even happen back in the early 1980s, when the bass stock collapsed; although a number of states did voluntarily shut down their fisheries for one or more years, a coastwide moratorium was never imposed.

But when Waine says “go out and catch a fish,” what he really means is “go out and kill a fish” for, as a spokesman for the tackle industry’s trade association, he can’t support regulations that might impair sales.

If you want to keep sales strong, “access” to even overfished stocks is important.

But perhaps the most confounding stock, from both a management and “access” standpoint, may be the northern stock of black sea bass, which ranges from New England south to Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

In many ways, black sea bass may be the red snapper of the Northeast, although it’s a somewhat imperfect comparison.  Both are structure-oriented bottom fish that aren’t particularly difficult to catch once you find them, anglers value them both as food fish, and both are important targets for the charter and party boat fisheries.

But, where red snapper numbers might be declining, black sea bass spawning stock biomass has been increasing steadily for about the past fifteen years, reaching 30,896 metric tons—and, at 284 percent of the biomass target, the highest SSB every recorded—in 2024.  

Because of that abundance, the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, in conjunction with the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, adopted a new approach to recreational black sea bass management that allowed anglers’ landings to exceed the recreational sector’s annual catch limit—and might even allow combined recreational and commercial landings to exceed the overall annual catch limit—with impunity.  One of the stated motivations for pursuing such approach was to

“Accessability aligned with availability/stock status.”

Yet, like red snapper, anglers’ observations—not only my own and those of people I know here on Long Island, but also folks I’ve been in contact with in Massachusetts and Rhode Island—suggest that most of the large sea bass have been removed from the stock.  While that hasn’t yety impacted recruitment-- recruitment of Year 1 fish was 55.1 million and 60.5 million fish in 2022 and 2023, respectively, compared to an annual median recruitment of about 33 million--it could well be leaving us with a large population of fish composed of relatively few year classes. 

A population structured that way can be vulnerable to a situation where a substantial harvest removes most of the older fish from the population at the same time that, for whatever reason, recruitment declines to below-average levels and remains low for a while.  

With the older fish gone and few young fish entering the population, those left in the middle can be squeezed pretty hard.

And it’s just possible that we’re entering a period when conditions won’t support strong black sea bass recruitment.

That’s because black sea bass recruitment success largely depends on the conditions that the Year 0 fish encounter during their first winter near the edge of the continental shelf.  Warmer, more saline water generally leads to strong year classes, while cooler, fresher water tends to keep recruitment low.  And a publication recently released by the National Marine Fisheries Service, “2025 State of the Ecosystem, New England,” informs us that

“Late 2023 and early 2024 observations indicate movement of cooler and fresher water into the Northwest Atlantic, although there are seasonal and local exceptions to this pattern.  Anomalously cold and low salinity conditions were recorded throughout the Northwest Shelf and were widespread across the Slope Sea for much of the year.  These cooler and fresher conditions are linked to the southward movement of the eastern portion of the Gulf Stream and possibly an increased influx of Labrador Slope and Scotian Shelf water into the system…

“Colder, fresher water detected deep in the Jordan Basin [of the Gulf of Maine] for the first half of 2024 suggests an influx of Labrador Slope and Scotian Shelf water, which resulted in colder and fresher conditions throughout the Northwest Atlantic and contributed to the increased size and colder temperatures of the Mid-Atlantic Cold Pool.”

A NMFS press release related to that publication noted that

“A companion longer-term outlook, also developed by NOAA scientists, suggests that more frequent inflows of cooler deep water may continue to temper warming in the basin for the next several years.”

If those observations are accurate, it doesn’t bode well for black sea bass recruitment over the next several years.  2024 recruitment seems to support the notion that recruitment conditions have deteriorated since, after two consecutive years of very high recruitment, 2024 saw recruitment fall to 27.8 million fish, much less than half of what it was the year before, and below the long-term average.  Of course, one year doesn’t constitute a pattern, and it is entirely possible that 2024 recruitment was an anomaly, and that 2025 will see a significant increase.

Yet it is also very possible that 2024 saw the stock’s expected response to the first year of unfavorable recruitment conditions, and that such below-average recruitment will become the norm until warmer, more saline water returns to those parts of the continental shelf where young black sea bass spend their first winter.

Thus, in the case of black sea bass, as in the case of Gulf red snapper, Atlantic striped bass, and more than a few other species, it may be time for fisheries managers to spend less time worrying about angler access, and more time trying to maintain the long-term health and abundance of important fish stocks.  For in the end, if the fish are abundant, there will be sufficient access for all.

 

 

 

UNEXPECTED OPPORTUNITY TO HALT NORTH CAROLINA'S INSHORE SHRIMP TRAWLS

 

Over the past few years, North Carolina has been a hotbed of marine fisheries management efforts.

About five years ago, the Coastal Conservation Association’s North Carolina chapter, joined by 86 individuals that included five former members of the state’s Marine Fisheries Commission, sued the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, alleging that, as the publication Carolina Sportsman reported, that,

“the agency…has been an ‘abject failure’ in meeting its legal duties to manage coastal fishing stocks in a manner that would fulfill its constitutional ‘public trust responsibilities’ and protect ‘public trust rights’ to fish in coastal waters.”

Since then, the lawsuit has survived the state’s motion to dismiss, and continues to move forward.

More recently, North Carolina fisheries managers have recognized that the Albemarle-Roanoke stock of striped bass is in serious trouble, experiencing serial spawning failures, and is taking heroic actions in an effort to reverse its decline.

Last year, the North Carolina legislature passed a bill requiring anglers to report their catches of five important recreational species, thus imposing new duties on not only the state’s anglers, but also on its fisheries managers, without ever consulting with such managers to determine whether such reporting was needed—and without providing adequate funding to support the reporting program.

Last fall, in the face of a collapsing stock and severe recreational overharvest, North Carolina shut down its recreational southern flounder fishery, only to have a panel of amateur fisheries managers on the state’s Wildlife Resources Commission challenge the professionals’ decision, and permit some harvest in certain estuaries and the lower reaches of coastal rivers.

A little over three months ago, the state adopted the first set of regulations anywhere on the coast that were designed to prevent the overharvest of false albacore.  Kicking in only if annual harvest grossly exceeds current levels, the new regulations are designed to impose precautionary commercial trip limits and a bag limit for anglers if the specified harvest cap is exceeded.

And just last month, the North Carolina House passed a bill that would override the professional judgment of the state’s fisheries managers, and open a six-week—or perhaps longer—recreational season, while establishing a 750,000 pound commercial quota, all without reference to fisheries science or the condition of the southern flounder stock.  The bill would also set scientifically unsupportable regulations for red snapper caught within state waters.

But what the House never realized, and certainly didn’t expect, was that its bad southern flounder bill might become a vehicle to do some real good for North Carolina’s coastal ecosystems.

It happened when the House’s southern flounder bill was sent to the state Senate for further action.  Legislators in the House hoped, and probably expected, the Senate to rubber stamp their action, but something very different, and far more controversial, occurred.

After the bill was sent to the Senate, it was referred to the Senate’s Agriculture, Energy, and Environment Committee for initial consideration.  It was moved forward by that committee, and also by the Senate’s Rules and Operations Committee, but only after it was amended to

“prohibit the use of trawl nets to take shrimp in coastal fishing waters or the Atlantic Ocean within one-half mile of shoreline.”

That was certainly not what the original House sponsors either expected or intended.  However, the change drew significant support.

Tim Gestwicki, the CEO of the  North Carolina Wildlife Federation, stated that

“The North Carolina Senate has taken a bold and necessary step to protect our state’s precious public trust resources on the coast.  We thank them for demonstrating their commitment to preserving North Carolina’s marine habitats for current and future generations and urge their colleagues in the House to follow suit.”

Another spokesman for the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, Thomas Bell, said that the bill

“addresses a major threat to the long-term health of North Carolina fisheries offshore,”

and observed that

“Shrimp trawling severely impacts the fisheries we depend on, killing millions of juvenile fish, degrading essential habitats and putting enormous pressure on our collapsing fish populations, including spot croaker and flounder.”

The North Carolina Marine and Estuary Foundation was equally supportive, acknowledging that North Carolina

“has been a leader in the effort to reduce bycatch,”

but also noting that

“although the need to protect critical habitat is well documented, legislative action in necessary to ensure the enhancement of nearly 900,000 additional acres of inshore habitats that are critical to our fish and shellfish populations.  After careful review of the available science, our foundation’s conclusion is that the shrimp trawl regulation, as proposed in House Bill 442, would bring a huge step closer to this protection goal.”

Senate proponents of the bill believe that it is needed to put North Carolina fisheries management on an equal footing with that in other states.  Senator David W. Craven, Jr. (R-Anson), observed that

“This will pair us up with our surrounding coastal states, with Virginia and South Carolina,”

both of which already prohibit shrimp trawling in their nearshore waters.

Naturally, some legislators from coastal districts where shrimp trawling occurs disagree, although their opposition seems tied to economic, rather than environmental, concerns.  Senator Bobby Hanig (R-Currituck) saw the bill as a product of lawmakers responding to improper political influences, saying

“It’s been no secret that the [Coastal Conservation Association] and the [North Carolina] Wildlife Federation have been in full on assault against the commercial fishermen for years.

“Now they have the attention of a few influential politicians to help them with their agenda.  Isn’t that convenient?  This amendment is about money and influence, nothing less.”

Hanig also opined that

“Banning shrimp trawling in inshore waters will destroy commercial fishing in North Carolina.  Without the shrimp trawl, many of our fish houses are going to close.  People are going to lose jobs.  It’s going to decimate our fishing industry.”

Similar opinions were voiced by Senator Norman Sanderson (R-Pamlico), who stated that

“I don’t think I’ve ever intentionally voted to deny someone the ability to work and to put them out of business.  And I’m not going to start with this bill in the current term.

“Right now, we are giving foreign countries the upper hand in producing our seafood…If it comes to that, I cannot and will not vote for House Bill 442.”

Opponents of the bill, like its supporters, belong to both political parties.  Senator Joyce Waddell (D-Charlotte) said that

“I would like to believe it is to support small businesses in regards to fishing, with all of the changes happening throughout  the country, we must support small businesses as much as possible.  Shrimp trawling has been a pillar of the local economy for many Eastern North Carolinians, and many of them have come to the office to share their concerns.  The proposed limitations could reduce access to critical harvesting areas, and it could also disrupt livelihoods and further strain a sector already facing rising fuel costs, competition from imports, and a lot of other things.”

The opponents of the bill had their ironic moments, such as when Hanig asked

“what data was used to support the amendment to put the hardworking men and women that work in our fishing industry every day out of a job and completely shut down and entire industry?”

even though he never expressed such concerns about the original, unamended version of the bill, which he called a

“great step forward, one that restores reasonable access to flounder for both recreational and commercial fisheries,”

even though the original bill would have opened up a substantial recreational fishing season and established a large commercial quota for southern flounder, not only without any supporting data, but contrary to the data developed by North Carolina fishery managers (the amended bill still addresses southern flounder, but no longer dictates that state managers issue a proclamation adopting the recreational season and commercial quota; instead, such issues will be subject to the customary state rulemaking process).

Supporters of the amended bill, such as Cameron Boltes, a former member of North Carolina’s Marine Fisheries Commission, counters claims that the legislation would end shrimp trawling in North Carolina, saying,

“The big point of clarification I want to make is that the bill is not a ban on trawling in North Carolina.  It’s in alignment with the best management practices used in every other state in the Southeast.”

Senator Bill Rabon (R-Brunswick) also noted that North Carolina’s inshore shrimp fishery was an anomaly that needed to be corrected.

“This is just an archaic thing that we have allowed.  It’s going to take a lot of fortitude for people to stand up and say, ‘I really don’t like it, but it is the best policy.’  And at the end of the day, our challenge here is good policy, not friendships, friends at home.  I have friends at home that are in the business.”

In the end, such comments must have been convincing, because the North Carolina Senate passed the amended bill on a vote of 39 in favor, 2 against last Thursday.

Now, because of the shrimp trawl amendment, the bill must return to the House for another vote.

Representative Edward Goodwin (R-Chowan), one of the original sponsors of the bill in the General Assembly, has declared

“This will not pass the House.  We had a great bill (HR 442) which only sought to re-open the Southern Flounder and Red Snapper season that was shut down by [North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries] proclamation.  The problem came when Senator Bill Rabon, Senate Rules Chairman, added this anti-trawling amendment at the 11^th hour.”

He went on to assert that

“I am leading the fight in the NC House to stop this amendment that will effectively the shrimping industry and put thousands of hard-working North Carolinians out of work and destroy a century old way of life.  The commercial fishermen and shrimpers are the backbone of our excellent and vibrant seafood industry, and I will fight until last dog dies to protect it.”

There are other people and organizations who support the bill.  One, the American Saltwater Guides Association argues that

“Each year, hundreds of millions of fish are killed as collateral damage from large-scale, inshore bottom shrimp trawling in North Carolina estuaries…While other Atlantic and Gulf states have taken action to phase out  this type of outdated gear in their most sensitive nursery areas, North Carolina stands alone in allowing it to continue…

“This isn’t a niche issue.  It’s not about choosing shrimp over sportfish.  It’s about the future of North Carolina’s coastal economy, habitat, and way of life.  The majority of species killed in shrimp trawl bycatch—Southern Flounder, weakfish, croaker, spot, and blue crab—are already in serious trouble.  They’re being scooped up before they can spawn…For every pound of shrimp harvested, more than four pounds of juvenile fish and other marine life are discarded.  That’s not just wasteful—it’s unsustainable…”

The Guides Association’s website [click here to access] contains information on how concerned persons can voice their opinions on the amended bill, which will probably come up for a vote at some point this week—perhaps even in the next couple of days.

Some people will undoubtedly try to cast the amended bill, and the abolition of inshore shrimp trawls, as a traditional commercial/recreational conflict, where “rich,” “connected,” and/or “elitist” (you choose the words) recreational fishermen are trying to push “poor,” “hard-working,” “honest,” “traditional” commercial fishermen off the water, so that the anglers can hog all the fish for themselves.

But that’s not what this is about at all.

When fish stocks decline, everyone suffers—commercial and recreational fishermen alike.  The amended bill, restricting the use of shrimp trawls, isn’t about giving recreational fishermen a bigger piece of North Carolina’s marine resources pie, while the commercial sector goes hungry.

Instead, it is about making ther finfish pie bigger, so that both commercial and recreational fishermen can come to the table and, with inshore nursery areas and the juvenile fish they support no longer impaired by shrimp trawls, everyone can walk away satisfied.