Over the past few years, North Carolina has been a hotbed of
marine fisheries management efforts.
“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.
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.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.
“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.
“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 11th
hour.”
“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…”
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment