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.