New legistlation divides fishermen; increased fees, dredging included - News-Times: News

Welcome!
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

New legistlation divides fishermen; increased fees, dredging included

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 11:55 pm

RALEIGH — A new bill is before the General Assembly that would make three fish species gamefish, raise fishing license prices and provide funds for state fishing observers and dredging.

One of the four actions proposed in the bipartisan bill, filed Wednesday by four inland county representatives and titled H.B. 983, “The 2013 Fisheries Economic Development Act,” is to designate red drum, spotted sea trout and striped bass as coastal gamefish. It also seeks to compensate commercial fishermen for “certain losses due to coastal gamefish designations,” increase Coastal Recreational Fishing License fees, appropriate funds for the marine fisheries observer program and provide funding for dredging shallow draft navigation channels.

If these three species of fish are declared coastal gamefish, they’ll only be able to be taken by recreational fishing. The only fish of these species that anyone will be able to buy, sell, transport or exchange are ones grown in an aquaculture operation, imported from a state without a gamefish designation for them, purchased by a restaurant, or possessed by individuals within the daily recreational limit for their own, personal use, including people who are customers of a guided fishing trip.

Nancy Fish, public information officer for the N.C. Marine Fisheries Commission – the rulemaking body of the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries – said the DMF is concerned about the legislation.

“While our concern is based on a variety of factors,” she said, “the greatest issue is that we believe the action is contrary to the N.C. Fisheries Reform Act, our state’s guiding legislation for managing coastal fisheries.”

Ms. Fish said the DMF recommends strategies to manage resources for the benefit of all user groups. She said designating gamefish status for any coastal species gives the recreational sector preference over the commercial sector.

A recreational fisherman nonprofit group is in support of this bill. Chuck Laughridge, Harkers Island resident and representative of the N.C. branch of the Coastal Conservation Association, said the association not only supports the bill, but also worked with two of its authors, Rep. Tom Murry, R-Wake, and Rep. Tim Moffitt, R-Buncombe, to draft the portion on gamefish.

“We’ve had meetings with them since the close of the short session last summer,” Mr. Laughridge said.

The other primary sponsors are Rep. Michael Wray, D-Halifax County and Rep John Bell IV, R-Wayne County.

This isn’t the first time state legislators have sought gamefish status for these three species. In 2011, H.B. 353, known as the “Designation of Coastal Gamefish” was introduced to seek gamefish status for them. However, the bill stalled in committee and died during the 2012 short session.

Mr. Laughridge said that, unlike H.B. 353, H.B. 983 will not ask for ocean striped bass to be declared gamefish. By doing so, he said the latest bill will only remove two percent of total finfish landings in the state.

“Dr. Louis Daniel (DMF director), has publicly stated on numerous occasions that spotted sea trout is already unable to be managed for a sustainable harvest,” Mr. Laughridge said. He also said that both red drum and estuarine striped bass are both already in bycatch fisheries, meaning they’re only commercially landed as an incidental take with other commercial species.  

A nonprofit supporting the state seafood industry doesn’t like the bill, however. Sean McKeon, executive director of the N.C. Fisheries Association, said the bill is extraordinarily misnamed.

“It should be ‘The Commercial Fishery Economic Devastation Act,’” he said. “There’s nothing in the bill to justify this (gamefish status). The title is a joke; Rep. Murray and Rep. Wray should be ashamed of themselves for being used this way.”

Mr. McKeon said he thinks the bill was created at the request of “a small group of recreational boat owners.” He said the legislators who introduced this bill “have no idea what devastation this will have on the coast.”

“They talk about it only being two to three percent of the harvest,” he said. “But every small fish market needs every percentage it can get.”

Observer program funding

H.B. 983 will also appropriate $1.3 million from the state General Fund for the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries. This money is for administering and implementing the Marine Fisheries Observer Program, a program that observes interactions between protected marine species and fishing gear.

A lawsuit settlement with the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue and Rehabilitation Center in 2010 requires the state maintain this observer program, as does the state’s incidental take permit for the Pamlico Sound Gill Net Restricted Area. The DMF is applying for another, statewide ITP that would require the program as well; this permit would be for both sea turtles and Atlantic sturgeon.

Dr. Louis Daniel, DMF director, said at a Marine Fisheries Commission meeting in November of 2012 that funding for the observer program is running out. He said current funds would allow the program to keep operating until the end of Fiscal 2012-13, which is June 30.

If the funds run out, small and large mesh gill net fisheries – which are involved in the commercial harvest of several commercially important species - in inland and sound waters will have to close immediately. Ocean gill net fisheries, strike netting and runaround gill netting fisheries, however, may continue to operate.

At the November 2012 CRC meeting, Dr. Daniel said the DMF was going to send proposed legislature to the General Assembly to try and get more funds for the observer program. However, Ms. Smith said this bill has nothing to do with the division’s proposal.

“The DMF has proposed increase in commercial license fees to fund the observer program,” she said, “and still hopes to see legislation to this effect. Gov. McCrory’s proposed budget included $1.3 million for the program to be funded by appropriations for one year, then switch to receipt (license) funding after that. The division supports Gov. McCrory’s proposal.”

State dredging fund

H.B. 983 will also credit the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission half a percent of the amount allocated to the Highway Fund from the gas exercise tax for dredging shallow draft navigation channels. The revenue will go into the Shallow Draft Navigation Channel Dredging Fund, a fund created by the bill to pay for the costs of dredging projects to keep state waters safe and navigable.

Projects funded through this method will have to be cost-shared, with non-state money on a cost-to-cost basis. A “shallow draft channel” is a channel with a maximum depth of 14 feet, located in one of the following areas:

•    Between the Atlantic Ocean and a bay or the Intracoastal Waterway.

•    A river entrance to the Atlantic Ocean through which tidal and other currents flow.

•    Other interior coastal waterways.

Channels considered shallow draft channels include Beaufort Harbor, Bogue Inlet, Carolina Beach Inlet, the channel from Back Sound to Lookout Back, channels connected to federal navigation channels, Lockwoods Folly River, Manteo/Shallowbag Bay, Oregon Inset, Masonboro Inlet, New River, New Topsail Inlet, Rodanthe River, Rollison River, Shallotte River, Silver Lake Harbor and the waterway connection Pamlico Sound and Beaufort harbor.

Mr. McKeon called including dredging in this bill along with its other actions “a poison pill.”

“Dredging is a vital necessity,” he said. “But rather than create a separate bill and explain why they need this (gamefish status), they try to conceal it (with the dredging language). It’s disgraceful the way they did this; I hope and pray there are some people in the Senate who will stand against this.”

Fishing license fee increase

The bill will also raise the fees for a recreational fishing license. Annual resident licenses will go from $15 each to $20, annual nonresident licenses will go from $30 to $40, 10-day resident license will go from $5 to $10 and 10-day nonresident licenses will go from $10 to $20.

Mr. Laughridge said Rep. Murray put this this part of the bill in for economic development. He said the Sportsman’s Caucus decided to raise both hunting and fishing license fees, so the action won’t be singling out coastal recreational fishermen.

(As noted in a post below, the original version of this story stated the incorrect bill number on first reference and misspelled Rep. Tom Murry's name. This version corrects those errors.)

 

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

50 comments:

  • gridlock posted at 7:27 pm on Sat, May 11, 2013.

    gridlock Posts: 52

    Just Saying... I take issue when the platform heard over and over is that Hb983 will deprive NC folks when the truth is almost everything is getting shipped out of state. Just tired of the spin, from both sides. But I did find it interesting that the initial review only took into account dead / landed fish. That's where the other gamefish states possibly saw the bigger picture... there are many more who care to release in good condition so the numbers grow, as an income producing sport for all the supporting NC businesses. And so do the number of NC folks who have a better chance at access... not just a tiny percent of the population shipping the resource out of state. Have you checked the number of growing guide operations in gamefish states? Please enlighten us all on the spawning behavior of oil and cars, if you think that is even remotely on the same level. If the other states care to run the natural resources to the edge... that's their business. Just don't use that model here, because the numbers just don't add up if you are truly concerned about equal use of the resource for NC residents.

    So, yes, I am opposed to a very small percentage of the population using a NC resource that would provide a much greater economic return to the people of NC in the water alive, while shipping the vast majority out of state. If there is actually a demand for these fish in NC I completely agree that demand should be met. Just don't use the "depriving the NC market" as a basis against this bill, because we both know it doesn't exist in any reasonable form. You only sell out of state when demand requires... unfortunately, that is most of the time. May be time to consider that a large number of population can do without these fish on the table and may actually see there is a much better use.

    Have you even considered that some of the best guide operations in gamefish states USED to be commercial operations? They know the patterns, the hours are better, and so is the pay. Also, there is nothing in the bill that would prevent the harvest of these fish for your family/community dinner.

    Just to clarify... I am not opposed to ALL sales out of state, just these 3 that have shown over and over to provide a much better economic return to all of NC. They can spin the landings numbers all they want, but the number of people who enjoy going out and releasing a dozen and keeping one are far greater than ya'll are willing to admit. And while there is much work to be done on the rec side to eliminate mortality, the bigger question is how would you handle the situation? It's a nuisance and waste of my time? How do we keep the NC commercial operations alive and well while preventing discards of a valuable NC resource? Bycatch will happen on both sides... how do we minimize that?

    Sorry to be a pain, but I hate politics and it absolutely stinks of it on this issue.



     
  • Just Saying posted at 9:53 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Just Saying Posts: 19

    Gridlock,
    Are you saying you are opposed to commercial fish sales out-of-state?

    If your answer is yes (I assume it is, by your previous remarks), then please tell me....

    Should we not allow lobster or King crab on our menus in NC? (These are mainly caught up north and sold to other states)

    Should we only buy our beef from only NC cattle farmers? (Better boycott the new Long Horns Steakhouse)

    Should we only buy our cars from NC manufacturer's? (I can't think of one)

    Lastly, should we buy our fuel from NC oil producer's. (Wait, we don't have any).

    Point is, we only sell to out of state when demand requires. These species are served here in NC, but other states like Texas, LA, Fla, who have Game Fish bills already passed, can't get access to these fish. So, the buy them from us to make up for the demand. Although, i am very much a supporter of BUY LOCAL. It's what we call the FREE MARKET ECONOMY.

    Just Saying. [wink]

     
  • Just Saying posted at 9:38 pm on Sun, May 5, 2013.

    Just Saying Posts: 19

    Studies show approx. 83% of tourist visit coastal area's expect fresh local seafood. Visitors also provide evidence that they will choose a local restaurant serving local produce &/or seafood over a chain restaurant. It also shows that coastal communities which serve fresh local seafood (not foreign import) have higher return visits. One such study was conducted in Fla (provided by the hotel/hospitality industry) and recently a study conducted in NC produced similar results.
    There is NO EVIDENCE supporting the CCA's stance that this bill will increase visitors resulting in any economic impact either way. Check their data for yourself, they are very good at distorting the FACTS for their sole benefit. So really look at the facts closely.

    More visitors come to dine and enjoy fresh local seafood, than visitors who come to our state/coast to fish.

    NO SPECIAL SECTOR SHOULD HAVE SOLE RIGHT TO A NATURAL PUBLIC RESOURCE. No matter how much money they have. Period.

    Just Saying.

    P.S.
    If anyone wants to claim that these species are overfished, they should place blame on the recreational fisherman. As the data shows the recreational sector lands the higher percentage of these 3 species. Again, Just Saying.

     
  • gridlock posted at 10:18 pm on Sat, May 4, 2013.

    gridlock Posts: 52

    Clammerhead,
    I completely respect and appreciate what you are (hopefully) still doing with the oyster rehab program. I've looked into every bit of data you have put out there. But when someone doesn't agree with your position, you decided they be labeled racist... that is a VERY strong accusation, which also has no basis and does nothing to help find common ground. If that's all you've got left, have a great time with it. Sorry you couldn't take off the blinders to see some are trying to see both sides. Just make sure your actions match your position. If you are truly concerned about inland NC having access to these 3 fish... don't ship them out of state. If you are truly concerned about the community, don't toss dead bycatch within quota... donate them or sell them in state only. Heck, don't toss any dead bycatch over quota, just don't sell it. Oh, right, that's extra work that would help who you claim to want to help but don't, because it pays better to ship them out of state. Not sure how many racist based posts you've made, but if you say it's the truth then please inform us all how you arrived there. Takes one to know one in my book, and you are apparently very educated on that subject if what you claim is true. Look in the mirror there Capt...

     
  • clammerhead posted at 10:23 pm on Thu, May 2, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    It's not a racist illogical soapbox.......IT'S THE TRUTH....

    Clammerhead

     
  • gridlock posted at 7:49 pm on Thu, May 2, 2013.

    gridlock Posts: 52

    Locals know how to catch their own shrimp without trawling...
    AND if getting those shrimp for folks who don't give a whoot about the overall fishery kills 10x more juvies for each pound of shrimp, then MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, they need to stop eating shrimp! Although I would eat fried shrimp every day if I could afford it... but now it's maybe twice a year, self caught/non trawl/no bycatch... can't deal with the commercial chemicals sprayed to keep them looking fresh. But that obviously doesn't fit on CH's racist illogical soap box.

    But I will miss the acres of dead bycatch behind every trawl boat to use as chum...NOT!

    Sorry Francis, your comment falls into the same category as the Chinese trying to justify chopping off shark fins and dumping the rest for their precious and elitist soup... for their own profit, and not giving a whoot about the big picture. Not even going into the bluefin/whale/dolphin scene, but really?! Completely use the resource in a sustainable manner or don't use it at all... pretty simple. It's bad for the NC resources, but life ain't always fair.

     
  • clammerhead posted at 5:33 pm on Tue, Apr 30, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    francis,

    Racist want Asian shrimp because their taste buds are as useless as their logic.

    Clammerhead

     
  • francis posted at 6:05 pm on Mon, Apr 29, 2013.

    francis Posts: 2763

    Question. How would you, as a commercial fisherman, harvest shrimp other than trawling. feel free to post all answers.

     
  • clammerhead posted at 7:20 pm on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    You can tell the RACISM is alive and thriving, by the comments.....

    Clammerhead

     
  • John posted at 4:37 pm on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    John Posts: 141

    This statement i read a few years ago, Makes me think and worry about the future of our natural resources. This was part of the statement. (States began to eliminate the commercial exploitation of wild resources beginning early in the 1900's. The federal government stepped in to prevent the commercial harvest of ducks, geese and buffalo. The commercial take of deer, elk, quail, pheasant, wild turkeys, bass, sturgeon and trout was eliminated in favor of conservation and providing increased public access to public resources. As an unexpected but welcome bonus, governments quickly realized that doing so brought the highest economic return in the form of revenue and taxes.Ultimately, the decision to outlaw the industrial harvest of wildlife was driven by a simple truth – commercial activity places a dollar value on a wild animal which all too often drives harvest past sustainable levels. Fortunately, such commercial harvest was recognized as an unsustainable activity and relegated many decades ago.With one exception.The lessons learned on land and in our nation’s freshwaters so many years ago were somehow forgotten when it came to industrial harvest of marine resources. Governments that recognized the inevitable downward spiral associated with commercial harvest of ducks, bison or native trout were somehow unwilling or unable to recognize the same factors at work in the oceans.The conservation movement championed by Teddy Roosevelt and embraced by millions of hunters and freshwater anglers was stopped at the ocean’s edge, where a federal agency once officially labeled the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries was given sole authority to manage wild resources for the maximum benefit of commercial harvesters. It was once thought that the ocean’s resources were limitless, that man was incapable of harming marine fisheries. That belief, widely held and often repeated by commercial advocates even in the late 20th century, was shattered by the collapse of stock after stock, including New England groundfish, billfish, striped bass and red drum.There has been no policy at the state or federal level to control the commercial exploitation of freshwater fish or terrestrial game since the 1800s, yet saltwater anglers still find themselves fighting with federal policies intended to support commercial fleets that use remarkably destructive gear to harvest increasingly stressed marine resources.) This statement has alot of truth to it and we see it all around us every day. But some of us will never see we are distroying our childrens future. If our fisheries is this bad now how is it going to be 20 or 30 years from now? We have to make changes now not when it runs out!

     
  • beachman posted at 4:24 pm on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    beachman Posts: 11

    The truth of the matter is this. The fin fish that the inshore netters have depended on for years such as the Croaker, Spot, and Flounder are disappearing! Why is this happening? Some would say polution and water quality? Others will say it is development. Let me ask this question, does anyone out there really believe that the Albemarle Sound and the Pamlico Sound have more polution dumped into them than the Chesapeake Bay? Take a look at the map and look at all the massive populations and cities at the headwaters of the Chesapeake.So why have the inshore fin fish populations in the Chesapeake remained viable while ours are in concern or depleted? What could possibly be the correlation?Here’s your answer and then I am done. Inshore Shrimp/Crab Trawling! Ask the commercial inshore net fisherman who does this full time for a living. They will agree. The trawling is destroying 10 pounds of baby finfish for every pound of shrimp harvested. NC is the only state on the Atlantic Seaboard that still allows this inshore travesty. It needs to stop and stop now!So the battle for game fish status for the Red Drum and Speckled Trout has heated up. But keep in mind, all of this user conflict is just a symptom of a much larger issue, and that is the destruction of inshore fish and habitat by inshore trawling here in NC. If they would stop it would completely turn our fisheries around.

     
  • SEABASS posted at 3:26 pm on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    SEABASS Posts: 65

    This is not racism, It is doing the right thing. But like alot of people some will cry racism when they are in the wrong and are caught, They want to blame everything but themselves. It is sad to see some who say there are for helping the fishreies. But cant prove the data wrong. But i guess it is easier to blame other for your own failures. Than to take the blame yourself!

     
  • clammerhead posted at 10:11 am on Sun, Apr 28, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    See, I told you it was RACISM...

    Clammerhead

     
  • gridlock posted at 10:08 pm on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    gridlock Posts: 52

    Core Sounder,
    Many of the states you are thinking of still allow very selective netting quotas and locations. Just not the most destructive gear. Nice spin though. FYI, my small time commercial friends in Fla actually did better with spider poles once the bigger ops couldn't sweep the flats with nets.

     
  • gridlock posted at 9:59 pm on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    gridlock Posts: 52

    Good luck with your latest soap box CH. In case you missed it... poverty is color blind these days and your rich white man drumbeat doesn't even come close to the majority of the rec folks involved. Don't sell these fish caught as bycatch... donate them... pretty simple. Yes it would involve a reporting system, but that's the easy part. If you really cared about all other races then it should be a non-issue. Otherwise you are only in it for the profit, and your racist BS needs to be substantiated. Especially since the numbers being reported are a minimal part of the margin. So, if your position is valid...
    1) What are YOUR numbers on the amount of bycatch?
    2) How much of that STAYS in NC?
    3) How many families in financial distress even think about drum/spec/rock for dinner... and how many did you help? Or was it to profit from the same folks.

    FYI, I don't... because I can't afford it. No big deal. But I will wade around for a good dinner every now and then. And this is all about the rich white man... yeah right?!

    So how many poor women have you helped this year? Willing to bet the rich white man you deplore have helped far more. But carry on with your rant....

    Nothing new from Clammerhead folks, and definitely nothing to support his racist position. Just flailing at its finest. Please keep up the great work with the oyster/crab pot program.... definitely a great thing for the NC resources. But you lost me with the race card without SOLID data to prove your case.

    Disprove away CH...

     
  • beachman posted at 8:33 pm on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    beachman Posts: 11

    I see peopl saying everything but show me your proof! Clammerhead show me your proof i have seen the DMF proof and i know what they say. So you prove them wrong and ill stand with you. But if all you can do is say they are wrong with no proof then im sorry. I see this as a start of thing to come. Like it or not gill-nets days are numbered in our waters. More and more people are wanting them out. So sooner or later they will get them out. Every boat on the water has a camra on it just waiting to click a picture. Of what they see. Floating dead fish leading to your boat is a great picture to show. This bill will get alot of fishing pressure off specs and reds, But I'm afraid it is going to devastate Flounder, And other fish stocks. It will put way more pressure on these fish. And they are already overfished now.

     
  • clammerhead posted at 3:12 pm on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    Y'all keep coming on with the same ole dis-proven arguments.

    Nothing new to see here folks...

    Just Racism at it's finest....

    Clammerhead

     
  • Core Sounder posted at 1:05 pm on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    Core Sounder Posts: 117

    I guess the Clammer FOOL does not consider the State of Virginia a comparable ecosystem and I would dare say that its more like NC's system than are SC or GA. Last time I looked Virginia allowed gill nets and the sale of those species but then again the CCA and its supporters do not like for too many facts to be known regarding this issue. They are pretty content with the BS that has been spread that NC is the only State in the Union that still allows gill nets when the truth be told most of the States along the coast do in fact allow gill netting.

     
  • John posted at 11:04 am on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    John Posts: 141

    This bill should have been passed years ago. Every thing that has ever been commercially harvested has had to be protected. When you put a dollar amount on something it will be depleted! All for the money.(greed) Our fisheries is bing managed on the backs of rec, fishermen. With little help from the commercial fishermen.

     
  • SEABASS posted at 10:33 am on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    SEABASS Posts: 65

    The same question keeps comming up why is this bill needed? Well if the government does not step in the stock will not rebound. Look at Sothern Flounder they have been on the depleted list for over ten years, And are still on it! But the only ones having there limits droped is the rec, fishermen. Comm, fishermen Can still catch all they want with NO LIMIT. And they see it as fair! How can you take something that is for everyone and sell it to only the ones who can afford it! The ones who cant pay the high prices at the fish house goes with out! And this is fair? How is it fair for a group to take a natural resource and sell it for profit? This county lives off of tourist like it or not, The comm, fishermen does not put that kind of money into our county! Sorry they just dont. And we have to make changes now to keep our tourist comming.

     
  • ClammerFool posted at 5:22 am on Sat, Apr 27, 2013.

    ClammerFool Posts: 24

    Moniker? Im a fool for clamming!

    CCA's data is data done and compiled by the state of North Carolina - in particular, the DMF, which bends over backwards to keep commercial gill nets in the water at all costs. AT. ALL. COSTS.

    Your nets should have been banned 20 years ago and this would not be a problem. NC does not need to be THE ONLY STATE WITH A COMPARABLE ECOSYSTEM WITH LARGE SCALE GILL NET USE.

    If the data is being so misrepresented - please provide us with accurate data that refutes the large economic impact from these 3 fish. Plain and simple.

    Or are you going to argue people do not spend tons of money to chase these 3 fish.

    Or are SC, GA, FL, AL, MS and LA and TX all wrong?

     
  • gridlock posted at 9:26 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    gridlock Posts: 52

    Or as you kindly responded to my post in the other forum...

    See....

    Thanks for the insight!

     
  • gridlock posted at 9:23 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    gridlock Posts: 52

    Wow... Clammerhead, care to provide any data to support your claim??? If the bycatch of proposed gamefish is being provided to people in need I would be behind it 100%. Please also realize this is not a race issue, all have folks needing support these days. I commented a while back on how the oyster restoration / recycled pots efforts were a great initiative. And I hope they will continue to be for the commercial harvest, and appreciate your efforts in the study. I completely respected your opinion as I am not a true waterman. But playing the race card? Really???

    So, if it's bycatch... you would be OK with donating to the cause you support? Or are you wanting to ship it out of state for a profit that does not benefit the NC folks you are using as an example?
    If it's bycatch, donate it to the cause on which you are basing your position. As soon as profit is involved, it becomes a very shady line...

     
  • clammerhead posted at 5:27 pm on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    Fool........

    Not only do you personally ride on my back with your moniker, cause it is the best you can come up wit h, I'm telling you the data the CCA is using is not what it is being represented to be, nor is any conjectured outcome it is forecasting a reality..

    You're so messed up, you can't even spell my name right, much less hold a viable argument. In fact you argue like a little girl that just got caught doing something wrong, and when it didn't work when she tried blaming it on her friend, she made up a fictional story that doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

    Don't blame me that the CCA exhibits activities of a RACIST nature...

    Clammerhead

     
  • ClammerFool posted at 10:09 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    ClammerFool Posts: 24

    Cesna,

    You're telling me that the Economic analysis of the fishery is false? You're saying people do not spend a ton of money to catch these fish? You're telling he our economy down here is not tourism based?

    You're also telling me that every single other state with a somewhat comparable ecosystem, outside of mississipp's tiny net fishery, have not banned nets?

    You're telling me that red drum, which are gamefish in every state other than MD. And trout outside of FLs 20k quota are not gamefish every where else?

    Say what you want - you're blind.

     
  • clammerhead posted at 6:01 am on Fri, Apr 26, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    Well darnbedogonedang, if it isn't RACISM, then what is it?

    Every argument the CCA and it's cronies have used has been proven to be BUNK.

    Don't go with the same ole, same ole.........They have ALL already been shown to be false.

    The only reason left RACISM.

    Pull the books. Please tell us ..How many poor Black women belong to the CCA?

    Clammerhead

    AS far as the Nazi's.....NPS....Nazi Park Service....Need I go further?

     
  • ClammerFool posted at 10:00 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    ClammerFool Posts: 24

    Really Cesna (clammerhead)?

    That's all you've got? Racism?

    Are you really that short of facts? Clearly.

    Start whipping out "nazi" and "Gestapo" and"fascist" while you're at it.

    Seriously find a better argument.

     
  • CARTERETISCORRUPT posted at 8:10 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    CARTERETISCORRUPT Posts: 959

    Why does there always have to be government control of everything? An old saying: There are as many good fish in the sea as ever came out of it". Lets just get the government out of this, and lets go fishing. Lets retire the marine patrol, gamewardens and such kings men. Paying to be able to fish and feed oneself, permission from the government via licenses and fees, incredible.

     
  • clammerhead posted at 1:26 pm on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    It's RACISM,

    If this bill passes, a poor Black woman living to far from the coast to travel, will not ever taste one of these fish again..

    Why do you selfish people hate poor Black people so much?

    RACIST....

    Clammerhead

     
  • Harkers Island Tailfisher posted at 9:46 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Harkers Island Tailfisher Posts: 40

    As to the FRA97 being "the law of the land", there have been and will be state laws passed that supercede that act that was bastardized before the ink dried on it.

    Most notably and recently would be the menhaden bill (banned large commercial purse seines from state waters --- Omega Protein) and the Super Majority Vote of the MFC to override the NCDMF recommendations on fisheris being overfished or experiencing overfishing.[wink]

     
  • Harkers Island Tailfisher posted at 9:43 am on Thu, Apr 25, 2013.

    Harkers Island Tailfisher Posts: 40

    Good Morning Capt Shacklford!!! Raeford and Friends misses you!!![beam]

    NCWU, I thought was founded by Marc Basnight to ensure 2 charter captains a seat on the NC Tourism Board???[wink]

     
  • ClammerFool posted at 12:22 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    ClammerFool Posts: 24

    Pass HB 983! Stop allowing this valuable public resource to be sold for pennies on the dollar!

     
  • ClammerFool posted at 12:21 pm on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    ClammerFool Posts: 24

    Wow, a comment from Briton Shackelford.

    This must be the same Briton Shackelford who has been kicked out of countless Marine Fisheries Commission meetings for protesting aspects of FRA-97 which he oddly defends here. The same who has been kicked out of ASMFC and federal fisheries commission meetings. The same one who has publicly tried to start fist fights with fisheries managers in and around meetings.

    Also, the same Briton Shackelford who is no longer welcome in many legislature's officers for being loud and threatening and, in particular, tries to intimidate many of our elected official's assisstants.

    Briton - you had your chance to negotiate on gamefish but word has it that you apparently were your regular self. You yelled and screamed at the top of your lungs for hours, red faced, about no compromise.

    You dont want gamefish but you want highway 12 funding, a new oregon inlet bridge, more fisheries observers, more dredging money - more more more more more from the tax payers. However, you dont want fishermen (rec or com) to pay for any more of it. Just want more tax payer hand-outs. If I had to guess, that sounds just like the wordd of a tax-and-spend liberal.

    NCWU, your organization, is simply a very small group of offshore charter boats from Dare County NC and does not really represent many people in the fisheries industry and folks dont really understand your political motivations. Either you're scared of losing business to inshore fishing (boat and shore) or you're well invested in estuarine commercial fishing. But on the later - there is so little income from this. Why all the ferver? Is it because of all the non-recorded illegal black market sales of the 3 fish proposed to gamefish? We can only speculate but rest assured your motivation is nothing but your own personal financial self-interest.

    I simply do not understand why someone who makes all their money offshore sportfishing is so concerned with state commercial interests?

    Your memory is selective on the fishing license and, quite frankly, wrong. While your objection to the license, at the time, is correct the motivations were, for years, that the commercial fishing industry (who you also pretend to represent) was that THEIR predictions of 2-3 mil anglers would fall well short and would thus reduce the impact of recreational fishing in comparison to commercial fishing.

    Be careful throwing the "rich white due" comment around as its coming from a white dude who owns a 60' sportfish and charges upwards of $1800-2000/day to take wealthy white people fishing.

    If Ms. Beasley really said that to you it was probably, as is mostly the case with you, to get you to leave her alone. People are tired of you, yelling and screaming at the top of your lungs, at any given time or place.

    Gill Nets are walls of death - that is why they are banned in every other state to the south of us outside of the small amount of nets allowed Mississippi.

    Nc is behind the times! Time to move forward and away from unprofitable and destructive commercial fishing!

     
  • Core Sounder posted at 8:16 am on Wed, Apr 24, 2013.

    Core Sounder Posts: 117

    I agree with much of what Britton Shackelford posted but do want to add this tidbit. NCDMF has applied for a permit and one of the primary reasons it has not been approved by NMFS is due to opposition from Beasley and her attorney at Duke. Question I want answered is why does Beasley and her lawyer oppose the permit while at the same time demanded that the DMF get this permit. Something is very fishy in my opinion. Of course making it very expensive by way of requiring paid observers is nothing more than a ruse in order to get rid of commercial netters much like this gamefish bill.

     
  • Morehead resident posted at 9:12 pm on Tue, Apr 23, 2013.

    Morehead resident Posts: 7

    Pass HB 983 !!!!!!

     
  • Morehead resident posted at 8:57 pm on Tue, Apr 23, 2013.

    Morehead resident Posts: 7

    Bill is a great idea....these fish are so much more important to increase revenue for our state when designated as game fish...look at every state from Texas to South Carolina...we are the laughingstock of salt water fisheries ...all those other states went to gamefish and the results have been great....not as single one has regretted the move....these fish belong to ALL the citizens of NC.....a public resource being netted and sold at a profit for a very few people.....where else is your inventory free...what other industry takes a public resource and makes a profit on it ...only cost is a commercial license....loggers bid to harvest trees on public land...commercial fishermen buy a license and harvest a product that belongs to every resident of this state....pass HB 983...

     
  • Britton Shackelford posted at 11:06 am on Tue, Apr 23, 2013.

    Britton Shackelford Posts: 1

    There are many parts of the new gamefish proposal that should concern everyone in North Carolina. The Fisheries Reform Act is the law of the land in North Carolina. Establishing this was a three year process that was an immense undertaking for our state. We should ALL! understand the law before we propose a new set. The F.R.A. was proposed to keep the Legislature out of fishery law due to the complex nature of management in regards to state, inter-state, and federal management, and the way they intertwine. Google it, and read it. The C.C.A. doesn't want you to know the law as it pertains to the four user's of the resource: recreational, charter, commercial, and consumers.The North Carolina Water men United (NCWU) formed as a consequence of the legislature passing a fishing license with out the input of users. The establishment of a license fee, or an increase thereof, will always cut participation. The 2.6 to 3.2 million proposed anglers that would purchase licenses in North Carolina was refuted by our members. DMF statistics will show that we have averaged about 500,000 per year, and we didn't reach that mark last year. One of the comments on this article was to examine how nice the boat ramps were. If anyone remembers, the number one argument for the license, in the first place, was for the resource, and habitat enhancement. The resource is now number 7 on the list of license fee recipients. This user, also, obviously has a boat. He, obviously, feels that his personal access to the resources that are mandated to be managed for all users is more important than all others. Once again the C.C.A. attitude of me, me, me, mine, mine, mine, rears its ugly head. I have personally talked to Karen Beasley. She does not have a problem with commercial fishermen, and her injunction had everything to do with the fact that the head of the D.M.F. failed to secure a section 10 permit for our state that allowed our fishermen (recreational, and charter included) to have a certain number of intereactions with turtles every year without shutting fishing down. Our last section 10 allowed in the neighborhood of 1000 interactions. Karen Beasley has proposed making our fishermen registered observers. This makes sense for the recreational, charter, and the commercial industry. An N.C. State study has shown that the majority of sea turtle deaths occur from ingestion of hooks, and entanglement in fishing line. It behooves all of us that fish to be aware of how easily our fisheries can be shut down. Before you jump to a conclusion about a "wall of death", educate yourself so you don't sound ignorant, or don't sound like some rich white dude who owns a boat, and wants to own the resource.

     
  • francis posted at 2:45 pm on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    francis Posts: 2763

    Get the Sea Turtle people out of this picture. They sued, State folded and now it cost US, 1.3 million for observers? Who is watching out for the citizens of NC. Those Beasley people need to put their turtles where the sun don't shine and now they want to do the same with Sturgeon? This Sportsman's Caucus is supposed to serve us. Yeah, they serve us with increased fees and more headaches. Want to take all the fun and enjoyment out of something? Get Govt involved.

     
  • ClammerFool posted at 1:19 pm on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    ClammerFool Posts: 24

    For all those complaining about license fees - go to any public boat ramp down here and tell me you don't see the benefit.

    Not only is our saltwater license one of the cheapest in the country - the money is well used. Our freshwater and hunting licenses are also of the cheapest.

    WRC just recently did a study and found that he vast majority of license holders are comfortable paying more due to the value they get out of it.

    As far as observers though - why we need to keep gill nets in the water is beyond me. Time to ban these walls of death and save our tax payers the burden of this fishery.

     
  • CARTERETISCORRUPT posted at 11:02 am on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    CARTERETISCORRUPT Posts: 959

    LAPHOUND: No, government cannot stop spending money, give it to them and they will spend it. It is like alcohol to a drunk. We must take control and demand a stop to this.

     
  • CARTERETISCORRUPT posted at 11:00 am on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    CARTERETISCORRUPT Posts: 959

    Why not a grassroot effort to ban DMF and its children. If you want to see burearucrats squirm, lets do this. BAN MARINE FISHERIES. Why do we need the government's permission to fish to eat? THIS IS WRONG.

     
  • Laphound posted at 7:24 am on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    Laphound Posts: 11

    Why stop at $20. ? That's only 1.4 cents a day more. I think you(government) can bleed more from the the already over taxed TAX PAYERS. Can anyone in government STOP spending money? Observer program, WOW! Dredging, how about just charge a fee to use the ferry system to out of state visitors?

     
  • clammerhead posted at 6:07 am on Mon, Apr 22, 2013.

    clammerhead Posts: 754

    This commercial fishing ban has so much going for it that they had to piggy-back it on another bill to get it more attention, because they haven't been able to get it through after numerous attempts in the past....

    That ought to tell everyone what the real agenda is..

    Clammerhead

     
  • Drime posted at 3:52 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Drime Posts: 179

    I think if these fish are under so much stress, put a law on the books that prohibits taking of these fish both rec and com during spawning season. Which for the trout would be late spring and early summer. This could help the roe to at least have a chance . May and June are the biggest months for the Sow Trout and most locals do not eat trout in the summer because they are wormy .

     
  • francis posted at 1:19 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    francis Posts: 2763

    First the recreational license was free, because they just wanted statistics. Then it went to $15.00. Where to now in order to pay for observers?Heck, only true idiots do wrong things if they know they are being watched. Soon it will be cheaper to fish without and pay the fine.

     
  • CARTERETISCORRUPT posted at 12:05 pm on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    CARTERETISCORRUPT Posts: 959

    People, a fishing license fee increase! There shouldn't be a license at all. To have to have a license to drop a hook off my own dock. Please, do you really think the darn government owns the fish in the sea? Licenses to fish in salt water is absolutely absurd, I don't care the reason.

     
  • Core Sounder posted at 9:17 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Core Sounder Posts: 117

    I always thought a win win meant everyone won, which is definitely not the case with commercial fishermen or most seafood consumers here in N.C. that like to eat fresh local caught trout or drum. Looks like the only folk that will be eating fresh trout or drum in the future will be those that can afford to own a boat and come down to the coast to fish for it themselves. Of course the other option is to pay a commercial rec fishing guide around 600 dollars per day to help you catch a mess to eat. I am sure the rec fishing guides are liking this bill also. [wink]

     
  • Harkers Island Tailfisher posted at 8:41 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Harkers Island Tailfisher Posts: 40

    From NCDMF:

    1) The number of commercial fishing participants that had at least $10,000 in any combination of landings of red drum, spotted seatrout, and estuarine striped bass:
    2011 – 18 participants
    2012 – 7 participants

    2) The number of commercial fishing participants that had at least $5,000 in any combination of landings of red drum, spotted seatrout, and estuarine striped bass:
    2011 – 75 participants
    2012 – 41 participants

    3) The number of commercial fishing participants that had at least $2,000 in any combination of landings of red drum, spotted seatrout, and estuarine striped bass:
    2011 – 220 participants
    2012 – 149 participants

    Who edits these posts???

    Take care

     
  • Harkers Island Tailfisher posted at 6:40 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    Harkers Island Tailfisher Posts: 40

    The proposed legislation is HB983 (was listed as two different numbers in the article), and Rep Tom Murry (not Murray) is the Wake County House member and one of the bill sponsors.

    One important fact left out of the article is that commercial fishermen with verifiable (tax forms/trip tickets) income from the three fish proposed for gamefish status will be compensated for impacts to income for 3 years.

    The below figures are from the NC Div of Marine Fisheries:

    1) The number of commercial fishing participants that had at least $10,000 in any combination of landings of red drum, spotted seatrout, and estuarine striped bass:
    2011 – 18 participants
    2012 – 7 participants

    2) The number of commercial fishing participants that had at least $5,000 in any combination of landings of red drum, spotted seatrout, and estuarine striped bass:
    2011 – 75 participants
    2012 – 41 participants

    3) The number of commercial fishing participants that had at least $2,000 in any combination of landings of red drum, spotted seatrout, and estuarine striped bass:
    2011 – 220 participants
    2012 – 149 participants

    There is nothing in HB983 that mentions "net ban" or any prohibition of gear currently used in state waters.

    The dredging portion of the bill will be funded by a current gas tax allocation and will not, like SB58, increase boat registration fees.

    Before it is brought up, Nancy Fish and all the fine folks at NCDMF have concerns over any bill that impacts the state's saltwater fisheries.

    Any opposition from the NCDMF or the MFC is based on current state statute, the FRA of 97, which requires management of these fisheries for both the commercial and recreational user groups, thus HB983 is inconsistent with state statute and the NCDMF and MFC MUST SUPPORT STATE LAWS.

    Passage of HB983 will supersede the portion of the FRA of 97 and require management of estuarine striped bass, red drum, and spotted seatrout recreational only.

    In an interview by Dr Daniel, he has clearly stated that when/if state statutes change to make "gamefish" NC law, he will support the new law as strongly as he and his staff have supported current laws as he would be bound by statute to do so. The interview is available on YouTube.

    Hopefully this will keep the position of the NCDMF, Dr Daniel, and the MFC from being misquoted as they have been in the past.

    Take care

     
  • John posted at 4:51 am on Sun, Apr 21, 2013.

    John Posts: 141

    This is a win win bill. Pass it.

     

The News Times e-Edition

News-Times

Updated: 11:43 am | See more