Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Candidate Perdue's Answers to RFA Questionaire on Recreational Fishing

RFA-NC Fisheries Questionnaire, (Recreational Fishing Alliance, NC Chapter)
The following questions were addressed to NC Gubernatorial Candidates, Mayor Pat McCrory and Lt. Governor Beverly Perdue:

The following are "Candidate Perdue's" answers to the following questions.....

1) Given the known ecological importance of our near shore, inshore and estuarine bottom habitat and the problem of by-catch of non-target species from the use of trawls and gill nets, would you support programs to reduce use of gear that is shown to destroy inshore fishery habitat or that results in unacceptable by-catch of non-target fish or juvenile stages of aquatic life?

Our inshore habitat is our aquatic nursery so I would support programs to reduce use of gear that is shown to destroy inshore fishery habitat or that results in unacceptable by-catch of non-target fish or juvenile stages of aquatic life. We must be good stewards of our juvenile fish, allowing them to grow and reproduce so they will be of use to our commercial and recreational fishermen.

2) Would you help secure funding for a program within the State of North Carolina to develop and maintain the use of large scale oyster, clam and fin fish hatcheries for stock enhancement and aquaculture, which would reduce pressure on wild-fish stocks and augment rebuilding of certain fisheries, while creating jobs for troubled commercial fishermen?

Our commercial fishermen are facing new regulations from the state and federal authorities that do not allow them to conduct business as they historically have. Plus, with the increase in fuel prices and the reduction in the number of fish houses due to development, they are faced with monumental challenges for survival. These fishermen have the knowledge of the fisheries that will greatly reduce the learning curve for them to enter aquatic farming. I believe our state should provide incentives for them to become part of this type of venture, both on a resource and financial level.

3) Would you make appointments to the Marine Fisheries Commission and to the Joint
Legislative Committee on Seafood and Aquaculture based upon the public interest and
qualifications of the candidates to benefit the state as a whole, rather than to represent special interest or as favors to political supporters ?

As I am sure you know, the Governor appoints all nine members of the Marine Fisheries Commission, and also appoints its Chairman. I will expect and demand that those I appoint to serve without any agenda and preconceived notion on how things should be. I will demand that they listen to an issue, share what knowledge they have, and formulate a decision that is best for the resource. I am sure, too, that you know the Governor appoints 4 of the 15 members of the Seafood and Aquaculture Committee. These four will have an interest in the resource and serve in an unbiased, opened minded matter that best serves the resource.

4) Would you support using funds generated through the sale of the Coastal Recreational
Fishing License to promote recreational fishing opportunities including programs for the aggressive development of inshore and near-shore artificial reefs and programs to create and restore marine aquatic habitats?

Yes.

5) As Governor, you would have the ability to open and amend the Fisheries Reform Act, which has not been updated since its passage over ten years ago... Would you open a review of this act?

If there is a clear and present need to open this, or any act, for review, I would do so.

6) As an immediate act of "good faith” would you grant the North Carolina State Fish, the Red Drum, game fish status, which would eliminate sale of Red Drum in North Carolina?

This is an idea that I would consider.

7) North Carolina’s commercial and recreational fishermen are an important part of our states’ history, economy and way of life. Will you support research to develop and implement "sustainable harvest methods” and "fishery habitat creation and restoration” techniques, to include involvement of the people who...

A) Know the water and fish the best;
B) Have the experience and equipment to conduct work in our sounds and rivers;
C) Need new employment in the face of escalating operational costs, depleted fish
Stocks, and tumbling fish markets... COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN?

I believe that A and B are best done through the Division of Marine fisheries. They have the knowledge and support to best care for the future of all fisheries.

I personally have a lot of concern for the plight of the commercial fishermen. High gas prices and low seafood prices have put them in a financial bind. And, historically, when a lot of these fishermen were not fishing, they were working in construction. And we all know what has happened to the housing market. I will support initiatives through our community college system that would help retrain, those wanting to be retrained, into a new vocation.

8) Do you think a voluntary “commercial fishing license buy-out” based upon a commercial
fisherman’s past involvement in commercial fishing activities and the level of income derived from commercial fishing has merit and should be considered, in a fashion similar to the “tobacco farmer buy-out” ?

I never say no to any concept without first fully exploring it. But I do have a problem with a “buy out” that is associated with a public trust resource. The first thing we need to do is to define what a “commercial fishermen” is. Then we can better look at the full impact of this concept.

As of this date, Governor Perdue has totally ignored two attempts by the CFRG to request her position on our NC Fishery issues of concern, and her position on H918. Perhaps "Candidate Perdue" and "Governor Perdue" have different opinions?

Saturday, June 6, 2009

NC Marine Fisheries Commission "Inaction" is in Fact an "Action"

At the May meeting of the NC Marine Fisheries Commission, the true political bias favoring the Commercial Fishing Sector and its interests were on full display as usual. When Commissioner Rob Bizzell made a motion to raise the minimum size for a legal Speckled Trout from 12 inches to 15 inches, there was not even a "second" to the motion! Not even a second to open the idea for debate or a vote!

Then a motion was made to raise that same size limit to 14 inches and there was a second, and it did not pass but was voted on to "discuss" among AC members and for them to get back to the commission with their suggestions. Now here we finally see the true colors of our MFC. The commercial seats know that if recreational anglers are willing to raise the size limit on themselves, and to also decrease the daily limit from 10 to 6 on themselves, then the commercial fishermen will be required to participate in some form to decrease the fishing pressure, and they want nothing to do with that!

Commissioner Mann clarified that a no-harvest provision for recreational fishing in Primary Nursery Areas would still allow a catch and release fishery. Commissioner Styron said if the MFC was going to allow catch and release fishing in the closed Primary Nursery Areas that is favoring one segment of the fishery over the other. Commissioner Beresoff said it would be hard to enforce, and he would prefer to make primary nursery areas sanctuaries. If these conflicts are that bad, close the areas to all fishermen.

Motion by Rob Bizzell to direct the regional advisory committees and the Finfish Advisory Committee to consider:

*No commercial or recreational harvest of spotted seatrout in Primary Nursery Areas from the New River and its tributaries northward;

*Harvest in Primary Nursery Areas by gill nets Monday – Thursday only, by recreational fishermen Friday – Sunday only, and no commercial or recreational harvest from Nov. 1 – March 1 annually;

*100 percent attendance of all gill nets in the Neuse, Newport, White Oak and New rivers and their tributaries;

*Limiting the amount of gill net used by individuals and/or geographic areas;

*Addressing conflicts in specific areas identified by the DMF based on reports; and any combination of the above.

Seconded by Rusty Russ – motion fails, two in favor and five opposed.

As the NC Marine Fisheries Commission continues to languish in its intentional indecisiveness and political posturing, another argument arises that certainly needs serious consideration. Why continue pandering to a system that obviously is not working and is politically designed for paralysis by analysis? Let's do away with the MFC and move the DMF to where it should be, and that is under the direction of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Joint enforcement? Think of the millions of dollars that would be saved, and possibly, just possibly, our fisheries biologists and the management folks at the DMF could manage our fisheries based on true science, and politics would have to become the last consideration in all management decisions! That's the way it ought to be!

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

CFRG Suggests MFC Revisit Petition Requests as Interim Rules for Spotted Sea Trout

In January the CFRG presented a "Petition for Rule Making" to the NCMFC encouraging measures to reduce fishing pressures on the Spotted Sea Trout (SST) from both recreational and commercial fishermen. We would propose that the MFC consider the merits of the petition even though some technicality in the document was present, but never identified. Regardless, we encourage the MFC to consider the following common sense ideas as "interim" rules to protect the Spotted Sea Trout.

We believed then and now that the recreational creel limit should be reduced from ten (10) fish per day to six (6), and additional protective measures by increasing the minimum legal size from twelve (12) inches to fifteen (15) inches. We also recommend allowing the harvest of only one fish that would exceed 25 inches in length. These three measures combined will result in at least a forty percent reduction of recreational harvest, but could be much greater with the unknown effect of reduction with the increase in size limit, and the one "slot" fish allotment. We believe a fifty to sixty percent reduction in recreational harvest could easily result.

We also believe that the enforcement of these interim rules along with better patrols both day and night to prevent netting for these fish in "Inland" creeks are also necessary steps in reduction of overfishing. The issue of Strike Netting and night-time gigging of Spotted Sea Trout in Primary and Secondary Nursery areas and winter sanctuary creeks is a justifiable topic for concern and we would also recommend the ending of these harvest methods in these designated areas during Winter months until the MFC can conclude its current Spotted Sea Trout Fishery Management Plan.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

ESPN OUTDOORS Supports Game Fish Status For Speckled Trout and Red Drum

May 12, 2009

To Whom It May Concern:

The editorial staffs of ESPN Outdoors, including ESPNOutdoors.com and ESPN Saltwater Series Magazine have been following with special interest recent developments in the controversy over gill netting and the proposal to award game fish status to Red Drum and Spotted Sea Trout in North Carolina.

Recent articles on the Web site, ESPNOutdoors.com, “Enmeshed in controversy: Untangling the truth about North Carolina’s gill nets” and “Specks in nets,” were news articles intended to present both sides of the controversy. They do not represent the views or opinions of the staff and leadership of ESPN Outdoors and must not be construed as “taking sides” in the debate.

As a multimedia organization that serves America’s outdoor sportsmen, we support initiatives that increase recreational fishing opportunities. In the saltwater arena, we have observed the successes of similar restrictions on commercial harvest of saltwater sportfish in Texas, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina and other states where redfish and speckled trout populations have rebounded thanks to responsible resource management.

We believe it is in the best interests of our readers and viewers as well as outdoor sportsmen and their families, to set aside Red Drum and Spotted Sea Trout for recreational anglers by according game fish status to these outstanding sportfish.

Sincerely,
Dave Precht
Senior Director
BASS/ESPN Outdoors

Post Office Box 10,000 • Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830

Monday, February 16, 2009

NC Commercial Landings of Red Drum Comprise 97% of Atlantic Coast States Harvest in 2007 According to ASMFC Study


The following is copied directly from the ASMFC website, http://www.asmfc.org/, and can be found in its entirety in the report entitled;
2008 REVIEW OF THE
ATLANTIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION
FISHERY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR
RED DRUM
(Sciaenops ocellatus)
2007 FISHING YEAR


III. Status of the Fishery
Few commercial landings of red drum have been recorded in states north of Maryland (Table 2).Coastwide commercial landings show no particular temporal trends, ranging from approximately 55,000 to 422,000 pounds annually over the last 48 years (Figure 1). The greatest harvest was taken in 1980, and the lowest in 2004. In 2007, coastwide commercial harvest increased from 171,823 pounds in 2006 to 249,747 pounds, the majority (97.4%) from North Carolina (Table 2). Landings in Virginia (6,372 lbs), Georgia (<500>

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

NC Saltwater Recreational Anglers Pump 2.5 Billion Into State Economy!

Below is an email that we recieved from Scott Steinback, Co-Author of the study with NOAA. These are powerful numbers that cannot be ignored!.............

From: Scott Steinback [mailto:ssteinba@mercury.wh.whoi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:26 AM

To: Dean Phillips


Subject: Re: Saltwater rec fishermen financial impacts

Hi Dean,

From your message, it sounded like you had a copy of the angler expenditure/impact report we recently released. All of the numbers you're looking for are contained in that report. If you don't have a copy of the report let me know and I can send you one. Here is an electronic link to the report (
http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/marine_angler.html). In the report you'll see that we estimate marine anglers fishing in North Carolina in 2006 spent a total of $2.03 billion (the 5th highest total across the 23 coastal states). The $2.03 billion in expenditures generated $2.5 billion in total sales to businesses located in North Carolina, provided $780.8 million in personal income to workers in North Carolina, and supported 23,782 jobs in the state.