Jerry Schill

Fisheries Management: Time To Quit Plowing and Start Planting

By Jerry Schill, President of the North Carolina Fisheries 

Last evening in Greenville, NC, I attended a public hearing conducted by our Marine Fisheries Commission.
I was not going to speak since my plans were to make comments on several issues at this morning's business session of Commission's 2-day meeting. Rather, I attended the hearing just to observe what was on the minds of the fishermen in this "inland" community. Greenville is the home of East Carolina University, as well as some of the most vocal recreational fishing activists, and over the years has been the place where you can count on listening to some very negative comments against the commercial fishing industry.

This most recent round of hearings conducted by the MFC has been sparsely attended. As a matter of fact, last evening's was the first one that I attended since the items are a rehash of issues that have been debated in the General Assembly anyway. However, for whatever reason, the MFC allowed comments to be made on the petition for rulemaking submitted last fall by GofishNC.com, that would require the mandatory tending of all gillnets set by the holders of Recreational Commercial Gear License holders. Although the petition has been debated before the various regional and Finfish advisory panels, it was not on the agenda for last night's hearing, so I was surprised to see a group of about twenty-five men and women in the audience who were there, primarily, to talk about the petition.

One of the speakers was there to endorse the petition by GofishNC; however, several others spoke in absolute opposition. Although none of the comments directly pointed the finger at the commercial industry for being behind this petition, you could tell by listening to some of the comments that the thought was on their minds. That's when I decided to go ahead and read the following:

Mr. Chairman and Commission members,

I've heard a lot of debate on the issue of mandatory attendance of gillnets by RCGL holders. As you know, the comments that I've made on behalf of NCFA on the GofishNC petition have been very general in nature, since our Board had not formally discussed the issue. However, the Board did meet on January 3rd and took a formal position, which I'll outline later, but I also wish to make some personal observations.

Different strokes for different folks. To each his own. Whatever trips your device… And so on and so on. All of us look at things with shaded glasses, or according to our perceptions of what fisheries management should be. I think it would be very helpful for all of us to remember some of the discussions that took place by the Moratorium Steering Committee. For example, during the give and take about the gillnet petition, several comments were made that using a gillnet to fish is not sport.

That opinion may be true for a lot of recreational fishermen, perhaps even the vast majority of recreational fishermen, but it certainly is NOT true to many others. It's also wise to remember that many rec fishermen who set gillnets do it just to catch a mess of fish; in other words, subsistence fishermen. Although these fishermen may not be large in number, they do represent a traditional and historical part of coastal North Carolina.

The "sport" of using a gillnet to fish was articulated very well by a gentlemen that spoke during the last Finfish Committee meeting. I don't' remember his name, but he told the committee that when he and his son left the dock early in the morning to check their small gillnet left overnight, his son's eyes were like he just found a present under a Christmas tree. Isn't this father/son experience just as important as the experience of others who fish by hook and line? Further, can this type of fishing be used, just like hook and line, to teach kids the importance of conservation? I believe the answer to both questions is an absolute YES.

Again, it's very important to remember the many discussions by the MSC. After many hundreds of hours of meetings and discussions, the MSC recommended that there should be provisions made to allow certain gear, and the recreational use of gillnets was an important provision provided by the General Assembly in the Fisheries Reform Act of '97.

As to the petition itself, I've also made the observation that many who have advocated the mandatory tending of gillnets by RCGL holders, also believe that the use of gillnets by recreational fishermen should be banned outright. In other words, this proposal is being used by some, certainly not all, of the petitioners to move forward to an eventual goal of banning all gillnet use by recreational fishermen.

Generally speaking, commercial fishermen do not oppose the use of gillnets by recreational folks. I say generally because there are some concerns about how some fishermen might not have the knowledge of setting a net properly and the negative consequences can reflect poorly on commercial fishermen. Indeed, many RCGL gillnet users are former commercial fishermen or coastal residents who are very adept at their usage.

I have been very distressed at the attempt to drive a wedge between the two user groups. Some of the proponents simply cannot understand why the commercial fishing industry is not unanimous in its support of this petition. That lack of understanding comes simply from not knowing the diversity of our coastal fisheries and the history of the debates on this and other issues over the years. Simply put, recreational and commercial fishermen have coexisted in our state for a long, long time. Yes, there have been some very contentious issues between the two groups on occasion. However, among the INDIVIDUALS, those arguments are no worse than those between segments among commercial fishermen or among recreational fishermen. (I can attest to the disagreements between various groups of commercial fishermen, and have the scars to prove it!)

The real nasty disagreements (political battles), in saltwater fisheries result when certain groups or organizations get involved with agendas. Sometimes those agendas are thinly veiled, and sometimes they are blatant. I cannot say that NCFA, and me personally, are lily-white in that regard. Our purpose is to assure that commercial fishing families have a future, and admittedly the rhetoric can be heated at times. 

However, we have never been part of any attempt to inflict unfair restrictions on recreational fishermen, nor have we ever advocated anything that could be remotely construed as inhibiting recreational fishing as an industry. We have always given credit to the importance of the industry, and likewise, its importance to the fabric of coastal North Carolina.

As to the petition itself:
The FRA was passed in '97, and fishery management plans were to be the keystone of the statute. FMP's were to be formulated by using adequate data and the best science. For decisions to be made absent this vital information, is asking for more politics and rhetoric to be used in making management decisions. There is simply no data to support the adoption of the measures suggested by the petition.
Therefore, the NCFA Board voted to recommend to the Marine Fisheries Commission to not adopt the restrictions in the petition submitted by GofishNC.

Well, that's the first time that I can remember being applauded by a group of recreational fishermen at a public hearing! Afterwards, several of the men and women thanked me for the comments. The moral of the story is that every time a new proposal is made for further restrictions on any group of fishermen, we need to go back and remember the discussions by the Moratorium Steering Committee, combined with the debates in the General Assembly, that lead to the passage of the Fisheries Reform Act in 1997.

As a state, we are spending far too much time in plowing ground that's already been turned. We're wasting time that not only inhibits our efforts to conserve our fisheries to the best of our ability, but also causes undue friction between recreational and commercial fishermen. We simply do not have the time to rehash old arguments that should have been put to rest by the General Assembly when they passed the FRA over 3 years ago.