Recreational Saltwater Fishing License

By Jerry Schill, President of the North Carolina Fisheries 

There are several reasons why NCFA has consistently opposed the adoption of a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License in our state. For one, the license would provide for millions of dollars to go to a bureaucratic regulatory agency, with no accountability to the General Assembly.

It's our opinion that, if you give a bureaucracy millions of dollars, they WILL spend it! That would simply mean an out-of-control regulatory agency, not necessarily solving the problems of fisheries management. It's the age-old solution by many in government to solve a problem by throwing more money at it. Well, that's not worked in the past and it's not about to start now.

In addition, I've often posed this rhetorical question when engaged in debate about the rec license: What kind of business person would endorse a program that would infuse millions and millions of dollars to a bureaucratic agency that is regulating his way of life? My answer: A really stupid one!

All this aside, however, commercial fishermen in general, and NCFA in particular, are often considered paranoid in this debate because of what we fear the outcome of a recreational license may be. That fear may not be our number one reason for our opposition, but it is nonetheless a REAL issue to be considered.

In a 1993 Recreational Fishing Forum held at the McKimmon Center in Raleigh, the CCA threw down the gauntlet by proclaiming that a Recreational Saltwater Fishing License was needed for power! Conservation was never mentioned. The word "data" was never uttered. It was Power! (The written proceedings of that forum are available, if anyone is interested in "the evidence".)

The CCA has state chapters, including North Carolina, but is headquartered in Houston. To fully understand their push for this "power" one only has to go to the source. The article reprinted below appeared nearly two years ago on these pages. It's timely that we review them once more.

Paranoid? Not Hardly!
By Jerry Schill
Tradewinds; August, 1999

Some may say that we're paranoid. Others claim that we overreact. But a recently published article in the August issue of Field & Stream gives credence to commercial fishing industry's reluctance to endorse a recreational fishing license. The same article gives the reader a glimpse at what the Coastal Conservation Association, is all about.

Entitled "Making a Difference, Part 2," the article written by George Reiger portrays the CCA as one of his favorite "conservation" organizations. He has five criteria in which he judges a "conservation" group. He says a "conservation" group is worthy of your money when it.........

* deals with a problem(s) it actually has some hope of solving
* is founded by and for hunters and fishermen
* is willing to lobby
* is not headed by lawyers or career bureaucrats
* has not built itself a palatial headquarters

Interestingly, none of his five criteria have anything to do with conservation.

Mr. Reiger gives considerable space in his 2-page piece to Walter Fondren, who he interviewed. Fondren is the founder and chairman of the board of the CCA, and he briefly gave an overview of the CCA's early years. It was in the late 70's and early 80's that the CCA, then known as the Gulf Coast Conservation Association, worked to establish red drum and spotted seatrout as gamefish in Texas. Other states followed.

Gamefish status takes the fish off the plates of consumers, as it makes it illegal for that species to be sold. In other words, the vast majority of the owners of that particular public trust resource, the consumer, cannot enjoy it unless they fish recreationally. A greedy concept at best.

The CCA's real agenda begins to crystallize in the latter part of the interview. Reiger says that although the CCA had made some legislative headway against gillnetting in Alabama and Louisiana, the organization really put itself on the map when Florida banned the use of any type of net in state waters.

But what does the CCA really think about the idea of a recreational fishing license? Read this from Fondren:
"........... I feel it's a mistake not to have a saltwater license. Even a token fee gives licensed anglers political leverage that unlicensed anglers utterly lack. Too many fishermen get hung up on what their states might or might not do with the license money. They lose sight of the most important thing a license provides—recognition that recreational fishing is economically and socially more valuable than commercial fishing."

Holy smokes! Fondren believes that recreational fishing is not only more economically valuable than commercial fishing, but socially more valuable as well!

Commercial fishermen have never disputed the importance of recreational fishing and/or tourism. Both are crucial elements of a healthy coastal economy. Certainly a valid argument can be made that, when looking at pure dollars and cents, recreational fishing exceeds the economic value of commercial fishing. Hotels, motels, restaurants, tackle shops, boat manufacturers and dealers, and all of the other supporting businesses, are critical to our economic well being.

However, the statement by Fondren and the CCA that recreational fishing is socially more valuable than commercial fishing, epitomizes the arrogance and greed that surround these contentious debates. In Fondren's utopia there would be no "Down East" with fishing villages such as Cedar Island, Atlantic, Davis, Williston, and others.

Wanchese, Hobucken, Bayboro, and Beaufort would be a developers dream.

White boots and suspenders seen in Sneads Ferry would be replaced by dockers and monogrammed shirts while properly groomed skippers maneuver their shiny "fun" boats around canals and docks surrounded by golf courses.

Callouses would be a thing of the past, as working men and women succumb to the new recreational mecca of Eastern Carolina. No longer would you see a trawler in the distance, or a gillnet boat in the sound. You wouldn't be burdened with a slow-moving John Deere while rushing to your favorite boating ramp, or worry about a log truck enroute to the mill. Just come here to play.

Fondren lays out the scenario quite well for the recreational fishing license. The CCA doesn't want it for data. They don't want it for better fisheries management. They want it for political leverage, and they'll use that leverage in North Carolina the same way they've used it elsewhere. To decimate commercial fishing families and communities.

I've heard the question many times, and it goes like this: "What human being would put one man's pleasure over another man's livelihood?" I never had an answer.
After reading the August issue of Field & Stream, it's very evident.