Skip to comments.Game Fish Bill: ‘Beginning of the End for Commercial Fishing’ (North Carolina)
Posted on 01/15/2012 7:24:06 AM PST by bksanders
Commercial fisherman Jonathan Robinson took issue with that. Those resources belong to the public, he said. Theyre not just exclusively for the rich, who can afford boats and trips to the coast. Commercial fishing is a channel that provides access to these resources for all the citizens for the blacks in the cities and the poor working people in farm towns in North Carolina.
Commercial fisherman Chris McCaffity of Morehead City echoed his sentiment. I recently had a disabled veteran thank me for defending his freedom to eat the fish he once caught himself, McCaffity said.
Over the course of its next three meetings, the Marine Fisheries Committee also will be studying the impact of eliminating trawl boat fishing in North Carolina.
Foster said that would mean the end of shrimping in North Carolina, which he estimates makes up almost a quarter of the states commercial fishing industry. It also would eliminate much of the states flounder fishing. It would wipe out all of the fishing communities on the west side of Pamilico Sound, he said.
McCaffity is scheduled to speak at the next meeting of the Marine Fisheries Committee at 1 p.m. Feb. 2 on the third floor of the state legislative building. There was no public comment period at the first meeting.
(Excerpt) Read more at carolinajournal.com ...
The covert sublime and incessant erosion of freedoms continues until YOU stop it.
It's a choice not to become a "boiled frog".
They want us angry, hungry, broke and unarmed.
The socialist tyrants are pushing on every front.
Just a guess. Liberal do gooders?
Already gone here. when I was a young man you could cross the San Sebastian River, when the fleet was in, by jumping from boat to boat.
Government still killing jobs and making it illegal to buy cheap local fish and shrimp.
Plus, with Agenda 21 type of efforts trying to keep people off of the best fishing beaches in NC and VA, soon we won’t be able to catch our own.
When everybody owns something, nobody owns anything.
Exactly Eric. Where was that swearing in ceremony and who “swore” atcha?!?!
I don’t think this is as simple of an issue as you think. It’s certainly NOT a pure left versus right issue at all. This is not a situation of fisherman versus environmentalists.... it’s a situation of commercial trawl fishermen versus sports fishermen. That is, it’s a somewhat conservative group against a very conservative group.
The notion that 97% of the people are begging for the right to eat those three varieties of fish is ludicrous. It’s the commercial fishermen who are “running to the left” on this issue - running to the left of the sports fishermen.
The sports fishing industry has evolved to an industry of more catch and release than anything else. The commercial fishing industry will have to evolve to a more farm based industry IMO.
St. Augustine had 2 thriving fish houses shipping seafood all over the Nation. We would have Carolina boats, Texas boats and Mississippi boats unloading here in season..
McCaffitty is simply trying to make a living without placing himself in neeedless peril. Something these 4th and 5th generation Tar Heels do to survive.
Follows my letter to every swingin' **** in the NC House:
To All Concerned Parties, It is with urgency and respect I address the issue of Comprehensive Fishery Management. Mr. Chris McCaffity has made it abundantly clear a change of course is required, one that will both benefit all shareholders, provide the necessary safeties and apply common sense. His proposed "comprehensive fishery management plan offer(s) as an alternative to HB-353, catch shares, and derby fisheries" deserves both open debate and presentation to both the House and Senate. Please take the time to fully digest Mr. McCaffity proposal and distribute the contents of this proposal to all those tasked with the impacts associated with fishery laws that do not follow most of the mandates in the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA). The Plan can be viewed by clicking this URL. The families of Alan Nelson and the others who daily risk their lives demands our collective attention and actions. I thank each of you for your time and trust you will act swiftly and in accord with the best interest of all Americans.
***Bingo***! You hit the nail on the head.
Let me ask you this, and I am NOT being snarky - I am being serious: Could it be that the 5th generation of this industry needs to understand the reality of the times? Most industries do not last 4 or 5 generations without radical change. Could it be that commercial fishing old school is the buggy whip industry trying to defy the reality of change?
97% of "the people" beg for nothing
"The commercial fishing industry will have to evolve to a more farm based industry
So the gubmit can say "where" the farm is and subsidize it?
Society needs to "devolve" into a self-sufficient people
Sport fishing probably brings more tourism, and results in more money spent per fish caught than commercial net fishing, which translates to more tax dollars collected.
They'll throw their own citizens that make their living off of commercial fishing under the bus for the promise of more tax money collected from out of state tourists.
There is not much of a market for buggy whips, but people want to be able to buy "ocean" caught fish to eat. - tom
I am a fisherman, albeit a snobby elitist country club SOB accoring to many of the Dhimmi Trolls who lurk here.
I wrote your good dhimmikrat U. S. senator Kay Hagan Phogbound a letter about this matter several months ago. The reply that I received seemed to say that since some catfish can walk, they are prospecvtive democrat voters and must be protected.
I think the person writing the answer mentioned that someway or the other the decision REYNOLDS vs. SIMMS and the voting rights acts put together makes it unconstitutional to discriminate against any class of potential dhimmikarats, remember a two day old catfish smells like many DIMMS that I have passed on the street.
Good luck in your foray against the loony crackpots.
I think it is exactly kook vs. commercial enterprise. Remember Nixon is the one who gave us the EPA. We can’t blame that on the DIMMS.
Remember you folks in NC have a congressional district that essentiially requires its voters to be able to see I-85. From the Burbs of Charlotte up to the Triad.
Caddis the Elder
Some things are better left alone.
I bet the sports fishing industry brings in lots more money than commercial fishing.
The stupid size limit plans should be dumped, as should throwing back all the dead fish to stay within TCL rules.
I disagree with the plan to ship all the ‘over quota’ fish to the so called ‘poor’.
A better idea would be to allow them to go to any state licensed REC fisherman to have them free, up to their daily catch limit.
That would bump up state fishing license sales many thousands a year, which goes directly back to the state fish/game dept.
It would also be great PR for the commercial fishermen which are often looked down upon by sport anglers.
What would that do for state tourism if that vacationing angler had a good chance of taking home a cooler full of fish even if they failed to catch any? That makes that nonresident license a much better deal.
The ‘poor’ can buy a state fishing license and pick up those overfish right at the docks, no extra government program needed.
“Catch Shares” metioned in your post are right out of Agenda 21. The PCSD recommemded “establishing an allocation system in which a limited number of fishermen may work”.
Catch Shares have devastated the New Englang fisheries to the point that a large part of the fleet is tied to the dock and the Gov. of Mass has requested $21million in economic disaster aid for the fishing industry.
NOAA Administrator Lubchenco promptly requested $54 million to expand it to all American fisheries even taking money out of slim research budgets to promote it.
The enviro’s tout it as the best thing under the sun yet it does nothing for conservation as the total allowable catch is not reduced. It does privitize the marine resources into the hands of a few “winners” that the govt. picks.
Another interesting point is that EDF published the Catch Share implementation manual and the current Head Adm. of NOAA, Jane Lubchenco is a former Vice Chair of EDF.
Wonder who is going to end up owning these allocation’s down the road? HMMMMMMM
Also, Iceland’s economy was ruined by their venture with Catch Shares to the point that the Icelandic fishermen went to the U.N. Human Rights Commission who ruled that Catch Shares are a violation of the Convention on Human Rights.
84% of seafood consumed in the US is imported now and we have a trade deficit over $10 billion. This is re-distribution of American wealth. The fisheries are for the most part extremly healthy. The last thing we need to be doing is shutting down more of our natural resource production.
See tagline below.
If the problem is a lack of fish, the solution is proven and easy: MAKE MORE FISH!
This has been established with everything from mammals, birds, insects and even plants. Breed a whole bunch of them for release, and though the attrition is high, pretty soon you are up to your elbows in critters.
The technology for doing this with fish is fairly inexpensive, just needing a tug boat, pontoons, and a double or triple drop net. It’s called deep water aquaculture.
The tug takes the pontoons out to sea, far enough away from the coast to avoid polluting the “arable ocean” near the coast. Ideally in the lee of a rocky island. Then it drops its nets and put wild hatchlings of the desired type in them. The current cleans and aerates the water, and the fish are fed along with antibiotics.
When they are mature enough the nets are slowly dragged back to where wild populations of those fish live and they are released with the wild population.
The end result is that, again, attrition is high, but the newly released fish mature and mate with the wild fish, and are generally healthier and better fed, so the wild fish population is improved both in numbers and quality.
Other animals and fish eating them also improve because of a better diet.
Hardly anyone is going to read and digest that.
It makes way too much sense.
In Iowa City, IA
Oath given to Hayden Fry.
Please consider joining McCaffitys efforts.
You did not indicate it was that simple, but some other posters did. I simply responded to you as the OP.
I do think that part of your premise is flawed - in that it is fine to “leave the commercial fishermen the hell alone” when the commercial fishermen are not acting on “their” property. Were the commercial guys using their own resources, then the conservative position would be to leave them the hell alone.
That is not the case with the fisheries. This is why it is not a clear liberal conservative issue and cannot be. The fisheries are in fact owned by the sports guys just as much as by the commercial guys and actually by all of us as much as any of us.
Commercial fishing has the potential to ruin the fishery for everybody forever, which will then ruin the value of coastal properties for everybody forever. This is a fact.
It does, and not just to government. It brings in many more dollars to many more people and there's no way that this will ever change, unless the commercial guys ruin the fishery for everyone - which they have the potential to do - then we all lose. Commercial guys make a living by removing as many fish as possible from the ocean. Sports guys make a living by having as many fish remain in the ocean as possible. Now which is really the long term business friendly and opportunity friendly solution?
You are half right, but because you were only half right, you came to the wrong conclusion. By your own admission, sports fishing brings in more revenue. Now why is that? BECAUSE SPORTSFISHING CREATES A MUCH BIGGER ECONOMY FOR FAR MORE PEOPLE GIVING FORE MORE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO SHARE IN THE ECONOMY THAT THE OCEAN BRINGS. And yes, the result if more tax revenue, but like Reagan tax cuts, the primary reason to do it is to create more opportunity for more people.
A damn good man, Coach Fry!
Those idiots have the luxury of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to be stupid.
Yet they stomp on it's foundation every minute of every hour with every breath.
You make some good points, which is why I said, numerous times, that it is not a pure argument either way. It is also why I said IMO - meaning I was leaving room for the debate.
Your argument, however, is extremely weak in that you say the answer is to leave it alone. The fact sir is that fishing is getting worse and worse and worse every year for both the commercial and the sports guys. Left alone, we won’t have either industry for much longer and then the entire tourism and real estate industries on the coast will further collapse, and then we are all screwed.
Leaving it alone is not a viable answer. I wish it were.
Correct, nothing wrong with farming fish. If anyone wants a lesson on this look at the number and size of the fish people caught off the beach back in the fifties and a couple of miles out. Go try and catch them today.
I guess it hasn’t dawned on you that there are less and less ocean fish being caught every year then? The buggy whip industry analogy was not perfect, but it was somewhat legit.
This is a very tough problem with no clear ideological answer. In most instances, government intervention means some bureaucrat telling someone what they can do with their own property. The ocean is not anyone’s “own” property, therefore all of the property rights arguments and other clean clear conservative arguments DO NOT APPLY. They just do not.
It appears to be "creating more economic activity" by artifically making it less productive. It's like banning bulldozers so that you can create more jobs for people with shovels.
That's the dumbest analogy attempt yet on this thread. I assume the dentist pull the teeth of only willing customers and they do it on their own property. I don't think the ocean is owned by the commercial guys.
Sport fishermen, sport charter captains, and commercial fishermen.
I don't put the sport charters in the same category as sport fishermen because they are also selling a product, their services.
Nice try, but another failed analogy. Your bulldozer shovel analogy would only work if the sports fishermen were attempting to supply food by hook and line versus the commercial guys with nets. But that is not the sports fisher economy at all. It is not food based. Again, it's a tough argument to quantify because no one owns the ocean but we all depend on it and we depend on it because our economy is dependent on it in many ways -- food being only a small part of that though. The sports fish economy is about jobs in hotels and restaurants and in real estate and in the recreation boat industry at all levels. Coastal environs with recreation as a main driver are thriving and clean and bustling and create jobs and opportunity on many more fronts than commercial fishing does. Now that's no problem until one industry threatens the viability of another.
You are right, at least three different groups - and only the enviro nazi’s and the sports fishermen are easy to pin down from an ideological standpoint. That’s clearly left v right. The commercial guys, the charter guys (you are right, a hybrid) and others are all in a fuzzy ideologically impure middle ground.
He shipped 10,000 shad to the sacramento river and numerous other species into the nations rivers.
His fish farm in Caledonia still exists.
Releasing fingerlings inot our natural waterways is the way to go.
That argument strikes me as being not too far removed from the arguments of the New London case. The state can take your land if it will get them more revenue giving it to someone else, and they can do the same with your livlihood.
That’s an interesting point - farming the fingerlings and releasing them into the water ways. That could increase populations. Another thing that could help is an increase of structure off shore. Those created habitats can actually increase the food pyramid at all levels.
We need to increase the fish populations for the benefit of all types of fishing.
You are not trying very hard. Two huge gaping holes in your theory: FIRST In New London, they TOOK A GUYS PROPERTY. The ocean is NO ONE"S PROPERTY. What part of this is beyond your comprehension?
SECOND: It's not about government revenue: it's about increasing the opportunity for many more people in the private economy.
When the smelt ran at the Genesee outlet, my dad would be there and he sure knew how to cook them.
But the best will always be Walleye...from Canadian waters near Montreal.
It was indeed the good old days.
My hubby never ate fish until we went to Canada with my folks. Hell, he wanted them for beakfast after a while and loved every bite!!
The part where the ocean and the fish in it are "no one's property", yet they assume the authority to control it as if it was their property.
SECOND: It's not about government revenue: it's about increasing the opportunity for many more people in the private economy.
As long as the economy is taxed, more economic activity will result in more tax revenue. Unless you know what they were thinking when they wrote the regulations, whether it's about the economic activity or the taxes is speculation.
And these watermen have to give up their livelihood because some penthouse “sportsman” want’s to catch and release? I think not. I am a recreational fisherman, so I don’t depend on the catch to pay my mortgage.
You also have the left and right of it backwards.
You are obviously have a pro commercial fisherman agenda here and therefore are being too obtuse to follow logical conversation.
I do logic. I don’t do obtuse. I don’t do agenda.
Your class envy statement proves I have the left and right absolutely correct. “Penthouse sportsmen?” Really?
You don’t understand economies at all. The “penthouse” fishermen and their related activities pay a helluva lot more “mortgages” than you apparently realize, so blinded by your class envy you are.....
Gee what could go wrong