As expected, a gamefish bill has arrived in the North Carolina General Assembly.
Also as expected, it was not introduced as a stand-alone bill. Stand-alone gamefish bills have not fared well in the past several legislatures.
The bill introduced Wednesday, House Bill 983, addresses not only gamefish status for red drum, speckled trout, and striped bass, but also would create a fund to compensate commercial fishermen for losses related to gamefish status for the three fish, raise the coastal recreational fishing license fee, appropriate funds to support the Marine Fisheries observer program, and provide funding for dredging of shallow-draft inlets.
The gamefish status part of the bill would stipulate that the three fish can be caught only by hook-and-line and only by recreational fishermen. The fish would be off limits to commercial fishermen and could not be bought, sold, or traded. Wild-caught fish from our own coastal fishing fleets would no longer be available to consumers ? in markets or in restaurants.
The bill would be effective July 1.
The Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina, a group that promotes sport fishing interests, pushed to have bills introduced in the General Assembly in 2009 and 2011. Both attempts died in committee.
So they?re back pushing again and have found a bi-partisan group of mostly inland legislators to sponsor the bill.
The bill is ? tragically or comically — named the ?2013 Fisheries Economic Development Act.?
It takes a lot of nerve or arrogance or something to take a public resource away from hard-working commercial fishermen and hand it over exclusively to a special interest group — and to do it under the guise of enhancing the tourist economy and protecting the resource.
Commercial watermen catch only 10 percent of those three fish right now. And recreational anglers can keep only one red drum a day between 18 and 27 inches. They can?t keep any fish longer than 27 inches. So I guess they can catch more and release them, but they can still keep only one.
And here are the ridiculous ?whereas?? clauses that explain the legislators? motivation for introducing the bill:
Whereas, the State of North Carolina has one of the most diverse fisheries in the United States; and
Whereas, the General Assembly recognizes that commercial fishermen perform an essential function by providing wholesome food for the citizens of the State and thereby properly earn a livelihood; and
Whereas, the General Assembly recognizes the economic contribution and important heritage of traditional full-time and part-time commercial fishing; and
Whereas, the General Assembly recognizes that for many citizens fishing is an important recreational activity and that recreational fishing is a source of great personal enjoyment and satisfaction; and
Whereas, the General Assembly recognizes the importance of providing plentiful fishery resources to maintain and enhance tourism as a major contributor to the economy of the State; and
Whereas, the General Assembly recognizes the need to protect our coastal fishery resources and to balance the commercial and recreational interests through better management of these resources; and
Whereas, the General Assembly recognizes the vital importance of safe, navigable coastal waterways to recreational and commercial fishing, coastal tourism, and recreational boating;
Now, therefore, The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts??
I especially like the part about how our lawmakers aim to ?balance the commercial and recreational interests? in these fish by just lopping off the commercial sector.
And then there is the part where they recognize how fishing is an important recreational activity that provides ?a source of great personal enjoyment and satisfaction.? So we should cut off the commercial fishermen who are recognized by lawmakers for their ?important heritage? and ?economic contribution,? and provide ?wholesome food? to the citizens of the state?
And, as a little bonus, all you commercial watermen can split up $1 million to make up for your economic losses. Nice touch!
In addition to gamefish status, the ?no new taxes? Republican-controlled legislature would raise the fee that recreational fishermen pay for the privilege of fishing in saltwater.
The annual Coastal Recreational Fishing License would increase from $15 to $20 for residents and $30 to $40 for non-residents. A 10-day license for residents would go from $5 to $10 and from $10 to $20 for non-residents.
No part of this bill is likely to be appealing to most in coastal counties ? except the concept of conserving fisheries resources and dredging of the inlets.
The goal of the lawmakers who introduced this bill is to get support from coastal legislators by offering the dredging.
Will it be enough to get the bill through the House and the Senate this year?
We certainly hope that coastal residents and visitors and commercial and recreational fishermen who think this bill is unfair will contact their representatives and senators. You can find their contact information at www.ncleg.net.
Island Free Press will have a news story on reaction to the introduction of the bill early next week, and there is still time to vote in our reader survey, which asks if the fish should be reserved for recreational anglers only or shared between recreational and commercial fishermen.
Click here to go to the reader poll.
As of this afternoon, 209 readers had weighed in. Forty-one, or 20 percent, favor gamefish status. Another 168, or 80 percent, think the resource should be shared.
BONNER BRIDGE LAWSUIT
The judge presiding over a lawsuit by environmental groups to stop the North Carolina Department of Transportation?s plan to replace the Bonner Bridge was heard from this week, but not with the ruling we are waiting for.
Judge Louise Flanagan issued an order on Tuesday, denying the plaintiffs? request to add yet more information to the already voluminous administrative record upon which the case will be decided.
It is the first time Flanagan has been heard from since the late November deadline for filing various motions and cross-motions.
The plaintiffs are Defenders of Wildlife and the National Wildlife Refuge Association, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, who filed suit in July 2011 to stop a plan by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to replace the aging bridge with a parallel span and to bridge several hotspots on Highway 12 through Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in a phased approach.
The plaintiffs claim that the defendants violated the process required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) when it chose the phased approach.
Defendants in the lawsuit are NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration. Cape Hatteras Electric Cooperative has been allowed to join the suit as defendant-intervenors who claim that a longer bridge or access to the island only by ferry would be extremely costly to the cooperative and its members.
Last Oct. 10, the environmental groups filed a request to add three documents to the administrative record ? an Aug. 27, 2012 letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to the NCDOT, a 1994 study of the feasibility of using of high-speed ferries on the coast that was commissioned by the North Carolina Department of Tourism, and the executive summary of that study.
The administrative record, which includes some 92,000 pages of information, was filed with the court last winter and spring. The plaintiffs asked for many more documents in April. In June, the judge allowed some, but denied others.
Meanwhile, each party filed its motions and cross-motions for summary judgment.
Then the environmental groups came back and want more.
And the judge said, ?No.?
Some observers are ?cautiously optimistic? about this order and what it might mean for finally getting a decision from the court so DOT can proceed with building the replacement bridge. And, although I have been told that lawyers can be driven over the edge by trying to figure out judges, some folks are cautiously optimistic by what the judge said in ruling against the plaintiffs.
First, it seems clear by the judge?s brief eight-page order that she has delved into that administrative record, which even she called ?voluminous.?
Maybe the ruling we anxiously await is coming soon.
Also, there are her reasons for turning down the requests, which are interesting, if nothing else.
The Army Corps letter to NCDOT is about, among other things, coordination between the agencies on the decision-making process for later phases of the project. Phase I is the bridge replacement and later phases were to address to hotspots on Highway 12.
Subsequent to the Record of Decision of the Bridge, which was issued in December, 2010, hurricanes Irene and Sandy opened a new inlet on Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge and have severely eroded the beach at the S-curves in northern Rodanthe. Bridging those two hotspots are now Phase II and III of the project.
And this seems to especially irritate the environmental groups, which favor an unaffordable 17.5-mile bridge that would bypass Pea Island or high-speed ferries, which are impractical in shallow Pamlico Sound waters.
In their request to have the Army Corps letter added to the record, the groups note that it relates to ?one of the central issues in this case, namely whether defendants have illegally segmented the project by disclosing only Phase I of the bridge portion of their selected alternative rather than the entire project as NEPA requires.?
The judge denied the request to allow the letter because it was written long after the Record of Decision and after the administrative history was filed and because it is a follow-up to a letter that already included in the history and ?does not add any new information to an already voluminous record of evidence.?
Flanagan also denied the request to add the ferry study and its executive summary, saying that ?there is ample evidence in the administrative record regarding the agencies’ consideration of ferries as an alternative to bridge construction.?
Perhaps we should not infer much from this order about the judge?s final ruling, which is sure to be appealed by the losing side.
However, it?s certainly not bad news that Flanagan turned down the plaintiffs? request.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Click here to read Judge Flanagan?s April 17 order on supplementing the Administrative Record.
Click here to read the environmental groups? Oct. 10, 2012 memorandum on why the record should be supplemented.
Click here to read the Federal Highway Administration?s Oct. 31 response to the plaintiffs? request.
Click here to read the NCDOT?s Oct. 31 response to the plaintiffs? request.
