Shrimpers descend on Raleigh to oppose trawling restrictions

On June 24, coastal shrimpers descended on the North Carolina General Assembly to protest HB 441 and 442, restricting the industry to the point that opponents argue it would completely shut down, displacing hundreds of North Carolinians.

Lawmakers held a press conference on Tuesday to discuss what has happened with this bill and to allow experts and industry leaders to speak on the issues involved.

What started as two completely different bills has sparked an uproar amongst the shrimping community. HB 442 started as a noncontroversial bill to expand the fishing season for flounder and red snapper in North Carolina. But when the shrimp trawling ban was added in a Senate amendment last week, it sparked a firestorm. HB 441 began as a bill to establish the loggerhead turtle as the state saltwater reptile. 

While HB 442 still contains the original content, expanding the fishing season for flounder and red snapper, the bill’s sponsors have removed themselves from it. The bill now contains an amendment passed by the Senate last week that prohibits shrimp trawling within a half mile of the shoreline. 

Supporters of the bill argue that it will not shut down the industry but only move shrimping outside the 1/2-mile radius of the shoreline. They also assert that the legislation aligns North Carolina with other southeastern states, including Virginia and South Carolina.

Sen. David Craven, R-Randolph, who introduced the amendment, said an estimated 4 pounds of “bycatch,” meaning species that were inadvertently brought in, were caught per pound of shrimp.

“Which is a lot of other species of fish that are getting caught in the net, potentially dying,” said Craven. “This has been an issue for quite some time, and I think it’s time this body addressed it.”

Support OF ShrimpERS

“As much as I wanted a flounder season, which is in this bill, I urge everyone this year, who voted to oppose the bill last year, to vote to oppose the bill every chance they get,” said Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick, one of the primary sponsors of the original bill. 

HB 441, however, has been completely gutted, and the sponsors of the original bill have now removed themselves from the bill. What was once a bill that would adopt the loggerhead turtle as the state saltwater reptile has now become a bill to appease shrimpers by setting up annual transition payments to commercial shrimpers that would be impacted if HB 442 were enacted into law. Both bills currently have no sponsors. 

“First and foremost, this is not an environmental issue; this is an allocation issue,” said Rep. Pricey Harrison, D-Guilford, who has served on the Marine Science Boards at Duke University and the University of North Carolina, as well as on the Coastal Resources Commission. 

She said the current General Assembly is not adequately equipped to address allocation issues of this nature. According to Harrison, when the Fisheries Reform Act was enacted in 1997, stakeholder committees were established to bring together a diverse group of experts, including commercial fishermen, environmental advocates, recreational interests, coastal scientists, and agency personnel. These individuals possess the necessary understanding of the issues and are best positioned to make informed decisions.

One of the primary arguments utilized by supporters of the bill is that HB 442 aims at reducing bycatch, which occurs with shrimping. Bycatch is non-shrimp species such as turtles and other fish caught in the nets. 

According to Harrison, the Marine Fisheries Commission under the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has implemented two different bycatch reduction devices, one for fish and one for turtles. The devices have been almost 100% effective for turtles and about 70% for fish. 

“I’ve actually been on a trawler, unlike most of my colleagues in the chamber, and I’ve seen the minimum amount of bycatch that has happened since these exclusion devices have been implemented,” said Harrison. 

Rep. Ted Davis, R-New Hanover, one of the original sponsors of HB 441, also expressed his displeasure with the Senate’s handling of the legislation. 

“North Carolina’s been leading the way to require bycatch reduction of shrimp trawls,” said Dee Lupton, retired deputy director of the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries. “In 1992, North Carolina was the first state on the East Coast to require bycatch reduction devices. North Carolina is the only fisheries agency, state or federal, that requires this much bycatch reduction in shrimp trawls.”

Lupton argued that this ban would limit access to local shrimp and destroy livelihoods. While some argue that losses can be recouped, Lupton said that in a rural county like Pamlico, infrastructure is insufficient to support recoupment losses. 

“In-shore trawling and other commercial recreational fishing can sustainably exist together,” continued Lupton. “Fisheries management is complex, and the influences on stock health, size, and availability are not singular, and they need to be evaluated and managed through a prescribed process outlined in the 1997 format by the agencies or commissions that were charged with that. There is no evidence that a wholesale ban on in-shore trawling will improve fish stocks.”

“We’ve been fighting this battle for years; we’ve had multiple lawsuits,” said Glenn Skinner, NC Fisheries Association executive director. “They tried through the fishery management plan process to shut this down, and I believe the only reason they haven’t shut it down is because the data is not in support. And of course, if you don’t have the information to support what you’re doing, you try quick, dirty, and don’t give people time to defend their livelihoods. And in my opinion, that’s just what happened… As citizens of this state, everybody should be alarmed at what happened to us last week.”

Skinner, also a commercial fisherman, noted that only two days existed between the amendment’s introduction and its passage, giving industry leaders no warning and little time to prepare to defend their livelihoods. 

“No citizen in a democratic society should have to face that,” continued Skinner. “I believe that’s one of the key points that we need to drive home, is that legislation should be based on a need, not greed.” 

Skinner said that if the legislation was based on a need, it would have gone through the same process as every other bill, from the beginning of the session. 

“As citizens, we deserve better, and our state can do better,” concluded Skinner. “I’ve never been as ashamed of the Senate as I was last week.”  

Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currtick, a vocal opponent of the amendment since its introduction, made a similar remark. 

“Last week I was ashamed to be a member of the North Carolina General Assembly,” said Hanig. “I’ve never thought in any of my days, as many members have stated to me, past members, people who haven’t been here for years, have contacted me and said they could not believe something like this is happening in the great state of North Carolina.”

Rep. Keith Kidwell, R-Beaufort, made closing remarks, noting that when he is on the same side of an issue as his Democrat colleague Rep. Pricey Harrison, it has to be wrong.

“That takes a miracle right there,” said Kidwell. “Folks, we don’t flip a switch on an industry. Because if we do it on shrimping, what are we going to do it on next?”

Are we going to shut down the people who go to work every day, making an honest living, because some branch of the government finally decides, in some slimy backroom deal, that they don’t want to do this anymore?  Well by God, down east we didn’t ask them what they want to do!

Rep. Keith Kidwell, R-Beaufort

Legislators proposed HB 441, which gives annual payments to shrimpers impacted by the trawling limitations. Kidwell called it “a slap in the face.” He suggested that the payments are “a minuscule amount of money and an insult to their integrity.”

“The only thing they can do to make good what they’re trying to do is don’t do it,” said Kidwell. “These people don’t want to live on welfare from the government; they want to work. Let them work.”

Kidwell noted that of the thousands of texts, emails, and phone calls he has received regarding this bill, a minuscule number have been in support of the bill. At the same time, most constituents relying on shrimping to pay their mortgages, rent, and taxes are opposed to the bill.

The post Shrimpers descend on Raleigh to oppose trawling restrictions first appeared on Carolina Journal.

The post Shrimpers descend on Raleigh to oppose trawling restrictions appeared first on First In Freedom Daily.