Gamefish bill looks like a 2013 item

Struggle could cause major problems

As we foresaw, House Bill 353 won’t be reported out of committee during the short session of the 2012 state legislature.

The bill would grant “gamefish” status to three saltwater fish species: spotted seatrout, red drum and striped bass. If H 353 ever becomes law, it would probably curtail a struggle that’s morphed into a Hatfields-vs.-McCoys standoff.

Gamefish status for these fish, which are targeted by an estimated 1.2 million recreational anglers and about 1,500 commercial netters, is such a thorny issue the legislature has made noises but taken no action.

Meanwhile, recreational-angler groups and coastal-resource wonks have escalated their efforts, and because of the legislature’s foot-dragging, have promised to pursue a total net ban. They’re being opposed by a small but well-funded cadre of for-profit fishing groups and individuals. The commercial industry has given ground grudgingly and scored a major victory in April when a saltwater resources study was gutted, then twisted beyond recognition into a set of “further studies.”

H 353 was moved into the House Commerce and Job Development Committee just before the study was bludgeoned. We understand from sources that H 353 likely will be revived in the 2013 legislative session.

The delay in getting a vote on H 353 is likely caused by a section that dictates netters be reimbursed for lost income. Who would pay for the buyout and how? H 353 recommends using previous tax forms and trip tickets. The bill also says buyout money would come from the Marine Resources Trust Fund, which is capped at $1 million. The N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, obviously, is reluctant to give up that cash.

The problem could be solved by a “silver-fin” tax. This idea would add a small add-on license fee for anglers targeting specks, reds and stripers.

“Most recreational anglers probably wouldn’t object to a small fee if it would get the nets out of the water,” a source told us. “Then, the DMF could pay the netters for their losses, and I’d bet there’d be enough left over to fund dredging of inlets.”

The legislature is considering a poorly-researched proposal to add a fee for boaters who utilize North Carolina inlets, but it has no way of determining who owns boats that only use inlets, Also, the state could lose about $14 million in federal funds if it appropriated boating-license fees for a non-wildlife use (such as dredging). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy prohibits diverting funds that way. We understand the NCDMF and N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission are working on this problem. Good luck.

In the meantime, we believe these problems would disappear after one simple act — the passage of H 353.