THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 28, 1996 TAG: 9601250219
SECTION: CAROLINA COAST PAGE: 06 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Long : 238 lines
I wholeheartedly agree with Cyndy Winstead's statement, ``Communication improves the public's perception of government,'' and Kenneth Johnson's suggestion that commissioners' meetings be aired on TV (Letters to the editor, Jan. 14).
In Currituck County, agendas are made up outlining the items that will be discussed at the commissioners' meetings. I feel this information should be distributed to the public as much as possible to let the community know beforehand what is going to be discussed at the commissioners' meetings, especially since there are decisions being made at these meetings that have an impact on the residents and the communities we live in.
Since The Virginian-Pilot is widely distributed in our area, it would be nice to see the agenda information published in the North Carolina section of the newspaper. However, after almost two years of writing letters and making phone calls, I have had no success in convincing the newspaper that the agendas for commissioners' meetings are important public information and should be published.
Perhaps Mr. Johnson will have more luck with getting Dare County Commissioners' meetings aired on TV. The commissioners' meetings in Currituck County should also be aired on TV; if agenda information could be included, we would know what's going to be discussed at the commissioners' meetings beforehand and have a chance to express our opinion on items that concern us!
Joan Williams
Moyock Computers help kids
I just got a firsthand look at the laptop computers the Dare County Schools teachers are all using. Wow! I'm envious. They're great. And I attended along with my two kids the Computer Expo held at First Flight Middle School Friday, Saturday and Sunday. It was an informative program that I hope is repeated yearly.
I understand that the teachers all had a firsthand look on Friday, with the public invited for Saturday and Sunday. Hardware, software, games - you name it - and the school's computer lab to demo products in.
It was truly an impressive effort. And lots of other parents must have thought so, too, because I saw a lot of people I know.
I want to thank the teachers who put on the Expo and the suppliers who attended.
The computer, and what it can bring into the classroom, is one of the most important educational tools of our children's time. Investing in computers for our teachers and for their classrooms is an investment in our children's future. I applaud the county and the Board of Education for making it such a high priority.
Kathleen Sparrow
Manteo False impression
In a recent letter to your newspaper, Wayne Lee of Kill Devil Hills wondered why commercial fishermen have questioned our state's membership in the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission. Mr. Lee's letter left your readers with the false impression that commercial fishermen are simply resisting the sensible regulation of our fisheries. The truth of the matter is that while commercial fishermen acknowledge the value in the concept of cooperative fisheries management efforts coordinated between the Atlantic Coast states, we also have very legitimate concerns with the management process used by the ASMFC.
The decisions reached by the ASMFC rest more often with the allocation of fisheries resources among the member states than with the conservation of those resources. Those decisions are often dominated by strong states, skilled at protecting and advancing their own interests through the development of coalitions and bargaining powers. The northeastern states, accustomed to years of waging political battles over their decimated fisheries, have perfected those skills. North Carolina, with relatively prosperous fisheries and abundant nurseries, often stands all alone, ill-prepared and uncomfortable in protecting the interests of our state.
Two recent situations exemplify the political character of the ASMFC. While the ASMFC's striped bass management board originally voted to support the opening of federal waters to the striped bass fishery, that decision was reversed after much internal maneuvering and levering, primarily applied by New Jersey. In the other situation, the ASMFC weakfish technical committee, noting that it was an allocation issue, took no action on the closure of federal waters to the weakfish fishery. But the ASMFC weakfish management board endorsed the closure. If the closure of federal waters to the weakfish fishery were the ultimate conservation measure, as it has been advertised by the National Marine Fisheries Service, it seems odd that the technical committee, composed of scientists, refrained from enthusiastically endorsing the measure.
The ASMFC is, by its very composition, a political body. The public should not be misguided into thinking that fisheries managers and scientists work toward the conservation of resources without protecting and promoting the interests of their respective states.
I don't believe that North Carolina should follow Mr. Lee and readily dismiss the concept of withdrawing from the ASMFC compact. There are many legitimate problems, such as the sparsity of avenues for public participation, with the ASMFC process. This is an extremely complicated issue, and, in its broader terms, strikes right to the heart of the issue of states' rights and the constitutionality of the Atlantic Coast Fisheries Cooperative Management Act.
Susan B. West
President
Hatteras-Ocracoke Auxiliary
North Carolina Fisheries Association Clearing the air
Having no idea that my response to the recent ``Dividing the Waters'' series would be so controversial and misunderstood, I feel compelled to, for my part, try to clear the air.
It would seem that Mr. Bob Eakes, a tackle shop owner, missed my point concerning my need to possibly join the National Rifle Association since several tackle shop owners saw the need to carry guns. My intent was not to strike a nerve but rather to comment on the irresponsible and inflammatory journalism better left on the pages of a supermarket tabloid. What purpose did it serve, other than put both fishermen and tackle shop owners in a bad light and in a worse mood?
Secondly, Bob insinuates that I would allow cycles to take their course as the only form of fisheries management. My intent was to imply that cycles have far more to do with the status of a particular species' current standing than all of the best intentions of the managers of that fishery. That is not to imply that effort should not be extended to ensure that the spawning stock biomass be viable to the point that when the good lord finally says, ``Let there be fish,'' then so shall it be.
Mr. Eakes also spoke of the uniqueness of Cape Point because so many fishermen can work together. His spirit of cooperation evades me, since he was instrumental in removing commercial beach fishing from the area. Considering the fact that sometimes upwards of 200 vehicles are bumper-to-bumper and people elbow-to-elbow pursuing their pleasure, it is probably for the best. But it still doesn't change the fact that when the National Park Service took over the park system, they promised the locals the right to make a living on this seashore.
As for Bob's concern for Costa Rica's economy, after having spent two weeks each of the last three years there, both fishing and surfing, I can assure him that there is a lot more to the country than just billfishing. That is not to say that it would not be a tragedy if the country's billfish were impacted. Maybe he should try convincing the American consumer to quit eating them, since the majority are imported here.
To address Mr. Lee's response to my letter, he starts his letter using the same 1980 weakfish benchmark that the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission keep pointing to. Were he to ask a local old-timer, he would soon realize that the volume, and especially the size, of fish during that period can certainly not be considered the norm.
He then, typical of both NMFS and ASMFC, uses 1993 statistics when assessing the size composition of the recreational landings for weakfish. Wayne, did we not just celebrate the beginning of 1996? He's right about the small size composition of 1993's offerings, though. That year, 45 percent of what I caught was under 12 inches. But in 1994 it was down to less than 15 percent, and last year was but 4 percent. So far this year, the commercial size composition is approaching his 1980 recreational standards that spoke of a 3.5-pound average, with many fish in the 20- to 35-inch range. In fact, the Jan. 15 North Carolina Division samplings were a 22-inch average.
As for his equally dated statistics that show declines in both recreational and commercial landings, I guess he didn't read a recent article by Brad Rich in The Virginian-Pilot that stated recreational fish harvest climbs sharply in 1994.
He then proceeds to dispute my account of why North Carolina's commercial fleet chose to diversify effort away from weakfish. Wayne, assuming that it is human nature to take the path of least resistance, would you rather handle 1- to 3-pound weakfish for a 10 cents average (which is what it would be if the entire fleet were fishing for them) or pick 5- to 15-pound dogsharks for a guaranteed 20 cents?
Or quite possibly he'd rather handle 20,000 pounds of weakfish at 10 cents than catch 1,000 pounds of king mackeral at $2, which is what they often average in the winter, provided that not too many people are in pursuit. Same with tuna fishing, longlining, etc. And considering his assertion that economics was the reason for more than 65 percent of the fleet leaving the fishery, why, Wayne, would not everyone leave it if it wasn't economically viable?
The fact that Mr. Lee, NMFS and ASMFC biologist, chooses to dispute my account of this matter is really all the more galling when one considers that on numerous occasions I have asked all involved if they wouldn't like to come along for a ride and see for themselves. I even promised to bring them back at the end of the day. Typically, they would rather assume.
And finally, my inclusion of Mr. Damon Tatem's name in my letter was in no way meant to imply anything derogatory about his character, as Mr. Lee's reply insinuated. It was merely used because I thought he was doing an excellent job of reporting all of the good fishing off our coast this past year. Now if he would only point Bob and Wayne in the right direction . . .
Jeff Oden
Hatteras Over-regulated fishing
I have never considered myself to be an art critic and have found myself doubting those who claim to be such, but the letters written by Bob Eakes and Wayne Lee in response to an earlier published letter by Jeff Oden painted the fisheries picture to perfection.
There is a terrible travesty being done to America's oldest industry. It continues to be unreported by the press, and therefore the majority of American citizens are not even aware that it is going on.
This travesty is supported by a select few wealthy recreational fishermen who want all the fish for themselves and the recreational fishing industry, including boat and tackle manufacturers, land developers, marina operators and especially sports-fishing magazines, most of which are owned by some of the largest media corporations in the world. Could this be the reason that the public is not given an accurate account of what is happening to the commercial fishing industry?
Recreational statistics that Mr. Lee used are based only on assumption, and the commercial data is based only on pounds packed and recorded by our various government agencies. None of these agencies record the amount of effort that it takes to produce those numbers.
If Mr. Lee puts stock in those numbers, he also should have offered the following statistics provided by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission based on that information: Based on total 1994 reported catch, recreational fishermen landed 87.3 percent of the total bluefish catch reported; more than 90 percent of the cobia, more than 82 percent of king mackerel, more than 81 percent of red drum, and just under 75 percent of striped bass.
It is important to remember that what is caught by the commercial industry is for the other owners of this resource - the non-fishing public.
While recreational effort continues to grow, commercial effort has decreased substantially over the last two decades because of the staggering growth of regulation, new fisheries and the reduction of the number of commercial fishermen.
No other industry has had as many regulations put into force as ours. I could go into detail, but it would take a Sunday edition of The New York Times to print them all. However, a prime example of how the list is growing can be seen on the state level, where, even though supposedly under a moratorium of licenses and new rules, more than two dozen new rules were imposed on the industry at the Marine Fisheries Commission's last meeting in the fall.
Commercial fishermen, be it through necessity or curiosity, are always changing fisheries. Mr. Lee left out that landings of shark, sword and tunas are all up several hundred percent, not because suddenly the oceans are filled up with these species, but because the public is willing to buy these fish that they cannot catch themselves.
The number of commercial fishermen is declining daily because with each new regulation it is becoming more difficult to make a living, and those interested in getting into the profession cannot get a new license.
Finally, I would like for your readers to know that I can relate to tackle shop owners like Mr. Eakes, because he is trying to make a living just as I am. However, to those like Mr. Lee who want their recreation to interfere with my livelihood and are hiding behind the guise of conservation and using innuendoes instead of facts - what kind of people are these?
Willie R. Etheridge III
Ethridge Seafood Co.
Wanchese by CNB