PART 4-Chopping Block – Oysters, Clams, & Albacore
Wild Caught Oysters
Even after much concern was expressed from the public and many Advisory Committee (AC) members about closing large areas of the Pamlico Sound to mechanical dredging, the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) is still recommending this closure with no justification.
There is no oyster stock assessment.
There is no plan on an expected recovery timeline of the recommended closure areas.
There are no permits in place to expedite the rebuilding of these areas.
There is no current mapping of the proposed closure areas to document what is even there. In fact the most recent mapping occurred in the Neuse area in 2007!
With no oyster restoration plan and no specified goal on what recovered even means, how can the DMF ask to take away such a large area all at once?
The truth is, there is no evidence of oyster recovery in areas that were closed decades ago, in fact many of those areas have lost the majority of the oyster habitat due to heavy silting.
Oystermen want oysters to grow and we all want reefs to expand. But without a plan no one can support such a large closure.
Many good ideas were suggested during the process. Such as establishing test sites in these areas of concern with a plan to see what recovery works best.
One such plan could be:
-Close two 50 acre sites in each recovery area for a total of four 50 acre sites.
-Get the permits to enhance two sites with high relief material to raise the reef above the danger of low oxygen events
-Do nothing to the other two sites, they are your controls
-Map the 4 sites and two other similar sized sites that are open to mechanical dredging
-Map again after every oyster season
-Make a plan to expand the project if we reach a certain level of success in a
predetermined period of time
Habitat does not recover by just closing large areas to one user group. Habitat recovery takes a collaborative effort and it should at least start with listening to the concerns and ideas of the people who have lived through many of these changes.
Oyster Management Timeline
February 2025 – MFC selected preferred management options
March/April 2025 – Secretary of DEQ and legislative review
May 2025 – MFC votes on final adoption of the plan
TBD – DMF and MFC implement management
Wild Clams
The DMF recommended that the mechanical clam fishery be phased out in three years unless participation increased to 10 boats and landings increased to a million clams a year.
Yet when the fishery had broader participation, DMF claimed there were potential ecological impacts and regulated the fishery.
When there’s not enough participation to claim it’s having an impact, at least not with a straight face, they claim the fishery is not valuable enough to even justify its existence and threaten to close it if participation doesn’t increase.
Damned if we do and damned if we don’t!
And once again, no stock assessment, targets, or thresholds, just a desire to regulate and an assumption they have the authority to do so.
It’s not enough that only 2-3 mechanical clammers are even left in this state.
It’s not enough that the few remaining areas they can legally work keeps getting smaller.
It’s not enough that the last mechanical clammers only work in areas of low impact to oysters and SAV.
It’s not enough that they have done everything in the fishery management plan as they were asked to do!
It’s a sad day when you have already squeezed every last bit of life out of a once thriving commercial fishery and then try to smother the last 2 participants with a pillow just because they have done everything you asked them to do.
When is enough enough?
Clam Management Timeline
February 2025 – MFC selected preferred management options
March/April 2025 – Secretary of DEQ and legislative review
May 2025 – MFC votes on final adoption of the plan
TBD – DMF and MFC implement management
False Albacore Rule
15A NCAC 03M .0523 FALSE ALBACORE
(a) If the level of landings of false albacore in a calendar year exceeds 200 percent of the five-year average of North Carolina recreational and commercial landings combined from 2018-2022, the Fisheries Director shall issue a proclamation as set forth in Paragraph (b) of this Rule.
(b) In accordance with Paragraph (a) of this Rule and after prior consent of the Marine Fisheries Commission, the Fisheries Director shall, by proclamation, impose the following requirements on the taking of false albacore:
(1) for recreational purposes, specify a bag limit not to exceed 10 fish per person per day, not to exceed 30 fish per vessel per day; and
(2) for a commercial fishing operation, specify a trip limit not to exceed 3,500 pounds in any one day or trip, whichever is more restrictive.
(c) A proclamation issued in accordance with Paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Rule shall become effective January 1 of the year following the year when the determination is made that a proclamation shall be issued. The proclamation shall expire when the level of landings falls below the landings level in Paragraph (a) of this Rule in a subsequent calendar year and after prior consent of the Marine Fisheries Commission.
Whether you fish for albacore or not, this rule sets a bad precedent.
This is not how fishery management is intended to work; in fact, this is not fisheries management at all. This rule goes completely outside of the process and uses no biological metrics to trigger management.
The worst thing this rule does is combine recreational and commercial harvest to trigger management. Landings can increase for either sector and trigger management, irrelevant to any biological changes, positive or negative.
This should concern both recreational and commercial fishermen. Either group can trigger management action even if only one group is harvesting the majority of the fish.
This should concern fishery managers because this is not fisheries management. This rule at best failed to even consider all false albacore removals. Somehow dead discards from catch and release fishing were not included as a trigger.
Image this for other species that are not currently managed.
This is an agenda to circumvent the process, nothing more, nothing less. If you let this rule go forward you will continue to see it being used to manage Atlantic Bonito, Blackfin Tuna, and any other species that does not currently have bag or trip limits.
Rule Making Packet (includes Albacore)
Public Comment
Public comment will be accepted on these issues in person at the February MFC meeting, through the online portal, and/or through written comments.
Written comments can also be mailed to:
February 2025 Marine Fisheries Commission Meeting Comments
P.O Box 769, Morehead City, N.C. 28557
Or hand delivered to:
Division of Marine Fisheries’ Morehead City Headquarters Office
3441 Arendell Street, Morehead City, N.C.
Summary
The NCFA is continuing to work hard on this suite of issues we are all dealing with. Reach out and let us know if you have questions or need help with anything. The next update will be detailed information on the MFC meeting next week.
Glenn Skinner
Executive Director
Thomas Newman
Fisheries Liaison
