Bob Steinburg: Flounder column not accurate

September 5, 2015 at 12:09 pm
Chuck Laughridge says:

Not sure what was recorded off the public record, but this is the audio of Rep Steinberg from his visit with the Marine Fisheries Commission, and yes, he was invited to speak by Dr Louis Daniel and we found his comments interesting, but needing some clarification.

http://ncfisheries.net/audio/08-2015_mfc_audio/09-RepBobSteinburgComments.mp3

Good Fishing!!!

September 5, 2015 at 12:17 pm
Chuck Laughridge says:

Not sure what was or was not recorded off of the public record, but this is the audio on the public record from the August Marine Fisheries Commission in Raleigh. Thanks for your visit Rep Steinberg, your comments were both welcome and enlightening. Most would like folks to get together, and I think folks on both sides would welcome that. Perhaps another Elizabeth City meeting would be a good place to start.

http://ncfisheries.net/audio/08-2015_mfc_audio/09-RepBobSteinburgComments.mp3

Recs, commercials & consumers are not the folks that own these precious resources ----- they are not owned by anyone really, but the citizens (all of them, from the mountains to the coast) hold them in trust for our children and their children and grandchildren. so lets start today by agreeing on that.

Good Fishing!!!

September 5, 2015 at 5:28 pm
Chris Elkins PhD says:

While we can argue about how you got to speak when you were NOT on the agenda, your speaking was inappropriate and was interpreted by all present as a threat. One DMF veteran stated that in his 27 years he had never seen anything like it.

Lastly, the resource comes first before any user group. Generations of user groups will come and go, but the fish must be maintained. Not being from North Carolina, I expect you don't know about the fate of the river herring in your district. Maybe you should ask some locals.

The fish belong to all citizens of NC, not a handful of them from your district. Moreover, the fish are economically more important to recreational fishermen, who harvest less than 25% of the stock, compared to commercial fishermen.

Lastly, the use of destructive gill nets is not required to harvest the amount of Southern flounder that the stock can handle. Pound nets and gigs can catch that amount without significant bycatch or the requirement for an ITP for endangered species.

At the beginning of your talk, you stated this was all new to you, but by the end of your talk that was very apparent. Clearly you have a lot to learn if you are to continue as North Carolinas ASMFC representative. Perhaps you might appoint a proxy who knows whats going on.

September 6, 2015 at 1:18 pm
Tom Roller says:

Representative Steinberg,

First of all I want to thank you publicly for your conversation after this August's Marine Fisheries Commission Meeting. I can assure all readers out there that you were asked direct questions and your quotes were not taken out of context.

However, I am further troubled by your comment that "the biggest stakeholder in all of this is not the commercial or recreational fisherman but rather the consumer of fresh North Carolina Seafood made available to them through restaurants, at their local fish markets, or grocery stores." You're contradicting yourself in this statement, as the consumer purchasing seafood at a restaurant, market, or grocery store, is purchasing a commercially harvested product. Many consumers would prefer--and WISH--they could still harvest their own flounder recreationally.

The value of a fishery is far greater and more complex than its value as a food source. Flounder, like all of our fisheries, are a public trust resource. That means the MFC is charged with managing them sustainably for all North Carolina citizens--whether you want to purchase them at a restaurant or market, catch your own, or simply know that they still exist in North Carolina waters. Even those citizens who don't know what a southern flounder is, and will never eat one, should be able to trust that North Carolina will manage her natural resources sustainably for the benefit of all citizens and the future.

We are currently spending nearly as much in taxpayer revenue--if not more--than the dockside value of this fishery, simply to keep large mesh gillnets in the water and continue depleting an overfished stock.

Should that not be of concern to all North Carolina tax payers?

September 7, 2015 at 7:58 am
Keith Fulcher says:

Thank you Mr. Steinberg for your time and effort. It's good to see someone that can't be bought and sold by the CCA and their power tactics. And yes i'm 3'rd Generation commercial fisherman and proud of it.

Thanks again.

Keith

September 7, 2015 at 8:48 am
Capt Dave Timpy, MS says:

As a North Carolina resident, I continue to be shocked and amazed at legislative attacks on our public resources including fish, clean air, and clean water. It is amazing that Jerry Schill, Commissioner Corbett and Dr. Daniel have denied all involvement with the move at the August MFC meeting by the Gang of 13 lead by Representative Steinburg. Perhaps an investigation is warranted.

Without getting into the facts of the ongoing flounder issue , I would like to ask Representative Steinburg one question regarding his statement, "Finally, we must all remember that the biggest stakeholder in all of this is not the commercial or recreational fisherman but rather the consumer of fresh North Carolina Seafood made available to them through restaurants, at their local fish markets, or grocery stores."

Representative Steinburg, what percent of commercial fish caught in NC waters are sold to citizens of NC? You may be surprised at the answer and may wish to reconsider your position on this issue.

September 7, 2015 at 9:36 am
Tom Roller says:

Representative Steinberg,

I need to draw attention to some erroneous statements from your time in front of the MFC and in your rebuttal.

First of all, you state " voters do not always have all of the information that we as legislators might have in coming to any decision"

So, why is it that you keep referring to a "gill net ban." Nowhere in the supplement option language was there any sort of reference to a "gill net ban." One option, which the public overwhelmingly supported, states that large mesh gill nets will be prohibited gear in the taking of southern flounder. That is not a gill net ban. It doesn't even "ban" the use of large mesh which is used in many other fisheries.

As you are a relatively new to North Carolina, I would like to point out that there are dozens of gill net fisheries in NC waters. Many of these gill net fisheries target fish that are not overfished and the fisheries themselves are arguably sustainable. For example, shad gill netting, dogfish gill netting, mullet netting, etc.

The southern flounder gill net fishery is rife with problems and its continued defense puts our other sustainable commercial flounder fisheries (gig and pound net) at risk. The large mesh fishery also kills sea turtles, endangered atlantic sturgeon, sea birds, dolphins, other finfish all while targeting a fish that in not just overfished but can be brought to market using more sustainable methods.

So I ask that you stop using the erroneous language of a "gill net ban" - the only folks I have heard use that term are you, a couple of other NC legislatures and NCFA lobbyist Jerry Schill.

Tom Roller

Full time working waterman.

Carteret County Resident.

September 7, 2015 at 2:01 pm
Janet Rose says:

Glad to see Representative Steinburg set this straight. As one of two newly appointed commission members, I was glad to see the Secretary of DENR intervene, thus giving me time to look more closely at this matter. I am glad that Representative Steinburg, Senator Cook, and the other 11 members of the General Assembly recognize the impact that the Commission's decision will have on the flounder fishery for many years to come. One of the above comments mentioned that nothing like this had ever happened in 20+ years, as stated by a staff member. Well, these six proposals being considered were all developed by nonstaff members, again a move that is unprecedented, as a staff member with 20+ years remarked to me. I urge Representative Steinburg, Senator Cook and all other members of the General Assembly to keep an eye of the business being conducted not only by the Marine Fisheries Commission but all other state boards and commissions. Your constituents expect nothing less from you.

September 7, 2015 at 6:00 pm
Micah Daniels says:

Representative Steinburg,

Thank you for advocating for all of NC's citizens, including less-funded and unrepresented groups such as commercial fishermen. I am from a third-generation commercial fishing family. Using gill nets and harvesting NC product is not merely our heritage, it is our continued way of life. I work for Wanchese Fish Company and I speak not only for myself, but for the many fishermen who spend more time on our NC waters than our NC soil. These men rely on this industry to feed their families and provide non-fishing citizens and visitors to NC access to fresh, domestic catch. Often these men do not have access to phone, computers, and Internet while fishing from before dawn to after sunset. Therefore, please accept my words as support and appreciation from the men in this industry as their way of life and income is being encroached upon. You, along with Senator Cook, have our support!

Thank you!

September 7, 2015 at 6:12 pm
Beverly G Boswell says:

Thank you Rep Steinburg for saying what needs to be said. Our fishermen are over regulated and are being put out of business. The "business" of fishing is dying out and where is the outrage?!

Please support the fishing industry!

September 7, 2015 at 8:11 pm
Britton shackelford says:

No matter how many times you tell a lie, it is still a lie. Thank yo7, Representative Steinburg. A few irrefutable facts you won't hear from the CCA/RFA (you have to place the two together now, because they couldn't come up with enough members between them, and had to combine to be able to come up with less than 1 percent of all other anglers). The model for the flounder assessment was fatally flawed. It assumed a non-migratory stock of flounder. This model was used, against the better judgement of scientists in the stock assessment of '07/'08. Tagging studies in subsequent years proved this wrong. Our tags were recovered in all othersouthern states, and the gulf. This same flawed model was used in the most recent stock assessment. Peer reviewers rejected the stock assessment because the "model is fatally flawed". The same model proved wrong is '07/'08 was still wrong last year. (Duh). The Division has since upgraded the status of southern flounder. The supplement process operoperates outside the Fisheries law of the land, the Fisheries Reform Act, which was passed by our state Legislature, and signed by our Goveenor. The supplement process takes oversight away from the Legislature, and places it squarely in the hands of the MFC: a commission that is operating under an agenda....... one that doesn't have an iota of interest in managing fishermen, but owning the resource entirely. The CCA/RFA talk a lot, but their voice is empty rhetoric. Their history has borne them to be liars, and manipulators. Nothing has changed.

September 8, 2015 at 12:54 am
Rick Sasser says:

The facts presented by Dr. Louis Daniel, Director of the NC Division of Marine Fisheries are clear/

Almost 100% of all commercial harvest consists of female fish.

Sub-spawning juvenile fish makeup 90% to 95% of all commercial harvest.

Indexes of abundance are falling.

Size distribution is shrinking to smaller fish.

This is recruitment overfishing heading towards a total collapse of this fishery. Two back-to-back years of poor recruitment and this fishery is gone.

Pound nets and gigs can sustainably harvest every pound the southern flounder fishery can afford to give. Gill nets are a relic of the past that this fishery can no longer afford. Millions of dollars are being spent to try and manage gill nets in NC for a few part-time fishermen earning on average less than $1,000 per year. That is real cost to the taxpayers of NC, unnecessary cost.

Gill nets are unsustainable dirty gear that kill hundreds of federally protected endangered sea turtles and marine mammals, and thousands of federally protected waterfowl and shorebirds every year. This gear is so bad that NC is required to have a federal Incidental Take Permit allowing this gear to kill 100's of endangered sea turtles based on "need" to use this gear in the fishery. This gear is not needed! Again, pound nets and gigs can land every pound that the southern flounder stock can afford to give.

September 8, 2015 at 9:45 am
Kathy Sparrow says:

Dear Rep. Steinburg,

Thank you for your insights and comments. I appreciate your candor in addressing difficult issues.

September 10, 2015 at 10:10 am
Britton shackelford says:

Amazing that Rick Sasser, et al can continue to regurgitate mistruth. First, I would like to place, for all interested parties to examine, every scientific paper ever done on southern flounder. Every other coastal and gulf Coast state seems to have exhaustive papers, entailing thousands of hours of research, on southern flounder. Every one of these papers will refute Rick's statement that 90 to 95 percent of all large mesh flounder caught in gillnets are sub-spawning juveniles. Contrary, the vast preponderance of all flounder caught by large mesh gillnets are legal, adult fish that have spawned at least one time. The vast preponderance of hook-caught fish are juvenile fish, yet the commercial industry has never, not one tome, ever called for recreational restrictions on hook-caught flounder, drum, trout, or stripers. The issue of what we catch can be borne out by the large mesh gillnet industry having 7 to 10 percent required observer coverage that documents everything caught, and size, during a days fishing. Observers are part of our being able to fish, yet we have never asked that 7 to 10 percent of recreational anglers be required to carry observers in order to monitor what, and size, of every animal is caught during a days' fishing.

If pound nets and gigs can catch all the flounder we need, why is there no inventory of wild-caught NC flounder? Fresh, or frozen. Why is the only viable substitute frozen Argentinian fillets?

Sea Grant, and Division statistics will disprove Sasser's statement that large mesh gillnet terse make less than $1,000.00/yr.

Lastly, Sasser maintains that large mesh gillnets kill hundreds of sea turtles each yr. Please. Read the observer reports from the state, and get the weekly, WRC turtle stranding report. Commercial, large mesh gillnet takes absolutely pale in comparison to the takes by the Division biologists, and recreational gear. Louis' section 7 permit allows a dramatically lower level of takes than commercial gillnets, yet his takes this year, alone, dwarf the largest year of commercial takes ever reported. Read the NC State necropsy reports on sea turtles. What has killed the most sea turtles in NC? Read the reports from other states. Please, Mr Sasser, et al. State the facts as they exist, not your delusional idea of leaving consumers'option for seafood to be a bunch of imported junk. I stand ready to present volumes of substantiated facts to debunk every mistruth contained by every hater in this entire thread. Just because you include a PhD behind your name makes you a learned man, not.

September 10, 2015 at 10:44 pm
Joy Alligood says:

Thank you for everything you are doing to preserve the fishing industry and help the working watermen of NC. We appreciate your assistance and support!