Should North Carolina Ban Gill Nets in Inshore Coastal Waters?
Current Topics in Coastal Biology – Topic 4
East Carolina University
Spring 2011
Abstract - Class
Gillnets have been used historically by fishermen. Recently, gillnets have come under scrutiny
due to bycatch and other issues. This has led to the ban of gillnets in some states including
California, Texas, Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania. In deciding whether or not North Carolina
should implement a gillnet ban many economic, social, and biological considerations need to be
examined.
_______
1
This review paper presents the views of the students enrolled in the Current Topics in Coastal
Biology course and in no way reflects the views or position of East Carolina University.
Introduction -- Meghan Lell, Kim Wade, Jeff Dobbs
Gillnets are a type of passive fishing gear that are relatively cheap to purchase and easy to
use. Fish can be caught in gillnets by their opercula or fin spines and projections, through
wedging, tangling, and pushing behavior. Gillnets can be purchased in different mesh sizes,
mesh materials, lead lines, and float lines (Coast Conservation Association Alabama n.d.).
Different mesh sizes are made to target different kinds of fish. The lead lines and float lines are
made to stretch the fabric vertically in the water.
Gill nets are one of the major gear types used in modern commercial fishing, but gill nets
are by no means a new technology. There are records of gill nets being used in the River Nile by
ancient Egyptians as early as 3000 BC (Doverspike 2011). The New Testament even mentions
gill net fishing in Israel’s Sea of Galilee in Luke 5: 4-11. There are numerous documented cases
of centuries old use of gillnets across the world from China to the British Isles to early Native
Americans (Stewart1977). During colonial times in the United States gill nets were used in the
Atlantic salmon and shad fisheries (Netboy 1973). The advent of synthetic fibers such as
monofilament in the 1960s improved the durability of gill nets and made them more viable for
commercial use. As the technology improved the commercial gillnet fishery grew quickly in
coastal regions such as North Carolina.
Gill nets are still an important fishing method in North Carolina. They represent an
important cultural heritage passed down from father to son for generations. Many coastal
communities in North Carolina are based around this and other traditional fishing methods.
Although traditional, gill net fishing represents an economically important segment of
commercial fishery landings. In 1999, 79% of North Carolina commercial fishermen used gill
nets (Diaby 2001). Despite the popularity and importance of gill nets in the commercial fishery,
their use has long been debated because of their ecologically detrimental bycatch. This debate
continues today as North Carolina weighs the pros and cons of a statewide ban on this historical
fishing method.
There are many reasons to continue using gillnets. There are many regulations on the
gillnet industry already, including mesh size, net length, net depth, distance between nets, time of
day, and net tending; also an observer program is in place (NCDMF Proclamation 2010). Most
of North Carolina’s flounder catch, totaling about $10 million, comes from gillnets. Gillnets also
have a high survival rate of fishes released, up to 94.4% (Grixti et al. 2010). Additionally,
banning gillnets raises the question of legalities. Often, when gillnets are banned, a clandestine
gillnet fishery still exists. This causes problems because catch and bycatch are not reported, and
gear is not properly marked, leading to boaters becoming entangled. There would also have to be
an increase in law enforcement officers to counter the illegal fishing (Zydellis 2009). In Florida,
a so-called “cast gillnet” makes use of a loophole in the law to allow fishermen to continue
fishing with a gillnet-like gear. Perhaps the most convincing argument is that of Wang et al.
(2010), a researcher developing technologies to make gillnets more noticeable to turtles. Lighting
gillnets with chemical lightsticks reduced turtle by catch by 60%, but made no statistically
significant difference in target or total catch. Socially, gillnetting is a culturally significant way
of life for many on the Outer Banks and sounds of North Carolina. It is a multiple-generation
traditional fishing method, passed down from parent to child. A study in Florida showed that
there was increased depression, anxiety, anger and family stress, as well as increased domestic
violence after banning gill nets (Smith et al. 2003).
Bycatch is a major problem associated with the use of gillnets. Bycatch is when living
creatures get trapped in fishing gear unintentionally. Gillnets are responsible for the deaths of
migratory birds, sea turtles, marine mammals, juvenile fish, and non-target species (J.-M.
Cousteau n.d.). Bycatch can be sold by fishermen if they have a permit to sell that species;
however, in many cases bycatch is unused and thrown back into the ocean (Coast Conservation
Association Alabama n.d.). Another problem with the use of gillnets is “ghost fishing” by “ghost
nets”. Ghost nets are gillnets that are lost or abandoned and continue to “fish” by entangling or
trapping marine life. The monofilaments that gillnets are made of take up to 600 years to
decompose (Wildlife Odisha 2009). Ghost nets are expensive to remove because it requires both
boats and trained divers (Breen n.d.).
There are many alternatives to gillnets such as hook and line, longline, pots, and traps,
but they too have deployment problems. Hook and line is very selective by choosing appropriate
lures and bait for target species. Pot and traps have a higher survival of bycatch compared to
gillnets. Longlines are also highly selective and the bycatch is usually released alive because of
the short deployment times (Green Peace International n.d.).
Biological Considerations -- Evan Knight, Justin Bohannon, Jessie Hathaway
Gill nets have been used in North Carolina for over a century. The reason gill nets have
been used for so long is that they catch fish very easily and have a low operating cost. Gill nets
have been so popular because they are very easy to deploy and requires very little effort to fish.
The reason gill nets are so effective at catching fish is that when a fish comes into contact with
the net it becomes entangled and trapped, this makes for very easy fishing. The problem with
gill nets is that the nets are indiscriminate of the types of fish it catches and can lead to a high
level of bycatch. The high level of bycatch is one of the major problems with gill netting and has
caused many conservation groups to call for a ban on gill nets. However, some studies have
shown there are ways to reduce the bycatch of gill nets. These innovations for reducing bycatch
could make gill nets more environmentally friendly.
Most people think of gill nets as not biological friendly. However, this is not always the
case. Gill nets are very efficient at the job they are designed to do: they catch fish. The problem
most people have with this is not that they catch fish efficiently but rather that they do not
discriminate in what they catch. Any fish or mammal that pushes its way into the gill net will be
entangled; this aspect is what bothers people. They feel that the bycatch related to gill nets is too
much. Some studies show that most of the by catch caught by gill nets survive after they are
released. Grixti, Morison, and Bell (2010) show that 97.2% of bream that were caught in a gill
net survived right after they were released and 94.4% had a prolonged survival rate after release.
This is a very efficient survival rate and shows that most of the bycatch survive if they are
released in a short period of time. Long lines and trot lines, which are some of the suggested
gear to replace gill nets, also have bycatch. The fish that are hooked on the line can also perish if
they are fouled hooked or the gear is lost and they cannot get free (Richard 2005).
If gill nets can be altered so they have lower rates of bycatch they would not need to be
banned. A study done by Wang, Fisler, and Swimmer in 2010 suggests that new innovative
equipment could be added to gill nets to reduce their bycatch. One of the tests was to put images
of sharks on the nets to deter turtles. While this did deter turtles from entering the net by 54% it
also had a significant effect on the catch of the net. With the shark images in place the net
suffered a 45% loss in desired catch. Another method that was tested was the use of chemical
light sticks, the use of the light sticks caused a 60% decrease in turtle by catch and nominal
affects on overall catch. The last method tested was LED lights that had a 40% decrease on turtle
catches and nominal effects on intended catch (Wang 2010). What this shows is that new gear
can be implemented to reduce by catch and make gill nets more biologically friendly.
Bycatch is a major problem with all fisheries: commercial fishermen do not want to waste
the fuel, time, energy, and biological resource associated with a lot of bycatch. Bycatch as it
pertains to gill nets is any species that is caught in a gill net that is not the targeted species that a
gill netter is fishing for. The amount of bycatch in a gill net fishery can be very high. Unlike
target species, bycatch is unwanted and often unused. Sometimes bycatch may be kept or sold if
the fisherman has a proper license. Other times, bycatch cannot be used, for example, if it is
undersized or a protected species, it must be thrown back. This returned bycatch is called
discard.
Bycatch during fishing is not the only concern for gill nets; in cases when gill nets are
lost they can continue to ghost fish. Ghost fishing is when a net is lost and the net continues to
entangle fish. Some species that are caught in gill nets as bycatch are also endangered species.
Some species of sea turtles have been documented on many occasions being caught in gill nets.
Officials estimate that 2,667 to 5,333 turtles are injured or killed in North Carolina coastal waters
annually (Donnelly 2007). These high numbers of injuries and deaths caused by gill nets have
caused many conservation groups to propose a ban on gill nets in all North Carolina coastal
waters.
Gill net fishing can have adverse effects on the marine environment. In a recent study
performed by the NCDMF it was found that local gill netting practices were negatively affecting
primary nursing areas or PNAs. The local fishermen in the white oak river were dragging cinder
blocks across the bottom to scare the fish and make them run into the gill net. Dragging cinder
blocks across the bottom of the PNAs was shown to negatively affect the habitat. These primary
nursery areas are crucial for juvenile shrimp, crabs, and fin fishes to survive and recruit into the
next age class. The damage to the PNAs can cause a recruitment bottleneck and can reduce the
breeding population of the species that use the nursery areas (NCDMF 2010).
Sometimes bycatch may contain marine mammals, which are protected under the Marine
Mammal Protected Act. Any marine mammal that gets entangled in a fisher’s net could land the
fisher with a heavy fine. Alarms placed on gill nets have not been proven as effect ways to
reduce bycatch. A study by Cox, at el. concluded that pingers were ineffective at reducing
bycatch of bottlenose dolphin in gill nets. Suggestions from the Cox, et al. are that modification
of fishing gear is a more effective way to reduce bycatch (Cox et al. 2003). In 2000, California
banned gill nets for commercial use because of a substantial harm to the southern sea otter.
In conclusion, gill nets are responsible for the injury and death of 2,667 to 5,333 sea
turtles each year, according to a study by Donnelly. Also, many marine mammal are incidentally
caught in gillnets. Destructive fishing has also been reported with the use of gill nets in the White
Oak River. There is now new ground-breaking equipment however, that is showing a reduction
in turtle bycatch. Chemical light sticks and LED light have shown to have a 60% and a 40%
decrease on turtle catch.
Social/Policy Considerations -- Jake Pridgen, Victoria Autry, Barryn McLaughlin
Gill nets are commonly used in commercial saltwater fishing because of their low
maintenance requirements and ease of operation. Gill nets have long been considered an easy
and cost effective way for commercial fishermen to meet their fishing quota. A small crew of
fishermen can catch and collect hundreds or thousands of fish using gill nets, providing high
yields at low expense and making fish widely available for food at an affordable price. The Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations views the use of gill nets as "low cost
fishery." For several years now, some stakeholder groups, notably those associated with
recreational angling, have been advocating legislation to ban the use of gill while at the same
time commercial fisherman fight for their rights to make their livelihoods (Anonymous 2005).
Recreational anglers use the success of Florida’s and South Carolina’s net bans to model how
North Carolina could be if the legislation was passed. A few years ago, endangered sea turtles
were found trapped, with some killed, in gill nets in NC by the Karen Beasley Sea Turtle Rescue
and Rehabilitation Center, which resulted in a lawsuit between the North Carolina Marine
Fisheries Commission and the Beasley Center (Holt 2009). Also anecdotal observations suggest
that small-time commercial fishermen leave their own over-fished fishing grounds in search of
new areas for catching fish. In the areas around Santa Cruz and San Jose, they set up their nets
and quickly catch reef fish. Since the fish are the dominant species in these areas, fishermen may
employ this method of fishing more than once per day. This leads to a record depletion of fish,
which in turn causes tourists intent on snorkeling, fishing, and reef diving to visit other locales
where nature is still untouched and fish are plentiful. This adverse impact on tourism may cause
the impoverishment of coastal areas. (Cochran 2010). This observation in California could aid in
the fight for the gill net ban. If gillnets are banned, many commercial fisherman could lose their
way of life.
Commercial fisherman and their families have been using gill nets for generations and it
is in their heritage and culture. Some stipulate switching to other nets would be too costly and
would ruin the company (Holt 2010). Alternatively they say gill nets can be modified to reduce
their bycatch and improve safety. Pro gill net ban groups claim they should use longlines instead
because they do not tear the catch and could result in more money. They also hope the ban will
reduce the number of Ghost Nets currently found in North Carolina waters. But the commercial
fishermen argue that gill nets can be easily modified, including nets made from cotton, which
biodegrades over a short period of time.
Rules and regulations on gillnets are extensive to say the least. NC commercial fishermen
currently can use gillnets only in certain seasons, specific time frames throughout the day, within
certain mesh size requirements and certain fishing locations. (Bizzell 2011). Gillnetting is an
efficient and economical means to harvest fish, but it can have serious consequences when done
improperly, when nets are lost to inclement weather, or when social issues arise over its use.
(Burke 2010).These regulations are designed to reduce bycatch while maintaining current fish
populations. Although they may be relatively effective, these strict criteria may be one main
reason why NC commercial fishermen jobs are decreasing.
The demand for NC commercial fishermen may have decreased as well. It is estimated
that at least 80 percent of America’s seafood is imported from other countries such as China
(Kraemer 2008). This may keep seafood prices low but in order for commercial fishermen to
compete they must sell their catches for well below profitable prices. A 2008 NC survey by the
University of North Carolina Community Economic Development Competitive Grant program
showed 91 percent of the people preferred local seafood over imported, and 90 percent of the
respondents said they were even willing to pay a higher price for it (West 2009). The demand is
clearly there but very little has been done to remedy this. North Carolina markets and restaurants
need to make local seafood available throughout the state, not just at its coast. Better marketing
and distribution may help alleviate this aspect.
Economic Considerations -- Hillary Huffer; Coley Hughes; Heather Waters
Gillnets are widely used throughout the United States along with a combination of other
fishing tools. North Carolina is a state well-known for its fishing industry since it is the 3rd
largest coastal system in the world. Gill nets provide the ability to catch fish by size and species.
At the same time they help maintain specific species populations by using specific net and mesh
sizes to obtain specific species. In considering a gillnet ban, it is important to take into account
the economic implications of such an action. This section will examine the number of
recreational fishermen and their economic contribution to the state of North Carolina.
Additionally, this section will explore the magnitude of the commercial fishing sector and the
subset of fishermen who employ gillnets. Lastly, the section will discuss the economic
implications of using gillnets versus long-lines.
A gillnet ban would be viewed as a positive thing from the recreational fishermen’s
perspective, but would be viewed negatively by commercial fishermen. Recreational fishermen
dislike commercial fishermen who fish using gillnets because they can stop and stay as long as
they please as long as they are maintaining and around their gill net at all times that it is in the
water, which is in direct conflict with recreational fishermen. In NC, recreational fishermen far
exceed the number of commercial fishermen (Nomoregillnets.org 2011); commercial fishermen
licenses represent only 5% of all licenses in the state. In 2010, there were 453,522 recreational
fishermen licenses sold in the state of North Carolina (NCDMF 2010). On the other hand, there
were only 24,039 commercial fishing licenses sold in North Carolina during 2010 (NCDMF
2010). Recreational fishermen contribute over three billion dollars to North Carolina’s economy
annually and are responsible for the creation of 27,000 jobs (Nomoregillnets.org 2011). In 2009,
the commercial fishermen had a harvest valued at 77,003,883 dollars (NCDMF 2011) but
contributed only 103 million dollars to the state’s economy in 2002 (Nomoregillnets.org 2011).
Commercial fishing that utilizes gill nets represents an even smaller subset of the commercial
fishermen (42,882 trips in North Carolina in 2009 used gill nets, which is approximately 27
percent of all trips made) (NCDMF 2009). However, gill nets are economically important. Gill
nets serve as an efficient tool for commercial fishermen to decrease their effort while increasing
the amount of fish caught. A gillnet used for flounder can result in 10,000 to 15,000 pounds of
flounder in a weekend according to Blake Price a fisheries biologist working on commercial gear
development with NOAA fisheries. Therefore, the use of a gill net by commercial fishermen is
economically important generating close to 10 million dollars as a source of income (NCDMF
2011). From these figures, it is clear that both recreational and commercial fishing with gill nets
have important impacts on North Carolina’s economy and should be considered if future
decisions regarding gill nets.
Teh et al. (2005) found that hook and line required less investment than the debt accrued
for a gill net and there may be no significant difference in net income if the cost of gear is
deducted. Additionally, the use of other gear types such as longlines could result in higher
quality fish and fishermen have the opportunity to get paid more (Diaddorio 2011). Peckham et
al. (2011) found that there is a preferential market for hook-caught fish and that value of the
catch can be increased via the appropriate methods. It was also determined by Teh et al. (2005)
that the catch and effort rates comparing the gill net to longlines were equally variable and
similar in catch per unit effort. Catch per unit effort is the number or biomass of fish caught as a
function of effort. CPUE can help fisheries managers indicate quantities such as fishing
mortality and density. Researchers found that catches ranged from 0 to 30 kg fisher−1 trip−1,
using longlines and gillnets ranged from a low of 1 kg to a high of 37 kg fisher−1 trip−1. On the
other hand, Santos et al. (2002) found that longlines had higher daily yields (258.37 kg per 9,000
hooks compared to 127.12 kg per 10 km net for gillnetting). Santos et al. (2002) concluded that
longlines require significantly more manpower, have higher yields, better quality product, and a
lower percentage of discards.
Gillnets serve as an excellent gear type for a particular species, but several species of
bycatch are caught with a high mortality rate. As a result, there is an increased pressure for the
industry to reduce the sea turtle bycatch as well as red drum, speckled trout, and striped bass.
Any interaction with endangered species such as sea turtles and sturgeon is illegal in state waters.
The main issue with by-catch is that the species discarded in one fishery can lead to a decrease of
income in that fishery. In other words, if a gill net is set for flounder but other commercially
important species are bycatch then it increases their mortality rate and reduces the catch quota.
Individuals against gillnets believe that “much of the by-catch is juvenile finfish that cannot be
sold, but it contributes to overfishing or inhibits the recovery of over fished stocks”
(Nomoregillnets.org 2011). Discarding by-catch of target species results in a direct cost of
revenue to the commercial and recreational fishing industry.
In conclusion, in considering a ban on gillnets it is necessary to consider the economic
contributions of both the commercial and recreational fishermen. It is important for decisionmakers to keep in mind that recreational fishermen have different preferences than commercial
fishermen and that recreational fishermen contribute a great deal to North Carolina’s economy.
Also, it is important to consider alternatives to gill nets (i.e., longline) and the potential
differences. Lastly, it is essential that the relative ease or cost with which fishermen can switch
gears be considered.
Alternatives - Liz Brown-Pickren, Kyle Whaley, Dan Zapf
Gill nets are an efficient means of capturing large numbers of fish with relatively low
investment of time and effort. In addition, modifications can be made to mesh size and hang
ratio to target specific species, size classes, and to minimize by catch of non-target species. More
recently new technologies have been implemented and experimented with, in combination with
gill nets to reduce by catch of marine mammals and non-target species like sharks. Attaching
acoustic pingers to gill nets reduces incidental catch of harbor porpoise (Kraus et al. 1997), and it
has been suggested that applying electromagnetic repellents to gill nets may deter sharks from
entering and being captured in the nets (New England Aquarium 2011). Sea turtle bycatch is
emphasized in North Carolina because of the endangered status of all species found in the state
waters. Wang et al. (2010) tested three visual deterrents in gill nets and found that shark shapes
reduced bycatch of green sea turtles Chelonai mydas by 54% but also reduced the target catch by
45%. Lightsticks and LED lights reduced the turtle catch rate by 40% and 60% respectively and
were more successful in that neither had significant impact on target catch and value.
In addition to modification of existing gear and substitution for a different type of gear,
managers may impose behaviors as an alternative to a status quo fisher. Observers may be
required in select or full coverage of the fishery, fishermen may be required to continuously tend
their nets, distance between nets may be limited, and fishing may be closed seasonally, spatially,
or in certain periods of the day (Gilman et al. 2010).
In some situations it may be inadvisable to continue to fish gill nets. The endangered
vaquita (Phocoena sinus), one of the most endangered cetaceans in the world, is threatened
primarily because of mortality caused by gill nets. In this situation it has been suggested that
alternatives to gill nets be explored (Altarriba 2007, Yun 2007). Many alternative gear types
exist, including beach seines, purse seines, pound nets, long lines, and bottom trawls. These gear
types have positive and negative aspects and may not perform similar to gill nets. The objective
of substituting other gear types for gill nets is to reduce capture of non-target species and size
classes. Requiring fishermen to purchase new gear, boats or permits may cause economic
hardship and any shift to a new fishery or gear, “inherently causes gear conflicts among users
and increased pressure on other fish populations” (Price 2011).
In the lower Columbia River fisheries managers are interested in protecting wild spawned
salmon while allowing fishermen to capture hatchery raised fish. Because gill nets have high
mortality, it was necessary to examine alternative methods of fishing for salmon (Paulu 2009).
Results suggest that beach seines and purse seines are effective in capturing salmon, and have
low associated mortality with only 25 of 21,000 captured salmon dying as the result of capture
(Columbia Basin Bulletin 2010). Fish traps were not effective in capturing salmon, and
historically had high interactions with sea lions (Paulu 2009).
Trolling is usually thought of as a conservative fishing technique, commonly used by
commercial fishermen to efficiently harvest target species and minimize bycatch (Monterey Bay
Aquarium 2011). Using this method, fishermen drag individual baited lines behind boats. These
lines can be quickly reeled in and reset, increasing both the quality of target harvests and survival
rate of bycatch (United Nations 2011). This is a commonly used method, particularly for salmon
and tuna. Traps and pots are effective alternatives to gill nets in many situations. Due to
immobility, traps also have less impact on the ocean floor than bottom trawls. They are useful for
catching many bottom dwelling species, including grouper, croaker, and red snapper. They limit
mortality by allowing captured creatures to swim freely within the trap until the catch is
harvested. However, there are issues with both methods. Trolling depends on burning fossil
fuels. Fishermen troll for hours, running their motors and burning fossil fuels along the way.
This creates a monetarily prohibitive and environmentally detrimental side-effect. Traps and
pots, if lost, will continue to catch fish indefinitely and contribute to marine pollution (Bukaty
2009).
Alternative passive gear, like fyke nets, pound nets and hoop nets, have been
experimentally shown to have lower associated mortality than gill nets and are suggested for
capture of cover seeking benthic species (Kreuger et al. 1998), and many sturgeon species (Kahn
2010). However, it has been suggested that fyke nets may not be useful in capturing flounder
(Van Salisbury 2001, Price 2011). In the flounder fishery, pound nets have been a traditional
method of capture, and are beneficial because fish are captured alive and by catch can be sorted
out (Green 2002). However, these methods usually involve more effort than gill nets (Green
2002) and may not be successful in capturing pelagic species (Kreuger et al. 1998). Pound nets
are considerably more expensive than gill nets, take up more space than gill nets and require
certain weather conditions (e.g. a northeasterly blow) to be effective, so are limited seasonally
(Price 2011).
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based upon review of the evidence researched by this class, we have come to the following
conclusions, and make recommendations for this issue:

Gill nets are easy to use and cost effective

Gill nets are already highly regulated

Historically and culturally significant to region

Banning gill nets can have a negative social impact

Bycatch is a problem with all fishing gear including gillnets

Bycatch mortality is higher with gill nets

Gill nets can be modified to reduce bycatch

There are viable alternative to gill nets in the fishing industry

There are biological concerns about incidental take of megafauna, some which are
endangered or threatened ( turtles, cetaceans, Atlantic sturgeon, short nose sturgeon,
birds)

Fish caught by alternative methods may have better quality and bring higher prices

Forcing commercial fishermen to switch gear types could impose significance hardships
to families and industry.

Recreational fishermen, the larger of stake holder groups, would gain greater access to
fishing species and fishing areas

Banning gear could result in increase illegal fishing activity and problems with
enforcement
Save the Gill Nets
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Gill nets have been here for a long time
Job opportunities, education not a factor
Near poverty job opportunities, without fishery more people on welfare
Startup cost to switch gear
Other gear may not be suitable
Government subsidy to minimize bycatch problem tending regulation
Avoid Family strife
Ban the Gill Nets
1.
2.
3.
4.
Bycatch mortality rates are higher
Gill nets harass/harm charismatic, endangered threatened species
Only a couple more people fish them anyway
Recreational fishers make up majority of resource
Recommendations
Additional research is needed on fishing alternatives to gill nets, and to modifications that
might be used to reduce bycatch. Alternatives such as longlines may be viable by controlling
hook size and longline placement to reduce incidental take and control bycatch. Commercial
fishermen should try to form a grass roots organization to emphasize and market local
seafood, thereby allowing the public to pay premium prices for fresh local seafood. This
effort needs to strengthen and improve marketing, and emphasize wild locally-caught
seafood.
Work Cited
Introduction References
Breen, P.A. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. No date. A Review of Ghost Fishing By Traps
and Gillnets. http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC154_P571.PDF. Accessed 04/12/2011.
Coast Conservation Association Alabama. No date. Gill Net Fishing in Coastal Alabama: It’s
Destructive Impact. Coast Conservation Association Alabama.
http://joinacf.org/Assets/Kids%20Quiz%20Study%20Mats/CCA_GillNetReport.pdf. Accessed
04/11/2011.
Cousteau J-M. No date. Ocean Adventures: How to Catch a Fish researched at PBS.
http://www.pbs.org/kqed/oceanadventures/educators/pdf/OceanAdv-Catch.pdf. Accessed
04/15/2011.
Green Peace International. No date. Fisheries Technique.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/seafood/understanding-the-problem/fisheries-problemstoday/hook-and-line. Accessed 04/12/2011.
Grixti, D., A. Morison, and J.D. Bell. 2010. Undersized Acanthopagrus butcheri caught and
released from commercial gill nets show high survival rates. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 30:723-731.
Netboy, A. 1973. The Salmon: Their Fight for Survival, pp. 181-182. Boston, Houghton Mifflin.
Richard, J. 2005. Cast gill nets snare turtles as loophole nets are ignored.
http://www.floridasportsman.com/confron/0504148/. Accessed 04/3/2011.
Smith, S., S. Jacob, M. Jepson, and G. Israel. 2003. After the Florida net ban: The impacts on
commercial fishing families. Society of natural resources 16:39-59.
Stewart, Hilary. 1977. Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast. Seattle, University
of Washington Press p. 79
Wildlife Odisha. 2009. How long does it take to decompose? http://wildlifeodisha.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-long-does-it-take-to-decompose.html. Accessed 04/16/2011.
Biological References
Cox, Tara, A. Read, D. Swanner, K. Urianc, D. Waples. 2003. Behavioral responses of
bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, to gillnets and acoustic alarms. Biological Conservation
115:203–212.
Diaby, S. 2001. An Economic Analysis of Commercial Fisheries in the Pamlico Sound Area,
North Carolina. Draft Report for Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act
NOAA Award No. NA87FG0367-2.
Donnelly, M. 2007. Sea Turtles and North Carolina Inshore Fisheries. Issue 2. Sea turtle
Conservancy.
http://www.conserveturtles.org/velador.php?page=velart68. Accessed 04/18/2011.
Doverspike, L. 2011. The History of Fishing Nets. Ehow.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5118660_history-fishing-nets.html. Accessed 04/18/2011.
Grixti, D., A. Morison, and J.D. Bell. 2010. Undersized Acanthopagrus butcheri caught and
released from commercial gill nets show high survival rates. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 30:723-731.
Martin, G. 2000 Commercial Gill-Net Ban Tightened in California Move to protect wildlife
made at end of season. http://www.californiafish.org/gillnetban.html. Accessed 04/18/2011.
NCDMF. 2010. “Large Mesh Gill Nets: Internal Coastal Waters.”
http://ncfisheries.net/procs/procs2k10/M-8REV-2010.html. Accessed 04/18/2011.
Pascoe, S. 1997. Bycatch Management and the Economics of Discarding. US FAO. No. 370
p137.
Richard, J. 2005. Cast gill nets snare turtles as loophole nets are ignored.
http://www.floridasportsman.com/confron/0504148/. Accessed 04/3/2011.
Wang, J.H., S. Fisler, and Y. Swimmer. 2010. Developing visual deterrents to reduce sea turtle
bycatch in gill net fisheries. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 408:241-250.
Social - References
Anonymous. 2005. Pressure to Ban Gill Nets Rising. Fishing-NC website. December 29, 2005.
http://www.fishing-nc.com/2005/12/pressure-to-ban-gill-nets-rising.html. Accessed 04/06/2011.
Bizzell, R. 2011. North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission Rules 2011. North Carolina
Division of Marine Fisheries. http://www.ncfisheries.net/download/MFC_Rulebook.pdf.
Accessed 04/18/2011.
Burke, J. 2010. Gill Netting Advantages. eHow.com. http://www.ehow.com/list_6370591_gillnetting-advantages.html. Accessed 04/17/2011.
Callahan, R. 2010. What Are the Effects of GillNet Fishing? LiveStrong.com.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/115107-effects-gill-net-fishing/. Accessed 04/19/2011.
Cochran, S. 2010. What Are the Effects of Gill Net Fishing? Trials.com.
http://www.trails.com/list_5227_what-effects-gill-net-fishing.html. Accessed 04/17/2011.
Holt, C. 2009. Conservation Group Could Sue to Have Gill Nets Banned. North Carolina
Sportsman. October 23, 2009. http://www.northcarolinasportsman.com/details.php?id=1227.
Accessed 04/06/2011.
Holt, C. 2010. Marine Fisheries Commission to Hold Public Hearing on Proposed Gill-net
Closure. North Carolina Sportsman. February 4, 2010.
http://www.northcarolinasportsman.com/details.php?id=1320. Accessed 04/06/2011.
Korpella, R. 2010. What Are the Effects of Gill Net Fishing? In eHow.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6803975_effects-gill-net-fishing_.html. Accessed 04/17/2011.
Kraemer, D. 2008. Chinese Seafood Imports. U.S Food & Drug Administration. April 25, 2008.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Testimony/ucm115243.htm. Accessed April 18, 2011.
Smith, P. 2005. North Carolina Adopts New Gill Net Rules. The Daily News. February 4, 2005.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-128083091.html. Accessed 04/06/2011.
West, S. 2009. State’s Consumers Prefer Local Seafood and Will Pay More For It. January 15,
2009. Island Free Press. http://islandfreepress.org/2009Archives/01.15.2009StatesConsumersPreferLocalSeafoodAndWillPayMoreForIt.html. Accessed 04/18/2011.
Economic References
Diaddorio, E. Personal communication, April 13, 2011.
NCDMF. 2010. North Carolina license and statistics section summary statistics of license and
permit program commercial trip program marine recreational fishery survey Striped Bass creel
survey in the central and southern management area.
http://www.ncfisheries.net/download/2010_LS_%20AnnualReport.pdf. Accessed 4/16/2011.
NCDMF. 2011. Commercial statistics. http://www.ncfisheries.net/statistics/comstat/09land.htm.
Accessed 4/18/2011.
NCDMF. 2009. Annual fisheries bulletin.
http://www.ncfisheries.net/download/2009AnnualNC_FisheriesBulletin.pdf. Accessed
4/15/2011.
Nomoregillnets.org. 2011. How can North Carolina let this continue?
http://www.nomoregillnets.org/. Accessed 4/17/2011.
Peckham, S., Maldonado-Diaz, D., Lucero-Romero, J., Rodriguez, A., Esliman-Salgado, A.,
Wojakowski, M. and E. Caballero. 2011. Substituting hook and line for gillnet fishing: A
potential market-based solution to reducing bycatch mortality at Baja California, Mexico.
http://iconferences.seaturtle.org/preview.shtml?event_id=18&abstract_id=3935. Accessed
4/16/2011.
Santos, M., M. Gaspar, C. Monteiro, and P. Vasconcelos. 2002. Gill net and long-line catch
comparisons in a hake fishery: The case of southern Portugal. Scientia Marina 66: 433-441.
Wilson, Samuel. No Date. Gill Net Fishing in Coastal Alabama: Its Destructive Impact. Coastal
Conservation Association Alabama.
http://joinacf.org/Assets/Kids%20Quiz%20Study%20Mats/CCA_GillNetReport.pdf> Accessed
4/18/2011.
Alternative References
Altarriba. 2007. Fishing nets put Mexican porpoises on brink of extinction. Fundación Altarriba.
http://www.altarriba.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=66&Itemid=26.
Accessed 04/15/2011.
Anonymous. No date. Fishing Vessel Types: Trollers. Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations. www.fao.org/fishery/vesseltype/360/en. Accessed 04/17/2011.
Bukaty, R. 2009. ‘Ghost’ traps keep catching lobsters. USA Today.
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=newspress&sParam=36904572.story. Accessed 04/19/2011.
Columbia Basin Bulletin. 2010. Test fishing with alternatives to gill nets – purse and beach
seines – show positive results. The Columbian Basin Fish and Wildlife News Bulletin.
http://www.cbbulletin.com/402551.aspx. Accessed 04/15/2011.
Gilman, E., J. Gearhart, B. Price, S. Eckert, H. Miliken, J. Wang, Y. Swimmer, D. Shiode, O.
Abe, S.H. Peckham, M. Chaloupka, M. Hall, J. Mangel, J. Alfaro-Shigueto, P. Dalzell, and A.
Ishizaki. 2010. Mitigating sea turtle by-catch in coastal passive net fisheries. Fish and Fisheries
11: 57-88.
Green, A. 2002. Pound netting: Rich fishing tradition seeing decline. Coastwatch Winter 2002
Issue. http://www.ncseagrant.org/home/coastwatch/coastwatcharticles?task=showArticle&id=580. Accessed 04/15/2011.
Kahn, J., and M. Mohead. 2010. A protocol for use of shortnose, Atlantic, gulf, and green
sturgeons. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-OPR-45, 62 p.
Kraus, S.D., A.J. Read, A. Solow, K. Baldwin, T. Spradlin, E. Anderson, and J. Williamson.
1997. Acoustic alarms reduce porpoise mortality. Nature 388:525.
Krueger, K.L., W.A. Hubert, and R.M. Price. 1998. Tandem-set fyke nets for sampling benthic
fishes in lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:154-160.
New England Aquarium. 2011. Experimental fishing gear projects. New England Aquarium.
http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/projects/fisheries_bycatch_aquaculture/bycatch/
conservation_engineering/projects/index.php. Accessed 04/15/2011.
Paulu, T. 2009. Fishing for an alternative: Lower Columbia study seeks replacements for
gillnets. The Daily News Online. http://tdn.com/news/article_f6e0ac19-575d-5a9d-8c39b203e6c92139.html. Accessed 04/15/2011.
Price, Blake. 2011. Personal Communication. E-mail interview April 18, 2011.
United Nations Fishery and Agriculture Organization. 2011. Fishing gear types: Trolling lines.
http://www.fao.org/fishery/geartype/235/en. Accessed 04/19/2011.
VanSalisbury, C.R. 2001. Alternative flounder nets/fike nets. Final Report for Fishery Resource
Grant No. 01-FEG-11, North Carolina Sea Grant, Raleigh.
Wang, J.H, S. Fisler, and Y. Swimmer. 2010. Developing visual deterrents to reduce sea turtle
bycatch in gill net fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 408:241-250.
Yun, L. 2007. Prompted by loss of baiji, new efforts to save vaquita. Conservation International.
http://www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/loss_baiji_save_vaquita.aspx. Accessed
04/15/2011.
Debate Judgment for Gill Nets in North Carolina
By: Jake Pridgen, Dan Zapf, and Hillary Huffer
Statement of the Problem
Gillnets have been used historically by fishermen. Recently, gillnets have come under scrutiny
due to bycatch and other issues. This has led to the ban of gillnets in some states including
California, Texas, Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania. In deciding whether or not North Carolina
should implement a gillnet ban many economic, social, and biological considerations need to be
examined.
Against Gillnets (Ban the Gillnets)
The team against gillnets made a strong argument that gillnets have negative biological impacts
and various alternatives exists. Banning gill nets has also been linked to increases in tourism and
recreational fishing. The group argued that gill nets are indiscriminant killers with high bycatch
of sea turtles, marine mammal and non-target finfish species. The Endangered Species Act of
1973, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act prohibit
the take of sea turtles, seabirds, and marine mammals all of which are all caught as bycatch in
gill nets. Fishermen can use alternative fishing methods like; hook and line, pots and traps.
Pros: Nice point that longlines are a good alternative because they do not damage
caught fish yielding a higher profit, Good use of effective pictures to show how
dangerous gill-nets are to non-target species, Economic Impacts section was well
explained and explained new studies on reducing bycatch, Other alternatives were
presented and shown to have high survival rate, References and PowerPoint slides
provided for judges, Nice rebuttal to Black Bream example.
Cons: No graphs or charts provided to drive home data that was presented, Introduction
was back and forth between speakers, Some presenters read straight from PowerPoint
slides, Lacked references at bottom of slides when facts were presented, only low demand
argument was confusing, Decline in fishing jobs seemed unrelated to their argument.
In Favor of Gillnets (Save the Gillnets)
The team in favor gillnets made a strong point that gillnets are relatively simple to use, do not
require a lot of energy, are cost-effective, and efficient. They also pointed out that restrictions,
regulations and modifications of gill nets can be utilized to target a specific species or size class
in order to minimize bycatch. Lastly, they argued that changing gear types is expensive and lost
income from gill net bans can cause negative social impacts including negatively affecting the
families of gill net fishermen.
Pros: Good eye contact while speaking, Clear graphs and charts to explain data,
Demonstrated that nets can be effectively modified to be safer and more efficient, Pointed
out that Banning gill-nets could encourage illegal activities which can be more
detrimental, Highlighted new technology that reduces bycatch, Well-developed social
impact argument, Well practiced and well executed, PowerPoint slides and references
provided for judges.
Cons: Some points were discussed quickly, Some information was read directly from
slide, rebuttal was not strong enough.
Verdict
The teams were judged on presentation skills, PowerPoint effectiveness, use of appropriate data/
references, logical and succinct argument, and strength of rebuttal. The judges’ decided that the
group arguing in favor of gill nets (Save the Gillnets) presented a better organized argument and
provided compelling evidence supporting the use of gill nets in North Carolina. Therefore, we
rule in favor of continuing the use of gill nets in North Carolina. In conclusion, this was tough
debate to judge with both teams making excellent points.