June 20, 2016 — In response to Ed Wall’s Outdoors column, “Fisheries should be managed for all, by all,” I offer the following comments.
Mr. Wall mischaracterized my position on the referendum when he wrote that “Jerry Schill…is particularly disturbed by the fact that HB 1122 would allow a referendum on the issue by the state’s voters in the upcoming election in November. He is apparently concerned about citizens all across the state would be allowed to voice their opinions about something that he feels should be controlled solely by persons — and their representatives — in the coastal counties.”
I never said such a thing. I do not favor an illegal action, and that is what it would be if the bill in question was passed as Rep. Billy Richardson suggests. It would be a statewide election on the November ballot, and if passed, would become law with no further action by the General Assembly. It smacks at the very heart of representative government! We elect our representatives and senators to go to Raleigh, debate the issues in a deliberative manner, and then vote. If they aren’t willing to make those tough decisions, they have no business in Raleigh. The legislature has the authority to enact a net ban in North Carolina. The legislature is made up of legislators from Manteo to Murphy, so the entire state is indeed being heard, meaning that fisheries are being managed by all. Maybe not to Mr. Wall’s liking, but certainly being managed by all.
On the subject of the net ban: Mr. Wall and others with the opinion that they are not against commercial fishermen but support a net ban for the benefit of all, are either being disingenuous, or suffer from a tremendous lack of knowledge of commercial fishing. So allow me to make it perfectly clear: if you favor a net ban, you favor the elimination of commercial fishing. Period. In addition, if you favor a net ban, you think it’s OK to decimate a lot of families and quite a few rural communities.