Thread: SURPRISED AT THE VOTING BOOTH TODAY!!!

Originally Posted by brhunt

It clearly says "traditional methods" which includes destructive commercial gear. It will protect this gear. If this wasn't the agenda, then why would the language be re-written to remove the exception of commercial gear from protection? This amendment was first written to exclude destructive commercial gear form traditional methods. Way too vague to get my vote knowing what is going on down east! And I've attended meetings and had front row seats to some of it as well and I can say that the current direction of things (including this) is not resource friendly!

I respectfully disagree. There is no reason to consider "commercial gear"... traditional methods. I would never make such a connection. Not in a million years.

I don't know that the exception was removed. Can you point me to it? I'd like to see it. I haven't voted yet. I'll change my mind if I know that is what they are trying to do.

I know there has been some fighting at the coast over various things for a long time.

The language of the amendment still makes right subject to laws of the General Assembly.

Traditional and heritage is the industries platform to keep using this gear. So there actually is very good reason to consider commercial gear types, used for hundreds of years, traditional methods. A gill net is a traditional method of harvesting fish, therefore "could" be protected by this amendment.

All the info of original bills leading to this is out there and not hard to find. Lots of info and links on ncwaterman.

That's my issue with this amendment....it's too vague and can be used as a tool to both support good and support bad. To me, the risk outweigh any reward, so I'll vote No. I just encourage everyone to really do their homework on this one as well as on the politicians.

https://webservices.ncleg.net/ViewBi...77-ARI-136-V-1

Here's the link to the failed version that originally excluded commercial.

More info on the history of this bill Senate Bill 677 / SL 2018-96 (2017-2018 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly

Originally Posted by brhunt

https://webservices.ncleg.net/ViewBi...77-ARI-136-V-1

Here's the link to the failed version that originally excluded commercial.

More info on the history of this bill Senate Bill 677 / SL 2018-96 (2017-2018 Session) - North Carolina General Assembly

I appreciate the link!

Here is the failed langauge.

shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to public safety, trespass, property rights, eminent domain, or the regulation of commercial activities."

I appreacite the information. That makes me weary as well. ....

I like the idea of it but it seems they've had other motives..... I hate poltics.

Originally Posted by sundance

I respectfully disagree. There is no reason to consider "commercial gear"... traditional methods. I would never make such a connection. Not in a million years.

I don't know that the exception was removed. Can you point me to it? I'd like to see it. I haven't voted yet. I'll change my mind if I know that is what they are trying to do.

I know there has been some fighting at the coast over various things for a long time.

The language of the amendment still makes right subject to laws of the General Assembly.

Originally Posted by brhunt

Traditional and heritage is the industries platform to keep using this gear. So there actually is very good reason to consider commercial gear types, used for hundreds of years, traditional methods. A gill net is a traditional method of harvesting fish, therefore "could" be protected by this amendment.

All the info of original bills leading to this is out there and not hard to find. Lots of info and links on ncwaterman.

That's my issue with this amendment....it's too vague and can be used as a tool to both support good and support bad. To me, the risk outweigh any reward, so I'll vote No. I just encourage everyone to really do their homework on this one as well as on the politicians.

I found these comments posted online as follows: "What's interesting about the hunting and fishing amendment is that, if passed, the language of the newly recognized right would limit itself by making NC resident's ability to hunt and fish subject to statute and rule, both of which are subordinate to the state constitution."

I agree the amendment seems to say it would give people the right to use "traditional methods," to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife. I also agree the law does not define what traditional methods are.

The root of my confusion (and apparently that of others) comes from the statement that the constitution was originally supposed to limit lawmakers' leeway... and to not give them unlimited discretion to affect changes or tweaks of their own, which is exactly how this amendment struck me in the pit of my gut. It is extremely vague and apparently misleading to me... but as it is written on the ballot... the great majority of people will vote for it because of the harmless nature of the way it is stated itself. It remains that this amendment wreaks of political spin... at least to me.

Originally Posted by Special K

I agree the amendment seems to say it would give people the right to use "traditional methods," to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife. I also agree the law does not define what traditional methods are.

That's what threw the red flag for me. That these methods were defined in the original bill but later removed. Look at the history of the bill, there were a lot of things removed. This along with being exposed to the way things are happening on our coast tells me something's fishy about this amendment.

Hopefully I'm wrong as I expect this to pass with the way it's presented.

I already voted and I too had to ponder this amendment. When I look at other countries I see that the people in many of these countries do not have the right to hunt and fish. In many places the fish and game are property of the state and are used to create windfall profits from Trophey hunters and fishermen. People must not take anything they enjoy doing for granted. If some lawmaker can see how to make big bucks (no pun) from our wildlife they may try to do it. We may have to fight to control some aspects of the wildlife while protecting our right to hunt and fish and take wildlife. I like the government telling me that a crappie in Jordan lake has to be 10". instead of telling me It is a government lake and I have to pay big bucks to catch a trophy fish. I already voted and I stand by my "yes". Good fishing everyone.

jigpuller - The big money in comm fishing got even bigger when the Canadian company Cooke Seafood bought Wanchese Fish (Daniels) a few years back. Cooke is the company that had the big escape of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific last year when their net pens collapsed. Originally they blamed it on tides due to the eclipse but then it came out that they were in disrepair. After that problems were found in other areas they operate them too. Some say they were behind the push for single individuals being able to lease up to 300 acres of bottom for oyster farming last spring. The key thing is those leases would be of public bottom where you and I could fish for trout flounder or whatever today but not if it was leased. Usually these are in shallower water near the banks vs in the open Pamlico Sound.

We all need to be careful at the polls. But we all need to vote!

Originally Posted by trypman1

We all need to be careful at the polls. But we all need to vote!

You said a mouthful there trypman1.