Casting for political clout 



It used to be that a fishing club was 

 a social club. Members gathered to 

 talk tackle, rods and reels and to swap 

 tall tales of fish caught — or almost 

 caught. 



Today's recreational fisherman is a 

 different breed. He's more likely to 

 talk of coastal habitat, nursery areas, 

 and access to salt water. He wants 

 tighter regulations on some species. He 

 wants a bigger say in policymaking 

 decisions. 



In the political arena, anglers are 

 demanding attention. Little wonder 

 folks are beginning to listen. Estimates 

 of the number of saltwater sport fisher- 

 men in the state range from 350,000 to 

 800,000. Whichever figure you choose, 

 the numbers add up to clout. (See 

 story, p. 2 for the economic value of 

 the sportfishing industry.) 



To add strength to their numbers, 

 sport fishermen are banding together. 

 They've found that even though 

 they're a diverse lot, they have com- 

 mon causes. 



In 1983, with the help of Sea Grant 

 marine recreation specialist Leon 

 Abbas, the N.C. Saltwater Fishing 

 Federation formed. Comprised of club 

 and individual memberships totaling 

 over 1,400 anglers, the federation is "a 

 voice for the recreational fisherman in 

 North Carolina," says Bob Stryker, 

 federation president. Through the 

 federation, recreational fishermen are 

 raising a unified voice. 



Frequently anglers' interests are at 

 odds with those of commercial fisher- 

 men. Often they fish for the same 

 species, but their motivations differ. 

 Anglers claim commercial fishermen 

 are overfishing stocks. The latter 

 protest they are only earning a living, 

 that recreational fishermen fish for 

 sport instead of income. 



Recreational fishermen claim the com- 

 mercial fishermen have had the advan- 

 tage of representation on policymaking 

 boards such as the N.C. Marine 

 Fisheries Commission. People like 

 Stryker would like to see more of their 

 own on the commission, representing 



the recreational interests. 



"Historically the recreational 

 fishery has never been recognized as an 

 economic factor," says Stryker. But as 

 recreational fishermen pump more 

 dollars into the state's economy, that 

 excuse has faltered. 



"I think the marine fisheries divi- 

 sion is beginning to realize that the 

 recreational fisherman is a viable, ac- 

 tive source of political pressure," he 

 says. 



N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries 

 Director Bob Mahood says, "We've 

 had an ongoing recreational program. 

 The artifical reef program has been the 

 main thrust of our efforts. . . . But 

 everything we've learned about finfish 

 pertains to the recreational as well as 

 the commercial catch." 



In the past, lack of money has been 

 the biggest limiting factor for 

 recreational fishery programs. But re- 

 cent legislation expanding the Dingell- 

 Johnson Act may change that. Enac- 

 ted in 1950, the bill allocated the 



"I think the marine 

 fisheries division is begin- 

 ning to reaUze that the 

 recreational fisherman is 

 a viable, active source of 

 political pressure." 



— Bob Stryker 



proceeds of a 10 percent federal excise 

 tax on certain items of fishing tackle 

 for state fisheries agencies. The funds 

 have been available to freshwater 

 fisheries for years and have been used 

 by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Com- 

 mission for projects such as inland 

 boat ramps. 



The latest bill expands the excise tax 

 to include additional taxes on fishing 

 equipment and makes funds available 

 specifically for saltwater projects. In 

 March, the division will hold a series of 

 public hearings to find out how anglers 

 want the money to be spent. The 

 meetings will be held on the coast as 

 well as in some inland cities since 

 that's where most of the recreational 

 fishermen live. (For a list of dates and 

 locations, see the "Back Page" section 

 of Coastwatch.) 



Mahood estimates the tax could 

 generate $100 million of new money 

 nationwide. For North Carolina, the 

 bill could mean as much as $200,000 to 



Continued on next pa^e 



