Jump to content

2008 public hearings

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_nativecollector_*

  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:15 AM

I will be attending the public hearing in Edenton on Jan 22nd, 2008 for the newly proposed hunting, fishing, and trapping laws. My purpose for attending is mainly for the trapping regulations changes, but while I am attending I would be willing to represent the NANFA org as well as my own personal interest in any of the following regulation changes. If I disagree with the NANFA members on one of the subjects I will not speak on behalf of my self or the org, this way I will not cause any conflict. I really dont see that happening but in case of a disagreement it is best that I dont say anything one way or the other.

You can find the entire proposal booklet at the following address.

With all that said here are the points of interest that I see NANFA being most interested in.

N36. Clarify language in the current collection license regulation to specify
that an individual can collect less than five reptiles and less than 25 amphibians
without a license ANNUALLY. Also, set a limit on the number of snapping
turtles a licensed individual can collect within a calendar year to 100 turtles,
but no more than 10 per day. Apply these same limits to mud and musk turtles
(10/day, 100/year).
Justification: This regulation change will allow people with collection licenses
to continue to collect the above turtles without allowing for largescale
commercial exploitation.

N37. Add these animals to the state’s list of federally endangered species:
• James spinymussel (freshwater mussel)
• Tan riffleshell (freshwater mussel)
• Roanoke logperch (fish)
Justification: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has declared these
species to be endangered. North Carolina state law requires the Commission
to recognize all federally endangered species that occur in our state.

N38. Add these animals to the list of state-endangered species:
• Bennett’s Mill Cave water slater (freshwater crustacean)
• Robust redhorse (fish)
Justification: Bennett’s Mill Cave water slater is extremely rare, known to
exist in two caves in the Carolinas. The Robust redhorse can no longer be
found in the entire Pee Dee River basin above Blewett Falls Dam and is exceedingly
rare in the main river below that dam. Since the initial capture of
a single specimen in 1985, no further captures occurred until 2000, despite
extensive surveys of the lower Pee Dee by Progress Energy biologists and
other agencies. The Robust redhorse is listed as Federal Species of Concern.

N39. Remove the Bridle shiner (fish) from the state’s list of special concern
species and add it to the list of state-endangered species.
Justification: The Bridle shiner is apparently declining throughout its
range from the Northeast through Virginia. It is exceedingly rare in North
and South Carolina.

N40. Remove the Cutlip minnow (fish) from the list of state-endangered
species and add it to the state’s list of special concern species.
Justification: Surveys reveal that the Cutlip minnow is common in most
of the Dan River and its tributaries. It is persisting well globally.

N41. Add these animals to the list of state-threatened species:
• Broad River stream crayfish (crayfish)
• Yancey sideswimmer (freshwater crustacean)
• Blackbanded darter (fish)
• Sicklefin redhorse (fish)
• Carolina redhorse (fish)
Justification: The Broad River stream crayfish is known only to streams
in the Broad River basin of North Carolina and is relatively rare. The
Yancey sideswimmer is also rare, known to exist only in Mount Mitchell
State Park in Yancey County. The Blackbanded darter is a peripheral
species that is now isolated from downstream populations in Georgia by
Lake Jocassee Reservoir and thus has no opportunity for recolonization if
it disappears in North Carolina. Both redhorses are relatively rare and
known to exist in only a portion of their former ranges.

N42. Remove the bald eagle from the list of federally threatened species and
add it to the list of state-threatened species.
Justification: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has removed the bald
eagle from its list of federally threatened species, but this bird is still relatively
rare in North Carolina.

N43. Remove these animals from the state’s special concern list and add them
to the list of state-threatened species:
• Carolina madtom (fish)
• Turquoise darter (fish)
Justification: Available research shows the Carolina madtom to occur in
only about half its historic range. The Turquoise darter also has a limited
range and is isolated from other populations.

N44. Remove these animals from the list of state-threatened species and add
them to the state’s special concern list:
• Freshwater drum (fish)
• Striped shiner (fish)
Justification: The Freshwater drum is currently listed as threatened in
the state based on its limited occurrence in the French Broad River. However,
because populations occur in that river and Douglas Reservoir just
downstream in Tennessee, there should be continuous communication
with a source population and ample opportunity for immigration into the
North Carolina portion of the river. The Striped shiner is also currently
listed as threatened in the state, based on its limited occurrence. However,
contiguous populations occur immediately downstream of this area in
tributaries to the Nolichucky River in Tennessee, which provide opportunities
for eventual recolonization or restocking. Globally, this species is
abundant and relatively stable.

N45. Add the following animals to the state’s list of special concern species:
• American oystercatcher (bird)
• Black rail (bird)
• Cerulean warbler (bird)
• Golden-winged warbler (bird)
• Henslow’s sparrow (bird)
• Least bittern (bird)
• Painted bunting (bird)
• Vesper sparrow (bird)
• Wilson’s plover (bird)
• Carolina skistodiaptomus (freshwater crustacean)
• Carolina well diacyclops (freshwater crustacean)
• Graceful clam shrimp (freshwater shrimp)
• Blue Ridge sculpin (fish)
• Buxton Woods white-footed mouse (mammal)
• Coleman’s oldfield mouse (mammal)
• Eastern big-eared bat (mammal)
• Florida yellow bat (mammal)
Justification: The populations of the American oystercatcher, Cerulean warbler,
Golden-winged warbler, Henslow’s sparrow, Painted bunting and Wilson’s
plover are all in decline in North Carolina, primarily due to loss or alteration of
habitat. The populations of Black rails, Least bitterns and Vesper sparrows are
poorly understood in North Carolina. These three bird species are rare and
probably affected by the same habitat issues as the other listed birds.
The Carolina skistodiaptomus, Carolina well diacyclops and Graceful
clam shrimp are all very restricted in their ranges and susceptible to
changes in water quality and quantity.
The Blue Ridge sculpin has a very limited occurrence in North Carolina,
but it does have access to potential upriver source populations in adjacent
The Buxton white-footed mouse lives in a small region of the state that is
impacted by rapid development. Coleman’s oldfield mouse is relatively
rare and little is known about its distribution, relative abundance and natural
The Eastern big-eared bat and the Florida yellow bat are geographically
restricted to the eastern part of the state, but questions remain about their
relative abundance and overall distribution.

N46. Remove the following animals from the state’s list of special concern species:
• Black vulture (bird)
• Cooper’s hawk (bird)
• Keen’s bat (mammal)
• Southern Appalachian woodrat (mammal)
Justification: These species have stable or increasing populations and
satisfactory distribution.

N47. Rename some animals on the endangered, threatened and special concern
lists based upon new taxonomic information or other name changes that
have become accepted in the scientific community. A complete list is available
upon request.
Justification: As new information about a species becomes available,
sometimes it is necessary to change an animal’s scientific name. Also, the
scientific community occasionally changes the common name of an animal
to avoid confusion with another similar species. None of the name
changes the Commission is proposing will affect a species’ status or its
legal protection.

#2 Guest_nativecollector_*

  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:23 AM

Part 2

Other pages of interest are pages 6-9, these deal with game fish and some creel limits. I figured if you were interested in these you can take a look at the book. If you have trouble downloading it let me know and I will post the fishing regs part.

Please dont misunderstand me when I say I wll represent myself as well as NANFA. My intentions are to be at this hearing for the pruposes of certain trapping regs, I do however have interest in some of the changes that will be made to the fish regs as well. I will not make any commit on any subject dealing with the fish regs that there is a disagreement on. IF and only IF the main NANFA man says he would like for me to speak up on behalf of NANFA will I do that. Other wise any subject that is brought up that I plan to commit on and NANFA does not wish to commit on will be of my own personal views.

I really hate political hearings and meetings, they always seem to go all wrong but if someone don't go and try then it will be even worse later when something really needs to be done.

Pat (NC)

#3 Guest_fritz_*

  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2008 - 06:35 PM

I sent Pat a PM earlier today regarding this since I suspect that I may be the main NANFA guy he is referring to. Unlike what is occurring in NJ, these proposed changes in species listings by the WRC were well thought out and discussed by the advisory committee on fishes (of which I am a member). They are based on data and should not impact any of NANFA's members activities. I recommended that he make personal comments on any of the rules as he so chose. One rule he didn't mention was the moratorium on harvest of striped bass in the Cape Fear River due to poor spawning success and small population size. This one I take credit (blame?) for creating along with the district fisheries biologist for WRC. See, I'm even looking out for game fish.

#4 Guest_nativecollector_*

  • Guests

Posted 15 January 2008 - 08:28 PM

I got your pm and didn't get a chance to respond to it yet so count this as part of that response.

Some of my concerns are not with what is proposed but with what is not proposed. First let me mention that I am no political, regulation understanding, know it all. In other words im just joe smo to some extent.

What I would like to see is something that pertains to native fish keepers be it hobbist or research based. I know that the state allows (with a permit) research to be done on certain species, but it limits the hobbist to either becoming scientist or breaking some of the regs to keep certain species. The one thing that I am most interested in are the sun fish regulations. They do not seem to be broken down into indivudual species enough, there is more of a blanket over the sunfish and that doesn't allow certain ones to be taken by net or seine. (Again this is my understanding and remember what I said at the begining, well it applies here)

Fritz, I am sending you a pm and I would like to talk with you about some of these issues before I go to the meeting.

(off topic)
The main reason that I am going is for some of the trapping regs that are proposed. I am not happy with trapping season starting Nov 1, because that would end up with alot of deer dogs in traps. As it stands right now the trapping season starts Dec 15 which still has the possibility of having some dogs cought but not as many in a 15 day period versus the proposed 45 day period. I am both a hunter and a trapper but I am also a common sense person, and it dont make much sense to me to change the season just so it is easier for the game wardens to keep up with where the date line starts and ends. (ie you can trap on one side of the creek on one date but not the other side until later)

Ok thats enough stem blown off, not in a bad way just in a concerned way.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users