North Carolina’s shrimp industry faces a potential crackdown, as state senators pushed forward a bill on June 17 with a controversial amendment banning shrimp trawling within a half mile of the shoreline and inshore waters.
House Bill 442 passed the House in May, aiming to expand recreational flounder and red snapper fishing. However, during a Tuesday morning meeting, legislators in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Energy, and Environment added the last-minute shrimp amendment, prohibiting trawling in coastal fishing waters and within one-half mile of the shoreline, effective Dec. 1, 2025.
Sen. David Craven, R-Randolph, who introduced the amendment, said an estimated 4 pounds of “bycatch,” meaning species that were inadvertently brought in, were caught per pound of shrimp.
“Which is a lot of other species of fish that are getting caught in the net, potentially dying,” said Craven. “This has been an issue for quite some time, and I think it’s time this body addressed it.”
Supporters of the amendment argued it aligns North Carolina with South Carolina and Virginia, reducing bycatch and protecting estuarine habitats.
The bill proposes a recreational fishing season for flounder of not less than six weeks between May 15 and Nov. 15 annually, with a limit of one fish per person, per day. Similarly, a year-round red snapper season with a limit of two fish per person, per day, and a 20-inch size limit in state waters.
Rep. Frank Iler, R-Brunswick, one of the bill’s primary sponsors, told the committee that the recreational fishing industry has an economic impact of $2 billion. Similarly, the commercial industry has an economic impact of $200 million. One fisherman told Iler that he was tired of buying four fishing licenses to fish in other states.
Sen. Bobby Hanig, R-Currituck, raised several concerns about the amendment, including the need to wait for the results of a relevant pending lawsuit and not wait for a study commissioned in 2022 to address the issue. Haning asked what data was being used to support this amendment; he alleged that this amendment would put people out of work in the fishing industry, arguing that the amendment would completely shut down the industry. According to Hanig, 75% of the shrimp caught in North Carolina are caught where this amendment would be in effect.
Sen. Craven responded that no one is being put out of work; shrimp trawlers are allowed to continue their occupation as long as it is at least half a mile off the coast.
“Ladies and gentlemen, I urge you not to seek a ban on inshore shrimp trawling,” said Hanig. “This bill started out as a great step forward, one that restores reasonable access to flounder for both recreational and commercial fisheries. This bill comes from progress, cooperation, and long overdue relief from closures derived from flawed science and outdated rules that hurt both industries. Throwing in this trawling ban at the 23rd hour undermines the intent and spirit of the bill.”
Hanig attempted to introduce a substitute amendment during the agriculture meeting, but was prohibited. Senate Rules Chair Bill Rabon, R-Brunswick, said that according to Senate Rule 22, subject to Rule 19, substitute amendments are a floor maneuver, not a committee maneuver, and the committee chairman has sole discretion on what things are and are not allowed in committee.
Local shrimpers and business owners were present and slammed the amendment. They warned of the economic devastation that could come from the provision for small coastal communities.
Thomas Newman, a full-time commercial fisherman who also works part-time for the North Carolina Fishermen’s Association, called it a devastating blow to counties like Hyde and Pamlico, where 75% of the state’s shrimp are harvested inshore. He warned that smaller boats cannot safely trawl offshore, risking lives.
“Shrimping is the lifeblood of a lot of counties, mainland Dare, mainland Hyde, Beaufort, Pamlico, Craig, and Carteret. If you cut off this, you’re gonna cut off 75% of the shrimp we produce,” said Newman. “75% of the boats that harvest shrimp in this state are 50-foot or less. They cannot work ocean waters. They can’t safely do it. Some of them are gonna try, and some of them are gonna get hurt doing it. But you cannot do this. There’s no science. There’s no data behind it.”
Noting that the industry is a “shell” of what it once was, Newman argued that legislators should be rewarding and supporting the industry instead of penalizing it.
John Mallette, owner of Southern Breeze Seafood, said he was for the bill before the shrimp amendment was added. He explained that North Carolina’s rocky offshore bottoms make trawling half a mile offshore impractical and damaging to their nets.
“If we go over a half mile ashore, we’ll destroy all of our nets. The people that’s passing this know this,” said Mallette. “The bill is fine before you added the shrimp to it. This is really going to be devastating. And then there’s a reason why they did this in the 23rd hour at the last second.”
A lifetime resident of Hyde County, Earl Pugh, said the ban could end a multi-generational heritage, cripple local economies, and force reliance on imported seafood. He said the impacts will be felt by local restaurants and the tourist industry.
“If this ban on trawling and coastal waters passes, the commercial fishing industry in North Carolina cannot survive, which I believe is the intent of this amendment,” said Pugh. “I ask you to please not ban trawling in inshore waters. Remember, friends don’t let friends eat imported seafood.”
Several speakers also spoke in favor of the amendment on behalf of groups they were representing. Cameron Boltes, representing recreational anglers, cited a 2015 study showing 80% of trawl catches are bycatch. Chad Thomas of the North Carolina Marine and Estuary Foundation, said the ban could enhance 900,000 acres of critical inshore habitats, boosting fishery recovery.
The legislation advanced through the Senate Rules Committee and now heads to the Senate floor.