Bad optics and bad politics with fisheries decision

Recently, a ruling was handed down in the Wake County courts that will likely have significant impact on the fishing culture and fishing heritage of coastal North Carolina. The Coastal Conservation Association of North Carolina (the plaintiffs) brought the lawsuit against the State of North Carolina asserting the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) has abdicated their responsibility to preserve the coastal fisheries resource. The case went to trial in January of this year, and the partial decision was issued recently on Aug. 17, 2026. We’re in the second phase of the decision now, the so-called “remedy stage.”

The underlying motive of the plaintiffs in bringing this suit is to ban all inshore, commercial-scale net fishing. Some of the people bringing this suit are the same ones who also tried to insert an inshore trawling ban into legislation back in the summer of 2025 — and almost succeeded. If it hadn’t been for the brave effort of hundreds of coastal fishermen descending on Raleigh for a days-long protest at the General Assembly, the ban would have certainly passed. This case is more of a slo-mo drama to accomplish not only a ban on inshore commercial trawling, but a total ban on gill netting as well.

The most shocking aspect of the case is the dismal performance of the NC Department of Justice (NCDOJ). With everything on the line for the future of coastal net fishing, the mighty NCDOJ looked like a no-name, mom and pop, tobacco plug law firm from the backside of some rural enclave. Despite abundant resources and virtually unlimited power, the NCDOJ apparently couldn’t be bothered to muster even so much as a minimal defense. The plaintiffs not only defeated the NCDOJ but used them to wipe the floor.

Based on the history of lawsuits targeting public policy, one cannot help but suspect that certain career bureaucrats within state government are motivated to work with environmentalist groups to defeat commercial fishing in this matter. After all, there is evidence that the previous attempt to ban inshore trawling originated within the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). So public was the NCWRC about this that they used the Coastal Recreational Fishing Licensee (CRFL: hook and line fishermen) email database to lobby the public to support the trawling ban. In addition, there was one particularly interesting witness testifying on behalf of the plaintiffs — former NCDMF director Dr. Louis Daniels.

According to court records, Daniels was part of the NCDMF for 21 years and ran NCDMF as director for nine of those 21 years. Maybe there is some kind of explanation, but it’s hard to believe that a former division director would testify that the organization HE WAS IN CHARGE OF mismanaged state resources during his tenure. Is this some kind of Jedi mind trick where we’re supposed to believe that he was just a spectator all that time? Why didn’t he take the steps, even heroic if required, to preserve the resource when he was in charge?

State employees strive for position but temper their actions to preserve their paychecks and pensions. For managers, their security is found in not just distributing the resource around like its candy in a Halloween parade; there are the bags of the special trick-or-treaters that have to be filled. And the politics are flipping away from pleasing the economic interest to pledging allegiance to the forces of radical environmentalism. Idealism is a much easier play when one isn’t constrained by the politics of the job in retirement. Not saying that Daniels did anything wrong, but the optics associated with him testifying for the plaintiffs are terrible.

And we may have seen this movie before. It goes like this: A cartel of government-academia-environmentalists pose as an issue-driven non-profit and sue the government. Infiltrated by individuals sympathetic to the issue, the government puts up a minimal defense and is defeated at trial. They then roll over and sign a consent agreement, binding the public to onerous terms of defeat (wink, wink). And like magic, we have a court decision that operates the same as “legislation,” created right out of thin air!

Question is, right or wrong, since we’re headed in that direction now, could such a decision run up against the General Assembly’s state constitutional authority? In the subject decision, the judge mentions that his authority comes from the first phrase of Article 1, Section 38 of the NC Constitution.

This states: “The right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife is a valued part of the State’s heritage and shall be forever preserved for the public good.”

The judge, however, (conveniently) fails to address the remainder. And you probably guessed it. The remaining portion of the paragraph he chose to ignore speaks to the wording where the people have the right to use “traditional methods” (inshore net fishing) “subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly.” Read that again. Any limitation on “traditional methods” has to come from “laws enacted by the General Assembly,” not from a decision of the court.

Granted, the state legislature is not the friendliest place to preserve coastal net fishing. However, the constitutional issue being set up has broad parallels to the 30-year constitutional crisis produced by the court decision known as Leandro. In a nutshell, Leandro made certain findings in regard to supposedly unconstitutional funding deficiencies in the state educational system.

Early court decisions demanded/ordered the legislature to pay a ridiculous sum in order to resolve these needs. The problem was, constitutionally, the General Assembly is the source of all revenue, and the separation of powers made the legislature immune to the demands of the court. Finally, this year, the NC Supreme Court acknowledged this and put Leandro out of its long and tired misery. Will the legislature let a potentially unconstitutional court decision stand in this matter? Looks like we’re about to see.

Because of the failure of the NCDOJ, the story told in this trial is completely slanted towards the plaintiff’s narrative. It is clear, however, that despite being given $40 million per year, for whatever reason, the NCDMF is incapable of doing what they are supposed to do. Because of the apparent legacy issues inherent with the political environment of state fisheries, it may be time for the General Assembly to consider reorganizing the entire agency. The solution, however, has to be much more nuanced than what the plaintiffs in this case are demanding.

Suddenly declaring vast geographical areas off limits to net fishing will be an enormous shock to the coastal area no one is prepared for. Giving the plaintiffs everything they are demanding will mean the loss of significant investments and far reaching financial, social, cultural, and heritage impacts, with potentially vast unintended consequences.

Despite what the plaintiffs in this case are pushing, there is middle ground for a solution that includes inshore net fishing in coastal North Carolina.

Nelson Paul worked as a field consultant for the NC Division of Coastal Management, and from there, as an environmental consultant.