by John H. Snowden, III
Publisher
North Carolina House Bills 441 and 442 recently garnered significant attention due to proposed amendments that would ban inshore shrimp trawling and establish a compensation program for affected shrimpers. While HB 441 and HB 442 had different initial purposes, they became intertwined in a contentious debate over the future of the state’s commercial shrimp industry and coastal environmental protection.
House Bill 442: The Proposed Inshore Shrimp Trawling Ban
House Bill 442, initially titled “Restore Flounder/Red Snapper Season,” was designed to establish a four-year pilot program to restore recreational fishing seasons for flounder and red snapper in North Carolina waters. However, a significant amendment was added in the Senate, transforming it into a bill that would prohibit large-scale, inshore bottom shrimp trawling.
Key Provisions of the Amended HB 442:
- Ban on Inshore Trawling: The most impactful provision would outlaw shrimp trawling in North Carolina’s sounds and within a half-mile of the Atlantic Ocean coastline. This effectively would have made most of the state’s traditional inshore shrimping grounds off-limits.
- Environmental Protection Argument: Proponents of the ban, including the North Carolina Wildlife Federation (NCWF) and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), argued that inshore bottom trawling is a highly destructive fishing practice. They cited significant bycatch (unintended capture of non-target species), particularly juvenile fish (like flounder, spot, and croaker), and damage to crucial marine habitats such as seagrass meadows and oyster beds. Estimates suggested that for every pound of shrimp harvested, over four pounds of bycatch are wasted. They also highlighted that North Carolina is reportedly the only state on the Atlantic or Gulf Coast that still allows widespread inshore trawling.
- Impact on Fisheries: Supporters claimed that the ban was necessary to protect and restore declining fish populations, thereby promoting the long-term health of coastal fisheries and the broader ecosystem.
- Economic Impact Concerns: Opponents, primarily commercial shrimpers and coastal community representatives, argued that the ban would be devastating to their livelihoods and the state’s seafood industry. They claimed that approximately 75-80% of North Carolina’s shrimp are caught in the inshore waters that would be subject to the ban. Many shrimping vessels are not suited for offshore trawling, and moving farther out could mean significantly longer and more expensive trips, potentially making their operations economically unviable. In 2023, North Carolina’s shrimpers hauled in 6.5 million pounds of shrimp, valued at $14.1 million. The ban was seen as a threat to this vital industry and the coastal economies dependent on it.
- Current Status: Despite passing the Senate with a strong vote (39-2 or 41-4 in different reports), the House Republicans decided on June 25, 2025, not to advance HB 442 in the current legislative session. This decision was met with relief by shrimpers who had actively lobbied against the bill, staging protests at the Legislative Building in Raleigh. While the bill is stalled for now, the issue of inshore trawling remains a contentious topic, and it could be revisited in future sessions.
House Bill 441: Proposed Compensation to Shrimpers
House Bill 441 was originally a bill to designate the loggerhead sea turtle as North Carolina’s official saltwater reptile. However, it was significantly amended to become a companion bill to HB 442, outlining a compensation program for commercial shrimpers who would be impacted by the proposed trawling ban.
Key Provisions of the Amended HB 441:
- Shrimp Trawling Transition Program: This bill aimed to establish a temporary payment plan to provide financial relief to commercial fishing license holders who had been trawling between January 1, 2023, and June 30, 2025.
- Duration of Payments: The program proposed annual payments for three years, ending in October 2028, to help shrimpers adjust to the new regulations and potential loss of income.
- Funding Mechanism: The bill also proposed raising fees for commercial licenses to help fund these transitional payments.
- Contingency: Crucially, the implementation of HB 441’s compensation program was contingent on the passage of the shrimp trawling ban outlined in HB 442.
Current Status:
Since the North Carolina House decided not to advance the inshore trawling ban in HB 442, the companion legislation (HB 441) outlining the compensation program for shrimpers also will not move forward in this session. Shrimpers, however, had expressed that they prefer to continue their livelihoods rather than receive compensation payments.
In summary, HB 442 and HB 441 represented a legislative effort to address concerns about the environmental impact of inshore shrimp trawling while also attempting to mitigate the economic repercussions on the shrimping industry. The recent decision by the House to stall HB 442 means that, for now, the proposed ban and the associated compensation program will not become law. However, the debate over sustainable fishing practices and the economic viability of traditional fisheries in North Carolina is likely to continue.
