Moon Tillett: Inlet debate goes back 70 years

Moon Tillett is 82 years old and has the look of a man who has spent his life on the water. He gets around by aid of a cane but still moves with a sense of purpose. He retains the Wanchese patois, a localized accent that is fast becoming an endangered species.

On the day we visited, the fish house was virtually devoid of the hustle and bustle one might associate with the “good old days” of commercial fishing along the Outer Banks.

We sat down with the owner of Moon Tillett Fishing Co., as part our series on the history, politics, economics and future of Oregon Inlet.

Our interview began and ended on what can best be described as a wistful note.

The Voice: How long ago did discussions on keeping Oregon Inlet open first began?

Tillett: Back in 1938, Alvah Ward’s daddy came down here talking to my daddy and the other fishermen.  At that time he said something had to be done to try to get the inlet fixed and that was, I think, even before they dredged it the first time.  And that’s when we started and we have been fighting that thing ever since right on until we had the jetty authorized in 1970.

The Voice: So this has been going on for 73 years?

Tillett: Oh yeah.  And we had it all done in 1970 and everything was ready to go.

The Voice: What was the concern in the 1930’s? Commercial fishing?

Tillett: It was just starting (commercial fishing).  We had the small boats and what the boats did was work their way up in size until we got what we have today.  Back then there was mostly pound and long-netters.  Sometime around ’38, ’39 or ’40 we started shrimping in little boats.  Most of them went down to Hyde County, which was closer to where we were working, but we brought some home also.

About that time,  Malcolm (Daniels from the Wanchese Fish Co.)  was the main buyer and we just kept right on.  In the winter, we’d take these little boats and change them over and go flounder fishing, crabbing, oystering, whenever we could do.  There were lots of oysters then.  My daddy was an oysterman. He also ran a small store and in the spring we’d party fish.  We’d start in April then go back to winter fishing.

We kept getting bigger and bigger.  In 1965 I got my first big boat, a 65-footer.  The inlet had just been dredged and it was fairly good then and in 1970 it was authorized to be jettied.

The Voice: What happened next?

Tillett: All of the sudden the same outfits we talk about today, the same groups, the Audubon, Sierra Club, and Beach Buggy Association came out against the jetty.  The Park Service came in during the fifties and claimed they owned the inlet and still do.  There ain’t no way anyone can own the bottom.

The Voice: Did your company and the other commercial fishing companies make economic decisions to invest in more boats and fish houses based on that authorization?

Tillett: Of course we did.  That’s why we got the bigger boats.  And that was stopped for these environmental problems.

The Voice: In 2001 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) objected to an Army Corps study recommending a groin on the north side and an extended groin on the south side.  Their rationale was that the Corps used 1980 data when 234 trawlers worked the inlet while 1999-2001 data indicated the number of trawlers had decreased to 97.

The Voice Was the decrease in trawlers due to a decline in the fishery or the fishing industry, or the result of the inability of the Army Corps to maintain a serviceable channel for large trawlers?

Tillett: They weren’t keeping it dredged.  That’s why we wanted the jetty. We kept growing all the time, and they were supposed to keep the channel at around 14 to 16 feet.  The seafood park would have been a fishery instead of what it is to day.  That’s what it was billed for, and when it failed, it changed over and became what it is today.  When it was built it was built for the fishing industry (and the lack of a dredging or keeping the channel open) and that was the reason it didn’t succeed.

The Voice: If we had a 16-foot channel their how big with the fishery be today?

Tillett: It would be really big.  Of course right now we’ve got a drop-off.  We can’t get anything. We can’t get a boat in this ditch.  We’ve got one tide up we can get out.  This happens so often, some fishermen have quit rather than relocate and leave the area.  If the fishery was working with a dredge for a deep enough channel, it would more than triple the employment in the industry.

The Voice: We have heard stories that at one time congressman Walter Jones promised you get your groin.  Do you do you know anything about that story?

Tillett: We have this fishing association, and every year we would have a ball and invite one of them people (elected officials) to come down.  One time Walter Jones came down looked me straight in the eye in front of 300 people and said “Moon Tillett, if George bush wins this election you will get your jetty.  I guess that was the end of the jetty.  I will never forget that.”

Later, Senator John Edwards ordered another study, and when it was done, there was to be a simple vote — we either get a jetty or we don’t. We lost. But they promised to do extensive dredging in place of the jetty to keep the channel open for commercial fishing. They failed completely to keep that promise.

The Voice: As a member of the Waterways Commission, many plans have been presented for jetties.  Of those plans, which was your favorite?

Moon Tillett: I didn’t like none of the ones they had!  They kept changing because of concern for the fish larvae and spillover.  They were supposed to have a weir that would help the larvae and longer groins on both sides to keep the sand back and (and moving south also) and protect the larvae.

The Voice: Some have said that the proposed short bridge will help keep the channel open.  What are your thoughts?

Tillett: One of the proposals has three spans instead of one, which is the problem we now have.  You can go down the current bridge and get to 30 foot water but the larger boats can get there.  We can always get 4 to 6 foot water but we need at least 12 feet for the biggest boats and that would be sufficient.

But how do they know where to place the spans if there’s no jetty to hold (the channel) in place?  There’s plenty of water under the bridge now but currently it wants to move south.  With nothing to hold it there is no way to predict where the deep water will be even with three spans.

The Voice: Where are the commercial boats now?

Tillett:  I have one boat tied up in Virginia and the other is here.  That is one reason why Mikey (Daniels of Wanchese Fish Co.) has a place up there.  The only thing keeping them alive locally is that all of the little boats have moved to Hatteras Island and they have a place down there also. I don’t. I’ve stayed right here.

The Voice: What is the cost to business having to send boats to Virginia?

Tillett: its 70 miles from here to Cape Henry and then you still have to go up Chesapeake Bay.  Current regulations allow us to have 10,000 pounds of fish for two months and we might get $15,000 for that haul.  But (with the compressed time frame) everyone comes in at once and prices go down  Fuel is $3.60 a gallon; to make the roundtrip of over 100 miles you will use 2,000 gallons of fuel.  Add in your other costs, ice, labor and maintenance you can make a roundtrip and not make any money.  Since we catch most of the fish down here we could save over a third of our costs by not having to go to Virginia.

The Voice: What would be the best solution for Oregon Inlet?

Tillett: Politically we could have tried to tie the bridge and the jetty projects together.  But people were afraid we would lose the bridge if the jetty was included.  I understand that.  People have to get to Hatteras , it’s a big business now.

So I went down to talk to the Army Corps one time with a plan of using islands.  They did it down in Georgia.  Put one island where the groin is, then put another 2000 feet further down just like the Chesapeake Bay Bridge tunnel.  You wouldn’t need pilings, but you’d need a jetty to protect it.

It wouldn’t cost no more than other plans. Every study we’ve done on keeping the inlet open has come out to a positive cash flow.  It’s never shown a negative return, not one study.

The Voice: Where do you see the local commercial fishing industry and 10 years?

Tillett: I don’t think our commercial industry will be here in five years.  I don’t think it will make it.  Between the fishing regulations and the problem with the inlet I don’t think I will live to see this issue resolved.

Tillett ended on a somber note:

“It’s a hard swaller, everyone talks about it (the inlet) but I just don’t think we’ll make it for many more years.

Previous stories:
Oregon Inlet: Charting a treacherous channel »
Studying jetties brought dozens of laws into play »
Next: The recreational industry and its reliance on the inlet.

GO TO HOME PAGE »

---