Commentary: CCA, GOP to blame for proposed license change

By on January 29, 2018

 Imagine you hold a state license in your profession, say as a general contractor.

Then you start a side business that takes off. Maybe it’s a restaurant or a consulting business. Soon, it accounts for more than half of your income.

And while you’re working harder than ever before, your financial situation has improved: Paying all the monthly bills with money left over, better educational opportunities for your children, or buying a bigger home with space for a growing family.

At the same time, your original business continues to thrive while providing a valuable service and an irreplaceable part the family income.

Then the State of North Carolina comes knocking, demands to audit your financial records and informs you that since you no longer earn more than 50 percent of your income from your “licensed” profession, you are no longer a general contractor.

Sound absurd? I thought so too.

The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission is going to consider just such a proposal at its meeting in Wrightsville Beach in February under the seemingly benign guise of “redefining a commercial fisherman.”

The proposed definition would require standard commercial license holders to earn at least 50 percent of his or her income from commercial fishing, make $10,000 or more a year in fish sold, and also turn in 36 or more Trip Tickets per year.

As absurd as it sounds, the proposal was not surprising.

A three-person committee selected from the nine-member commission came up with the new definition and less than 30 minutes into their Jan. 11 meeting approved sending it to the full panel for discussion.

Critics say the swiftness and lack of input from interested parties during the panel’s deliberations led them to believe the committee had come together with a predetermined outcome and had hoped to push the measure through with little notice from the commercial fishing community.

Corbett

What was surprising was that committee member and Marine Fisheries Commission chairman, Sammy Corbett, supported the proposal.

Corbett represents one of three seats on the commission that are reserved for commercial interests, one of two sides set up by statute to regulate the state’s fisheries, with the other side comprising recreational interests.

Thanks in huge part to appointments made by Republican former Gov. Pat McCrory to the commission, the recreational side lays claim to not only their three reserved seats, but one of the at-large spots.

Before the other recreational seat was vacated, it too was held by a member who consistently sided with the recreational side.

One seat assigned to the scientific community had also turned into a fairly reliable recreational vote, and despite meaning the commission had a 5-to-3 recreational fishing majority.

Editor’s note: Gov. Roy Cooper’s appointment of Cameron Boltes to the vacant recreational seat, and Pete Kornegay as the new scientific-community member were just finalized on Jan. 24.

Corbett seemed to back arguments that the new definitions were needed to eliminate commercial fishing licenses held by recreational anglers who used the licenses to skirt catch limits.

They also cited that out of almost 7,000 licensed commercial fishermen, only 2,973 actually sold their catch last year.

Additionally, supporters of the measure cited reports that high-end recreational boats were outfitted with commercial-grade gear because the owners held commercial licenses, another sign that licenses were being abused.

Of course, none of these criticisms were supported by data that revealed that those 4,000 commercial fishermen were recreational anglers in disguise, nor was any evidence offered to demonstrate stealth commercial fishing boats were out there pretending to be recreational charters.

All of this focus on the new measure being designed to help commercial fishermen by purging rule-abusing recreational anglers provided perfect cover for the group that, as Dare County commissioner Jim Tobin noted, was really behind the proposed rule change.

The Coastal Conservation Association.

The CCA, using its national and state organizations, has been relentless over four decades in persuading state legislatures and marine fisheries commissions all over the country to ban certain species from commercial harvest, eliminate the use of traditional fishing methods such as net trawls and pound nets, place onerous catch limits on commercially targeted species, as well as burying commercial fishermen under a bevy of regulatory closures, gear restrictions, enforcement monitoring and paperwork.

Laughridge

And the presence of former CCA board member Chuck Laughridge on the committee is reason enough to doubt this proposal can’t possibly be in the interests of the commercial industry since Laughridge has never made his dislike of commercial fishing a secret — before or after his appointment to the MFC.

Thus, his support of the rule change should raise concerns throughout the commercial industry.

But when all is said and done, Dare County Commissioner Jim Tobin’s recollection of his own commercial fishing career is the most telling.

Tobin, who has held a commercial fishing license for the last 15 years, described two major problems he had with the new proposal at the Dare commissioners meeting in mid-January.

“I don’t fit into any of these categories,” Tobin said. “It says 36 Trip Tickets. I fish pound nets for flounder. It’s about a six-month job to get flounder nets prepared and set and you got three months of fishing and you fish two days a week because you let them sit for several days before you fish them.

“I don’t believe in any year I would have made 36 Trip Tickets,” Tobin said. “With that said, in a good year, we’re making $75,000 to $100,000 a year.”

“In a bad year, when there’s hurricanes, we make less than $10,000 because our nets are torn up.”

So much for using Trip Tickets or the $10,000 minimum as a means to identify recreational anglers hiding behind a commercial license to abuse the system.

But what Tobin said next was even more telling.

“I also have a real problem with 50 percent of the income,” Tobin said. “This is basically telling you that you cannot be a commercial fisherman and go out and have other businesses and other jobs.”

Tobin

“In my first year (of fishing) I went out and inspected nuclear power plants and I owned a garden center. I made more money doing that than I did from my first year of commercial fishing,” Tobin said.

“It’s un-American to tell someone they cannot go out and provide and work hard for their family and not qualify to be a commercial fisherman,” Tobin said. “This is horrible.”

“This is brought to you by the same people who brought you House Bill 867. It’s the CCA. It’s Chuck Laughridge and its horrible. I totally oppose this bill.”

Tobin is right.

And as a Republican, I suspect Tobin is upset at his party’s former governor, the GOP-controlled state legislature, and other Republicans who have allowed the CCA to get into their pockets, take control of the MFC, and destroy the livelihood of so many people.

There is not one shred of economic or scientific evidence commercial fishing has cost the recreational industry in North Carolina a dollar of revenue or a single job.

There has never been any scientific evidence offered that commercial fishing is harming the state’s fish stocks any more than the damage that may or may not be caused by recreational anglers to those same stocks.

And the Republican Party has always said they were about free enterprise, the working man and woman and how small business is the backbone of our economy. The GOP opposes regulations they claim overburden small businesses. They are wary of environmental science they feel is flawed and deployed primarily to harm business interests and serve political agendas of the “other” side — the political left.

Yet, over the past six years, the GOP has lived up to a different stereotype.

The party has always fought the image of catering to big business and the wealthy and nothing speaks to that stereotype than the CCA.

The group was founded in Texas by oil money and representing not the weekend angler, but those with wallets large enough to donate under the radar (the CCA never runs its political donations under its PAC in North Carolina), and boats big enough to require marina dockage.

Under the Democrats, the CCA made significant in-roads into the General Assembly and the Marine Fisheries Commission.

When the GOP and McCrory arrived, local commercial fishermen, who have long-supported Republicans, felt the pendulum would swing their way.

They’ve been disappointed in a major way.

The GOP-controlled General Assembly has been extremely CCA friendly, as was Gov. McCrory.

While our local representatives, Sen. Bill Cook, R-Chocowinity, and Rep. Beverly Boswell R-Kill Devil Hills, as well as Boswell’s predecessor former Rep. Paul Tine, I-Nags Head, have fought hard against the CCA, they’ve had to fight even harder against their own party in trying to protect commercial fishing from the CCA.

Even the Republican-leaning N.C. Chamber of Commerce has been conned into supporting the CCA’s agenda.

The state Republican Party wasted time repealing a plastic bag ban that cost no jobs locally and amounted to a rounding error on the profits of local chain grocery stores because of the alleged harm and regulatory burden it placed on the helpless likes of WalMart and Food Lion.

One has to now question why they are aiding a different self-described environmental group to destroy a business that has an estimated value of $25 million annually to Dare County’s economy alone and supports entire communities such as Wanchese and Stumpy Point.

It’s time for all us, and the majority party, to stand up to these privileged bullies who want to keep a resource that benefits us all, including consumers, all to themselves.

Recent posts in this category

Recent posts in this category

Comments

  • Cliff Claven

    Sounds like the CCA is trying to keep fisherman in business for years by keeping a healthy fish population.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 5:57 am
  • Carter McKay

    Commercial fishermen beware of Bob Steinberg!

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 6:37 am
  • Bud

    Why do these corrupt agencies do this to us?

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 6:54 am
  • glenwood montgomery

    The 3 commercial fishing commissioners on our MFC are there to help manage our Fishery in NC. They are also there to make sure that commercials have a voice in the rule making. Have never known one commercial on the MFC that wanted to do harm to our recreational fishermen unlike some of the CCA appointed commissioners that simply hate most of the fishing gear that commercials have used for ages thus putting many of them out of a job. Do not know why our governors appoint these type of individuals to this regulatory commission who’s primary intent is to get rid of most of our commercials but its has been done and should be stopped. Hopefully with enough public outcry this can be stopped but its going to take involvement from those that love to eat fresh seafood. This will also affect other fisheries besides gill netter, shrimpers and pound netters. An individual that oysters cannot make a living by just oystering a few months out of the year. many crabbers often do other things to help supplement their crabbing income. Many folk that clam also depend on other fisheries to help them make a living. The bottom line is that when you takes away our commercial fishermen’s option to participate in several different fisheries you are very likely going to put many of them out of work. Which is exactly what the CCA wants to do. Just look at their track records in Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and several other States. They are not in business to help the small full time commercial fishermen at all.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 9:26 am
  • David Sneed

    People might be more inclined to believe your story if you took the time to get the basic facts right: the At-Large seats on the MFC are currently held by Mark Gorges and Brad Koury. The seat that was open since Joe Shute resigned at the end of his second term on June 30, 2017 was the Recreational Industry seat. This information is easy to find on the DMF website. No need to let the facts get in the way of a good story though…

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 9:36 am
  • Sam Walker

    Thanks for the input David. We have made a note about the appointments to the commission to the vacant recreation and science seats that were just approved.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 1:35 pm
  • ted midgett

    Sammy Corbett….TRAITOR…..put him in the same basket with Laughredge….shake em up…..pour em out….what do you get? Nothing more than a turd! No apologies!

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 9:57 am
  • George Hayduke

    “There has never been any scientific evidence offered that commercial fishing is harming the state’s fish stocks any more than the damage that may or may not be caused by recreational anglers to those same stocks.”

    This is total B.S. Refusing to acknowledge evidence does not mean it is not there. Good job of helping keep the wool over our eyes. Seems REAL commercial fishermen would welcome a regulatory change defining/focusing their profession.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 11:08 am
  • oliver blackwell

    Back in the Day, 70’s, you could buy a commercial license for $15. When the Fish would start their run [spot,trout,bluefish] set your net, pull it, get to the market 1st, make the hustle. I think that is what the intent of the law or spirit is trying to prevent, help the man who makes his living on the water.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 11:47 am
  • Acumen

    Knowing person’s with Commercial Licenses that brag about keeping more while recreational fishing just because of their Commercial License offers me to applaud the move.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 12:54 pm
  • Opal Beasley

    Please leave the commercial fishing license requirements as they are. Having to earn 50% of your income from commercial fishing? If someone is lucky enough to clear (after expenses like, fuel, bait, gear, replacing engines, boats and paying helpers) $10,00.00 from fishing and have to work elsewhere to support their family do you really want them to have to stop working when $10,000.00 is reached to keep the ratio balanced, so not to lose their license? Who can support a family with that amount? Not all commercial fishermen make a lot of money, should they be punished? Not every commercial fisherman uses the same kind of gear or amount of it, health and ability also limits the income. What if a license holder is fishing with his friend who is a license holder and selling under one number, does the helper not qualify because of it? A commercial fisherman to be required to sell seafood at least 36 times a year? Are you going to require that recreational fishermen fish a certain amount of times a year? No transfers or assignments? They do not put more gear in the water or more licenses issued. Health, family issues, taking care of an ill family member and finances are just a few reasons that someone may not use their license for more than 3 years in a row. Are you going to pry into someones private life to the point that doctors notes, notarized statements or lawyers are needed to keep the license? Anyone concerned with the dollar amount claimed on someones’ income taxes should contact NC Department of Revenue. If someone is breaking a law let the Marine Fisheries take care of them. Why make it harder on commercial fishermen because you suspect someone is breaking a law?

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 6:26 pm
  • Otterdog

    When I was a kid in the 60s, I could catch a spot, whiting, or black drum on almost every cast in the surf, or from the pier. No more. No more fall spot runs. Decades of inshore netting in NC have destroyed our fishermans paradise. Other states have fish. We are the only state that hasn’t banned this destructive activity. My grandkids will never know how bountiful the fishing was in NC, or still could be. We wiped out the buffalo. We have done the same our NC fishing resource.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 8:40 pm
  • THOMAS E

    Used to be that fishing off our ICW dock, you might get 5 or more keeper flounder in an afternoon. That was before the netting ban was lifted. Last year, we didn’t get 5 keepers the whole summer, consistent with the past two summers. Guests to the house used to love to fish off the dock. No longer. Just a waste of time. I can appreciate people’s need to make a living, but let’s be real, the Flounder population has been decimated.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 11:01 pm
  • BuddyRoe

    When I was a kid in the 60’s we used to ride our bicycles down to the ferry and ride across to the island. There was five buildings on the this end of the island then, two of them were at the Coast Guard station. In the 90’s there were excess of 20,000 commercial fishermen and now there are just over 2,000, do the math on that one.

    Tuesday, Jan 30 @ 11:25 pm
  • Marc Mitchum

    Pesticides, herbicides, and just everyday runoff from highways, this is what is wrong with our fisheries. You cannot kill weeds and bugs and not kill marine life. Very easy to blame the commercial fisherman, when the real issue is pollution that flows into our estuaries. It is much easier to go after the commercial fisherman than the big money involved with herbicides and pesticides. If you want fish quit destroying our wetlands.

    Wednesday, Jan 31 @ 9:17 am
  • Bill Gorham

    I think current events have shown both sides need to step back and reassess what’s going on here. The lobbyist are not the ones who are going to loose anything. The problem is the user conflict, no one has anymore right than the next. I am disgusted with the inability to separate the who and what with out painting a broad brush. I find the attempt the mask the truth by some organizations distasteful, if what your doing is justified NOTHING or NO ONE should have to be mislead. The children and Grand children of North Carolina deserve better. With the major proposals coming BOTH sides shoud have worked to insure Dare County had a seat at the table, if it’s about the resource then you make damn sure the regulatory process is as creditable a possible.

    Wednesday, Jan 31 @ 9:55 am
  • Ray Brown

    Numerous licenses issued by the state or federal government giving permission to operate require knowing personal information about the individual or require the individual to divulge personal information to operate.

    Have you bought an IRA lately? If so, you know the person or the entity selling it to you has to divulge exactly how much money they make on that transaction. If they are caught not revealing that information; they lose their license.

    As far as the individual that owns a commercial fishing license now; let me ask you this. When the state changes the rules, why not allow a current license holder to be able to renew that license as “in active” in any year going forward they wish for a reduced fee…..say $100. During that year they can’t use the license or commercial gear or when they fish they must fish under recreational rules with a recreational license. The commercial license would indeed by “in active”, but the individual could hold on to it and down the road could renew it as “active” in any year he or she wished under the rules of an active license at that time.

    That would only apply to people who have one now. They could sell it, but only to someone who makes it “active” upon receipt. The state has never intended to have thousands of inactive licenses out there.

    You could give it to a family member or will it to a family member at death. I think that would be fair, but whomever gets it would have to use it as “active”. The ability to renew it year to year as “active” or “inactive” would only go to license holders of the date of the rule change, in the same way lifetime fishing and hunting license holders between the age of 65 and 70 were not affected when the state moved the minimum age to buy a lifetime hunting and fishing license to age 70, but anyone who did not own one then had to wait until age 70 to buy one.

    I suspect the state is more than willing to work with current license holders on some aspects of this, but make no mistake, the state wants to know what is license is harvesting and also to protect the true commercial industry from those who would abuse the privilege for a few dollars on or off the books.

    Do you have any idea how many folks who set nets haul fish inland and try to sell direct to restaurant that lie between their home far to the west and the coast? More than you would imagine. They have a commercial fishing license, but that’s it, they have no respect for the resource and since they are trying to sell off the books they have no respect for the system or the folks who are trying to do it right.

    We don’t have as many fish as we once did. Science proves that, and the state of NC has acknowledged that. People fishing for themselves and for their own food have first priority over people fishing for a profit. That is the whole principal of a public trust resource. So we must manage for the front of the line first, and make absolutely sure that the folks who claim to be doing nothing or fishing for their own family are treated equally and not allow any of them to portray themselves as something they are not.

    I hear you. If you want the state to give you a way to hold on to your license that you own now during years you don’t intend to use them then I am willing to ask the state to let you do that at a price lower than one where you are using it. I’m taking you at your word that is what you are wanting to do, but if anyone who renews as “inactive” and is caught using commercial gear or has limits beyond a recreational one then the law needs to automatically take that commercial license away immediately. A simple understanding of use.

    But since you own it now, you can renew it the rest of your life each year as “active” or “inactive”, on a year to year basis.

    But wait, you might ask what happens if I declare “inactive” and then I want to use it that year. Fine, you go back to the DMF and change your declaration for that year from “inactive” to “active” and pay the normal cost of an “active” license no matter how much time is left in the year. Yes, you pay a penalty, but you can do it. When you renew next year you will have to show that in the period of time you fished actively, that you met the pro rata minimums the state requires. In other words if you changed half way in the year then you’d have to meet half the definition required by the state.

    When you renew next year after making a change, you must renew as active. If at the end of that year, you have not met “active” requirements then the license is retired by the state.

    Again, for people who own a license now the state should listen and allow “inactive” or “active’ for those who honestly think they will one day switch over completely. This is their protection, but going from one to another year to year keeps people who want to do it full time from owning a license down the road.

    Either you are in the business or you are not long term and I still think Outer Banks Catch defined it best…..”the definition of commercial fishing is embodied in its name-harvesting fish and entering them into the State’s chain of commerce…..”

    If you aren’t using it within the definition of commercial fishing then you don’t meet the definition necessary to be a commercial fisherman because what you’d really be is one of those people in the front of the line who are supposed to get an equal share for their own consumption, but someone you got more using a permit designed for something else entirely.

    That’s neither American nor Patriotic…..that’s cheating the system that is designed to manage both the resource and the legitimate ways of fishing.

    Wednesday, Jan 31 @ 10:21 am
  • Greg Hamby

    I eat a lot of seafood..I buy it from my local independent Seafood Store who is supplied by Commercial Fishermen….Whether they fish part time or all the time doesnt matter to me. As long as the Commercial business strives to fish in a sustainable way, It should not matter how much one fishes commercially in any one year. Also, Our resturants are supplied by Commercial Fishermen, visitors whom I host at my Inn are very interested in dining on fresh NC Seafood during their visit to The Outer Banks. As long as an individual is duly licensed and obeys the rules why should they be prevented from also being in the recreational fishing business. There are catch limits there as well.

    Wednesday, Jan 31 @ 10:52 am
  • Ray Brown

    That is not the point Mr. Hamby. Commercial fishermen can indeed participate as recreational fishermen. No problem with that whatsoever. Every person needs a “Busman’s Holiday” on some occasion.

    But the issue at hand is the number of commercial fishermen who never sell a single thing on the books. Over half of all people holding a commercial fishing license in NC last year sold nothing on the books.

    That is what the state is trying to resolve and bring under compliance. A commercial license is not to be used to circumvent recreational rules. It is to be used for commercial purposes and like dozens of other state licenses if you don’t use them or engage in annual continuing education courses you lose the license.

    Also, the way the law is now in NC a person can sell their license to any other person without having the state declare the new holder qualified to hold one. Can you name any other license issued by the state of NC that you can sell yours to? To my knowledge every other license has to be bought by and show proof of eligibility to own by the buyer. Somehow commercial fishing licenses in NC are bought and sold like shovels on an open market. Don’t believe me? Go to Craig’s list in eastern NC right now and search for commercial fishing licenses and tell me what you find. I paused as I wrote this and sure enough, there are 5 currently for sale and all you need to buy one is money.

    Which brings up an interesting point. Can anyone, including the editor of this paper show me where what is going on with these sales is even legal. The law seems to indicate that they aren’t legal sales in NC, but somehow the DMF has allowed it. That reality is something else that is going to be, and needs to be discussed.

    This is not, and never has been, about stopping true commercial fishermen from working. It’s about people who are not commercial fishermen hiding what they are doing behind a commercial fishing license that is completely opposite of what the intent of the state of NC, and the people of NC agreed to allow under a commercial fishing license.

    And as most know, no motion is on the table, no proposal is up for a vote. The only thing at this point is a motion to consider the idea and to gather input from the public, but too many people and too many media participants are painting this as something concrete on the table. It is not and when the idea began in 2016 it was begun by a commercial fishing member of the MFC who saw the need because of who she saw bringing fish to her to sell. They were not people who in public would even call themselves commercial fishermen. The true commercial fishermen should be protected by the same law that gives them the legal right to operate. No more, no less!

    Wednesday, Jan 31 @ 3:43 pm
  • Russ Lay

    As was covered in a previous article, Mr. Brown, what you are citing is more of an enforcement issue than it is something requiring the legislature re-writing a statute that appears to be working just fine.

    First of all, the “state” isn’t trying to do anything here. The MFC can make this recommendation, but the “state”, as in the state legislature, will have to approve this change in definition, and I suspect, it won’t go far in that body.

    Second, if commercial fishermen felt these licenses were being abused, either by recreational anglers posing as commercial, or by non-commercial fishermen holding licenses and not using them, or worse, commercial fishermen selling them “like shovels” to non-qualified users who would compete and perhaps, through regulatory ignorance, violate rules and regs that would cast a dark shadow on the commercial industry, one might think the commercial side would have been the ones calling for this change and championing it.

    Instead, they seem to be rather vehemently opposed to the rule you seem to think would be helping them clear their ranks of unqualified imposters and abusers.

    As to the non-use of a license, some may be out of the business as a result of the myriad regulations, gear rules, and shortened seasons imposed upon them by the MFC and the federal government. I know a few like that who are holding out in the hope things loosen up in the future.

    And some are, like recreational anglers, part-time–which means they don’t fish every year, or would not qualify under any of the three limitations the proposed definition imposes.

    And yes, they don’t take qualifying tests for the license. Neither do recreational anglers. While there are slots, length limits, entire bans on certain species, creel limits, and even some “best practice” techniques that might be a good test question or two, I obtained my unlimited CRFL by merely forking over a few bucks at a tackle shop without demonstrating one iota of knowledge to the state that I was aware I can’t keep a palm-sized black drum in my cooler.

    So, instead of this idea of swatting a fly with a sledgehammer kind of proposed change, why not some enforcement on recreational fishermen posing as commercial, and perhaps some tweaks to better handle seemingly dormant licenses and sales of the same?

    Wednesday, Jan 31 @ 8:19 pm
  • Ray Brown

    This is absolutely not an enforcement issue. It is a fishery management issue. The MFC is charged with managing the resource and issuing licenses. And I know that the legislature authorizes the license and they will have to make the changes if any are made, but I also know that both Republicans and Democrats in the legislature have asked for advice from the MFC because those legislators see a need to change how and to whom we issue commercial licenses.

    Every person over the age of 16 in NC can buy a SCFL much like you and I did by forking over the money, no questions asked. We are all equal under that license and we all have the same rights under it to share equitably from a public trust resource.

    A commercial license is something else entirely. Under it a holder is granted permission to use the resource as a source of food to be offered to the public for a price. The amount, time, gear is is all decided by the government and the holder agrees that when they sell the state is notified of what and how much so managers can weigh the effects on the stocks.

    Over time the government realized it made a mistake. When it created a commercial license it didn’t mandate that it had to be used for commercial purposes as intended. That means all this gear the licenses allow can be used and any harvest not sold is never reported thus failing to be counted by the state.

    That is not an enforcement issue, that is an issue of management failure, because the system created, did not mandate that the license issued as a commercial license must be used exclusively to put marine resources in the commercial chain of NC. That failure has allowed people who have no intentions of selling fish to own a commercial license and enjoy the privilege that the state had only intended for people who actively and consistently put marine resources into the market subject to biological limits stated in each species. I don’t think I can be any clearer.

    But I wish to challenge you to educate us all. The state of NC allows only three reasons that I am aware of that allows a person to sell their commercial fishing license. I give you the floor to elaborate on those three reasons and then go to Craigslist and look at licenses that are currently offered for sale by private individuals. I would then ask you to weigh those offers to sell against the legitimate reasons one can sell in NC as defined by the NC legislature.

    If you will do that, I do feel you will realize this is truly a management issue because execution of existing law may not be applied as the legislature intended.

    I yield, and hope you will in fact finish the story with an honest investigation of all these licenses being sold and determine how reality and existing law may be begging for legislative reconsideration.

    Wednesday, Jan 31 @ 9:40 pm
  • Kevin Hall

    Who now a days in NC can make more than 50% consistently with all the rule and regulation changes they make on people. Sad time to be American. #UniteOrFail

    Thursday, Feb 1 @ 1:13 am