pleblanc@breezenewspapers.com

Although it’s been more than 25 years since Florida voters approved a ban on gill and other “entagling” nets in state waters, some families are still experiencing the fallout each day. Denise Reppa is just one of those people.

“My husband Frank is a second generation commercial fisherman,” said Reppa. “We both fish commercially and we’ve been extremely diversified in the fisheries. Prior to the net limitation amendment,” she says, specifying that there really wasn’t a “ban,” despite most people calling it that.

“It limited our gear, and our sole source of income was derived from commercial fishing,” she said. “After the amendment, people were telling us to get jobs picking tomatoes or at McDonald’s. It’s affected every aspect of our life.”

Reppa said her children didn’t grow up going to daycare, instead they were always on one of their parents’ boats.

“They never saw the inside of a daycare center. It was a free life — it was a wonderful life,” said Reppa, admitting that even if they’d seen the change coming, neither she nor her husband would have changed one moment of the life they’d chosen in the commercial fishing industry.

“Since the net limitation we started blue crabbing,” said Reppa. “We turned our net boat into a boat for crabbing. When we started out, we had half the gear that most of the crabbers had.”

Reppa said due to the years of experience they’d gained on the water they knew exactly how to turn the situation around so that they could continue to make a living. “Knowledge of the fisheries and the natural environment allowed us to become diversified. From there we went to stone crabbing. We started out with a smaller vessel, but we went from that to a 40-foot vessel,” said Reppa.

Although the 2-inch mesh size of the nets was not originally a part of the amendment, after a short time, they were only allowed to use these 2-inch mesh nets. This resulted in a meeting among the fishermen in the hopes that together they would figure out a way to legally make a living.

Reppa said that was something they were able to achieve for a time, but the laws became more and more stringent, making it even more difficult for the fishermen to carve out a living for themselves, affecting everything about their lives.

Reppa can’t help but be reminded of days gone by, as this would have been the start of run season, she said.

“At one time, Pine Island had over 200 fishing families,” said Reppa. “Today you could probably count the number of net fishermen on your hands. This was a small fishing village, and even though fishing is very competitive, we were one.”

Reppa said it’s an industry that regulates itself naturally, weeding out those who can’t make it on the water without having to make any other limitations.

“If they didn’t have the knowledge and couldn’t catch a fish, they weren’t in it for very long. More people left than stayed.”

Prior to the amendment, Reppa recalls that there were over 200 applicable laws on nets alone.

“We couldn’t use anything less than a 3-inch mesh, because let’s face it, every net kills fish,” said Reppa. “Whether marketable fish or juvenile fish.”

She said the scientific data always supported the industry.

“Now it’s not based on science,” she said. “When they merged the freshwater with the saltwater, is when we lost due process — the ability to challenge any of the findings.” Although Reppa concedes that the original intentions of the amendment on the part of the voters may have been honorable, in reality, it severely limited the production of food in our country.

“This is a resource that belongs to everybody and we were a tool used to obtain this resource.”