SB668 House Committee action get ready to buy a federal permit. . .

[Tom Powers]

I don't know how this is going to turn out in the end but this is what happened. First off SB-688 would have brought VA into compliance with the federal requirement. For example it would have done away with the boat license, etc. which we have been over and over on this forum in the past.

It passed the Senate and today it was before the House Agriculture, Chesapeake, and Natural Resources. I thought that there might be some objections, requests for modificaitons, etc. . . . but. . . this is what happened.

First Senator Northam did a good job presenting the bill and answering the questions. Delegate Morgan read from a constituent letter that suggested the FIN program for Virginia and Senator Northam explained that this was one of the options that he presented earlier and pointed out the cost.

Delegate Ware introduced an amendment in the form of a substitution. I don't have the exact wording and will post it later but this is fundamentally what it does.

1. It does not change any of the existing licenses

2, It mandate that VMRC print on them something like the following on the back of all fishing licenses.

If you or your guests are fishing in federal waters or for anadromous species you are required to register with the federal registry. If you object to the federal registry contact your representative in Congress.

3. The bill then directs . . . Virginia enforcement officers NOT to enforce the federal registry. (I can't remember if that is to be printed on the license or not).

It was a drawn out process where there was a substitute motion (above submitted by Del. Ware) and a substitute for the substitute entered by Del. Lewis (think it was him) to pass the Senate version. Lewis' motion failed by like 12 to 8 and the above bill passed by 16 to 6 with one not present.

Anyway here is the vote for the substitute.

YEAS--Morgan, Cox, M.K., Sherwood, Ware, R.L., Wright, Scott, E.T., Marshall, D.W., Lohr, Poindexter, Pogge, Knight, Bell, Richard P., Edmunds, Shuler, Lewis, Englin--16.



NAYS--Orrock, Plum, Bulova, Sickles, James, Torian--6.


I still haven't figure out the legal aspects of a VMRC MPO who has sworn to enforce federal laws (so that they can work in the EEZ) can choose not to enforce this one. I still can't figure out the implications for our fisheries, allocations, etc. if we do not comply with this federal regulation due to lack of enforcment.

I do know that the Legislature does not do something to bring the license program into complance, that Virginias fishing in tidal waters (including many with freshwater licenses) who fish using techniques that might catch striped bass, shad or herring as well as those who fish in the EEZ will be required to pay between $15 and $25 for a federal number. That will total like $3,000,000 to 8,000,000 depending on how many there really are.

I am still confused as to how this has to move forward but it most certainly is goofed up. Actually I am not that confused as to the options I just am confused as to which is right.

[creekster]

I guess I'm just plain confused!! What is a "Federal Number" and why do i have to pay for it?? Or do I??? I did register with the Feds (it was free) --will this be enough to satisfy the bureaucrats? What's next--tatooed i.d. #'s for fishermen?

[Tom Powers]

Next year that registration will cost between $15 and $25 if the states license program does not comply with the federal guidelines.

You have to pay for it next year because the NOAA says if you want to fish in a manner where you MIGHT catch striped bass, herring or shad in tidal waters you MUST have a federal ID number. NOAA also says that this year it is free and next year it cost the $15 and $25.

[fish4fun]

I know I like my boat license, but can't they just make it simple.... and cheap!! Buying an individual license seems like the easy, and less expensive, way to comply... and I bet that we will be made to comply!!

[jrocket567]

We run the same risk that Omega runs if the GA doesnt do anything....Dept of Commerce will step in under the interstate commerce clause and either shut it down, or directly enforce it all. Or if nothing else, they'll cut off all of the federal fisheries money.

Since the bill was already passed by the senate, I doubt this will make it to law. There seem to be a few bills floating around this year that are designed to tick off Uncle Sam-- there is a firearms bill for guns/ammo made within Virginia, and as long as they stay in VA, they do not need to follow federal regulations, as well as a Obamacare killing bill.

[Tom Powers]

I agree that there is risk especially because amended bill as written would tell Virginia's enforcement staff not to enforce a federal rule.

The shame of it is that this requirement was actually put into place in 2006 or so when Bush was in office.

i.e. OK so let's bash the Obama for something that Bush did. . .

[Triumph190]

Thanks for the good information Tom. Keep us posted. But please don't get "Might Catch" confused with "fish For", they are not the same and NOAA is misquoting the law. Whether or not you agree with what he did, at least Delagate Ware got it right.

[Tom Powers]

So you are fishing for puppy drum. . . you catch a striped bass. . . you catch another striped bass. . . Last week when you were catching puppy drum in the same spot you were fishing for puppy drum this week you are fishing for striped bass. . .both using the same techniques. I don't know how they will interpret the rules.

Now I agree that if you are fishing blood worms on a bottom rig in the middle of the channel (i.e. fishing for spot) that you are not "fishing for" stripers but if you are casting plugs or drifting peeler crabs in open water or along a shore line trying to catch trout, puppy drum or large mouth bass for that matter, you have a reasonable likelihood of of catching striped bass.

Which law describes what it means to "fish for"? I would be curious to see the precise words. I will poke around some and see if I can find the federal definition.

I guess we have to agree that we disagree, I don't think that Delagate Ware got it right. It is wrong to tell law enforcement to ignore a law. If you don't like the law get it changed. What he did risks lots of things on lots of levels for Virginia saltwater fishermen. I for one, do not want to pay the federal registration fee.

[Tom Powers]

Below are the definitions. . . So back to the statement one could argue one way or the other that if you were casting a soft plastic or a hard lure or drifting a softshell crab or minnow under a bobber then you are angling for an striped bass. I say this because those are all methods that are used to catch striped bass even if you are targeting red drum or speckled trout.



What the law says is that if the man saw you reel in a striped bass, even if you threw, it back he certainly could write you a ticket if you did not have a federal registry number, no matter what you said you were angling "for" why because this one says OR CATCHING. The one for striped bass in the EEZ just says "fishing for" which is more difficult to prove than seeing you CATCH a striped bass.



So the law says

§ 600.1400 Definitions.
(b) Angler means a person who is angling (see 50 CFR 600.10).

From 50CFR600.1 --- Angling means fishing for, attempting to fish for, catching or attempting to catch fish by any person (angler) with a hook attached to a line that is hand-held or by rod and reel made for this purpose.

§ 600.1405 Angler registration.
(a) The requirements of this section apply to any person who does any of the following:

(1) Engages in angling or spearfishing for:
(i) Fish in the EEZ;
(ii) Anadromous species in any tidal waters;
(iii) Chinook salmon, coho salmon, pink salmon, sockeye salmon, chum salmon and Atlantic salmon in all waters except the Great Lakes and their tributaries and those waters which are landlocked, with no access to the ocean;
(iv) Continental Shelf fishery resources beyond the EEZ.

[Triumph190]

Tom,

The only part I was referring to when I said that Delagate Ware got it right was his statement about fishing in the EEZ and "fishing for" anadromous species. My fault for not clarifying that.

And as you have noted, legalese is very difficult to interpret. But consider that it states ""Angling or spearfishing for". Also consider that if they meant anyone who might catch a striper, then why didn't they simply say that anyone fishing in tidal waters must register without including the anadromous species qualifier. Since they didn't, they must have meant something more specific. As long as you keep throwing those stripers back, it's a matter of opinion (at least mine in this case) as to whether or not you were fishing for that species. Keep one, and it's prima facie evidence that you were. Yes, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do so respectfully.

[Tom Powers]

Yes it meant that they could not put a blanket law in place that covered fishing for local (i.e. not shared resource across federal waters) fish because they didn't have the authority. The feds do have the authority to regulation anadromous species directly.

The point is that the federal here is the exact words from the substitute bill. He attached the following to the "you have to buy a license" code section. He has number of things in this legislation are not consistent with the federal regulation. As I listed above the federal regulation says way more than just HARVEST striped bass, shad or anadromous speices. . . One could argue about "fishing for" but the federal definition does say "fishing for" OR "catch" so either one applies not both at the same time. If it was both then they would have said "and" in the definition.

Anyway here is what his amendment said. . . Oh and this would also mean that the MPOs can not enforce your HMS permits, I guess. . .


and shall be provided to a purchaser along with the following statement printed conspicuously on a separate form:

"WARNING: The federal government, through the National Marine Fisheries Service, has pressured the General Assembly of Virginia to discontinue certain exemptions to Virginia's fishing license laws. The exemptions Virginia is pressured to remove include the exemption for fishing off of a private dock and fishing from a recreational boat if such boat is already licensed. The General Assembly has declined to end such exemptions. As a result, any fisherman harvesting rockfish, shad, or other incidental anadromous species and any fisherman fishing more than three miles off the coast must obtain a separate federal license.

If you do not support this federal law, please contact your elected officials serving in the U.S. Congress.

Please be advised that no law-enforcement officer of the Commonwealth, including the Virginia Marine Police and conservation police officers, shall enforce the requirement to obtain such a federal license. Only the U.S. Coast Guard or other federal authorities shall enforce the additional federal license requirement."

§ 28.2-302.1:1 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+28.2-302.1C1). Saltwater recreational fishing; federal licensing requirements.
No law-enforcement officer, as defined in § 9.1-101 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+9.1-101), shall enforce federal laws and regulations requiring a resident of the Commonwealth to obtain a fishing license issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service.

[BUDC]

Just a point of interest. Some Fed reps not enforceing a law while others hand out summons' could be interpreted as "Selective Enforcement" which of its own is improper if not illegal.
Yes it happens, but with my luck, I'd be the "Example" used to show the rest of you what can happen. This ought to be very interesting to watch work through the system.
Presently, I'm making copies of my Tuna Permit and hope the officers are clued in on its legality.
budc

[Triumph190]

But nestled withint the M-S Act it specifically allows the states to regulate fishing within its boundaries in section 306 Stating,
(a) IN GENERAL.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (b), [subsection (b) deals with an EXCEPTION concerning fishing primarily within and beyond the EEZ–T190] nothing within this Act shall be construed as extending or diminishing the jurisdiction or authority of any State within its boundaries.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, except as provided in subsection(b), the jurisdiction and authority of a State shall extend
(A) To any pocket of waters that is adjacent to the State and totally enclosed by lines delimiting the territorial sea of the United States pursuant to the Geneva Convention….

Which to me means that the state can regulate fishing within the bay and the three mile limit as it sees fit. Soooo, Delegate Ware might have been within his authority as long as he wasn’t referring to not enforcing the M-S Act within the EEZ.

Okay, I'll stop stirring the pot. At least we know that someone in Virginia's government is as upset about heavy handed federal Legislation as we are.

[makoman]

SB668 has passed both the Senate AND the House.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=101&typ=bil&val=SB668&Submit2=Go

I think the next step is a reconciliation of the two versions of the bill. I am not sure, but I think they have to vote on the reconciled version again before sending to the governor to sign.

-makoman

[Scott_nra]

They can make me an example and I'll be an example to the rest of you of what you all should be doing. Say hell no to this TAX on fishing! I will not register and I know at least some other who also recognise this for what it is, a TAX! If it were about fish counts, all they woul have to do is ask. Spread the word and stand up to this! Do not register! Think about it, if you have a family of 4 it is going to cost you $100 if they are over 16. If you fish off the dock, you have to have to have it. It is a money grab and we need to do whatever is needed to cripple enforcment of this. If you see the Marine police or DGIF, use your radio and let everyone know where they are and which way they are going. If they are comming your way, MOVE! Shame on our state DGIF and Shame on our senators and congressmen and GOVERNOR for letting this happen. THe Fed has no authority to levey a tax in VA waters. It is also not fair to turn fishing the bay into a rich mans game. These waters are ours, not theirs.

Stand up for your rights while you can or you deserve to loose them. If we all band together and do a simple "Rosa Parks" style civil disobedience we can win. If it gets too bad, you know, skip a fishing season and let DGIF see how fun it is to keep a budget with no money comming in from fishing. THey need to remember who they are there to serve.

So what is it guys. Free people, or slaves? Man, or mouse? If you have the stones to join us, encourage your fishing clubs to take a stand, you take a stand. Write letters and call your senators and Congressman and the Governor. We can beat this before its too late.

You DGIF guys, shame on you for letting this happen. I call on you to not enforce it at all! Same for you Marine police! It is your duty to refuse to enforce a law you know is unjust and unconstitional. Will you join us?

[Mike G]

Tom - Excellent post. Thanks. There's lots of questions (and emotion) around this, my original post has passed 3.5K views and about 9 pages of comments. The solution you describe is probably the best that could have been hoped for...of course there's still time to mess it up. Thanks again. - mg