Tidal Fish Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
A $5.00 per fish violation is waaaaaaaaay too lenient.

Try $250.00 or even $500.00. I'll also like to add confiscation of all fishing equipment, boat, and automobile that facilitated the violation.

Can you tell I don't like poachers ???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
Folks,

This bill is a result of the Fisheries Task Force review of Fisheries Laws.

It is, more or less, designed to clean up a messy law, and provide the department the ability to create regulation to suspend recreational licenses. In past there were two different processes for suspending recreational licenses, so it was confusing for the department.

For the commercial side there is ALREADY a process in place to suspend licenses. It may not be perfect, but it is already in place.
08.02.13.02
08.02.13.03
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,257 Posts
Looks like at least a step in the right direction.
Now if only the judges will suspend a poachers license for a year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
556 Posts
Where did you see the $5.00 fine??

TED
From this..... http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/bills/sb/sb0164f.pdf

4-602.

[(b) In addition to any other penalty provided in this title, any person
convicted of violating any rule or regulation the Department adopts, shall be fined $5
for each fish illegally caught. If a person is convicted a second or subsequent time
within the same 12-month period for a violation of the rules and regulations the
Department adopts, he shall have his angler's license suspended for a period of 12
months from the date of the second or subsequent conviction.]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
$5 fine has been bracketed and deleted from the new bill

(b) under 4-602 has been taken out of the new bill. The new penalties will apply.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
Folks,

If it's in brackets - it's being deleted. The five dollars was old (worthless) code.

The code isn't the place for fines anyway - that's what regulation is for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
Also, I just wanted to add, that there are two more departmental bills that should drop this session that are a result of the Fisheries Task first. That way, you won't be surprised when you see them.


SB 169 - Antiquated Laws - will remove or correct laws which have been rendered ineffective by regulation - or - are no longer applicable or have obsolete references.

SB 168 - Public Process - will clarify the processes related to notices on permanent blue crab regulations, reclassifying natural oyster bottom or clam bottom, and listing oyster bars as sanctuaries.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Thank's Crow Bait for behind the scenes explantation of "Task Force" recommendations which in turns becomes Departmental Bill :clapping2:

If you like keep us informed on the Committee Hearing :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,952 Posts
Yesterday the Task Force presented an overview of its report to the House Environmental Matters Committee, and the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee.

It was well recieved, and there were several questions/comments. I'll do my best to outline what they were and who gave them.

1) House Committee Chairwoman, Delegate Maggie McIntosh asked about impervious surface coverage relative to water quality.

The task force responded that more than 10% impervious surface changes a watershed permanently, and degrades water quality. Our report indicated that more environmental review is needed, and decision criteria need to be put in place to assist in land use planning. The task force noted that the latest Stormwater Management Act should help a great deal.

2) Delagate O'Donnel - pointed out that the Oyster Adivosry Commission, Aquaculture Commision, and Fisheries Task Force (all representing stakeholders) each highlighted the need for additional enforcement, and asked why it was not emphazised in the Governor's Budget.

The task force responded that it did discuss fee increases to provide additional funds for NRP and enforcement, but was not ready to have the Department submit legisltation this year. It was added that NRP did recently graduate 11 new officers, and will be accepting 20 new recruits. This still doesn't put a dent in the 200 officers needed.
Delegat Holmes suggested it might be a good time for the legislature to discuss boat registration fee increases to generate more special funds for NRP.

3) Uknown (to me) Legislator - Suggested that enforcement is not effective because penalties do not include Jail time. The FTF did not respond, but I thought this was interesting.

Those were the overall highlights. If you'd like to see the entire FTF report - visit: Maryland Task Force on Fisheries Management
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Crow Bait,

I've been in front of both Committees in the past and you kinda know by Legislators comments the Bill is being well received for a "favorable" report :yes:

Regarding Del. Holmes comment, are funds from NRP citations applied to DNR budget or the General Fund? Do you know
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top