Monday, Jan. 25, 2010

New regulations could even up commercial/recreational penalties

If there's one consistent complaint that I hear from both commercial and recreational anglers these days it is they're being regulated off the water. Between laws and regulations that pertain to the inland waters (Under the jurisdiction of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission), the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, and the various federal fisheries management bureaucracies, it seems like an angler doesn't quite know where to turn to find out if he or she might be breaking some obscure law.

Maybe some pending state legislation will help to level penalties commercial and recreational fishermen may receive after violations of the fisheries rules.

After several years of extensive study, committee meetings and discussion by the various groups concerned with commercial and recreational fisheries to define "marine waters."

This bill currently in the Legislature would revise the rules governing the suspension and revocation of fishing licenses if, after a study by the N.C. Senate, it should be approved and signed into law by the Governor. It might help to clear up some of the widespread confusion regarding our fisheries laws.

I'll try and simplify what this proposed legislation could accomplish for recreational and commercial anglers.

If passed into law, the bill would establish two types of violations that fishermen in marine waters might encounter. There would be resource-related violations and non-resource-related violations.

If a violation of the resource-related laws should occur, the penalties would be much more severe than a non-resource-related violation. I've heard this described as like a misdemeanor versus felony offenses with other laws.

The bill would also make the fines and penalties related to both recreational and commercial law violations the same. It would also make the fines and penalties much more severe and impose them on a graduated scale for multiple violations of the laws.

For instance, if a commercial fisherman should forget to update his mailing address and be assessed a fine, it could be a non-resource-related penalty and have a lesser fine than if he should be fined for pulling a trawl net in a closed area. The trawl net in a closed area violation would carry a much heavier fine.

Likewise, violations by recreational anglers would have a lesser fine for non-resource-related violations such as failing to list one's home telephone number correctly on your saltwater fishing license application but much heavier resource-related violations, for such as not tending ones licensed commercial-recreational gill net properly or keeping undersized red drum.

The first violation received of either type draw a less severe punishment that subsequent violations.

For instance, if a recreational angler (or commercial angler) should receive a resource-related violation, their first offense would result in a fine.

The next similar violation would result in a 30-day suspension of his or her fishing license. Three violations would result in a 90-day suspension and so forth.

In short, the commercial and recreational anglers that violate our marine fisheries laws would be subject to the same fines and penalties, and the penalties would be classified on two different levels according to the seriousness of the violation.

Should subsequent violations occur, the penalties assigned by the courts would become more severe with each violation.

Several recreational anglers are already questioning whether or not commercial anglers will be subjected to the same size and creel limits as the recreational anglers.

If this bill is supposed to be leveling the playing field, then shouldn't these same catch rules apply as well?

Or, better yet, why shouldn't the N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries be assigned as part of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission?

Presently, we have two separate agencies within our state government managing what are essentially the same waters.

We already have a section of Inland Fisheries within the NCWRC. Why not have a Marine Fisheries Section as part of the Wildlife Resources Commission and do away with some unnecessary bureaucracy? Why do we need Marine Police Officers who can't enforce fisheries laws on the inland side of the orange demarcation signs but can on the other side?

Let's face it: the waters are the same resource. Wildlife officers (game wardens) can enforce boating laws on both inland and marine waters but can't enforce fisheries laws in the marine waters. Fishermen are beginning to feel that this duplication of enforcement efforts is a waste of our tax (license) moneys.

If the House bill is designed to level the playing field between commercial and recreational fishermen, then couldn't we take it one step further and consolidate our fisheries management programs under one roof?

This streamlining of our state government could save a lot of money and perhaps make the elaborate fisheries laws a little less confusing.

Maybe the House bill is a step in the right direction.