Bv13n3s02b

A01782,Thiele/S00841, Lavalle: provides that operators of “for hire” vessels are not responsible for acts of individuals aboard their vessels

Previous (2003) Discussion. Chairman Wise noted that this bill was first introduced in the 2002 legislative session. It was reviewed by the Council at its 16 April 2002 meeting, at which time the Council adopted a motion opposing the bill. Councilor McBride stated that he thought the bill applies more to party boats than to charter boats; charter boats carry many fewer passenger and the captain and mate can more easily observe the behavior of individual fishermen who might be violating state marine fishery laws or regulations. Some vessel captains complained that, the current law, under which they can be held liable for the conduct of their paying passengers, was unfair and at times they were given summons by law enforcement officers for a fare’s infraction simply because the fare had left the vessel already or the identity of the offending individual could not be determined. It was suggested that the most effective approach to catching violators aboard party boats was for the Division of Law Enforcement to go under cover on these boats. Mr. Colvin explained that DEC presently has the discretion to ticket someone or not, but this bill would take away that right. DEC strongly opposes this bill. Major Fanelli reiterated Mr. Colvin’s view, stating that this bill would tie law enforcement’s hands. It was pointed out that a literal reading of the bill’s language would include the vessel captain under the word, “individual;” thus, even a captain who was personally guilty of a violation, or who was clearly complicit in a violation by one of his/her fares, would be exempt from prosecution. Action. By acclamation, the Council acted to maintain its opposition to this bill.

2004 Discussion: Councilor Sullivan suggested that the Council should now support this bill, as he feels no one should be held responsible for another’s actions. Conversely, Councilor Davi affirmed his view that the owner or operator of a vessel should be responsible for what goes on aboard that vessel.

Action: Councilor Danielson moved that the Council continue to oppose this legislation. His motion was adopted by a vote of 11 in favor; 1 opposed; 0 abstentions.

A00465/Cook & cosponsors: prohibits any person whose fishing license has been suspended/revoked in any US jurisdiction and/or Canada from getting a license in New York

Previous (2003) Discussion. Chairman Wise reminded the Council that this bill was first introduced in a previous legislative session and the Council has opposed it to date. A question was posed as to how DEC would find out or determine whether a license applicant had their license suspended or revoked in another governmental jurisdiction. There was another question regarding the term “suspended.” It was asked if someone who simply forgot to renew his or her license one year fell under the same category as someone who had committed a more serious offense. Action. By acclamation, the Council moved to retain its opposition to this legislation.

2004 Discussion/Action: No discussion; continue to oppose.

A01972,Thiele/S01031,Lavalle: allows commercial lobster licenses to be transferred between persons who each possess a commercial foodfish license

Previous (2003) Discussion. The Council is on record as opposing this bill because: 1) this degree of transferability could lead to the consolidation of lobster licenses in fewer and fewer hands and 2) the lobster trap tag program does not provide for the transferability of trap tags and a new entrant into the lobster fishery who received a license through transfer would not have a trap tag allocation and could not fish. Additionally, the Council…is on record as supporting continuation of very strict entry limits into the commercial lobster fishery, in the form of a moratorium on the issuance of new lobster licenses. Action. By acclamation, the Council moved to maintain its opposition to this legislation.

2004 Discussion/Action: No discussion; continue to oppose.

A04268/Englebright: extends the limits of a “essential fish habitat protection” zone along the north shore of Long Island

Previous (2003) Discussion. Chairman Wise reminded the Council that this bill was first introduced in the late 1990’s and has been reintroduced each year since. The Council has consistently taken no position on this legislation because it presents no compelling justification for further restricting commercial trawling in the affected section of eastern Long Island Sound, an area of great importance to trawl fisherman in the Sound. Action. The Council adopted a motion to oppose A04268. The vote was 13 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions.