 |
BULLETIN |
|
15 April 1999
|
Volume VIII, No. 3
|
|
BULLETIN |
|
15 April 1999
|
Volume VIII, No. 3
|
Provisions. This bill prohibits the use of haul seines measuring more than 300’ in total length in New York’s Marine and Coastal District.
Discussion. This bill was reviewed by the Council a year ago, when the Council opposed it. Commercial seining operations on the eastern end of Long Island that do not target striped bass would be eliminated by this bill. These fisheries target such species as menhaden, bluefish, and squid in East End bays and are conducted very differently than ocean haul seining. They are conducted at night and the bag is not brought ashore. The net is towed offshore and the fish are brailed alive out of the bag. A 300’ seine is adequate for any bait seining fisheries. Ocean haul seining is strongly opposed by several Councilors. The 300’ maximum length would include the net and any ropes attached to it. The New York Sportfishing Federation does not support the bill because its language is not specific enough to address what the Federation feels is a major problem, indiscriminate killing of fish by traditional ocean haul seines, without also banning other types of seines that may not produce large and unavoidable by-catch mortality.
Action. The Council voted down a motion to support this bill, by a vote of 4 in favor, 8 opposed, and 0 abstaining.
Provisions. This bill would remove the requirement in state law whereby operators of commercial fishing vessels must pay the excise and sales tax on diesel fuel and then apply for full reimbursement of said taxes.
Discussion. This bill has been introduced in each of the past several legislative sessions. The Council has strongly supported it. State law explicitly exempts commercial fishermen from these taxes, but then goes on to require that these individuals pay the taxes and then seek full reimbursement from the state. This procedure is a needless burden on commercial fishermen and impels many of them to purchase their fuel in neighboring states, a significant economic loss to New York.
Action. By a vote of 14 in favor, 0 opposed, 0 abstentions, the Council acted to continue its strong endorsement of this legislation.
Provisions. Current state law requires that town ordinances affecting the taking of shellfish must be at least as restrictive as similar measures in the Environmental Conservation Law or state regulation. This bill would remove this obligation and allow towns to implement shellfish ordinances less restrictive than those of the state.
Discussion. The Trustees of the Town of Easthampton strongly support this bill, as do the governments of several others towns on eastern Long Island. This would apply only to towns with historic or colonial titles to underwater lands vested in them. This bill sets a dangerous precedent that could undue such basic principles of fishery management as, for example, a unified minimum size limit on hard clams. DEC and East End towns should engage in discussions about specific shellfish issues where they disagree. The solution should not be to give individual towns the ability to undercut state law/regulation.
Action. The Council adopted a motion to oppose S.1747/A.3021 by a vote of 8 in favor, 2 opposed, and 1 abstention.
Provisions. This bill prohibits the use of fish picks or other devices which cause unwarranted injury to fish, prevents a person from obtaining or using a commercial fishing license in New York while that person’s commercial license in another state or in Canada has been suspended for violating a law or regulation similar to one found in the Environmental Conservation Law, increases the fines for violations of marine resource sections of the Environmental Conservation Law, and extends current protections to commercial fishermen against the disturbance and/or removal of their fishing gear.
Discussion. Some felt that suspending an individual’s New York State commercial fishing license for a violation he/she committed outside state boundaries was wrong. It was observed that a similar situation has been established with respect to driving licenses. Why can’t fish picks be used on fish that are to be kept? Who will decide what is a similar or comparable offense that would trigger reciprocal license suspension/revocation in New York? The bill provides that a person facing such suspension or revocation would be given a hearing at which the issue of fairness/appropriateness could be discussed. Strong support was voiced for the proposed increase in fines for violation of marine resource laws/regulations. The proposed ban on the use of fish picks to cull/sort fish should be extended to include the use of gaffs by recreational fishermen. As charter/party boat fishing operations typically do not include culling/sorting fish, the proposed ban on the use of fish picks would not apply to these vessels.
Action. By a vote of 11 in favor, 2 opposed, and 1 abstaining, the Council voted its support of S.5148, on the condition that the language regarding fish picks be revised so as to apply only to fish that are being released alive back into the water.
Provisions. Provides a financial reward to a person(s) providing information that leads to an apprehension and eventual conviction of a person for violating state tidal or freshwater wetland regulations, the reward to come from the fine assessed against those convicted.
Discussion. The Council has consistently opposed this bill on the several occasions on which it has been introduced over the past decade. The concern is that the prospect of a reward will inspire spurious allegations of wrong-doing or produce scads of complaints about very trivial activities. The DEC already runs a program (TIPP) that encourages private citizens to report wetland and pollution violations. Some Councilors felt this bill has merit.
Action. A motion to support S.1915/A.3423 was defeated by a vote of 2 in favor, 8 opposed, and 0 abstentions.