A05881/Tocci & Brodsky: increases penalties for illegal harvest of marine resources and prohibits use of picks to cull or sort fish

Previous (2003) Discussion.  Chairman Wise reminded the Council that it has offered conditional support for this legislation in the past several sessions.  The Council sees no reason to prohibit the use of picks on fish that are to be kept and sold; the language prohibiting picks should be modified to apply only to fish that are to be released back into the water.  The Council supports the proposed increases to the financial penalties for illegal taking of marine species.  The language of the present bill appears unaltered from that introduced in previous legislative sessions.  Action.  By acclamation, the Council reaffirmed its historic position on this bill, described above.

2004 Discussion/Action:  Councilor Jordan noted that, with regard to increasing penalties, the Council has already adopted a position supporting these as part of DEC Program Bill #4RR-04 (see discussion earlier in these minutes) and the Council has consistently had problems with the bill’s approach to prohibition on the use of picks.  He moved that the Council now oppose A05881.  This motion was adopted by a vote on 9 in favor; 3 opposed; 0 abstentions.  Councilor Danielson then moved that the Council recommend to the sponsor that this bills increased penalty section be revised to be consistent with the DEC Program Bill #4RR-04 and its prohibition on the use of picks be restricted to those fish that are to be returned to the water.  This motion failed:  3  in favor; 6 opposed; 3 abstentions.

A05934/Brodsky & cosponsors: prohibits taking of striped bass from the Hudson River for commercial purposes, allowing lawful taking of striped bass for recreational purposes

Previous (2003) Discussion.  Chairman Wise reminded the Council that it had opposed this bill in the previous (2002) legislative session because its language would have unduly affected commercial fisheries for species other than striped bass in the Hudson River.  Councilor Dearborn pointed out that the language of the present bill has been modified from previous versions and such collateral impacts to other fisheries no longer seems to be an issue.  There was general agreement that this appeared to be the case.  Action.  The Council moved to support A05934.  The vote was 10 in favor; 0 opposed; 3 abstentions.

2004 Discussion:  No discussion; continue to support.

A07299,Sweeney/S05381,Johnson: prohibits DEC from establishing areas closed to recreational fishing without prior determination that recreational fishing is the cause of the conservation problem for which the closure is imposed; other limits on establishing no-take reserves

Previous (2003) Discussion:  This bill establishes criteria that would have to be met before DEC could establish areas where recreational fishing would be prohibited (no-take zones for recreational fishing.)  Councilor McBride stated that it was imperative that the recreational fishing community be informed of the seriousness of this bill.  He stated that, on the West Coast, no-take zones have affected 175 miles of fishing area, which have been taken away because they are labeled Marine Protected Areas.  He feels there should be other ways found to conserve a fish without creating a moratorium.  Councilor Freierman suggested that the bill’s criteria should be applied to any proposal to prohibit fishing, including commercial fishing, rather than just recreational fishing.  Action:  The Council adopted a motion to support A7299 on the condition that its language be revised to apply to areas where any kind of fishing, commercial and/or recreational, would be prohibited.  The motion was adopted by a vote of 11 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions. 

2004 Discussion/Action:  The Council noted that the Senate version of this bill incorporates that 2003 recommendations of the Council, but the Assembly version does not.  By acclamation, the Council moved to recommend to the Assembly sponsor that the Assembly bill be modified to mimic that currently introduced in the Senate.

A03164,Thiele/S01469,Lavalle: allows licensed shellfish diggers to harvest shellfish in Lake Montauk regardless of public or private ownership of bottomlands, except for lands that are being used for private aquaculture

Previous (2003) Discussion.  Due to a complex history of land ownership and transference actions dating to colonial times, underwater lands in Lake Montauk are a mixture of privately- and publicly-owned parcels.  Controversy has arisen over the ability of baymen to dig shellfish on the privately held lands.  The underwater lands in the center of the lake are owned by the Town of Easthampton and are in the public domain, while the underwater lands along the shore remain in private hands.  Some of the private landowners are contesting the right of baymen to harvest shellfish from land they own.  Councilor Yaxa pointed out that, in a very similar situation, a court found in favor of baymen who wish to continue to harvest naturally occurring shellfish from privately owned underwater lands in the Village of Asharoken in the Town of Huntington.  Councilor Freierman stated that ownership of land under the water does not convey the authority to restrict or prohibit legitimate fishing activities.  Councilor McBride suggested that this was an instance in which some shorefront property owners living around Lake Montauk did not want baymen working in what they considered their backyards.  Councilor Jordan sympathized with the property rights views of the private landowners.  In his analogy, if you own an apple orchard, you do not have to allow the public onto your property to pick apples or collect those that have fallen to the ground.  Action.   By a vote of 12 in favor, 0 opposed, and 1 abstention, the Council moved to support this bill.

2004 Discussion/Action:  Councilor Relyea suggested that Section 1, Part 2 should be eliminated and replaced with the following language, “removed any natural shellfish to public land and planted shellfish seed or transplant shellfish from another area”.   Requiring that naturally-occurring shellfish be first removed from these underwater private lands and placed on public bottoms before shellfish to be cultured can be transplanted on the private lands would allow wild harvesters to access shellfish that were on these lands prior to their being used for aquaculture.  By acclamation, the Council moved to support this bill on the condition that the language of Section 1, Part 2 is so modified.

A10131,DiNapoli/S05984,Lavalle: cedes underwater lands in Peconics & Gardiner’s Bays to Suffolk County for the purpose of establishing an shellfish aquaculture management program

Previous (2003) Discussion (abbreviated). In 2002, two separate committees conducted reviews of constraints and issues affecting commercial aquaculture in the Peconic Bays.  One was a Suffolk County legislative committee that examined legal and county tax revenue-specific issues related to lands in these bays for which oyster cultivation rights had been previously granted to private individuals and/or companies.  The other committee was convened and facilitated by The Nature Conservancy and dealt primarily with the scientific/technical, environmental, and management issues constraining commercial aquaculture in these waters.  Representatives from the aquaculture industry spoke on behalf of the legislation, arguing that the potential economic and social benefits to the East End from an expanded aquaculture industry would not be achievablewithout the kind of management framework provided by a leasing program.  There was considerable discussion with regard to what specific areas in these bays would be designated as “aquaculture zones” and how this designation process would or would not be handled in ways that accommodated the needs and concerns of other groups using these waters, including boaters and wild harvest fishermen.  Several individuals felt the language of this bill was too general on this issue.  A representative from the North Shore Baymen’s Association cautioned that guidelines and restrictions on aquaculture leases were often violated or ignored, with severe consequences to wild shellfish populations and the baymen who harvest them. A representative of the Southampton Baymen’s Association supported this bill and suggested that Suffolk County should take the reports of its own legislative committee and The Nature Conservancy Committee and move forward with a leasing program based on the findings and recommendations of these groups.  DeWitt Davies of the Suffolk County Planning Department, who was involved in the County legislative planning committee mentioned above, confirmed that the County had a renewed interest in determining whether and to what extend it should act on its current legal authorities to conduct an aquaculture leasing program in the Peconics.  Action.  The Council adopted a motion offering support for this bill on the condition that it be amended to 1) refer to the reports of the two aquaculture committees mentioned above and 2) direct the County to use the recommendations of these groups, as described in their respective reports, as the basis for the development of a County-led aquaculture leasing program in the Peconic Bays.  The motion was adopted by a vote of 12 in favor; 0 opposed; 1 abstention.

2004 Discussion/Action:  Chairman Wise informed the Council that, since the Council adopted its current position on the bill (see above), the Assembly sponsor has met with several groups to review the bills language and, where possible, modify it to accommodate various concerns.  As a result of these discussions, the current version of the bill makes explicit mention of the two 2002 Peconic Bays aquaculture committees (Suffolk County & The Nature Conservancy) and incorporates the findings and recommendations of those groups in the current legislative findings that provide the rational for the bill.

Councilor Sullivan questioned the bill’s use of the language, “sale of (underwater) lands” as opposed to “leasing of lands.”   Ms. Debbie Barnes of DEC clarified.  In the late 19th and early 20th  centuries, shellfish cultivation rights (only, not fee title) were sold (granted) by Suffolk County to certain underwater parcels in the Peconic Bays.  The owner can subsequently sell those rights to another individual.  Said owners only possess these lands for the purpose of cultivating shellfish and they cannot restrict someone from fishing over these lands.  Mr. Colvin noted that such sales of underwater lands are no longer authorized.  However, some of those grants are still valid today but, by and large, they would not be affected by a County-run shellfish leasing program.  If  granted lands are abandoned and/or returned to the County for failure to pay taxes, then they could be included in a leasing program.  This bill primarily focuses on State-owned underwater lands that have not been previously granted that the County might include in a shellfish-leasing program.

Several representatives from wild harvest groups expressed concern that any County shellfish-leasing program in the Peconic Bays would result in their being barred from engaging in their historic harvesting activities over wide areas of these bays.  Chairman Wise and others responded that the recommendations of the two committees lay out a process whereby Suffolk County would identify lands that might be appropriate for leasing.  Certain lands are out-of-bounds for leasing immediately (e.g., those within 1,000 feet from shore, historic bay scalloping areas, etc.).  The work of the two committees provides additional guidance to the County in the form of recommendations for additional criteria to determine where aquaculture zones should be established in the Peconic Bays and a process of user group consultation by which these criteria could be used in this identification process.  Baymen would clearly be among the user groups consulted in this process.   Several representatives of the aquaculture industry spoke on behalf of this bill, indicating that it offered a reasonable approach to assisting the aquaculture industry to better meet its growth potential with minimal impact on other historic users of these bays.

Mr. Colvin noted that DEC did have a potential concern with the language of one part of this bill, Section 2, Part 4:  “…nothing in this section shall be interpreted as limiting the right of the public to harvest wild or naturally-occurring shellfish as otherwise permitted by state law.”  How and whether this would apply to leased shellfish lands needs further discussion and clarification.

Councilor Relyea made a motion that the Council support A10131/S05984 with the suggestion to the sponsor that the issue raised by DEC with respect to Section 2, Part 4 be discussed and, if possible, resolved with DEC.  Mr. Relyea’s  motion was adopted:  11 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions.

A01825/Thiele: provides that motor fuel tax revenues from recreational boating be used for boating services and establishes the boating and marine improvement fund

Previous (2003) Discussion.  Mr. Colvin explained that the bill potentially requires a determination of what proportion of motor fuel taxes are attributable to use in boats and move that percentage into this new fund.  Currently the tax is 70 cents/gallon for diesel.   Action.  The Council adopted a motion to support this bill.  The vote was 13 in favor; 0 opposed; 0 abstentions.

2004 Discussion/Action:  Councilor Jack Ferrera suggested the money be put into a newly established dedicated account for marine education.  Mr. Colvin commented that, if this were done, someone might raise the issue that the expenditure of  the money would be geographically focused on the Marine District, but the recreational boating fuel tax revenues come from all over the state.  Presently, the money is being channeled into highway construction and maintenance.  A motion was made by Councilor Ferrera to recommend that the bill be revised to direct that these recreational boating fuel tax revenues be placed into a dedicated account for marine education.  This motion was adopted by unanimous vote.

A01850,Grannis/S00920,Lavalle: bans the release of 25 or more balloons inflated with a lighter-than-air gas within a 24-hour period

Previous (2003) Discussion.  Chairman Wise reminded the Council that it has supported this legislation since its initial introduction several years ago.  Helium and other gas-filled balloons, once released outdoors, often float over marine waters, eventually deflate and fall into the water, becoming hazardous to marine life, especially to endangered sea turtles, which ingest them.  Action.  By acclamation, the Council moved its continued support of this proposed prohibition.

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

A03408,Colton/S01537,Marchi: prohibits disposal of dredged spoils containing toxic pollutants into the waters of New York’s Marine District.

Previous (2003) Discussion:  The Council has strongly supported this legislation since its initial introduction a number of years ago.  Action.  By acclamation, the Council reiterated its support for this bill and its prohibition.

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

 

Page last modified Sunday, May 16, 2004 by George E. Carroll