 |
The Beacon of the Bay |
|
|
|
To From: Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation April 14, 2007 The 2007 Session of the Maryland General Assembly adjourned on Monday, April 9, 2007…it was the 423rd consecutive Session of the General Assembly. From a sportsmen’s perspective, the 2007 Session was indeed historic; but, like all records of achievement, not without contention and controversy. It is for these reasons the Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation – the non-profit organization affiliated with the bi-partisan Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus within the Maryland General Assembly – feels compelled to share its insights with the sportsmen’s community concerning the 2007 Session from a recreational angling policy-related perspective. The topical focus of this public outreach is three-fold: Yellow Perch Sustainability and Conservation Act 2007 Fishery Reform Act of 2007 MARI: Few
Marylanders can remember such a time when EVERYONE came together to support a
statewide initiative with an expensive price tag.
But, they did with respect to Senate Bill 848/HB 1272 – the $1 million
State funding proposal to match the previously acquired $500,000 in private
sector funds to acquire the old Woodrow Wilson Bridge and other materials for
use as artificial marine habitat throughout the Maryland portion of the
Chesapeake Bay. Martin Gary of During the House hearing on HB 1272 on March 10, 2007, a
question was asked, “If we [ An intense lobbying campaign ensued, lead by dedicated, representatives of the Maryland Charter Boat Association, Coastal Conservation Association, Maryland Saltwater Sportsfishermen’s Association, the Maryland Aquatic Resources Coalition and the Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation. On Saturday, April 6, 2007 -- 3 days before
adjournment—the Senate/House capital budget conferees agreed to provide
$500,000 for MARI. This decision was
a decisive victory for which Yellow Perch Sustainability and Conservation Act of 2007: This proposal (SB 702) proved more controversial than envisioned. It seems that when the bill was drafted, there was an inadvertent oversight…meaning, for three consecutive months [January – March], all commercial harvesting of all finfish would have been prohibited, not just yellow perch. This was never the intent of SB 702. However, the commercial fishing industry reacted with passionate and predictable prowess. They clearly carried the day before the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee on March 15, 2007 when SB 702 was publicly debated. In short, they stood united in arguing SB 702 – as originally drafted – would have put them out of business if enacted without change. A right was needed and it was advanced. Consequently, MLSF met with DNR – and others to craft a
compromise…a compromise that, despite the predicable outcome of its fate if
one observed the debate on March 15th, ultimately received unanimous
support from all 188 “On or before January 1, 2008, the Department [DNR] shall adopt regulations that: (1) provide a management strategy for yellow perch that enables yellow perch to migrate to historical spawning rivers and streams before spawning; and (2) equitably allocate harvests of yellow perch between recreational and commercial harvesters.” A clear victory for the yellow perch, recreational anglers and the commercial fishing industry…a victory not envisioned by anyone who attended the March 15, 2007 hearing before the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee in that packed hearing room. But, there is more to his far-reaching Act. Not only was there a Preamble of the bill – a plain English explanation of lawmakers’ intent not often allowed by the General Assembly for reasons not worthy of discussion here – but, there was also an uncodified section of the bill which reads as follows: “SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That the Department of Natural Resources, in consultation with interested stakeholders, shall: (1) analyze and develop findings regarding new funding mechanisms to help: (a) underwrite the cost to the Department of researching, developing, managing, and enforcing the fishery policies of the State; and (b) promote the economic interests of the State’s commercial fishing industry; and (2) report the findings to the House Environmental Matters Committee and the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee on or before November 1, 2007.” What does this mean? The answer is two-fold with potentially immeasurable benefits: (1) DNR has been afforded an unprecedented statutory opportunity to advance a long-term funding strategy to help improve its compliance with Maryland’s mandated fishery policies; and (2) the seeds are planted for additional compensation to Maryland watermen – should there be a uniform interest to do so—given the well-documented but unfortunate decline of revenues linked to dwindling harvestable resources…arguably, an effort akin to the compensation of Maryland farmers encouraged to stop planting tobacco given the national sentiment to end smoking for health-related purposes. The outcome of both statutory-driven initiatives is uncertain at this time. For the record, the Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation stands prepared to be of assistance deemed appropriate by DNR and others in responding to this unique statutorily sanctioned opportunity. A final word…credit must afforded Senator Dyson for not
only sponsoring the Yellow Perch Conservation and Sustainability Act, but also
for directing the compromise through the legislative maze.
Without his Leadership and experienced guidance, the Act would not have
passed. Everyone in Fishery Reform Act of 2007:
On April 15, 2007, an article appeared in the The same entities that stepped forward on the MARI funding proposal and the Yellow Perch Conservation and Sustainability Act again charged forward in a good faith effort to help DNR fulfill its statutory mandate of managing our coveted tidal and non-tidal fisheries…albeit with expected increased operational accountability. In short, like-minded sportsmen advanced the proposal…not DNR, not one conservation group, not the commercial fishing industry, no one except visionary sportsmen with the courage to act and Senator Astle’s willingness to listen and lead on their collective behalf. Together, with the help of able counsel from the General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services, SB 1012 was developed. To say the bill was developed expeditiously is accurate. It’s important to keep in mind that it’s a 90-day Session and the clock was ticking. Indeed, SB 1012 was not introduced in the Senate until March 9, 2007 and the public hearing was not held until March 23, 2007…Sine Die was April 9, 2007. The cavalry did its best to exercise due diligence in the preparation of SB 1012, despite prevailing time constraints. But, again, there is more. Remember, the title of SB 1012 is The Fishery Reform Act of 2007. Embodied in the Act is an element of accountability never before seen and, in essence, one of the conditions behind garnering support for the bill as envisioned by the drafters. A Gubernatorial Task Force is created, consisting of all the known impacted stakeholder groups. The Task Force has a 2-year mission to advise DNR on its expenditure of these funds for fishery management purposes – estimated to generate $2.5 million annually. The original mandatory requirement for the Governor to provide a 50% general fund match ($1.25 million) was changed to optional rather than mandatory by the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. Why? The Senate President made clear his steadfast policy of not allowing any legislation to move out of the Senate with a significant State price tag (expenditure increase as noted by the fiscal note) until a long-term solution was developed to address Maryland’s looming structural deficit dilemma…remember the Green Fund bill (HB 1220)? The same reason prevented the Session’s most important Bay-friendly bill from escaping the Senate. Clearly, SB 1012 would never have passed the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee with the 50% general fund matching requirement having been retained. Any student of the political process knows too well that lawmakers cannot be dictated to – you can ask, try to justify, answer their questions, beg if need be; but, at the end of the day, lawmakers do what they were elected to do…make policy decisions which not only become the law of the land, but also must be respected. And that is exactly what happened with respect to the 50% general fund matching requirement originally embodied in SB 1012. No one could have prevented that decision under the dominant conditions nor could the decision be appealed in the House…the Senate simply would not have concurred with the House amendment, meaning SB 1012 would not be on the Governor’s desk for signature as it is today. And, yet, there is still more. There is a 3-year sunset built into the Act. It is safe to say the fees could revert back to pre-2007 levels if sufficient, widespread dissatisfaction manifested itself over the ensuring period with DNR’s handling of the authority vested with it in SB 1012. Absent renewed statutory authorization by the 2010 Maryland General Assembly, SB 1012 terminates on June 30, 2010. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, enactment of SB 1012 represents a
good faith gesture and private sector financial investment in DNR by “We’re not asking them [sportsmen] to trust us. We’re asking them to watch us. When you’re in the trust hole, making promises isn’t going to get you out. Taking positive steps will.” On behalf of the Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s
Foundation, we are optimistic of the outcome under the new Leadership of DNR and
trust the conservation-minded sportsmen of David Sutherland and Bill Miles are the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the non-profit Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation, respectively. The Foundation serves as the affiliate organization of the bi-partisan Maryland Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus within the Maryland General Assembly. You can contact them through billmiles@chesapeake.net
|
|
Send mail to themariner@chespub.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
|
The Mariner is a
Chesapeake Publishing magazine