By MARK TAYLOR
THE ROANOKE TIMES

Archives Reprint

   

    The most intriguing and controversial piece of outdoors-related legislation has likely been killed during negotiations in the General Assembly.

    A House committee voted last week to table House Bill 2154, which sought to combine the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Marine Resources Commission.

    The bill's patron, Del. Phillip Hamilton, R-Newport News, felt that combining what he considers two strong state agencies would have created an even stronger, more powerful agency while perhaps eventually saving tax dollars.

    The bill had few fans. Opponents had several worries.

    Many pointed out that the game department and Marine Resources Commission actually have quite different priorities. Commercial fisheries management is a major deal for the commission, but not for the game department. The consolidation also could have affected federal grants to the game department.

    Finally, although officials with the two agencies were not able to publicly comment about the bill, there was plenty of concern about losing control over their respective areas of speciality.

    The proposal prompted a fair amount of public backlash, but not as much as I expected. In fact, just one representative of a sportsman's group - Ed Rhodes of the Angler's Alliance of Virginia - bothered to publicly address the House's Committee on the Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources concerning the bill.

    To relief of the agencies' officials and many sportsmen, nearly all members of the committee agreed that the bill wasn't a good idea and voted to table it.

    Here's an update on some of the other pieces of legislation that are of interest to Virginia sportsmen:

    House Bill 1660 - This bill and its companion Senate bill (1120) would have required children under 7 to wear personal flotation devices while above decks on moving boats under 21 feet. The bills, which were both killed in close votes while in committee, would have established a law that would have superceded a recently enacted federal life jacket law for children.

    The federal law is somewhat confusing because it is applicable only on waters under federal jurisdiction. Although many large inland lakes in Virginia fall into that category, plenty don't. The federal law also has enforcement problems because it currently may be enforced only by the Coast Guard, not game department wardens.

    Senate Bill 786 - This bill would allow the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries to establish admittance, parking or other fees at Department-owned facilities.

    Can you say conservation license?

    Last fall game department officials said they hoped to establish a license for those who don't have a fishing or hunting license, but who use department facilities. The logic? Anglers and hunters shouldn't carry the entire financial burden for the department, which commits a fair amount of resources to nonanglers and nonhunters.

    I like it, and so did the Senate. The bill passed 34-5 and is now in the House.

    House Bill 1663 - Increases the costs of the nonresident statewide hunting license from $60 to $80, and a three-day nonresident license from $30 to $40.

    Having passed the House in a vote of 69-28, this proposal is now in the hands of the Senate's Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources.

    House Bill 1711 - This bill would have increased the watercraft sales and use tax from 2 percent to 3 percent, but was tabled by the House Committee on Finance.

    House Bill 1765 - Authorizes the director of the game department to issue deer kill permits to landowners whose residential plants have been damaged by deer.

    This bill is moving along, although it recently was changed slightly. The original bill called for a fee of $60 for the kill permits. Now, the bill says the department may establish a fee not to exceed the costs of administering the permits.

    Game department officials say they don't know what the costs will be. Considering that each kill permit will require a time investment of at least a couple of hours from a game warden, in addition to transportation costs, I wouldn't be surprised if the costs are at least $60.

    If you have any doubt that deer damage has become a major issue statewide, it should be put to rest when you see the margin with which the bill passed the House: 97-0.

    House Bill 1874 - Along with companion Senate Bill 808, this bill would allow individuals to make a voluntary $2 contribution to Hunters for the Hungry when purchasing a hunting license.

    As it should be, this bill probably will be a slam dunk. Both the House and Senate already have unanimously passed their respective versions.

    House Bill 1996 - Would have established a $50 freshwater recreational boat fishing license.

    This bill would have been a double whammy to the game department. The department would have lost revenue because it would have sold fewer individual licenses. Because federal funding is based on license sales, revenue would have been lost on that end, too.

    Fortunately the bill was tabled in a unanimous vote by the House Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources.

    House Joint Resolution 599 - Requested the study of hunting with dogs, including training dogs, on live game such as during the bear hound training season.

    Chasing bears with hounds is a subject that elicits passionate opinions from different sides. Houndsmen would like a longer chase season. Some critics would love to see a complete ban on bear chasing and hunting with dogs.

    The issue probably warrants a detailed examination, provided those doing the looking are completely objective. However, such a study would cost money, and money is tight, which is a big part of the reason the bill was killed.

    House Joint Resolution 600 - Requested the study of various hunting and fishing license exemptions, and the effect those exemptions have on game department revenue.

    Another worthy proposal that won't happen this year because the bill was tabled while in committee discussions.

    Senate Bill 760 - Would require anyone who operates a personal watercraft to have completed a certified boating safety course.

    Even staunch boating safety advocates had to admit this bill had holes, the most obvious being the tremendous cost of administering the law. So, it wasn't surprising that the bill never even made it to a vote in the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources.

    For up-to-date information on outdoors-related bills, see www.dgif.state.va.us/info/2003Legislation.html. To contact your delegate or senator to comment on bills, see legis.state.va.us or call (800)889-0229.

Let any elected or appointed official know what you think and how you feel by CLICKING HERE.