|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
|
|
|
|
|
|
State of
|
|
|
JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM governor |
DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES |
K. L. COOL director |
BILL
NUMBER: House Bill 5646
TOPIC: To Prohibit the Marking of Fishing Spots
SPONSOR: Representative
Sak
CO-SPONSORS: Representatives
Plakas, Garfield, Lipsey, Kooiman, Gleason,
O’Neil
COMMITTEE: Committee
on Conservation and Outdoor Recreation
Analysis Done:
POSITION
Oppose.
PROBLEM/BACKGROUND
During the summer of 2003, an article appeared in the
Grand Rapids Press, highlighting a
problem of marking fishing spots. The
article asserted that river anglers were using buoys, or sometimes their own vessels,
to mark or “hold” fishing holes for later use, and fishing elsewhere. This creates angler conflict when another
angler moves into a hole that has been “marked” by another fisherman.
DESCRIPTION OF BILL
House Bill 5646 would prohibit the practice of
marking a fishing hole with a floating device unless they are actively fishing
that spot.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Pro
The intent of the legislation, and therefore a
potential benefit, is to eliminate any user conflict that arises when this
activity occurs.
Con
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) looked into
this matter in detail during 2003. Fisheries
Division held meetings with user groups, including the Michigan United
Conservation Clubs, Michigan River Guides Association, and the Michigan Steelhead
and Salmon Fishermen’s Association to determine the scope of this problem. Included in these discussions was a
representative of our Law Enforcement Division, who indicated on multiple
occasions that no complaints of this type of activity had been registered.
From these meetings, two important
points became clear. First, the problem
does not appear to be widespread and does not warrant a new law. If it is occurring, relatively few anglers
are perpetrators, and even fewer are filing complaints. Angler ethics, including the practice of
“self policing,” tend to push out this type of conduct if it occurs. Second, the State of
FISCAL/ECONOMIC
IMPACT
Are there revenue or
budgetary implications in the bill to the --
Budgetary:
None.
Revenue:
None.
Comments:
None.
Budgetary:
None.
Revenue:
None.
Comments:
None.
Comments:
None.
OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS
None.
ANY OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
None.
ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES IMPACT
None.
_______________________________
Rebecca A. Humphries
Director
_______________________________
Date
FI
