| Recommend |
| Comment |
| Email this article |
| Print this article |
| Get news alerts |
| RSS Feeds |
 Share
|
Digg
Mixx
Linked In
Facebook
Twitter
Delicious
Related Articles
State rejects towns' offer to settle fishing license case; fall trial expected.
Jul 27, 10 4:27 PM
State may repeal saltwater fishing license
Jun 25, 10 4:27 PM
moreA Suffolk County Court judge has blocked the state Department of Environmental Conservation from enforcing a new saltwater fishing license law in three East End towns.
Hours before it was set to take effect, Suffolk County Supreme Court Justice William Rebolini issued a temporary restraining order on Wednesday afternoon, September 30, barring the state from enforcing the controversial new license requirement in Southampton Town, East Hampton Town and on Shelter Island.
The restraining order is in effect until Tuesday, October 13, when attorneys representing the three towns are to appear before a different judge to argue the merits of the case, according to Judge Rebolini’s ruling. The Town of Southold is expected to have joined the injunction request by that time as well.
The injunction, while in effect, applies only to areas where the Town Trustees of the three towns have jurisdiction. It does not impact the license requirement in any way beyond the East End and would not apply to fishermen on boats outside of town waters or in Montauk, because the East Hampton Town Trustees’ authority does not include the Montauk area.
While the ocean is state waters, the restraining order does free surfcasters from having to carry the license when fishing between the east side of Moriches Inlet, where the Southampton Town Trustees’ jurisdiction begins, and the western boundary of Hither Hills State Park in Montauk, where the East Hampton Town Trustees jurisdiction ends, because enforcement of the license is barred within the Trustees’ jurisdiction.
“For all intents and purposes, the licensing law in our three towns doesn’t exist until October 13,” Assistant Southampton Town Attorney Joseph Lombardo said on Thursday, October 1. “If the Trustees have jurisdiction over the water, that’s where the injunction is good for, and there is to be no enforcement in the three towns.”
Wednesday’s court order does not address the merits of the Trustees’ case, it simply orders that the license not be enforced until the arguments can be reviewed more thoroughly. But the Trustees were happy to see that their case at least seemed to hold enough water to warrant the judge ordering things be held in check until it can be heard.
“They’re thinking about it. It gave them pause to at least give it consideration, so that’s important to us,” Southampton Town Trustee Jon Semlear said. “The judge, at least, thought it had enough merit to look into it further.”
Justice Patrick Sweeney, who will review the Trustees’ arguments against the license being enforced on the East End in the long run, will have the option of extending the injunction against enforcing the license while he reviews the merits of the case.
The new saltwater license has drawn criticism from across the state and from public officials on Long Island, where the vast majority of the state’s saltwater fishermen reside. It is the first time a license has ever been required for fishing in saltwaters in New York State. The license will cost state residents $10 annually or $150 for a lifetime pass.
At a press conference outside the Suffolk County Supreme Court building in Riverhead on Wednesday, while the attorneys for the Trustees were filing the restraining order request, members of the East Hampton and Southampton town boards of trustees and other local elected officials blasted the license regulations.
Assemblyman Fred W. Thiele Jr. said that while the state has imposed the new license fee on its residents, no new programs to benefit fishermen or fisheries have been created. The money, he said, is just being used to pay for existing programs and the salaries of employees that have been cut from the state budget during the recent fiscal crisis.
“It’s just one more thing they’re charging us for, and where is it going to stop?” East Hampton Town Trustee Stephanie Talmage said. “We have to take a stand somewhere. People say it’s only $10, but it will just get more and more.”
The Trustees in the three towns are challenging the state’s right to impose such a fee on their residents since their centuries-old boards still derive their authority from 17th century colonial writs that guaranteed that the town’s residents could “fish and fowl” on town waters for free and without hindrance from any outside agencies. When the State of New York was formed, the colonial-era laws were ratified within the state constitution, the Trustees argue, and mean the Trustees authority should still supersede state law.
Add a comment
Total comments by Ebby: 68
Oh -- and will nonresidents have to get a licensed resident guide like they do in the lakes and ponds? More money for the moonlighting Trustees and Bay Constables ...!
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by fishhunter718: 5
Total comments by North Sea Citizen: 135
Total comments by gofish: 1
Southampton Town tells DEC to stop taking over the East End...
Southampton Residents win 1 against the DEC...Now, for all the other battles...
Total comments by The Royal 'We': 44
Total comments by goldenrod: 116
Kudo to the trustees for standing up and doing the right thing here.
Total comments by Terry: 336
Total comments by Ebby: 68
Also.. what are the chances our beaches will be completely inundated with anglers from all over the island who want to come out and fish for free? Many of the sporties from upisland come out here to fish as it is... this will probably cause even more crowding.
Total comments by RubyBaby: 25
Total comments by INS: 524
Total comments by Terry: 336
Total comments by fishhunter718: 5
Total comments by RubyBaby: 25
Total comments by fishhunter718: 5
Total comments by fishhunter718: 5
Are they now going to start telling non-resident sport fishermen -- as they are telling us non-resident baymen -- that they can fish in the waters, they just can't touch the bottom with anything like anchors or lead sinkers? Imagine the hub bub that would bring ....
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by MARTY: 1
Total comments by fishhunt: 1
In our form of government governors do not make laws -- legislators do. How does a decree from a 17th Century English Colonial governor trump US and NYS Constitutions, federal and State law ...? Let the East End politicians explain that one ....
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by PrivateerMatt: 334
Total comments by INS: 524
Total comments by wendel: 6
As to the second part of your comment -- the fact that the Trustees don't own the underwater lands but "only manage them in trust" demonstrates what is different about the American system. These are public lands, not private, ... more and as such no one can be denied full and unfettered access to them based on residency. The Public Trust Doctrine applies -- this destroys the Trustees case, PrivateMatt.
Total comments by snarko77: 42
These are public lands but for the people of Southampton Township not the public at large. If the Towns don't have the to exclude based on residency, why don't you go see ... more how goes in Oyster Bay? Just because your area has been overfished & polluted don't whine about our policies that have exsisted for centuries.
Go read The Public Trust Doctrine, pay close attention to who it lists as the managers of the underwater lands in Southampton Town.... the Trustees. They draw the right to govern from the Dongan Patent so this is acknowledged by The Public Trust Doctrine!
Total comments by INS: 524
I have done plenty of research. The scheme that is in place on the East End was called in court documents by the Pataki administration "an archaic legal fiction" and that is exactly what it is. "These are public lands but for the people of Southampton Township not the public at large." ...? That's what the Public Trust Doctrine says when you read it ... more ...? Ask the people of Greenwich Connecticut what the Supreme Court told them when they tried to keep outsiders away from their exclusive little beach. What you describe is a private property right to exclude which does not exist for any public lands anywhere in the United States or in the United Kingdom for that matter. There is still a monarchy in there, you know -- but even the Queen of England can't help you now ...
Total comments by snarko77: 42
What would your alter ego Sen. Eugene McCarthy call that scheme ...?
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by INS: 524
Total comments by INS: 524
Just try to pull that on non resident sportfisherment and see what happens ....
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by INS: 524
Total comments by INS: 524
And being that the Inlet is within the original boundaries of the Dongan Patent, isn't it is included, even if it is underwater now?The barrier beach and marshes are Patent lands as well.
Total comments by snarko77: 42
The Inlet is not covered under the Dongan Patent, because the barrier beaches were not included in the Patent. The Patent only covered the lands under water at the time the patent was granted, since the Inlet was created 350 years later it is not covered. It is a big misconception ... more that the Trustees "own" the beaches.
Total comments by INS: 524
You base your claim in that you still have "Trustees" instead of just Town Boards. What the courts have allowed for is the Trustees acting as quasi-governmental bodies. But no decision could ever or would ever legally allow you to trample on the ... more Constitutional rights of others which is what you are doing. But I expect that that is soon to change.
Total comments by snarko77: 42
The trampling of your Constitutional rights is in your head this is not the intention of the action. Your twisting of the aim of this action reduces your credibility.
Total comments by INS: 524
The action -- if successful -- would void the rights of NYS licensed non-resident recreational fishermen in Town waters, would it not? Right now those people see you as heroes standing up against big tax/big government for all State spotfishermen. But that's not what it is at all, is it ...?
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by INS: 524
Total comments by snarko77: 42
"Patently" illegal and Unconstitutional and shall soon be ... more decided thus,
methinks ....
*Quoted from a recent decision by Southampton Town Justice Andrea H. Schiavoni
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Now why would you limit freshwater fishing and not saltwater, when your Trustees and Bay Constables make so much money as fishing and hunting guides (the only way non residents can fish in freshwater and hunt in your town is to procure the services of a resident guide-- even if they possess a valid New York State license.)
*From the Trustee's ... more web page.
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Total comments by INS: 524
Total comments by snarko77: 42
Add a comment