Livings v. Davis
| Decision Date | 21 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 63001,63001 |
| Citation | 465 So.2d 507,10 Fla. L. Weekly 129 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 129 Captain Louis S. LIVINGS, District Nine Supervisor, Florida Marine Patrol, and State of Florida Department of Natural Resources, Petitioners, v. Wendell DAVIS, Gilbert Grey, and Harry Robert Jones, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Kevin X. Crowley, Gen. Counsel, Dept. of Natural Resources, Tallahassee, for petitioners.
David Paul Horan and Lawrence L. Davis of the Law Firm of David Paul Horan, Key West, for respondents.
Carol E. Dinkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald A. Carr and Wells D. Burgess, Attys., Dept. of Justice, and Craig R. O'Connor and Katherine Pease, Attys., Nat. Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., Washington, D.C., amicus curiae for The Secretary of Commerce of the U.S.
This cause is before this Court on a petition to review the decision of the Third District Court of Appeal in Livings v. Davis, 422 So.2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const.
The respondents were charged on March 31, April 13, and May 2, 1981, respectively, with violations of section 370.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), which prohibited the taking or possession of small shrimp or prawn within or without the waters of the State of Florida. Respondents were arrested for possession of undersized shrimp taken from waters outside Florida's nine-mile Gulf boundary. The three vessels involved were licensed by the State of Florida. The trial court found section 370.15(2)(a) unconstitutional. The district court affirmed per curiam on the authority of Tingley v. Allen, 397 So.2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and certified conflict with Department of Natural Resources v. Southeastern Fisheries Association, 415 So.2d 1326 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
It is the petitioners' position that a state can regulate the fishing activities of its citizens beyond the state's territorial waters when there is no conflict with a federal regulatory scheme. We agree. For reasons hereinafter expressed, the district court opinion is quashed.
In 1976 Congress passed the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. section 1801 (1976), et seq. (MFCMA), for the purpose of conserving and managing the fishery resources off the coasts of the United States. 16 U.S.C. § 1801(b). Section 1856(a) provides:
In general.--Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section nothing in this chapter shall be construed as extending or diminishing the jurisdiction or authority of any State within its boundaries. No State may directly or indirectly regulate any fishing which is engaged in by any fishing vessel outside its boundaries, unless such vessel is registered under the laws of such State.
16 U.S.C. § 1856(a) (1976) (emphasis supplied). The United States Secretary of Commerce in his amicus brief submits that the act authorized otherwise constitutional state regulation of fishing by state registered vessels in the state's extraterritorial waters in the absence of a conflicting regulation implementing a federal plan managing the same fishery. On May 20, 1981, the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fishery Management Plan, developed under the MFCMA, was implemented by the Secretary of Commerce. It declared that there shall be no minimum size requirements for shrimp harvested in the federal fishery conservation zone. The Florida Legislature, in recognition of the conflict between the federal management plan and section 370.15(2)(a), Florida Statutes (1979), amended the state statute to provide that it would apply only to shrimp taken from waters within the state. This bill became law on July 8, 1981.
There is no question that in matters affecting its legitimate interest a state may regulate fishing by its registered vessels outside its territorial waters until conflicting federal regulations are implemented regarding such fishing. Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69, 61 S.Ct. 924, 85 L.Ed. 1193 (1941). Petitioners concede that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Charleston v. A Fisherman's Best
...816 F.Supp. 1468 (N.D.Cal.1993); Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n v. Martinez, 772 F.Supp. 1263 (S.D.Fla.1991); see, e.g., Livings v. Davis, 465 So.2d 507 (Fla.1985); State v. Sterling, 448 A.2d 785 If the issue is considered as one of standing to assert that the resolution is preempted, the de......
-
Marble v. Dep't Of Fish And Wildlife, 130645
...Magnuson-Stevens Act authorized Maine to enforce its lobster-fishing laws in the EEZ against Maine-registered vessels); Livings v. Davis, 465 So.2d 507, 508-09 (Fla.1985) (“[T]he [Magnuson-Stevens Act] makes no attempt to preempt the field, but in fact recognizes continued state jurisdictio......
-
Raffield v. State
...popularity of "blackened redfish" and the resulting insatiable demand for commercial red drum. And as we stated in Livings v. Davis, 465 So.2d 507, 509 (Fla.1985), the [Magnuson Act] makes no attempt to preempt the field, but in fact recognizes continued state jurisdiction over vessels regi......
-
State v. Raffield
...preempt the right of the State of Florida to regulate commercial fishing outside the territorial limits of this state. See Livings v. Davis, 465 So.2d 507 (Fla.1985) (the adoption of the Magnuson Act does not preempt the State of Florida from regulating state-registered vessels in the state......
-
Extraterritorial application of state fishery management regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: have the courts missed the boat?
...Cal. 1993). (36.) State v. Dupier, 118 P.3d 1039 (Alaska 2005). (37.) See Skiriotes v. Florida, 313 U.S. 69 (1941); Livings v. Davis, 465 So.2d 507 (Fla. 1985); Dupier, 118 P.3d at 1039: Southeastern Fisheries Ass'n Inc. v. Dept. of Natural Res., 453 So.2d 1351 (Fla. 1984); Daley v. Comm'r,......