Opinion No.

Texas Attorney General Reports·Decided August 30, 1984·Published

Opinion

Mr. Charles D. Travis Executive Director Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 4200 Smith School Road Austin, Texas 78744

Re: Construction of section 66.216 of the Parks and Wildlife Code prohibiting possession of a fish having the head or tail removed

Dear Mr. Travis:

You have requested an interpretation of section 66.216(a) of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code:

§ 66.216. Possession of Headed or Tailed Fish

(a) No person may possess a finfish of any species taken from coastal water, except broadbill swordfish, shark, and king mackerel, that has the head or tail removed unless the fish has been finally processed and delivered to the final destination or to a certified wholesale or retail dealer.

Your question has reference to a recreational fishing club which has set up a camp on one of the spoil islands located along the land cut between Baffin Bay and the lower Laguna Madre Bay System. This spoil island is one of a group of such islands which were created by dredging operations for the channel that bisects the waterway between the mainland and the barrier islands to the east. The fishing club has received a permit from the General Land Office under which it leases a state-owned cabin on the spoil island. The lease specifies that the cabin is to be used for recreational purposes only. This cabin serves as a residence during the club's fishing expeditions to the land cut. The club fillets fresh fish in the kitchen of its spoil island cabin. In addition, the cabin has facilities for refrigerating and storing the filleted fish before it is transported back to the mainland. You ask whether section 66.216(a) prohibits the club's possession of filleted fish at its spoil island camp. We conclude that it does.

Section 66.216(a) was enacted via House Bill No. 1000, chapter 153, at 347. Acts 1981, 67th Leg., ch. 153, § 6, at 376. This legislation was intended strictly to enforce the bag and possession limits on redfish and spotted sea trout. See generally Solis v. Miles, 524 F. Supp. 1069 (S.D.Tex. 1981). Because, outside of the laboratory, it is difficult to identify a fish once its head or tail has been removed, inspectors must be able to view the fish before it has been filleted. Effective policing of fishermen is, therefore, crucial to the proper enforcement of these possession limits.

Section 66.216(a) allows fishermen to possess filleted fish only if either of the following is true: (1) the filleted fish have been delivered to a final destination, or (2) the filleted fish are delivered to a certified (licensed) wholesale or retail fish dealer. It is our opinion that neither of these is true in the case of the spoil island fishing club.

We first conclude that a spoil island is not a final destination. Our research has not found any court opinions nor any attorney general opinions which construe the term "final destination" as it appears in section 66.216(a). As allowed by the Code Construction Act, we base our interpretation of this term on the Parks and Wildlife Department's own construction. V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, § 3.03(6). The Parks and Wildlife Commission has adopted the following definition of a final destination as that term is used in section 66.216:

a place either on the mainland, a peninsula, or a barrier island where a fisherman finally lands his catch and does not further transport his fish by boat. Final destination does not include jetties or piers.

7 Tex.Reg. 952 (1982) (to be codified in 31 T.A.C. § 57.391).

Along with the publication of the final destination definition in the Texas Register, the Parks and Wildlife Department explained that the definition was intended to allow

the coastal fisherman a method of preservation to protect his catch from spoilage while transporting the fish to his permanent residence.

7 Tex.Reg. 952 (1982). The definition achieves this goal in the following way. To prevent spoilage, it is crucial that a fisherman properly refrigerate the fish he has caught. In general, fishermen store their fish in portable ice chests. They then transport their fish in these portable ice chests back to their permanent residences. Because these ice chests are relatively small and because they are usually quite heavy, efficient use of the space within the ice chests is essential. The "final destination" definition was enacted to allow a fisherman to remove the heads and tails from the fish as soon as the boat reaches land. Because the filleted fish, with heads and tails removed, will take up much less space in the ice chests, a fisherman can preserve more of his catch, and fewer fish will be wasted. The "final destination" exception to the article 66.216(a) prohibition against the possession of headless or tailless fish distinguishes the "final destination" — the place at which a fisherman finally lands the fish — from the "ultimate destination" — the place to which a fisherman ultimately transports the fish. The definition allows a fisherman to fillet his catch at the final destination before transporting them to the ultimate destination.

In addition to helping fishermen to preserve the fish that they catch, the final destination definition also helps in the general enforcement of article 66.216(a). The final destination at which the fisherman finally lands his catch, whether at the mainland, a peninsula or a barrier island, will be subject to periodic inspection by the Parks and Wildlife Department. The definition specifically includes only points from which a fisherman must no longer "transport his fish by boat." The Parks and Wildlife Department informs us that this language was intended to totally prohibit fishermen from possessing filleted fish on a boat.

Fishing boats pose great enforcement problems for inspectors. If an inspector were to stop a fishing boat and discover filleted fish, it would be difficult for him to determine either that the filleted fish were redfish or that the fisherman had exceeded his daily catch limit. A fisherman could easily deny that the fish were redfish, a position difficult to refute outside the laboratory, or he could assert that he had accumulated the fish over several days, never having exceeded the limit on any one day. These potential problems are avoided by the final destination definition.

We note that the usual way to remove fish from a spoil island is by boat. Because the final destination definition specifically prohibits the possession of filleted fish at any place from which they will be further transported by boat, we conclude that a spoil island cannot be a final destination. Further, we believe that allowing the possession of filleted fish on a spoil island would be inconsistent with the intent behind the final destination definition. Because spoil islands are surrounded by water and, thus, difficult to police effectively, the enforcement problems with respect to spoil islands will be similar to those with respect to boats. It is, therefore, our opinion that the legislature intended that a spoil island should be treated no differently from a boat with respect to article 66.216(a). Neither a boat nor a spoil island can be a final destination.

Section 66.216(a) also excepts from its strict prohibition on the possession of filleted fish any person who is either a certified wholesale or retail fish dealer. You ask whether the club would be protected from the force of section 66.216(a) if it were to obtain a retail fish dealer's license. We conclude that it would not.

Section 47.001 defines a retail fish dealer:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion No., (Tex. 1984).

Opinion No. (Opinion No.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Solis v. Miles
524 F. Supp. 1069 (S.D. Texas, 1981)