State, Marine Fisheries Com'n v. Org. Fishermen

503 So. 2d 935
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedFebruary 19, 1987
DocketBQ-41
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 503 So. 2d 935 (State, Marine Fisheries Com'n v. Org. Fishermen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State, Marine Fisheries Com'n v. Org. Fishermen, 503 So. 2d 935 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

503 So.2d 935 (1987)

STATE, MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION and Florida Conservation Association, Appellants,
v.
ORGANIZED FISHERMEN OF FLORIDA; Southeastern Fisheries Assoc. Inc.; Lee County Fishermen's Cooperative, Inc.; James Fish Company; A.P. Bell Fish Co., Inc.; Steinhatchee Fish Co.; Goodrich Seafood; Dukes Seafood Market; Harold Futch; Kim Gertz and Bay City Lodge, Inc., Appellees.

No. BQ-41.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 19, 1987.
Rehearing Denied April 1, 1987.

*936 David Guest and Beverly McLear, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant Marine Fisheries Com'n.

Philip S. Parsons, of Landers, Parsons and Uhlfelder, Tallahassee, for appellant Florida Conservation Ass'n.

Kenneth G. Oertel of Oertel & Hoffman, P.A., Tallahassee, for appellees.

THOMPSON, Judge.

The Marine Fisheries Commission (Commission) and the Florida Conservation Association appeal a final order of the Division of Administrative Hearings determining that the Commission's proposed rules regulating the harvesting of red drum (commonly known as redfish) in state waters are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. We reverse.

Pursuant to § 370.027, Fla. Stat. (1985) the Commission initiated rulemaking procedures to regulate fishing for redfish in Florida saltwaters. The Commission adopted proposed amendments to Fla. Admin. Code Rules 46-22.001 through 46-22.003 and proposed new Fla. Admin. Code Rules 46-22.004 through 46-22.007 which, inter alia, impose a five fish bag and possession limit, a prohibition on sale, a two month closed season and certain gear restrictions.[1] Before the proposed rules were given the final *937 approval of the Governor and Cabinet as required by § 370.027, *938 Fla. Stat. the appellees filed a petition pursuant to § 120.54(4), Fla. Stat. challenging the validity of the proposed rules. Following a lengthy formal administrative hearing conducted pursuant to § 120.57, Fla. Stat., the hearing officer issued a final order finding that the bag limit and prohibition on sale contained in proposed rules 46-22.004 and 46-22.005(2) were invalid. The remainder of the rules were found to be valid. The hearing officer concluded that the provisions of proposed rules 46-22.004 and 46-22.005(2) were not "fair and equitable" as required by § 370.025(2)(g), Fla. Stat. because they had a disproportionate adverse impact on commercial fishermen who were not primarily responsible for the alarmingly massive diminution of the redfish population caused by recent overfishing. The hearing officer concluded that the Commission had exceeded its authority in conferring gamefish status on redfish because "such decisions are essentially political ones and, under Florida's regulatory scheme, the legislature has reserved such decisions for itself." Although the Commission's authority to confer gamefish status is specifically enumerated by § 370.027(2)(e), Fla. Stat., the hearing officer concluded that the exercise of such authority under the circumstances of the present case was violative of the statutory requirement that "[c]onservation and management decisions shall be fair and equitable to all the people of this state and carried out in such a manner that no individual, corporation, or entity acquires an excessive share of such privileges." § 370.025(2)(g), Fla. Stat. We cannot agree.

The Commission established an unchallenged goal of a 50-fold increase in the percentage of juvenile redfish surviving to spawning age. At present 99.8 percent of all juvenile redfish are captured before they reach spawning age, leaving only .2 percent of the young redfish to survive to reproductive adulthood. The Commission considered numerous regulatory options which might be employed to reach its conservation goal of a 50-fold increase. Among the various combinations of alternatives considered were regulatory options enumerated in § 370.027(2), Fla. Stat., including gear restrictions, bag and possession limits, designating species that are protected or may not be sold, and closed seasons. After comparing the projected effectiveness of all the alternatives, it was predicted that only a few of the regulatory options were likely to achieve the conservation goal. One of these options was duly adopted by the Commission as Fla. Admin. Code Rules 46-22.001 through 46-22.007.

To successfully challenge a rule promulgated by an agency in the exercise of its delegated legislative authority the challenger must make three showings: (1) that the agency adopting the rule has exceeded its authority, (2) that the requirements of the rule are inappropriate to the ends specified in the legislative act, and (3) that the requirements contained in the rule are not reasonably related to the purpose of the enabling legislation but are arbitrary and capricious. Department of Professional Regulation v. Florida Society of Professional Land Surveyors, 475 So.2d 939 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).

In the instant case the specific rulemaking authority delegated by the legislature to the Commission is found at § 370.027 Fla. Stat. Among the enumerated powers vested in the Commission is the authority to establish bag limits and to designate species that may not be sold. § 370.027(2)(c) and (e), Fla. Stat. The exercise of such rulemaking authority is governed by the declaration of policy and standards set forth in § 370.025, Fla. Stat. The specific rulemaking authority delegated to the Commission clearly encompasses the imposition of a bag limit and the prohibition on commercial sale which were found to be invalid in the instant case. The hearing officer's conclusion that such restrictions are not fair and equitable because of their "overwhelmingly adverse" effect on commercial fishermen overlooks the fact that these specifically delegated powers inherently encompass results which would have varying impacts on different groups. The ability to designate species that may not be sold intrinsically has a greater impact on those persons who will have to forego sales: *939 commercial fishermen. Similarly, gear restrictions would impact differently on recreational and commercial fishermen depending on whether the gear in question are hooks and lines or nets. An uneven impact on differing groups is not a sufficient basis for invalidating the Commission's exercise of specifically delegated authority particularly when, as here, the restrictions are equally applicable to all the people of the state. The Commission's actions in adopting the proposed rules do not constitute actions which exceed the grant of authority specifically delegated by the statute. Department of Administration v. Albanese, 445 So.2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).

We find therefore that proposed rules 46-22.004 and 46-22.005(2) are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority. Accordingly, the order invalidating the proposed rules is REVERSED.

BOOTH, C.J., and MILLS, J., concur.

NOTES

[1] The Proposed Rule Amendments and Proposed Rules provide:

46-22.001 Purpose, Intent and Repeal of Other Laws. The purpose and intent of this chapter are to protect, manage, conserve and replenish Florida's depleted red drum (redfish) resource, species Sciaenops ocellata, which has suffered extreme declines in abundance in recent years and which is now overfished throughout the state.

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

Related

Jones v. Chiles
654 So. 2d 1281 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)
Florida League of Cities v. DER
603 So. 2d 1363 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1992)
Goldberg v. Insurance Department
540 A.2d 365 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1988)
Tenneco Oil Co. v. New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission
760 P.2d 161 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
503 So. 2d 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-marine-fisheries-comn-v-org-fishermen-fladistctapp-1987.