4076

VETOES

As part of the Department's rule making process, public
hearings were held in two locations. Testimony covered, among
other things, the economic effects of the regulations and a
notice of final adoption was published in the Maryland Register
on January 31, 1984 which advanced the date of certain spawning
area closures and altered the proposed net mesh size. The
regulations did not change the delayed November 1, 1984 effective
date of the mesh size restriction. Consequently, the effective
date of the regulations changing gear requirements was a full 11
months after the date of final notice. In my view, this
demonstrates that the regulatory process works well without the
arbitrary delay provision contained in House Bill 998.

The Department of Natural Resources' actions were both
reasonable and sensitive in light of the serious decline of the
striped bass. Furthermore, the flexibility of the Department to
adjust the timing of regulations to protect finfish and shellfish
is important to Maryland's ability to effectively complement
overall efforts to begin in January, 1985, proposed by the
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.

Moreover, I believe that the Department is sensitive to the
need to advise the public of proposed regulatory changes in a
timely fashion. An example of the Department's effort to provide
adequate notice is the letter of February 27, 1984 from Secretary
Brown to legislators, watermen, and persons interested in the
Department's plans for conservation actions to be implemented for
the 1984-85 season. The letter contains a detailed explanation
of Maryland's strategy to protect the striped bass, a listing of
estimated striped bass percent reductions in sport and commercial
harvest due to present and suggested conservation actions, a
listing of conservation actions that could be used to reduce
striped bass harvest by 55%, a summary of Virginia's emergency
regulation estimated reduction, a description of the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery
Management Council, a summary of plans for the development of a
striped bass fishing management plan, a summary of Maryland
actions other than harvest restrictions to increase striped bass
populations, an explanation of concepts relating to an intercept
hatchery; and all designed to provide the public with as much
information as early as possible and to enable the Department to
obtain comment to be used in the development of future
regulations and to advise the public of restrictions under
consideration.

In conclusion, the area of fisheries management requires an
ability to develop in a timely manner flexible strategies that
are responsive to the needs of our important fishery resources.
Simply put, this bill provides for inflexibility in an area where
the most sensitive management is required. Our experience does
not justify the approach set forth in this legislation.

For these reasons, I have decided to veto House Bill 998.