|
pear, relating to water fowl or different
methods of hunting about the State, some
places you can hunt deer with bow and
arrows, and some places with rifles. The
types of nets for fishing, vary from river
to river and county to county. For oysters,
of course, the method of licensing, method
of taking, and that type of thing would be
different. If you recognize that these are
areas where the State should have complete
control, then I submit that the legislature
should have the right to vary the applica-
tion of the law in any manner that they
want.
It is de minimus, because in 1967 there
were ten laws relating to local resources
passed. This shows on page 41 in the table
which is with the Local Government Rec-
ommendation, or the Committee Memoran-
dum. In 1966 out of 756 laws there were 11
local laws in the field of natural resources,
and I suggest that this is not something
that one should get exercised about. It is
a particularly de minimus situation when
one considers that we have effectively elim-
inated the truly evil public local legislation
relating to local departments and things
like that. This is not that type of matter.
It is a matter of statewide significance, and
I submit that the legislature, which we are
trying to strengthen, should have full
power over this type of thing.
We are going to have mandatory home
rule. We have adopted home powers. We
are going to have a unified judiciary. All
of this will serve to reduce the work prod-
uct of the General Assembly, which is local
legislation from 52 percent which it was in
1967, to considerably less than 15 percent.
I suggest that these provisions, both of
them, the exception for natural resources,
and the exception for the school system,
that both of these should stay in this
provision.
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Raley.
DELEGATE RALEY: Mr. President
and delegates of this Convention, I dis-
agree very strongly with the Chairman of
the Local Government Committee. I think
that there is nothing more important than
the passage of this amendment. It is one of
the most important things we can do.
I call to your attention that the preserva-
tion of natural resources is one of the most
pressing problems facing us. The problem
involves whether we are going to have
water to drink, whether we are going to
have land area to live in, and whether we
are going to have food to eat. These things
are very pressing problems, and they are
|
the kind of things that have to be handled
on a state-wide comprehensive basis.
Now, what in reality happens is that
when you allow these exceptions for local
laws, you allow in a subtle way vested in-
terest to put the pressure on those particu-
lar delegates or senators to make excep-
tions in order to protect those interests.
I think this has been a deplorable situ-
ation in the past, and if we are going to
do anything about it we had better take
this provision out.
In reference to Chairman Moser's state-
ment that there were so few local laws
passed in regard to natural resources, I
would like to read to you a provision in the
report by the Wye Institute in regard to
oysters. They say: "Depletion and subsidy
in the oyster fishery have developed despite
biological and marketing advantages pos-
sessed by Maryland. The basic cause of
these difficulties is Maryland's long-term
policy of treating oyster grounds as a
shared common resource. The difficulties
inherent in this policy have been com-
pounded by the influence of the counties
exercised through state laws that are really
county laws."
THE PRESIDENT: Delegate Raley, will
you try another microphone? I am not sure
whether the trouble is there or in the am-
plifier.
DELEGATE RALEY: This is the Wye
Institute's report which was a study of the
oyster fishery program. It says: "Depletion
and subsidy in the oyster fishery have de-
veloped despite biological and marketing
advantages possessed by Maryland. The ba-
sic cause of these difficulties is Maryland's
long-term policy of treating oyster grounds
as a shared common resource. The difficul-
ties inherent in this policy have been com-
pounded by the influence of the counties
exercised through state laws that are really
county laws."
And then they give the following al-
ternatives to status quo: "(1) repeal or
modification of the county laws; (2) state
control of seed-production; (3) easing of
gear restriction." I will not go on.
The point they make is that because of
this practice of exceptions by counties to
state-wide laws, because of the fact that
we cannot have overall, administrative or-
derly procedure in that resource, has cost
the economy many thousands of dollars.
But more important than that to you
people who live in the City, how in the
|
