Opinion
Record No. 0370-93-1
October 5, 1993
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MATHEWS COUNTY JOHN M. FOLKES, JUDGE.
(John R. Forrest, V, on briefs).
(Stephen D. Rosenthal, Attorney General; Roger L. Chaffe, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Frederick S. Fisher, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: Judges Barrow, Koontz and Bray.
Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.
John R. Forrest, V, challenges Regulation VR 450-01-0079 Pertaining to Commercial Fishing and Mandatory Harvest Reporting. See Code §§ 28.2-241 through -243. Forrest raises numerous questions regarding the constitutionality of the regulation under both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. The Virginia Marine Resources Commission ("Commission") asserts that its regulation was issued pursuant to legislative authority and is a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's police power to regulate its fisheries.
Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the circuit court. Rule 5A:27.
Forrest raises the following issues on appeal: 1) whether the requirement to file a harvest report is contrary to article 1, section 8 of the Virginia Constitution and the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution; 2) whether the requirement to make daily catch records available to authorized persons violates article 1, section 10 of the Virginia Constitution and the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution; 3) whether the Commonwealth has authority to require a commercial fishing license; 4) whether the provision for delayed registration for a commercial fisherman registration license violates article 1, section 4 or article 4, section 14 of the Virginia Constitution; 5) whether the requirement of a commercial hook-and-line license violates article 1, section 1 of the Virginia Constitution; 6) whether the penalty provision of the regulation violates article 1, section 8 of the Virginia Constitution and the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution; and 7) whether the regulation is unconstitutionally vague.
The primary question on appeal is whether the Commission's regulation requiring commercial fishermen to register and to report their harvests is a proper exercise of the Commonwealth's police power and its authority to manage its fisheries for the public good. We hold that it is. The Commonwealth's authority to regulate fishing is long established. See Lynda L. Butler Margit Livingston,Virginia Tidal and Coastal Law § 16.2 (1988). The goal of the legislation, to control the increasing pressure on the Commonwealth's fish stock, is legitimate and the means chosen by the legislature are reasonably related to that legitimate goal.
While Forrest raises many constitutional challenges to the regulation, those challenges are not well-founded. Forrest is engaged in a business which is subject to reasonable regulation by the Commonwealth. We find nothing in the regulatory scheme as enacted that supports Forrest's arguments against it.
Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed.