Is It Legal to Fish in Canals

“You have to show that there are numbers and sips of recreational fishermen who want to access these canals,” he said. “You can argue that this will have a significant economic impact on the state.” Question: I see people fishing in the canals all the time, especially in the Sunnyslope area. Do they need a fishing licence and is the fish they catch safe to eat? Want to know which waters are considered private in your favorite fishing area? Click here to learn how to see a map of all the state`s waters. MUNICIPALITIES – REGULATION OF TRAFFIC OR FISHING IN ARTIFICIAL CANALS WITHIN MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES TO: Euel L. Roberts, Chief Constable, Melbourne Beach Prepared by: Halley B. Lewis, Assistant Attorney General QUESTIONS: 1. Does the City of Melbourne Beach have the legal authority to regulate the removal of fish from artificial channels within its business boundaries? 2. Does the City of Melbourne Beach have the right to regulate traffic on waterways under municipal jurisdiction? Summary: The City of Melbourne Beach does not have the legal authority to issue an ordinance regulating the catch of fish in an artificial channel within its business boundaries. The City of Melbourne Beach does not have the power to regulate vessel traffic on an artificial body of water that has remained privately owned. The first question must be answered in the negative. When describing the need to comment, your letter refers to commercial fishermen who sometimes block the canals with nets so that other people`s boats cannot use the canals. This, in addition to knowing the location of Melbourne Beach, leads me to believe that the water that occupied the artificial canals when it was dug is salt water from the Atlantic Ocean.

However, the question is first answered by assuming that the water in artificial channels is salt water, and then assuming that the water in question is fresh water. To clarify the matter, it should be recalled that in 1973, in accordance with Article VIII, § 2 (b), of Const. of the State, the legislature transferred powers of autonomy to municipalities by Chapters 73-129, Laws of Florida, and called these powers “Municipal Home Rule Powers Act,” which appears in Chapter 166, F.S. Section 166.021(1) and (3)(c). provides: `(1) In accordance with Article VIII(2)(b) of the Land Constitution, municipalities shall have State, enterprise and property powers to manage local government, exercise municipal functions and provide municipal services, and may exercise any power for municipal purposes, unless expressly prohibited by law. * * * * * (3) (c) Any subject expressly preempted by the Constitution or by the general law of the state or county government;. The next logical investigation is whether the regulation of saltwater and freshwater fishing was anticipated by the state or county government. The power to regulate each individual was anticipated by the state. In the case of saltwater fishing, regulatory jurisdiction under sections 370.102 and 125.01 (4), F.S., was anticipated by the Crown and falls under the Division of the Department of Natural Resources by Chapter 370, F.S. The competence to exercise regulatory and executive powers with respect to freshwater organizations was conferred on the Wild Fauna and Flora and Freshwater Fish Commission by Article IV, p. 9, of the Const. of the State, and of the Law on Fauna and Flora promulgated under its authority. There has been no significant change in the authority to regulate fish catching since I discussed the issue in AGO 071-337.

The second question must also be answered in the negative. The answer to your second question is in para. 371.522, 371.59, 371.67 and 371.68, F. S., and as discussed in AGO 074-286. Essentially, the specified sections authorize the submission of a petition to the Department of Marine Resources, Department of Natural Resources, which in turn has the authority to make appropriate rules and regulations on the subject. As noted in the latter notice, a water safety order, if properly published, may be enforced under sections 901.15 and 901.25, F.S. The use of the term “artificial” in the description of the canals leads me to conclude that, if the owner of the land under the artificial body of water has never made the overlying water available to the public, he controls the fishing in the water by controlling the means of access to it. Also for someone who has a proper license or permission to fish and even if the season is required by law to catch fish in other waters in the area. Similarly, there would be no power to control traffic on a body of water that is wholly privately owned. The issue of private ownership of land under a body of water was discussed in AGO 071-168, with Clemens v.

Watson, 58 So. 25 (fla. 1912). In my view, he stated: “It should be noted, however, that a restriction was announced by the Florida Supreme Court in Clement, op. cit. cit.: The right of control of the owner of the land is subject to the law. Owner control over the fishery could be regulated or repealed if Parliament establishes a sufficient public purpose.