Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1985 )


Menu:
  • .
    The Attorney        General     of Texas
    JIM MATTOX
    March 5, 1985
    Attorney General
    Suprsms OoutI BulldIng         EonorableFred J. Agnich              OpinionNo. JM-298
    P. 0. Box 12548                Chairman
    At&In. TX. 78711-2548          Committeeon Enviwnmeatal Affairs     Re: Whether the state of Texas
    51211752501                    Texas Eouse of Relmesentatives       must sell commercial fishing
    Telex Slcm7C1307
    Tslscoplsr 51214759255
    P. 0. Box 2910                       licenses to a person residing
    Austin,Texas 711769                  in a state which does not offer
    equivalent licenses to Texts
    714 Jackson. Suite 700                                              residents
    Dallas. TX. 75202-4508
    214i74228944
    Dear Representattire
    Agnich:
    4624 Alberta Ave.. SW4 160         You request an Attorney  General's Opinion concerning sectioo
    El Paso, TX. 79805-2793        47.002 of the !?arks and Wildlife Code, which sets fees for a
    SlY533.3484                    commercial fisherman'slicense. It establishes different fees for
    Texae residentsand nonresidents.
    “391 Texas. Suite 700
    .ouston. TX. 77002.3111           Your letter providesthe follovinginformation:
    71312295aa6
    The state of Arkansas restrictsthe sale of its
    commercialfishing licensesto an area in the Red
    i95 Broadway, Sulle 312
    Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479
    River here   its south bank 1s the boundary line
    0Wl47-5238                              between Arkaasas aad Texas. In DO other area of
    the stnte are Texas residents alloved to fish
    commercially. On the other hand, Texas allovs the
    4309 N. Tenth. SuIta S
    McAllm. TX. ml-1685
    sale of licenses to Arkansas residents to com-
    512m2.4547                              merciallyfish ia any waters in our aFate.
    You ask two q,uestions:
    290 MaIn Plaza, SUIW 4w
    San Antonio. TX. 782052797
    512/2254191
    1. 1,s the state of Texas required to sell
    reciprclcallicenses to a state that restrictsour
    Texas residents?
    AnEqual Opportunity/
    Afll”“atlve   AcMon EmplOyOr               2. Could Texas put a similar restriction on
    the sale of commercial liceaaee to the state of
    Arkanecw?
    Section 47.002 of the Parks and Wildlife Code provides an answer
    to your first qumition:
    p. 1340
    EonorablcFred J. Agnich - P.tlp2    (JM-298)
    (a) No person may engage la business as a
    cossaercialfishermn unless he has obtained a
    generalcommercialfisherman'slicense.
    (b) The licenoe fee for a general commercial
    fisherman'slicense is $15. Fifty cents of the
    fee may be retaine~iby the issuing agent, except
    an employeeof the department.
    (c) The liceam fee for a nonresidentgeneral
    commercialfishermu's license is the amount that
    a Texas resident :lscharged in the state in which
    the nonresident1s residing for a similar license
    or $25, whichever amouat is the larger. The
    department shall publish a list of nonresident
    fees according to the fees of each state and way
    alter the fee amomts in the list before September
    1 of each year for the remainderof that license
    year. Fifty cent,3of the fee may be retained by
    the issuing agent, except an employee of the
    department.
    A "commercial fisherman" 183 defined as "a person who catches fish.
    oysters,or other edible aquatic productsfrom the water of this state
    for pay or for the purpose of sale. barter, or exchange." Parka and
    Wild. Code 547.001(l).
    Sectioa 47.002 provides for the sale of nonresident general
    commercial fisherman'sliceoaea for the fee described in subsection
    Cc). It does aot authorize the Parka aad Wildlife Department to
    refuse a commercialfishermen'slicenseto nonresidentsfor the reason
    that their state diacrimi~rates against Texans in the issuance of
    c-rcial    fishinglicenses,
    Your second question tsiaea an issue of federal constitutional
    law. Nonresidents are protected by the Privileges and Immunities
    Clause, article IV, section :!of the United States Conatitutionrwhich
    guarantees "the Citixena #J:Eeach State shall be entitled to all
    Privilegesand Imnities of Citizens in the several States." In any
    state. aonreaidentaare to have the same privilegesand immunitiesas
    residents of that state. Baldwin v. Fish and Game CocmPissioaof
    Hontaaa, 
    436 U.S. 371
    (1978');Hague v. CIO. 
    307 U.S. 496
    (1939). This
    clausehas been interpreted'LOpraveat a state from imposingunreason-
    able burdens on citizens oE other states in their pursuit of common
    callings within the state. Baldwin v. Fish and Game Commission of
    Montana,supra.
    Discriminationbetween residentsand aonresidentsis permissible
    where there is a substantialreason for the differenceof treatment.
    p. 1341
    RonorableFred J. Agaich -   Pago   3   (Jn-298)
    United Building and ConstructionTrades Council of Camden County and
    Vicinity v. Mayor and Com;i:ilof the City of Camden, 
    104 S. Ct. 1020
    (1984). The substantial&son must. however, show "that noncitizena
    constitute a peculiar source of the evil at which the q tatute is
    aimed." Toomer v. Witaell, 
    334 U.S. 385
    (1948). Retaliationagainst
    another  state's discriminatory legialatioa does aot provide the
    required justification. Austin v. Raw Eampahire. 
    420 U.S. 656
    , 668
    (1975). Travis v. Yale uptown Manufacturing.Co., 
    252 U.S. 60
    . 82
    (1920).
    Commercialfishinghas been recognizedas an occupationprotected
    by the Privilegesaad IxmanitieaClause. Toomer v. 
    Witaell. supra
    .
    Cf. Baldwin v. Fish and Game Cosxaiaaioa  of  Montana, 
    436 U.S. 371
    (1978) (recreationalbig-iame hunting in Montana is aot a right
    protectedby Privilegesand ImmunitiesClause). In Toomer v. Uitsell,
    the United States Supreme Court declared unconstitutionala South
    Carolinastatutewhich vir,:ually excludednonreaidentafrom commercial
    shrimp fishingin South Ca:rolinawaters. Toomer v. Witsell,supra, at
    396-97. For each ahrimpb~,at owned by a nonresident.South Carolina
    requireda license fee one-hundredtimes that paid by residents. 
    Id. at 389.
    The court found no reasonable relationshipbetween rhe
    state's alleged purpose of conservation and this discriminatory
    statute.   There was no "reasonablerelationshipbetween the danger
    representedby non-citizens,as a class, and the severe discrimination
    practicedupon them." 
    Id. et 399.
    Nor did a state's interestin its
    wildlife justify its unroaaonableinterferencewith a nonresident's
    right to pursue a livelihoodin a state other than his own. Toomer v.
    Witsell. 
    334 U.S. 385
    .(19'18).,
    See also Dobard v. State, 
    233 S.W.2d 435
    (Tex. 1950).
    We conclude,in anawcr to your second question.that Texas may
    not discriminateagainst the residentsof other states in the sale of
    commercialfishinglicensesunless such discriminationis supportedby
    a "substantialreason"as rtequiredby the United States SupremeCourt.
    RetaliationagainstArkanassfor apparentdiacriminatioaagainstTexas
    residentsdoes not constitutethe requisitereason.
    SUMMARY
    Section 47.0(12of the Parka and Wildlife Code
    provides for the sale of nonresident general
    commercialfisherman'slicenses for the fees set
    out in subaec!::lon  (c). The Privileges and
    ImmuaitieaClauoe, article IV. section 2 of the
    United States C~oaatitution prohibits Texas from
    discriminatingeSainat residents of other states
    in the sale of ct=rcial fishing licensesunless
    a substantialroeaon supports the discrimination.
    Retaliation agafnat another   atate~for apparent
    p. 1342
    RonorableFred J. Agnich - I?age4    (JM-298)
    discriminationa@nst   Texas residents does not
    constitutethe requiredsubstantialreason.
    JIM    MATTOX
    AttorneyGeneral of Texas
    TOM GREEN
    First AssistantAttorneyGeneral
    DAVID R. RICHARDS
    ExecutiveAssistantAttorneyGeneral
    RICX GILPIN
    Chairman,Opinion Committee
    Preparedby Susan L. Garrhon &
    Jack Carter
    AssistantAttorneysGeneral.
    APPROVED:
    OPINION COMMITTEE
    Rick Gilpin.-Chairman
    Jon Bible
    Susan Garrison
    Tony Guillory
    Jim Moelliager
    JenniferRiggs
    Nancy Sutton
    p. 1343