SEARCH SITE
VIRGINIA LAW PORTAL
- Code of Virginia
- Virginia Administrative Code
- Constitution of Virginia
- Charters
- Authorities
- Compacts
- Uncodified Acts
- RIS Users (account required)
SEARCHABLE DATABASES
- Bills & Resolutions
session legislation - Bill Summaries
session summaries - Reports to the General Assembly
House and Senate documents - Legislative Liaisons
State agency contacts
ACROSS SESSIONS
- Subject Index: Since 1995
- Bills & Resolutions: Since 1994
- Summaries: Since 1994
Developed and maintained by the Division of Legislative Automated Systems.
1997 SESSION
(HB1915)JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE REPORT
We, the conferees, appointed by the respective bodies to consider and report upon the disagreeing vote on House Bill No. 1915, report as follows:
We recommend that the Senate Amendment be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
Delegate Glenn R. Croshaw
Delegate R. Creigh Deeds*
Delegate Leo C. Wardrup, Jr.
Conferees on the part of the House
Senator William T. Bolling
Senator W. Henry Maxwell
Senator Malfourd W. Trumbo*
Conferees on the part of the Senate
We agree with the purpose of the bill. However, we dissent from the conference report because we view the Senate amendment as absolutely necessary. In adopting a regulation restricting the method of fishing on the Jackson River in Alleghany County, the Board of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries ignored the recommendation of its own staff as well as the views of the people who live and own property along the Jackson.
The Jackson flows primarily through private land. Tensions have often been high among landowners and fishermen. In fact, just last year, the Supreme Court of Virginia sided with the property owners in one dispute -- upholding several crown grants. Now is the time to work for new understanding and cooperation over use of the Jackson.
The Board's decision is a step in the other direction. By preventing landowners and taxpayers from fishing with live bait, the Board's restriction will, we fear, increase the friction between landowners and fishermen. Ultimately, fishermen will lose access to larger portions of the river as "No Trespassing" signs become even more prevalent. The restriction which the Senate amendment seeks to undo is an unwarranted innovation of private property rights and will result in unintended consequences. Therefore, we respectfully dissent.
Delegate R. Creigh Deeds
Senator Malfourd W. Trumbo