An Act to amend and reenact § 28.2-234 of the Code of Virginia and to repeal § 28.2-235 of the Code of Virginia, relating to Marine Resources Commission; license tags and identification numbers; marking of commercial fishing boats, nets, and other devices.
HB645 updates Virginia’s marine resources laws governing how commercial fishing gear and related business licenses must be marked and displayed. The bill amends § 28.2-234 to specify where license tags must be attached for different types of fixed and mobile fishing devices, including pound nets, fyke nets, crab traps, gill nets, haul seines, purse nets, trawl nets, crab pots, trotlines, and crab scrapes. It also requires identification numbers, when issued for particular devices, to be applied by the license holder and kept in place whenever the gear is deployed.
The bill also makes clear that license tags for seafood-purchasing businesses must be displayed in a conspicuous place on the business premises, boat, or motor vehicle. Failure to properly attach or display a required tag or identification number remains a Class 1 misdemeanor. In addition, HB645 repeals § 28.2-235, removing a separate statutory provision related to these marking requirements and consolidating the rules within the amended section.
HB645 primarily affects commercial fishing operators, seafood buyers, and others regulated by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission by clarifying and consolidating tagging and identification requirements for fishing gear and related business licenses. It amends existing law in Title 28.2 to provide more specific placement rules for license tags and identification numbers and repeals a separate section, § 28.2-235, that previously addressed related marking provisions. The criminal penalty for noncompliance remains in place as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so the bill’s sentiment cannot be measured from debate or roll-call data. Based on the enacted text, the measure appears administrative and regulatory in nature, aimed at clarifying compliance obligations rather than creating a new policy direction. The absence of recorded opposition or amendment discussion suggests no documented controversy in the supplied record.
No specific points of contention are available in the provided transcripts or votes because none were included. Potential areas of concern, based on the text alone, would likely involve commercial fishing licensees and seafood businesses that must comply with the tagging and display rules, especially because violations remain criminal offenses. The bill’s repeal of § 28.2-235 may also have been relevant to stakeholders interested in whether the consolidation changes enforcement or compliance expectations, but no explicit objections are documented here.