.
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