HB757 adds R.S. 56:320(J) to prohibit any person from authorizing, directing, or owning or controlling an agent or vessel that takes menhaden for commercial purposes within the area designated by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries under LAC 76:VII.307. The statute declares violators strictly liable and sets a four‑tier penalty scheme: fines from $50,000 to $250,000 and escalating commercial license suspensions up to permanent revocation.
This matters for commercial fishing operators, vessel owners, processors, and coastal supply chains because the bill shifts enforcement risk to owners and entities regardless of fault, establishes unusually large statutory fines, and relies on LDWF’s geographic designation to define the prohibited area—creating immediate compliance, contractual, and enforcement implications for industry and regulators alike.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars knowing and intentional authorization, direction, control, or ownership of an agent or vessel engaged in commercial menhaden taking within LDWF‑designated waters and overrides existing penalty provisions by imposing strict liability. It prescribes a tiered penalty schedule: $50,000 for a first offense up to $250,000 and permanent license revocation for a fourth or subsequent offense.
Who It Affects
Commercial menhaden harvesters, vessel owners and operators, companies that contract or manage fishing agents, processors and buyers in the menhaden supply chain, and LDWF as the enforcing agency. It also reaches corporate entities and other juridical persons through an expansive definition of “person.”
Why It Matters
This law would transfer compliance risk away from proving culpable intent and onto ownership/control relationships, creating strong disincentives for participation in the menhaden commercial value chain and forcing firms to redesign contracts, oversight, and insurance. It also sets a precedent for strict‑liability fisheries enforcement tied to a department‑designated geographic rule.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB757 creates a targeted prohibition on commercial menhaden harvesting by focusing not only on the individual who pulls nets but on anyone who authorizes, directs, owns or controls the agent or vessel that performs the taking. The prohibited area is not written into the statute itself; instead the statute references the area set by LDWF under LAC 76:VII.307, so the ban’s spatial scope depends on an administrative rule maintained outside the statute.
The bill says that, notwithstanding other penalty provisions in state fisheries law, violators will be held strictly liable for the taking. That means LDWF or prosecutors would not need to prove negligence or intent to obtain penalties; the statute then prescribes four escalating sanctions: large fines (starting at $50,000) and, beginning at the second offense, administrative revocations of the commercial fisherman’s license for specified maximum durations, up to permanent revocation after a fourth offense.
The text requires notice and an opportunity for an administrative hearing before license revocations take effect.HB757 also includes an expansive definition of “person” to cover natural persons and a wide array of business and association forms, ensuring corporate owners and non‑operating stakeholders are within reach of enforcement. Practically, firms in the menhaden chain will need compliance controls, clear contracting and supervisory rules for agents and vessels, and likely changes to insurance and contractual indemnities to manage the new strict‑liability exposure.Operationally, LDWF will carry primary enforcement responsibility; the statute’s reliance on an LDWF administrative designation for the regulated area means updates to LAC 76:VII.307 could expand or contract the scope without further legislative change.
The bill does not appropriate funds for enforcement or explicitly address how fines are assessed or collected, leaving procedural details to implementing regulations and agency practice.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statutory prohibition applies only within the geographic area set by the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries under LAC 76:VII.307 rather than naming fixed coordinates in the statute.
The law imposes strict liability: prosecutors or enforcement bodies do not need to prove fault to impose the statutory fines tied to the taking.
Penalty schedule: $50,000 (first), $75,000 + up to 30 days license revocation (second), $100,000 + up to 365 days revocation (third), and $250,000 + permanent revocation (fourth or subsequent).
License revocations require that the violator receive notice and an opportunity for an administrative hearing before the revocation takes effect, which folds agency adjudication into the sanctioning process.
The definition of “person” explicitly includes natural and juridical persons—corporations, LLCs, partnerships, trusts, associations, and other entities—bringing owners and corporate controllers within the statute’s reach.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prohibition focused on authorization, control, and ownership
This subsection bars any person from knowingly and intentionally authorizing, directing, or having control or ownership of an agent or vessel that takes menhaden commercially within the LDWF‑designated area. Its drafting targets chain‑of‑command and ownership structures, not simply the crew that operates gear, so managers, contract supervisors, or owners who exercise control may be implicated.
Strict liability and four‑tier penalty schedule
This provision disapplies the usual penalty framework referenced elsewhere in fisheries law and replaces it with strict liability and specific monetary fines plus administrative license sanctions. The section lists the dollar amounts and the maximum durations of license suspension or permanent revocation tied to increasing offense counts, creating clear, escalating financial and licensing consequences for repeat violations.
Administrative hearings tied to revocations
While fines can be imposed under the statute, the text conditions license revocation on the agency providing notice and an opportunity for an administrative hearing. That integrates LDWF’s administrative process into the penalty flow and implies use of agency adjudication rules to determine the timing and procedures for revocation decisions.
Broad definition of person
This clause defines “person” to include a wide range of business forms and associations, explicitly extending liability beyond individuals to corporations, LLCs, partnerships, trusts, and unincorporated entities. The breadth here signals legislative intent to reach corporate structures and not just licensed fishermen.
Overrides and reference to existing penalty law
The bill begins by stating its provisions apply “notwithstanding the provisions of Subpart A of Part II of Chapter 1 of this Title,” meaning it supersedes existing penalty frameworks for fisheries takes. It also relies on the LDWF administrative rule citation to determine regulated waters, coupling statutory prohibition with agency rulemaking.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- LDWF and conservation managers — gives the agency a clear statutory tool to target commercial menhaden harvesting in the department’s designated waters and a framework for escalating penalties.
- Ecosystem and forage species conservation advocates — the ban reduces commercial removal pressure on menhaden, a forage species, potentially benefiting predator species and broader ecosystem functions.
- Non‑menhaden commercial fisheries and recreational anglers — may see reduced competition for forage species and ecological benefits that support other fisheries over time.
Who Bears the Cost
- Commercial menhaden harvesters and vessel owners — they face direct financial exposure from large fines and the risk of temporary or permanent loss of commercial licenses.
- Processors, reduction plants, and buyers in the menhaden supply chain — could face supply disruptions and contract risk if harvest capacity is curtailed or operators exit the fishery.
- Corporate owners, managers, and firms that contract fishing agents — the law extends liability to juridical persons, increasing compliance, legal, and insurance costs for non‑operating stakeholders.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between strong, quick enforcement to protect marine ecosystems and the economic and due‑process burdens placed on owners and corporate actors: the bill seeks effective conservation by imposing strict, high‑stakes penalties, but it risks overreach and uncertainty by stretching liability to non‑operating entities and leaving procedural mechanics and the mens rea question unresolved.
The statute combines a culpability phrase—“knowingly and intentionally authorize, direct, or have control or ownership”—with an explicit declaration that violators will be held strictly liable. That creates a drafting tension: strict liability normally removes the need to prove mental state, yet the operative prohibition language appears to import mens rea.
Implementers and courts will need to resolve whether the mens rea phrasing limits the universe of targeted conduct or whether strict liability is applied regardless of knowledge. This ambiguity affects how aggressive LDWF can be in pursuing owners and corporate controllers.
The bill anchors the prohibited area to an administrative rule (LAC 76:VII.307), which permits spatial flexibility but also shifts a major policy lever to the department’s rulemaking process. That design can speed geographic changes but raises questions about notice, stakeholder input, and how frequently boundaries might change.
Additionally, the statute prescribes large fines but does not spell out collection mechanics, whether fines are civil or criminal, or how they interact with existing civil penalty procedures, leaving procedural and constitutional issues for later clarification.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.