On most Florida lakes, boaters have the right to fish undisturbed, even close to residential shorelines.

Holly Hill businessman Darrell Starling had been fishing the Halifax River for over 30 years, and like many inshore anglers he’d learned that the shaded waters around docks can hold a lot of fish. That was the plan he was pursuing on a Sunday morning in April 2005 as he drifted near one of the docks at the NASCAR Marina, just south of the Seabreeze Bridge.

Marina personnel did not view that kindly.

One employee told Starling he could not fish there and that he needed to “move on.” Starling informed the employee that he was on state-owned navigable waters and had every right to do precisely what he was doing. That didn’t satisfy the employee, who promptly called the Daytona Beach Police to report a “trespassing fisherman.” Starling was still fishing when the officer arrived, and he told the officer the same thing he told the marina employee.

That didn’t satisfy the officer, who promptly motioned Starling to come ashore.

In what some could view as an unwise move, Starling did not comply with the request and headed his boat out into the river. The officer then launched the Department’s patrol boat, caught up with Starling later on, and issued him two tickets unrelated to the “trespassing” offense.

Was there actually a trespass offense that precipitated the entire event and the pursuit that resulted in the tickets? No. After a review of the pertinent laws, the Daytona Beach Police Department acknowledged that errors were made in their handling of the incident.

Starling was quite correct in his assertion that he was acting lawfully and should not have been interfered with. In fact, he was “right” enough that the marina employee who initially attempted to run him off, and then called the police, could have been looking at 60 days in jail and a $500 fine!

Florida Statute 372.705, “Harassment of hunters, trappers and fishers,” states:

(1) A person may not intentionally, within a public or privately owned wildlife management or fish management area or on any state-owned water body:

(a) Interfere with or attempt to prevent the lawful taking of fish, game, or nongame animals by another.

(b) Attempt to disturb fish, game or nongame animals or attempt to affect their behavior with the intent to prevent their lawful taking by another.

(2) Any person who violates subsection (1) is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

The latter two statutes set the penalty for a second degree misdemeanor as up to 60 days in jail and a fine of up to $500.

On the surface, the law would seem to be pretty clear-cut. But, given that a significant percentage of the legislators who write the laws are themselves lawyers, it includes the usual assortment of “therefores,” “whereases” and “thembenots” that tend to keep the legal profession both busy and prosperous. In this case, the key words within this law are “public,” “lawful taking,” and “intent.”

“The law only applies to public lands and waters, or other lands or waters that are under the control of the state,” says Lieutenant Bob Lee, a veteran 29-year officer with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. “It does not apply on private lands, or other properties that are not under state control.”

As the law applies to hunters, it’s fairly simple.

If a properly licensed and permitted hunter, during an established hunting season (lawful taking) is on a Wildlife Management Area or other land under state control (public) it would be a violation of the law to intentionally interfere with that hunter’s activities.

There's no law against fishing around docks on public coastal waters, as long as you comply with naviagation rules and avoid contact with the structure.

Just what meets the legal definition of “intent” is often determined by plain old common sense. A person who wanders under your tree stand without realizing you are there may have scared off game animals and interfered with your hunting, but there was no intent and no violation occurred. An animal rights activist who circles the tree stand banging two frying pans together obviously has “intent.”

Put that hunter on private land, however, and the picture changes. Remove the “public” aspect and the harassment law does not apply, but others could.

“If the hunter has permission to be on that land,” says Lt. Lee, “and he is harassed, you would need to see if the people committing that act also have permission to be there. Most likely they don’t, so you would be looking at a trespass case, not a harassment case, and that is how it would be handled.”

Shift from woods to waters, however, and the situation can become quite muddied.

“We get a number of complaints every year,” Lee notes, “especially during the bass bedding season on the St. Johns River, from waterfront property owners that say anglers are fishing too close to their dock. The reality of it is that if that dock is sitting on state-controlled waters, an angler has every right to fish around it. If it’s public water it belongs to the public and a legally licensed angler has every right to be there. If that dock happens to be in a canal or boat basin, the situation can get very complex.”