Cost Recovery & Accountability

[BILL H]

Which is cheaper to the State of Maryland : subsidize the commercial industry or have them draw welfare ?

The historical concept of "welfare" no longer exists. It is only a very temporary program since the 1990's (thanks to joint efforts of Messers. Gingrich and Clinton). Subsidies appear to be forever.

[Shawn Kimbro]

It came to about $550 and that is determined by the State as a fair and reasonable fee at this time. I'm not sure how CCA, which is a fine organization, has more insights into determining those costs and what is appropriate than the State. An annual non-resident recreational MD license is $20.50. $550/$20.

Not that too many people do, but it's usually best to check out facts and figures before reposting them on the internet. $550.00? It sounds like you got suckered, Jim:

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries...mlicenses.html


Also, don't forget that the governor committed to matching the last recreational license fee increase with matching funds. That explains the General Fund money going to recreational fishing. I agree with Scott that most anglers are happy to step up if we see a return for our investment, but this has absolutely nothing to do with recreational fees that are covering 93% and everything to do with commercial that are only covering 20%.

[Shawn Kimbro]

I didn't suggest you, your friend, or anyone was lying. I won't chase this rabbit, but your figures from your second-hand source are given the weight they deserve. Do you think he was including his boat registration, license tags, dock fees, bridge tolls, etc.? Even if he is, when you think about it, $550.00 is one heck of a nice deal.

I would think that a full-time responsible commercial fishermen like your friend would welcome increased fees because it would cut out some of the part-timers who just buy the 100 buck all-gear finfish license to fish when they get time off from their other jobs. I know some full time commercial fishermen who would greatly benefit from less competition, especially since most believe the part-time guys are more likely to play loose and fast with the laws.

[Offshore12]

CCA: Keep up the good work!! 20% wow!!!

Maryland - THE POACHING STATE

[Brandon]

Shawn, great points, well stated.

I'd suggest that so what if the fees were $550? It sounds like that number included some other fees since the license itself it not just that, but let's go with it.

That number by itself really means nothing with out some framing. I am sorry I could not make the meeting, so pardon the questions.

Did the speaker tell you his total revenue generated off gil netting? For instance, if he made $50,000 in revenue and was charged $550 that is only a 1.1% fee, tax or whatever you want to call it. Not to mention the fees are tax deductible on his P&L.

If he makes more then $50k then of course the percentage goes down even further. Add in that the commercials have not had a license increase since the 1990's and is only covering 20% of their costs to enforce and run a for profit business that extracts wealth from a public resource and I think what we have here is a situation that needs to be fixed fast. I'd suggest we'll see a fix in the near future and thank goodness!

[Brandon]

Jim
I think you are really reaching, we can make that case with anything. I spend money and I am taxed at 6% sales tax, the person I buy from makes money and pays taxes and I am paying for the goods with money that is already taxed at my fully loaded state and federal rate.

When we start talking about this we are talking total economic impact. What we are talking about here is an industry being responsible and taking responsibility. All we are hearing from the commercial side is we do not want a license increase(s), but we still want to be subsidized to continue their for profit business. I have already said that some subsidy can be OK, but when you are only pulling 20% of your weight and leaving the other 80% to the recs and general public, I think it's time to step up to the plate.

[jacksdad]

Not that too many people do, but it's usually best to check out facts and figures before reposting them on the internet. $550.00? It sounds like you got suckered, Jim:

, but this has absolutely nothing to do with recreational fees that are covering 93% and everything to do with commercial that are only covering 20%.

Why does the comm guy have to support his claim with receipts for you and DNR does not?

[Shawn Kimbro]

Why does the comm guy have to support his claim with receipts for you and DNR does not?

So the argument is, DNR just made it all up? I suppose that's possible so I'll also give that argument the weight it deserves.

[jacksdad]

I think the thing to remember is that DNR is a gov't agency that will ultimately make decisions designed to further its own existence. It could be that given recent news events comm fees are the low hanging fruit out there. I certainly don't know but the instant regurgitation as fact of these numbers shows either an ingorance of gov't budgeting or a bias that isn't in the best interest of fairness. Add to that an instant cry of 'bullshit' to the comms claim of license fees paid and you have what appears to be a one sided conversation going on here.

[Shawn Kimbro]

Jim, you're becoming a master of dis-information on TF.

MSSA's previous letter has nothing to do with CCA's present statement. MSSA is a great organization and is right to be concerned about the current state of affairs, but this is CCA's statement and that's it.

When you see a DNR response to CCA's position, I hope you'll post it. Otherwise, please stick with the truth so I don't have to keep coming on here to point out your misinformation!