Tidal Fish Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Chris, I haven't heard yea or nay from CCA-MD on this. I know a couple of things. I know an informal vote of the Southern Maryland chapter was taken just prior to this bill's introduction and the response was an overwhelming no. I know some folks from CCA-MD's legislative committee were consulted during the drafting stage of this bill, and the decision at that time was to move forward in order to be involved should the bill get filed. I thought some decision was supposed to be made before filing concerning just where CCA stood vis-a-vie the bill in its final form, now what actually happened I don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
You know, this brings to the forefront some potentially contridictory issues at a time when things could get real interesting...

SB 702 will, if passed, usurp DNR regulatory authority to ban nets in rivers during the yellow perch spawning runs. There is a hearing coming up this Thursday concerning SB 702 at 1 PM in the Senate Education, Health, and Environmental Affairs Committee.

SB 1012 will give DNR a raise.

Anyone that is prepared to testify in favor of SB 702 better be prepared to answer where they stand on SB 1012. If you support SB 702 because you don't believe that DNR has been doing their job, you are going to have to figure out how they deserve a raise. The easy way out is that you don't support SB 1012, they don't deserve a raise.

Or maybe you do support SB 1012, on the rationale that while you don't support DNR's public policy decisions in the past, often made despite science to the contrary, or perhaps in the lack of any available science, you do support the DNR's people in the field who develop the data, and thus feel the funding boost necessary. Or maybe you think the new DNR team will be better than past administrations...

Just be prepared to run into the question is all I'm saying...I hate getting blindsided at hearings and these issues could be confusing for committee members, not to mention someone who walked in unprepared having not thought about the seeming contridictions here...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,553 Posts
Chum

I've said it before,CCA can be a good organization, but it should be run by its Chairman-President and his executive board.

This proves that decisions are made by people behind the scene and they (decisions) shouldn't be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Chum

I've said it before,CCA can be a good organization, but it should be run by its Chairman-President and his executive board.

This proves that decisions are made by people behind the scene and they (decisions) shouldn't be.
I think you have the cart before the horse again, Reds. Why don't you wait until they meet this week and then let's see what we have. I suspect a vote of some sort will take place. The problem with not having a cult of the personality organization like the former USSR or some other groups I can think of is that the decision making process may seem pondersome at times, what with meetings and such. I'm sure you can wait a few days like the rest of us.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,553 Posts
I think you have the cart before the horse again, Reds. Why don't you wait until they meet this week and then let's see what we have. I suspect a vote of some sort will take place. The problem with not having a cult of the personality organization like the former USSR or some other groups I can think of is that the decision making process may seem pondersome at times, what with meetings and such. I'm sure you can wait a few days like the rest of us.
Yeah. That's the correct way to do it, let someone else make the decision and then the people that are suppose to, rubber stamp it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 · (Edited)
You know, you may just be more cynical than me...I doubt there will be a lot of rubber stamping going on...I'd look for a close vote after a heated debate.

The problem is this. The state is facing a billion dollar budget shortfall, this bill, SB 1012, may have legs no matter where anybody stands by now. It may get marked up so bad nobody recognizes it when it pops out...Who knows? Ask Jim Gracie, he's plugged in pretty well, or the DNR, they aren't much on management but they have been doing some crackerjack lobbying lately...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,163 Posts
I think Candy missed the mark with the "grassy knoll" comment.

Going back over the pissing and moaning, most of the complaints were related to what I call "bait and switch" tactics of politicians...a perchant to remove the General Fund support once the user fees are raised...thus ensuring that the problem is not fixed, but now the General Fund has more assets to go buy what the politicians really want to buy. I think a lot of the rank and file would support the increase if they really thought the money would go to DNR, and the politicians wouldn't reduce funding out of the General Fund.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Here ya go Reds...My dream question? "Why, Mr. Joseph Blow, do you support SB 1012, which would provide for a boost in funding for an agency that lobbyied hard behind the scenes to kill SB 702?"

Well, uhhh, Senator, uhhhh, see, it's kinda like this, I'm a dumb ass...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,553 Posts
Here ya go Reds...My dream question? "Why, Mr. Joseph Blow, do you support SB 1012, which would provide for a boost in funding for an agency that lobbyied hard behind the scenes to kill SB 702?"

Well, uhhh, Senator, uhhhh, see, it's kinda like this, I'm a dumb ass...
Candy has already answered that question. DNR needs the money. SB702 is a bad bill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 · (Edited)
Candy has already answered that question. DNR needs the money. SB702 is a bad bill.
Oh yeah, she's been consistant. I think Emerson might have been right in this case...One bill is being advanced by grassroots conservation and rec angling organizations, and the other is being advanced by a consultant to the DNR by coopting groups like the MSSA and maybe the CCA with promises of a better world...

One clearly on the face of it benefits yellow perch, the other clearly on the face of it benefits anyone with financial ties to DNR...

There's grassy knoll for ya...

And the problem with waiting ten months to consider legislation like this would have been what again? The problem with seeing just what this new DNR was all about before popping for a fee increase was what?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,095 Posts
I don't necessarily believe its a bad bill...I just think it'll be in the hands of a group of bad politicians.

Do I think the DNR needs more money for research...yes, I do.

Would I be willing to pay extra so that they get the money...yes, I would.


BUT, it would need to be done in such a way as to bypass the political process and its money-grabbing 'good 'ole boys'.

Show me that and I'm on board.

Ed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
And then we are back to the flawed nature of "dedicated" funds in this state again, and that isn't going to change anytime soon. But I would add, show me AT LEAST an agency that acts in good faith and I could get on board. Because right now, in an environment where the state faces a billion dollar shortfall AND the agency scheduled for the funding boost has not acted in good faith, I have no reason to be optomistic about SB 1012, none...

IF DNR could be relied upon to use those dollars as they were intended and fight for those dollars should attempts be made to divert them I would be singing a different tune, but that's not where we are at now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,548 Posts
And the problem with waiting ten months to consider legislation like this would have been what again? The problem with seeing just what this new DNR was all about before popping for a fee increase was what?
My understanding is that the DNR does not have 10 months if it wants to avoid losing yet more institutional knowledge and making more law enforcement cuts. As for the issue with the general fund, why don't those tesitfying raise this? Let's make our legislators take a stand on whether they will allocations from the general fund if user fees increase. That's not a perfect sollution, since such promises can be broken (at political risk, however), but letting DNR dry up even more isn't such a great sollution to this crisis, either.

Personally, I don't understand why MDE doesn't absord the function of DNR. That would seem to have some cost-cutting benefits, but that's not currently on the table (so far as I am aware) and in the meantime, further crippling DNR just adds to rebuilding/recruiting expenses later.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 · (Edited)
Oh, and while we are hanging out on the grassy knoll, anyone know what happens to a bill when it passes and is signed into law? Somebody has to interpret what it means so it can get codified into law don't they? Isn't that usually the agency tasked with implementing the new law?

Now no nets in rivers is about as air tight as you can get...God bless tight bill drafting and SB 702.

What does "optimize" mean in SB 1012? I know what it means to some folks in CCA, I bet it might mean all kinds of things to say, oh, a guy considering a put and take oyster industry reliant upon tax payer dollars to the tune of seven digits...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
My understanding is that the DNR does not have 10 months if it wants to avoid losing yet more institutional knowledge and making more law enforcement cuts. As for the issue with the general fund, why don't those tesitfying raise this? Let's make our legislators take a stand on whether they will allocations from the general fund if user fees increase. That's not a perfect sollution, since such promises can be broken (at political risk, however), but letting DNR dry up even more isn't such a great sollution to this crisis, either.

Personally, I don't understand why MDE doesn't absord the function of DNR. That would seem to have some cost-cutting benefits, but that's not currently on the table (so far as I am aware) and in the meantime, further crippling DNR just adds to rebuilding/recruiting expenses later.
I thought boat fees were getting jacked to cover the NRP? No? That's what I heard, maybe somebody is tuned up on that. And that's the first I heard of DNR actually entering some sort of crisis mode if not salvaged in the next 10 months, where did you hear that?

Let me echo the words of a pretty good guy...

"I'm very reluctant to tell the people they need to cut a bigger check before I've made some cuts myself," O'Malley said.

Ten months is going to do them in?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,163 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 · (Edited)
Here's the bottom line for those that think SB 1012 is a good deal. If 1012 is a good deal and you trust the Department to spend that money as intended, then surely you can trust them to fix this yellow perch problem, right? Eight years of effort notwithstanding of course...So let's give them their money and kill SB 702 so they can rightly do their job, right?

After all, you are supporting SB 1012 because of what they say they will do, you don't need SB 702 because with the new money they can do their job right and they say they can fix that too!

Great, eh?

I have always had no problem with an increase in user fees with one caveat: Show me something. DNR hasn't shown me anything out of the fourth floor yet. They have managed primarily for commercial interests to the detriment of anyone else and the health of the Bay. That is their track record. Until I see, not hear but see, something different I think we should retain that carrot of a funding increase...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
85 Posts
Maybe Omega could contibute the budget deficit and in turn they could operate without any DNR interfrence.
That's how the real world works
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
208 Posts
Just so everybody's clear on a few things, CCA Maryland
  1. Has not taken a position on SB 1012. We have a process to follow. It'll likely be the week of March 19 before our Board votes on a motion that will be put forward by the Management Committee after considering motions put to it by the Fisheries Committee and the Government Relations Committee. All of these committees and the Board have representation from each chapter.
  2. We had a hand in drafting the bill, which is a good thing. Without our input, it would be a budget bill, the result of our input is the emphasis on reform. Supporters of the bill are seeking friends, CCA Maryland is seeking reform. If CCA Maryland ends up supporting the bill, it'll be because it is satisfied with the reform measures in it.
  3. CCA Maryland would support even higher fees and other ways through licensing to generate revenue if the reform portion of any legislation to increase fees was done right. How's that for a carrot to do this right?
  4. CCA Maryland is NOT a member of MARC.
CCA Maryland has done a lot to lay the groundwork to use DNR's reliance on special funds, most of which comes from recreational fishermen, who also hold the key to increased funding, to reform DNR. Put bluntly, it's our leverage. We're not going to give that away so people in high places talk nice to us. For CCA Maryland, this is about what's best for the fish, our members, and recreational fishermen. That's who we're accountable to.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top