I've been traveling since the joint meeting the other night and have not had time to respond to this thread, but I have been reading it with interest.
I, like Tom, was a little confused about Trent's comments the other night. But, from Shawn's motion (which I fully supported and still do) and CCA MD's comments that were submitted (as requested by SFAC Jim Gracie) today, it's very clear CCA MD is putting a line in the sand that the commercial sector must achieve full cost recovery on their own accord. I commend Shawn for bringing the motion forth, presenting it in a clear and concise way and for CCA MD as an organization taking a hard stance, well done. :thumbup:
I also want to thank Dave Smith, the Executive Director of MSSA, for supporting the motion made by Shawn. A fine example of putting competitive issues aside in the name of doing what is right for rec anglers and our fisheries, pretty work.:thumbup:
re: The SFAC recommendation that was made
I respect the process, the vote that was taken and recommendation that was made.
Having said that, I do not have to personally agree and don't.
I am extremely disappointed in my fellow commissioners who voted in favor of the motion that was presented by Bill G. The reason I am disappointed is because I believe the recommendation in itself creates competition for the very constituents of which we are supposed to represent, recreational anglers. If I put myself in a Senators or Delegate's seat and see recs recommending commercials get additional general funds and at the same time asking for matching funds for ourselves (which is not guaranteed and of which we have to lobby hard for each year) and only have a certain pool of money to give (which will probably be smaller then ever with the fiscal problems we have in our state) then I will be more inclined to split the money. This could and will likely result in less money for recs then we might have otherwise have received had we only lobbied for ourselves.
Additionally, there was no justification for where the $1.6m number came from. It was as if it was pulled out of thin air.
On top of it there was no long term recommendation, as in a suggestion there should be a multi year phase in to get the commercial sector to full cost recovery. For those not there, the basis for the motion as I understood it was that it was too drastic to all the sudden expect the commercial sector to pay for itself. This argument in itself is crazy to me given the commercial sector has done this to themselves by not raising their fees since 1995. When the recs went to raise their fees and approached the commercial sector the commercial sector said they did not want to have anything to do with it and that the recs were on their own.
The motion seems to yield to the watermen's argument that the license fee increases were too large. While going from $1000 to $4000/year seems large at first glance, it really means nothing with out understanding how much money you gross as a business and then coming to a percentage to understand if the increase in license fees really is that meaningful.
For example.
If a commercial waterman grosses 40,000/year total and the yearly license fee goes from $1000 to $4000 then that amount going from 2.5% of gross to 10%. That could be viewed as significant. But, if a waterman is grossing $200,000 a year then it only amounts from going from 0.4% to 2.0%. I'd say 2% is a fair license fee to pay be able to make a profit off a public resource that you only take from and of which has not had a license increase since 1995. I am sure many of these watermen who fish year round and hold multiple licenses gross a large amount.
You can bet none of these commercial guys want us to have any idea how much they gross because then we would be able to do these calculations and have a "real" understanding of their business. They want the privilege of the privacy that being a private company offers while receiving a hand out from the public. Imagine yourself needing public assistance and going to get it and when they request your tax records or documentation you tell them that it's private, but to trust them, they need the money so please hand it over.
Keep in mind not all the commercial license fees would go up 4X either, some would be less depending on how they divided it up. If they did it even across the board it was determined in the meeting that it would only be an extra $480/per waterman.
I sent in my comments on the situation and recommendations of what programs I would cut as requested in the meeting the other night. Given it's now public information, I have pasted it below unchanged as sent. I think it explains in full my position. I am doing my best to fight for what I believe is right as my fiduciary responsibility to represent rec anglers in the state of Maryland. I believe we have two other sport fish organizations in MD, MSSA and CCA, who are also united in this effort.
If you have any questions feel free to post here, PM or call me.
Thanks
Brandon
-----------------
Hi Jim,
My feedback/comments below as requested.
I am extremely disappointed in the departments denial to provide costs associated with all the potential programs that could be cut. Both the Tidal Fish and Sport Fish Commissions requested the information. While the percentage share of each program is helpful, the costs would be much more so. I understand the sensitivity, as expressed by the Department, in regards to what cuts mean in the way of potentially eliminating jobs. I have many friends who could be effected. Having said that, along with working for the government comes some things that are not seen in the private sector; in this instance it is fiscal transparency the right of the public to be informed. When the federal government faces cuts it has the potential to impact tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs. That fiscal information is publicly available. I am not clear how this situation is any different?
I believe that Section 4-745 of the Maryland Statutes spells out that "the Department shall publicly report annually the amounts collected and the expenditures". We went though an exercise earlier this year to be able to produce the annual report to recreational anglers. This current cost recovery legislative report required a more in-depth analysis of each program and now that analysis has been done, the information is clearly available and should be released.
For reference I am referring to: Section 4-745 of the Maryland Statutes (further referred to as 4-745)
["(4) (i) Except as provided in subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, all fees collected on behalf of the Department pursuant to this section shall be remitted to the Department in accordance with its rules and regulations for deposit with the State Treasurer to the credit of the Fisheries Research and Development Fund to be used for the replenishment, protection, and conservation of fish stocks caught by recreational fishermen, for enhancement of recreational fishing opportunities, and for research concerning tidal fishery resources. The Department shall publicly report annually the amounts collected and the expenditures."
I believe and recommend the Department support the following:
1) The commercial sector should be fully responsible for all their wealth extraction costs that are incurred to run their for-profit business. This includes enforcement, management costs and any and all other costs.
2) The comercial shortfall covered by any one or a combination of:
a) cuts in the commercial sector's programs
b) higher fees (whether that be license fees, specific commercial fisheries business tax or any other like revenue source).
3) No recreational money or general funds should be used to balance the commercial shortfall. This includes any shifting or soliciting of more general funds for the commercial sector.
4) Cuts needed to balance the commercial budget should not in any way effect recreational angler fisheries, monitoring efforts or any ecosystem habitat programs.
I also want to express my disappointment that the department did not consult with the SFAC, as I understand is required by law, before allocating recreational money to the Community bucket as explained by Gina in the joint meeting the other night. My disappointment becomes deeper when I think to a time not long ago when we were faced with losing our NRP aviation unit for a shortfall that amounted to a few hundred thousand dollars. Given the recreational community has had a surplus, had it been consulted I would, with some certainty, say that the rec sector would have supported taking some of that surplus and used it to fund the aviation unit. There are other instances of this sort of thing that have come up even in the last year. Another example was a request to investigate the crappie fishery in tidal waters. The SFAC was told we did not have any money, but it seems we did and that the money was being used to cover over things. I do not want to belabor the point, but I think it is worth mentioning for the Department and the SFAC to think about.
In regards to what programs I would recommend being cut. My recommendations are:
1) Cut the Striped Bass Gill Net season
While I do not know the costs, I assume they are significant. The Department promised the rec fishing community, general public and legislature that measures would be put into place to make the striped bass gill net season/fishery accountable, manageable and sustainable. Of the many things that were promised and referenced was a hale in and out program. This program was supposed to be implemented by June/July of 2012. The SFAC was also assured by the Department in a SFAC meeting that it would happen and there was money to pay for it. To date the system, nor some of the other planned things, have been implemented. Given the commercial sector fiscal shortfall and unwillingness to take responsibility to balance their budget it seems likely they will not pay for these things. All these facts make this fishery a prime candidate to be shut down.
While we are on the topic, I suggest that it would be irresponsible to the public resource to open the December gill net fishery given these management measures are not in place. I recommend the Department suspend any gill net fishery until the commercial sector achieve either full cost recovery or decide to cut this fishery.
2) Cut all use of Gill Nets
Gill nets are also used for species such as white perch. These seasons are long and many issues have been seen with poaching.
2) Pound Nets
While I again do not know the costs of this fishery, I have to believe they are significant. With the recent events bringing many of the problems with pound nets to light, combined with the additional research and programs that will be needed to effectively monitor and regulate this fishery, it is a prime candidate to be closed.
3) Public Oyster Fishery Program Reduction
This program has the support and financing behind it from other large organizations, such as Chesapeake Bay Foundation. The reduction of public money would reduce efforts, but not shut them down and the shortfall of cash lost could be raised through these other organizations.
In regards to the oyster fishery, only a commercial one exists and we are at an estimated 1% of our historic oyster population. I have read estimates that it costs $180 to replenish a bushel of oysters. We allow the commercial harvest where the commercial sector (by estimates using the Department's numbers) gets $30/bushel. It seems like a program that by all accounts warrants being closed.
Without fiscal information for all the commercial fisheries programs I am unable to make any other recommendations.
I encourage the Department support and recommend in the Legislative report a full commercial cost recovery.
Thank you,
Brandon