Tidal Fish Forum banner

The Sport Fisheries Advisory Commission – Just Taking up Space?

Good Information 
25K views 94 replies 25 participants last post by  Shawn Kimbro 
#1 ·
At the 11-5 joint meeting of SFAC and TFAC regarding shortfalls in commercial cost recovery, the SFAC voted down a motion to recommend that the commercial fishermen pay their own way like the recreational fishermen have been doing all along. CCA’s Shawn Kimbro showed them the way with an excellent motion that barely received a second and was later tabled by a 9-3 vote.

Instead, they liked the motion made by CBF’s Bill Goldsborough for the Industry to pay part and lobby the legislature for general funds to cover the rest. Again the vote was 9-3 as a majority of our “alleged” recreational fishing advocates voted to reserve the Industry’s legacy position at the deep end of the public money trough. The minority votes in each case came from Brandon White, Dave Smith and Shawn Kimbro. The Industry didn’t counter with their own motion for the same deal and I have to assume the share of the general funds wasn’t large enough to satisfy their appetite for public money.

I attended the Industry meetings on this subject and, after all the funding taken from recreational fishermen and the general public to subsidize the Industry, I thought it was hypocritical for them to publicly complain that WE weren’t paying OUR way and lobby DNR for increased recreational fees to cover THEIR deficit. The first 46 minutes of one meeting was used up with this lobbying by the Industry at THEIR meeting. I wonder why the SFAC didn’t just vote to give them some more of OUR money? We seem to have plenty of it and no one knows what happened to the increase in fees from 2007 so why not?

Once again, DNR said they were planning to use $1.5 million in “surplus” recreational funds to pay down some of the clean water deficit assigned to the non-fishing community. I’m not sure how we ended up with a “surplus” since we always get the excuse that DNR doesn’t have funding to do anything more for us. In typical fashion, the SFAC just sat there occupying seats at the table and said nothing. Brandon tried to get an explanation but the majority wasn’t interested. However, this commission has never taken a stand against the $4 million in Wallop-Breaux abuses, the violations of state laws requiring annual reports and consultations regarding funding, or the use of $186,000 in sport fish license fees for oyster reefs, for examples.

I always thought it was a shame that the non-fishing public doesn’t have a seat at the table when these decisions are made so they could voice an opinion about how their money is being squandered. However, we recreational fishermen had 12 seats at the table at this meeting but SFAC just sat there and let DNR put us farther under the bus so I doubt the public would have fared any better. We would just need a larger bus.

Ken Hastings
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
Hastings has told the truth

I thought that Mr. White made a powerful logical argument:

A. The commercial fishermen are running a "for profit business."

B. The license fees are only half the equation: The other side is how much profit [ Legal and otherwise ] is being made...

C. In other words, The commercial guys are Bull$$hitting the DNR, the Legislature, and the Public into subsidizing their very profitable industry.

Many do not see White's brilliance, they listen to burned out lurkers, who have little constructive to say.

Brandon White fights for the bay every week.

Another man that had the courage to stand up for the fish and the citizens of Maryland was the gentle giant, Mr. Shawn Kimbro.

Dave Smith is a stalwart. He goes to every meeting, and he loves this bay.

All three of the men above deserve a handshake and a round of applause.

It seemed to me that some of the Sports Fishing Advisory Commissioners were not on the side of the fish or the Bay.

Mr Hastings has told the truth, The lopsided votes back up his version of events.
 
#3 ·
Some thing smells fishy ( pun intended ). One month DNR says funds are low , next month says there is extra money.

If there really is 1.5 million extra - love to see DNR bring back the air unit to help catch poachers. Think it was shut down due to around $125,000.00 short fail in budget.

There is some stuff with CBF , MWA and DNR I wish I could prove but tracks were covered fairly well.
 
#5 ·
We have to play the game as it is now, but I really don't see the point of voting in these commission meetings. It only results in division and means nothing. An advisory commission can advise without all the Robert's Rules of Bull ****. What I'd rather have seen at this meeting is just a rotation around the room allowing each commissioner time to state a position. You know, advise. Not only would that be more illuminating to DNR, it would require commissioners to do their homework on the issues.
 
#6 ·
I thought the entire idea was a farce when it was created and the MSSA sold out to get it approved rather than standing against it with CCA.

I got virtually crucified at an MSSA meeting for even 'questioning' the judgment of those in power and quit the organization that night.

It's politics and it will always be politics. After watching the election results last night, I wouldn't be surprized if the Bay will now be used as a liberal BS waste dump with working people paying for the Drano when it clogs.
 
#7 ·
Shawn, you are so right. They can actually make all the motions they want and vote all they want on those motions, but it is not law. The DNR does not necessary take their advise, whether it be SFAC or TFAC. They are just what they say they are. Advisement committees.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Short term action plan: Change the constituency of the SFAC or publicly boycott them.

Gotta go outside the box. When the game is against ya, gotta play a different game, change the rules, or don't play the game at all.

Advisory commissions are creations of the agency, and serve the purpose of dealing with the public on controversial issues so the agency can later claim they had hearings and therefore they (agency) can go ahead and do what they want. Make no mistake, the important decisions are not made at the SFAC meetings.

Long Term Action Plan: Two bits of advice , and the folks that have been here longer, have read this before going all the way back to WWA; the Governor and legislature are the keys to influencing DNR. (Not my idea. This was written by Capt George years ago, before there even was a SFAC, before there was an internet.)

Our present Governor, whether you like his politics or not is determined to put Maryland on a solid fiscal balance between incoming revenues and expenditures. Commercial fishing management is a drain on Md general funds. The Governor has told DNR that they must stop this burden on general funding. The political effects of discontinuing commercial fishing altogether is an unacceptable solution .....or maybe not (discuss this later,)....because the Governor and legislature fear the wrath of voters at the next election cycle.

And there my friends is the Achilles Heel of State Government.... the wrath of a pissed-off electorate. Even the perception of a disgruntled constituency sends every legislator, senator, committee chairman, and elected official into hysterical fits.

Within the DNR, from the Secretary on down to the lowliest position, none of them are elected. Their programs, funding, and marching orders are given to them by elected officeholders. Is it any wonder to whom they are beholden ?

So if you believe, as I do, that the keys to influencing decisions at MD DNR is by electing and supporting officials who will be dependent on recreational votes to survive and to advance their legislation agendas....then the solution becomes amazingly clear.

In just the least amount of bytes : The elected ones have to fear the recreational vote more than that of other user groups.[/

Until we get there, it just spinning wheels as usual.
 
#11 ·
Additionally, I would like to state that those intrepid souls who have been putting it out there on behalf of my sport fishing interests, by being on the SFAC and other advisories deserve my support and admiration. It's a thankless job, and tiresome. They are vilified by the other stakeholders, treated with suspicion by the Md DNR and often misunderstood by the very folks they are representing.

And let us not forget, these are volunteers, God bless 'em.
 
#12 ·
There may be a good reason for why the SFAC members are misunderstood by the people they are representing - simply put, they don't know enough about what their constituencies want to represent them. Just ask around and see how many recreational fishermen are ok with their license fees and excise tax revenues being squandered on oyster reefs, commercial subsidies, and balancing the general DNR budget. How many do you think are ok with DNR ignoring the accountability provisions in State law requiring annual reports and consultation with SFAC on how to spend recreational money? Does anyone know where the increase in recreational fees from SB1012 in 2007 actually went? I think everyone would like to know and those are the kinds of issues I expect the SFAC to address. How many recreational folks do you think are in favor of pound nets in spawning rivers or gillnets in general? SFAC had a shot at each of these issues and did absolutely nothing because the few who understand the issues couldn't overcome the static inertia of the majority of the group.

It is true that the SFAC is only an advisory body and they have no real clout. However, they are the conduit for recreational input to the regulatory process and, if they don't weigh in on DNR actions, the regulators publicly treat that as official concurrence and suddenly the "advisors" are guilty by association just because they did nothing. To be fair, if they make too much of a fuss, they won't get reappointed when their terms expire and DNR will have to look for someone else willing to "go along to get along." Note that the so called "constituents" from the rank and file have no direct say in this selection process so the first step in a true representative relationship is missing from the start.

Maybe it is partly our fault that the SFAC commissioners don't have a clue about what we think is important and maybe we don't provide enough feedback to them. This forum is a great way to correct that perception.

Ken Hastings
 
#13 ·
Right is Right


Whiskey 99 Thanks for your thoughts, many of us are sick that the communists are flooding in like a tide. Our forefathers are probably furious at us - who allowed it to happen.

The joint commission is like a "Congress for the Bay" each representative, and the public can give their inputs and ideas. Of course it is human imperfect and political. On the other hand, there are 170,000 rec users of the estuary, many care. We recs have a silent inactive majority. As long as the citizens are silent and inactive, the other side will win, and our license fees will continue to rise - to support causes that we disagree with.

We citizens can speak at these meetings. They always make a call for " citizen comments". We recs can and should "pack" these meetings, and let DNR know that the public cares and is watching. We are also free to communicate with the commissioners/ representatives. Maybe they do know what we know. Maybe they would listen.
Gerald and Ele are right it was pitiful.

I want suggest that MSSA and CCA smoke a peace pipe.
They should be allies, for the bay. They have been acting selfish for some years. It is time for statesmanship not squabbling.
Just my opinion, others are welcome to comment and disagree.

I was pissed the other night that CCA spoke in favor of using millions more of maryland dollars to subsidize the commercial industry. CCA does some good, I am not quitting. I want them to cooperate more with MSSA. Franklin Roosevelt allied with Stalin to beat Hitler. It worked!

CCA should Ally with MSSA. MSSA should Ally with CCA. If they don't the bay loses, and the citizens lose.
We are your members, and your constituents, Please work togather!

I do not see the commercial industry as a positive force for the life forms and the estuary.
I am not throwing stones, I have reasons, not emotion:

A. They are the same guys whose sons and relatives were raping the oyster sanctuaries on foggy mornings last year.

B. They know who sets out those illegal synthetic gill nets, but they do not self police.

C. Never has a waterman's boat been sunk, by " The other guys," because he was stealing from the citizens.

D. The watermen know full well that the water quality is going down because the menhaden and the oysters are gone.
They see the water first hand.

E. They have a code of silence, and family ties.

F. They are not looking at the long term health of the bay. If they were we would still have sturgeon and oysters.

G. They are not farming the bay, they are just emptying it. They do not plant the crabs, and fish.

Right is Right.

How can we respect, and approve that selfish criminal behavior?

With respect to all and malice to none. Someone must stand up and say these things. Thomas Granger tomgranger@comcast.net

 
#15 ·
Tom - You are off base.



I want suggest that MSSA and CCA smoke a peace pipe.
They should be allies, for the bay. They have been acting selfish for some years. It is time for statesmanship not squabbling.
Just my opinion, others are welcome to comment and disagree.

I was pissed the other night that CCA spoke in favor of using millions more of maryland dollars to subsidize the commercial industry. CCA does some good, I am not quitting. I want them to cooperate more with MSSA. Franklin Roosevelt allied with Stalin to beat Hitler. It worked!

CCA should Ally with MSSA. MSSA should Ally with CCA. If they don't the bay loses, and the citizens lose.
We are your members, and your constituents, Please work togather!

so, Tom, you need to check your facts. I regret not being able to be at the meeting Monday, but I understand that CCA never espoused the use of taxpayer monies to make up the difference. In fact, the motion presented closely paralleled CCA's August statement on the matter. CCA has been driving this since day one. This is the formal motion put forward by CCA. CCA, MSSA and Brandon voted favorably on this motion.

CCA FORMAL MOTION
The Sport Fish Advisory Commission calls on the Department and Administration to ensure that its report to the General Assembly and any subsequent legislative action it may take should clearly take the position that:

• The commercial industry must be held accountable for the full cost of managing its fishery, including the enforcement costs associated with ensuring compliance with state laws and regulations; and
• The Department must recommend that the shortfall be covered by either cuts in programs for the commercial sector, higher fees for commercial fishing, or a combination of both; and
• General funds must not be shifted or wrongly allocated to make up for the commercial industry's refusal to cover the cost of managing its fishery; and
• Conservation and water quality programs that benefit all of Maryland's citizens must not be cut to cover the commercial industry's shortfall.

The question we should all be asking is why the 9 other commissioners voted NO on the watermen paying their own way. Half of them are uniformed, half are beholden to the watermen in someway.
 
#14 ·
Amen Tom! Somethings need to be said loud and in public. If its your opinion you have the right to speak it. These meeting are open to the public to anyone who wants to sit in on them and the public is given a chance to voice there opinion and have it recorded on transcript. The rec's do need to unite and come together on issues that are important to us.
I can tell ya one thing. The watermen will come together on issues when it comers to a dollar outta their pocket and act like their best friends to get what they want. They got the rest of the year to hate and steal from each other.
 
#18 ·
Greetings friends, Kimbro's Motion was excellent, and did advocate that the Commercial People pay their own way. Kimbro's motion was courageous and proper. I said that before. dave mssa smith, brandon white and Kimboro all voted for that motion. No other SFAC member voted for that motion. What are they thinking?

We need to take a look at the transcript, to see what M. Trent Zivkovich actually said.

My impression was that Trent was saying that It was OK to cover the Commercial Cost funding shortfall with state money.
In my opinion, using State money to cover the cost of managing the Commercial Industry is stupid, and wrong.
The state DNR spends a pound of money [ even on Aircraft and Pilots ] to try to be everywhere at once. That is how they caught the six boatloads of poachers dredging the oyster sacntuary on a foggy morning.
If I am wrong on any af the above, I apologize in advance.

That is a profit making business. Let The Commercial License fees rise each year until the fees pay the enforcemant and management bills.
If the commercial guys played by the rules, the DNR would not need helicoptors.

I did not, agree with the Goldsborough motion. [ CBF's Bill Goldsborough for the Industry to pay part and lobby the legislature for general funds to cover the rest , won in the vote: ie it passed.] Note that " the rest " is about 1.6 million dollars...
That is a lot of money that could go into textbooks, boat ramps or libraries.

Additionally, my impression was that Trent was speaking for CCA. If I was wrong on that , I apologize in advance.

Paxfish: You are a great man, and you could be right, maybe I am off base. The transcript will clarify this confusion....
 
#19 ·
Tom, we should sit down and talk about this. Trent didn't say that or anything like that. Trent was advising about long-term strategy for the upcoming legislative session. That's where decisions are made, and there are ways we can address issues that will make it easier to accomplish our shared goals when we get to the general assembly. Once again, I'll respectfully ask you not to speculate in an open forum unless you're sure about your message.
 
#22 · (Edited)
. I apoligize

Greetings fisherpeople,

I am not near perfect. If I have misunderstood Trent, or misquoted him, I APOLIGIZE.

I have been a man under authority, I can accept being slapped down.

I had no intention to cause this confusion, I am the sweatiest, most softhearted man on tidal fish, I yearn to protect the bay.

Trent Ziv is a good man, he does a lot for the bay. Perhaps I was wrong to shoot my mouth off before talking to Mr. Trent Zivkovich.

It will not happen again. I shall take my seat now Chris....

Tight lines. TGB
 
#23 ·
I'm encouraged by the solidarity the other night between CCA, MSSA and Brandon on this issue. I am hopeful for more of that in the future.

Steady, professional and measured execution will win the race here, Guys. It will take a while, and we won't get everything needed right away. But we will, we must, forge ahead.
 
#24 ·
There's no sides, Ken. I am correcting a misconception. Trent was merely pointing out that the general assembly will see value to a community sector. It's a point I meant to make, but I forgot. What we saw last year in the general assembly was a perception of value among lawmakers to a healthy bay for both recreational and commercial use. If we make this a rec vs comm issue in the general assembly, we'll almost certainly lose, but they'll get it if we show they are passing a law that will benefit most of the people in Maryland. It's smart strategic thinking. Now, we can argue about where the funds come from for that community sector, and I think most everyone here will be on the same page. I certainly don't want to see more money come from the recreational side.
 
#26 ·
Reading through these comments and talking with a few folks, we seem to have a lot of bright, creative, hard working people volunteering their time on behalf of helping to shape policy critical to the recreational angling community, so I'll stay out of the way and limit my comment here to simply thanking them for their hard work.
 
#27 ·
I've never attending a meeting that afterward there was not a disagreement on what was said by someone. Therefore, without taking sides I doubt that anyone who's posted on the meeting is 100% correct in what what said. Wouldn't it be better if someone posted the meeting minutes (link, offdered to email, etc) instead of hearing what people may or may not have heard? Are these minutes readily available to the general public for our reading pleasure? I'm sure that there are many others like my self that don't attend these meetings and therefore don't have a clear picture of what is going on. If MSSA, or anyone on here for that matter, wants all of us to be involved then maybe provide information on the meeting so we can all be informed of what is going on and maybe lend our support the best way we can.
 
#30 ·
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
 
#32 ·
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.
I am glad that you did not use the same numbers you offered in the meeting. The example that you used there was a 2 million :eek2: dollar income. I can assure you the number, which varies each year is never far from the example you suggest here, $40,000--with multiple licenses. If the number was closer to 200,000 or 2,000,000, I would not live as humbly as I do. I am glad you recognize these more realistic figures as "significant." I believe other SFAC members did as well.
 
#31 ·
I'm with ya Brandon! Well said. Plus I think there should just be a moratorium on oysters. We need them to help with water quality and its nothing but a whole lot of money spent on a put and take welfare system. I think we should still have a planting program for water quality and bay restoration. And dire consequences for poaching them.
 
#33 ·
Gentlmen,

Be very careful when dealing with these Serpents. Divide and conquer is their motto. Compartmentatize and control. As long as these disagreements continue, they hold all of the cards.

The real problem is that most people who buy a License don't even know you exist or know and don't care. It would be nice if we could create our own
moratorium and not participate in the circus for one year. Collectively don't buy a Maryland fishing license. That would send a real message. They know that isn't going to happen.

Thank all of you for your efforts.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top