[Mont]

I spoke with Bobby Miller, TPWD Dickinson Lab this morning, and he reminded me that the public comment period for extending the $3 surcharge on saltwater stamps ends on the 26th. This surcharge has been the largest single source of funding for buying back and retiring commercial bay shrimping licenses. The original source of funding for this came from the industry itself, and in 1995, the surcharge was added to the saltwater stamp purchased by the recreational fisherman/lady. Without extension, this will sunset next year. This surcharge is a win/win/win. The recreational fisherman wins because of reduced pressure. The commercial fisherman wins due to a viable exit strategy. The resource wins due to a change of gear type.

I would encourage everyone here to take a couple of minutes and visit

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/involved/pubhear/proposals/proposals_20040726.phtml

and express your opinion.

 

[justjohn]

How long is the extension? There is no date on the form will it be $3 for ever?

 

[MEGABITE]

Plus it's a chance to give your input on getting rid of those danged cormorants
that have taken over because no one has done anything about them for years
and years. I don't think you should be required to have a permit, myself. Open
season, no bag limit.

MEGABITE

 

[DannyMac]

Mont, Thanks for the TPWD headups...Submitted my opinions today.

 

[Mont]

Once upon a time, it was suggested that a shotgun and casting rod be made into one piece to get rid of those water turkeys. Thanks for taking the time to let TPWD know your views. I missed the meeting on all this on Monday, and Bobby called me today with a heads up.

 

[DISSipator]

I took the survey. But I have to tell you that I had to disagree with the $3.00 surcharge. I left a comment to explain: "I would agree to an extension. But not a elimination of a sunset date."

 

[Hard Head]

I just took the survey and I do agree with eliminating the sundown and just rolling the $3 fee into the license. The more money there is to remove those licenses, the better off we all are in the long run. But we need the guarantee that that $3 is used for what it is intended for and not end up in a General Fund.

One way or another, TP&W will get the money from us, so it might as well be the way they have been getting it for the past several years. Dissipator, why are you against it? I'm curious to know your reason.

 

[Trouthunter]

Don, I think for the same reason that I gave..."by all means extend the surcharge, but an expiration date is necessary."

TH

 

[Hard Head]

To anyone.


When is the last time a so called Sunset Date was imposed and then had the attached fee/law removed? As stated before, TP&W will get that cash from us one way or another, either by raising our license fee or by extending the Sunset date. It is a Win-Win situation for all involved. Those shrimpers wishing to sell out will have the chance to do so, but only IF there is cash on hand for the licenses to be bought. SCA can only do so much with the limited resources. I believe that SEA now also has buying power which will help a great deal.

As long as the $3 is designated for Buy-Back only, I say go for it. But that is my opinion.

Don

 

[Mont]

the $3 is definately dedicated soley to the buyback and can't be used for anything else without changing the legislation behind it.

 

[DISSipator]

Dissipator, why are you against it? I'm curious to know your reason.

I like the the idea of the fee being used for the purpose of a license buy back. And as previously written with a sunset date, it allowed a re-evaluation of the project in the future.

In that spirit I think it should be extended with a extension on the sunset date. But by eliminating the sunset clause. You have enacted a $3.00 charge indefinitely regardless of how effective or ineffective the program is in the future. Thus in the future there is no control over whether said program is meeting its goals.

 

[allicat]

done, thanks for the heads up monty!

 

[pelican]

done, thanks for the heads up monty!

ditto

 

[Gunner]

Done. Suggested extending the program to 2010 and review again.

 

[Santiago]

I spoke with Bobby Miller, TPWD Dickinson Lab this morning, and he reminded me that the public comment period for extending the $3 surcharge on saltwater stamps ends on the 26th. This surcharge has been the largest single source of funding for buying back and retiring commercial bay shrimping licenses. The original source of funding for this came from the industry itself, and in 1995, the surcharge was added to the saltwater stamp purchased by the recreational fisherman/lady. Without extension, this will sunset next year. This surcharge is a win/win/win. The recreational fisherman wins because of reduced pressure. The commercial fisherman wins due to a viable exit strategy. The resource wins due to a change of gear type.

I would encourage everyone here to take a couple of minutes and visit

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/involved/pubhear/proposals/proposals_20040726.phtml

and express your opinion.

Mont may I respectfully disagree with the idea that this is a viable exit strategy? So far people selling their licences are getting what? around $7000 on avg.? If it were twice that it is still not a viable exit strategy. Say you are in your thirties and you have a wife and three kids, the oldest boy about to go to college. How can you give up a $100,000 a year job (which is what a top bay boat makes) to take $7000 for your livelihood? You have no education and no skills other than fishing. How long are you supposed to live on that $7000 or amke it higher, $14,000? Make no mistake about it, if you push this through you will be forcing good honest Texans out of work. I mean no disrespect but you should hear the other side sometime too.

 

[Trouthunter]

Push What Through, Santiago?

Mont may I respectfully disagree with the idea that this is a viable exit strategy? So far people selling their licences are getting what? around $7000 on avg.? If it were twice that it is still not a viable exit strategy. Say you are in your thirties and you have a wife and three kids, the oldest boy about to go to college. How can you give up a $100,000 a year job (which is what a top bay boat makes) to take $7000 for your livelihood? You have no education and no skills other than fishing. How long are you supposed to live on that $7000 or amke it higher, $14,000? Make no mistake about it, if you push this through you will be forcing good honest Texans out of work. I mean no disrespect but you should hear the other side sometime too.

It's been going on for years, all this is for is to extend it past the sunset date of 2005.

TH

 

[Bobby]

Santiago I have a question if that guy is making $100,000 a year why would he sell his lic. back for $7,000. I understand it is not mandatory to sell back is it?
If I was a shrimper and I decided to sell my lic. back I would have some other line of work lined up before I sold the lic. back.

 

[speckle-catcher]

Make no mistake about it, if you push this through you will be forcing good honest Texans out of work. I mean no disrespect but you should hear the other side sometime too.

Nobody is forcing these shrimpers to sell their licenses. They sell their licenses of their own free will.

 

[Santiago]

Santiago I have a question if that guy is making $100,000 a year why would he sell his lic. back for $7,000. I understand it is not mandatory to sell back is it?
If I was a shrimper and I decided to sell my lic. back I would have some other line of work lined up before I sold the lic. back.

I was referring to Texas 2007, the proposition that would force a lottery to determine who can go and who can stay that some groups are pushing for. They will then force out about half of the guys in the business now. You are right, though, at present only those who have something else lined up outside the business sell their licences back. Also those who have gotten too old to work anymore and widows sell the licences when their husbands die.

 

[justjohn]

What about the Tariffs the shrimping industry is trying to get. They want the price of shrimp to increase. Won't that have a negative impact on the buy back?