September 24, 2018, 03:59:48 PM
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
 
 
 
Total time logged in: 0 minutes.
 
   Home   Help Login Register  

     
 

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Maryland To Buy Back LCC'S  (Read 10967 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
flounderpounder
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 10949
Location: Glen Rock





Ignore
« Reply #20 on: July 11, 2009, 04:56:56 PM »

This is definitely a topic that does not concern you.

I am sorry, am I not allowed to post questions in a comm topic? laugh   There is an option for an ignore button also. X
Logged

" I CAN SKIN A BUCK, I CAN RUN A TROT LINE A PA BOY CAN SURVIVE" 


"YOU CAN LOVE ME OR HATE ME, BUT WHEN YOU HATE ME, YOU LOVE TO HATE ME "Wink
krabby patty
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7
Location: Baltimore, MD




Ignore
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2009, 11:08:09 AM »

removed
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 11:12:03 AM by krabby patty » Logged
Crabbyd
Lifetime Member
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 7953
Location: SoMD


5 girls....and DONE!!!!!




Ignore
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2009, 11:09:54 AM »

If you dont use it, You should loose it. Plain and simple.... Perhaps the state should stop the auto renewal and simply take the unused comm. permits. Its not an divine right to have a commercial permit. Huh

So with your logic, if you decide not to drive this year then you are willing to give up your drivers license?  Shocked
Logged

"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside, a crab in one hand, a beer in the other, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming -- WOW--What a Ride!"
antman
Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 797
Location: Saint Mary's County, MD





Ignore
« Reply #23 on: July 14, 2009, 11:24:35 PM »

If you dont use it, You should loose it. Plain and simple.... Perhaps the state should stop the auto renewal and simply take the unused comm. permits. Its not an divine right to have a commercial permit. Huh

Second post and you've got it all figured out Roll Eyes
Logged
krabby patty
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 7
Location: Baltimore, MD




Ignore
« Reply #24 on: July 15, 2009, 10:23:57 AM »

removed
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 11:12:35 AM by krabby patty » Logged

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Summertop
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1314





Ignore
« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2009, 10:43:41 AM »

I posted a simple opinion in this section in the hopes of getting intelligent and logical feedback on the LCC situation. Clearly thats impossible on this forum. If you have a permit and use it, then why do care. If you dont have a permit then why are you posting here?
Its a matter simple economics, the state needs to protect the crab populations and its own interests, that includes keeping track of unused permits and giving them to people/companies who are going to use them so the state can get tax revenue from the sales of commercial catches.
Comparing comm. permits to a drivers license is absurd and leads me to believe that the poster has no idea how commercial permiting works in the united states. If you disagree with my comment, then at least post a logical response with constructive criticism.
btw... by your logic, the more posts i have will make me more qualified to give my opinion on an opinion based comment section. That totally makes sense..... I will not post here again.



That is not what is happening, the licenses that are being bought back or sanctioned are not being given to someone else, they are being terminated.  So the economics is not so simple after all. Roll Eyes As far as logical feed back on the LCC buy back situation, that would entail you having knowledge of the the process that is taking place and the ramifications that it is going to cause, of which by your statements above you do not. 
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 10:48:07 AM by Summertop » Logged
ringo720
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1
Location: Sykesville




Ignore
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2009, 09:55:40 PM »

Hello everyone!  I'm doing a little research on the LCC buy back for my father.  He originally got a commercial license over 20 years ago basically to run more traps and pull in more crabs than what a recreational crabber could but still really only used the license a side job. 

As of now, he only goes out once, maybe twice a week and wants to max out his bid on the buy back.  Any thoughts on a good number?  As of tonight the number he's considering is $5800, too high, low, just right?  Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,

ringo
Logged
Summertop
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1314





Ignore
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2009, 12:43:50 AM »

Hello everyone!  I'm doing a little research on the LCC buy back for my father.  He originally got a commercial license over 20 years ago basically to run more traps and pull in more crabs than what a recreational crabber could but still really only used the license a side job. 

As of now, he only goes out once, maybe twice a week and wants to max out his bid on the buy back.  Any thoughts on a good number?  As of tonight the number he's considering is $5800, too high, low, just right?  Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks,

ringo

I think you are just about right.  My only fear is that too may dump cheap and the ceiling is going to be set too low.  I think 5800 is far.
Logged
hightop
Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 138
Location: Annapolis




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2009, 10:50:57 AM »

  My feeling is that they will accept only small bids, and are more concerned with appearing to have offered to purchase the inactive LCC's, before enacting harsh restrictions on those not bought, or even suspending them. Maybe I'm a pessimist though.
Logged
Mikie
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2158
Location: Kent Island, Md.




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2009, 11:49:47 AM »

My guess is the DNR is looking to get away with as far under $2000 as they can. My reasoning is this: DNR guidelines say that the LCC AND related business/equipment cannot be transferred for less than $2000. In the info DNR sent out they stated that they were NOT buying the business or equipment, only the LCC itself - thereby leaving the option of totally disregarding the $2000 floor.
Hopefully, the LCC holders will not take the lowball offers. The more they get the better off all license holders will be in the future.
Logged

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Crabslayer
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3073
Location: Bawlmer, Mirroland

Chesapeake Bay Crab Potter




Ignore
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2009, 05:26:04 PM »

I say no one should submit a bid.  Instead get together and hire an attorney and file a class action suit.
Logged

Do you really want a guy who taxed the rain in the White House?
Mr. Breeze
Lifetime Member
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1777
Location: Bear Creek




Ignore
« Reply #31 on: July 18, 2009, 06:35:52 PM »

My guess is the DNR is looking to get away with as far under $2000 as they can. My reasoning is this: DNR guidelines say that the LCC AND related business/equipment cannot be transferred for less than $2000. In the info DNR sent out they stated that they were NOT buying the business or equipment, only the LCC itself - thereby leaving the option of totally disregarding the $2000 floor.
Hopefully, the LCC holders will not take the lowball offers. The more they get the better off all license holders will be in the future.


I thought by law, the license alone can not be sold?
Logged

Blue Crab Industry Advisory Committee
reds
Supporting Member
*
Online Online

Posts: 1482




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: July 18, 2009, 06:36:02 PM »

If you are a government agency and set the regs on the minimum that a crab business can be sold. (Never has been anything concrete as to what must be sold with the business. Just some piece of equipment...A crab net???)

 How can the minimum now be disregarded? The license can apparently be 99.99% of the value.

Please don't tell me the business doesn't included the license. The next of kin question makes it apparent that the license is the value.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2009, 06:37:48 PM by reds » Logged
Mikie
Registered User

Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 2158
Location: Kent Island, Md.




Ignore
« Reply #33 on: July 18, 2009, 07:47:22 PM »

The "Government Agency" that set the original rules just decided to change them.
Logged
Crabslayer
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3073
Location: Bawlmer, Mirroland

Chesapeake Bay Crab Potter




Ignore
« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2009, 08:40:33 AM »

 Year  Millions of Crabs  Year  Millions of Crabs
 1990          791          2000         281
 1991          828          2001         254
 1992          367          2002         315
 1993          852          2003         334
 1994          487          2004         280
 1995          487          2005         415
 1996          661          2006         324
 1997          680          2007         260
 1998          353          2008         283
 1999          308          2009         418

So the crab population has been declining since 1990 as DNR states.  Then in 2007 with legislative approval they allow unallocated LCC licenses to be issued to those who have the required time on the water (even going back as far as 10 years) to be issued.  Now they want to eliminate these LCC licenses.  

I ask you what kind of agency who is tasked to manage the fishery is allowed to make decisions like they do?  In my opinion the people in charge don't possess the competence to manage the fishery.  I say those of you with an LCC band together and hire an attorney and find a judge that will issue an injunction against the buyback and elimination of the LCCs.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2009, 09:53:09 AM by Crabslayer » Logged

Do you really want a guy who taxed the rain in the White House?

A D V E R T I S E M E N T

Tom Powers
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 281
Location: Poquoson VA




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2009, 04:45:58 PM »

Crab Slayer,

While you might be able to sue regarding some future unspecified action once it happens. . . .

The buy back is completely a voluntary program.  I doubt that any potential action in the future which has not been formally approved into law or regulation can be used as a basis to claim that the program is anything other than voluntary.

With respect to opening up the LCC when ever they did.  VMRC did the same thing between 1999 and 2003 when they basically increased the potential effort in the fishery by about 60% from 530,000 pots to 820,000 pots.  I don't know about MD but in VA it was because the stakeholders kept asking for more licenses and insisting that they would be put out of business if they did not get them.  Staff recommendations each time was to deny such applications.

In lots of folks opinions, including the federal government, a big part of the problem with the blue crab fishery within the Chesapeake Bay is over-capitalization of the fishery.  In VA that means to many pots in the water.  Fortunately, VA is not just targeting one sub sector of the commercial fishery and is spreading the buyback across all levels of activity and all licenses.  I would bet that many of the licenses that were substantially active during the basis years will fetch more than the $5,000 that is being discussed in this thread.  I would also bet* that the maximum amount that VA will pay for a latent license is way less than $15,000.  *This "bet" is strictly my guess.  No one has ever told me any numbers relating to the actual maximum amount that VA is willing to pay for a license.
Logged
reds
Supporting Member
*
Online Online

Posts: 1482




Ignore
« Reply #36 on: July 20, 2009, 06:39:28 PM »

Crab Slayer,

While you might be able to sue regarding some future unspecified action once it happens. . . .

The buy back is completely a voluntary program.  I doubt that any potential action in the future which has not been formally approved into law or regulation can be used as a basis to claim that the program is anything other than voluntary.

With respect to opening up the LCC when ever they did.  VMRC did the same thing between 1999 and 2003 when they basically increased the potential effort in the fishery by about 60% from 530,000 pots to 820,000 pots.  I don't know about MD but in VA it was because the stakeholders kept asking for more licenses and insisting that they would be put out of business if they did not get them.  Staff recommendations each time was to deny such applications.

In lots of folks opinions, including the federal government, a big part of the problem with the blue crab fishery within the Chesapeake Bay is over-capitalization of the fishery.  In VA that means to many pots in the water.  Fortunately, VA is not just targeting one sub sector of the commercial fishery and is spreading the buyback across all levels of activity and all licenses.  I would bet that many of the licenses that were substantially active during the basis years will fetch more than the $5,000 that is being discussed in this thread.  I would also bet* that the maximum amount that VA will pay for a latent license is way less than $15,000.  *This "bet" is strictly my guess.  No one has ever told me any numbers relating to the actual maximum amount that VA is willing to pay for a license.

First . The buy back is not voluntary when DNR uses intimidation to force a sell situation.

Second. A lot of folks, including the federal government do not have a clue as to the amount of crabs taken by the rec population much less what the other problems of the Chesapeake Blue Crab Fishery are.  NOAA's knowledge is a WAG's at best.

Third. This thread is about a Maryland proposed buy back. Virginia's laws are different, as well as their license system. The two are not comparable.
Logged
nanjemoycat
Registered User

Offline Offline

Posts: 75
Location: southern md

I Love Crabs!




Ignore
« Reply #37 on: July 20, 2009, 07:42:57 PM »

 The whole thing is a crock thats just diverting attention away from the real problems.  It makes no sense at all to attack those that have the least amount of impact on the resource the hardest.  If crabs are down that bad, cut everybody off like they did the rock.  I don't want to hear about protecting full-time watermen.  Just what makes anyone a full time waterman?  What percentage of your income must come off the water that makes you full-time?  Where is it written?  What other occupation is afforded protection by the State?
Logged
Crabslayer
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3073
Location: Bawlmer, Mirroland

Chesapeake Bay Crab Potter




Ignore
« Reply #38 on: July 20, 2009, 08:22:59 PM »

What other occupation is afforded protection by the State?

POLITICIANS and the HEAD OF DNR!
Logged

Do you really want a guy who taxed the rain in the White House?
Crabslayer
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3073
Location: Bawlmer, Mirroland

Chesapeake Bay Crab Potter




Ignore
« Reply #39 on: July 20, 2009, 08:24:20 PM »

Crab Slayer,

While you might be able to sue regarding some future unspecified action once it happens. . . .

The buy back is completely a voluntary program.  I doubt that any potential action in the future which has not been formally approved into law or regulation can be used as a basis to claim that the program is anything other than voluntary.

With respect to opening up the LCC when ever they did.  VMRC did the same thing between 1999 and 2003 when they basically increased the potential effort in the fishery by about 60% from 530,000 pots to 820,000 pots.  I don't know about MD but in VA it was because the stakeholders kept asking for more licenses and insisting that they would be put out of business if they did not get them.  Staff recommendations each time was to deny such applications.

In lots of folks opinions, including the federal government, a big part of the problem with the blue crab fishery within the Chesapeake Bay is over-capitalization of the fishery.  In VA that means to many pots in the water.  Fortunately, VA is not just targeting one sub sector of the commercial fishery and is spreading the buyback across all levels of activity and all licenses.  I would bet that many of the licenses that were substantially active during the basis years will fetch more than the $5,000 that is being discussed in this thread.  I would also bet* that the maximum amount that VA will pay for a latent license is way less than $15,000.  *This "bet" is strictly my guess.  No one has ever told me any numbers relating to the actual maximum amount that VA is willing to pay for a license.

Mr. Powers...get your facts toghether before you post.  Wink
Logged

Do you really want a guy who taxed the rain in the White House?

A D V E R T I S E M E N T


Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

 
 
Home
 
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Simple Audio Video Embedder


Google visited last this page August 05, 2017, 10:13:00 AM