Tom Hilton wrote: »
If you have ever read the Magnuson, it's very clear - I have enclosed a screen shot addressing both royalties and the cost recovery fee in the Magnuson.
The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to levy resource rent, or royalties as explained in (d).
The facts are that the Magnuson allows for the Councils to collect a 3% Cost Recovery Fee as explained in (e). Anumber1 is obviously confused about the 3% CRF, which is designed to pay for the costs of administering and enforcing the IFQ program, which, btw doesn't even cover all the costs so the American taxpayer is forced to subsidize the difference.
It's peculiar that Art and Tom Ard, self-proclaimed "fisheries experts", are so uninformed of the actual facts, or so willing to continue to misinform people.
Which is it?
Fintastic.Inc wrote: »
Sir I don’t want to get into some crazy pi$$ing match with you but I can assure you I am offshore well more than 250 days a year which I imagine is well more than most. So if that is a silver spoon in my a$$ then I guess I am a part timer
ANUMBER1 wrote: »
no self proclaiming here, nor am I a "paid" rep as you alluded.
I'm not an atty either but words like "shall", "may", and "if appropriate" kinda jump out..
I was spot on though as they just don't pay as much as Tom wants.
Tom Hilton wrote: »
Spot on? LOL. Another intentionally misleading statement.
You intimated that they are paying 3% royalties when they are clearly not. The American taxpayer is also being saddled with paying expenses for the management of the IFQ program not covered by the 3% Cost Recovery Fee.
We need to make sure that the for-hire boats pay royalties (in addition to the 3% Cost Recovery Fee) to the nation as they should if by chance AMs 41 and 42 somehow move forward.
Huckleberry wrote: »
I dont see 41-42 moving forward. I was surprised they didn't table it at this meeting.
testerman28 wrote: »
??? .. still no answer? is that how paid reps. are supposed to be? you should be a proud person if your making money off this..