Home Conservation Front

Congressmen supporting industry exemption?

Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
Below are some excerpts on our nation's royalty program regarding oil/gas revenues - the BLM collects about $5 BILLION per year in royalties from industries profiting from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources - grazing, coal, oil, gas, timber, etc.

And that's just on land, and doesn't include the massive royalties paid for offshore oil leases.

I'm wondering why the same thing doesn't apply to the U.S. commercial IFQ fishery, especially in light of the lack of funding available for fisheries assessments, enforcement, habitat enhancement, etc. and our huge national debt.

The commercial fisheries play an important role in our socio-economic fabric of our coastal communities, but IFQ shareholders have, for some odd reason, been gifted "ownership" rights to over half of our red snapper in the Gulf, in addition to sizable %'s of other species including grouper, tilefish, etc. in the Gulf, groundfish in the NE, and crab, halibut, sablefish, etc. in the Pacific. That's like the federal government gifting over half of the oil found under our soil to oil corporations to do with what they please - if that's not acceptable in that industry, why is it acceptable in our nation's IFQ industry?

Not only have commercial IFQ shareholders been exempted from paying the nation royalties, but the system has been set up so that they actually COLLECT the nation's royalties when they lease OUR fish to other commercial fishermen. In the commercial red snapper fishery here in the Gulf of Mexico, the current lease rate is about $3/pound. Considering that the wholesale dockside price of red snapper is about $4.50, that equates to a 67% royalty fee that they are collecting and depositing into their private bank accounts. The royalties cited below are based on 12.5% to 25%, so 67% is a pretty hefty fee to charge someone for something that ALL Americans own. The IFQ shareholders point to the paltry 3% Cost Recovery Fee as their "royalty" payments, but the Magnuson is very clear that is not the case.

I believe that when a Public Trust Resource has been set aside for exclusive access and harvest for profit, as is the case with the U.S. commercial IFQ program, then royalty payments are due to the American People in order to get a fair return on the profits generated. The red snapper IFQ shareholders themselves have ALREADY demonstrated that leasing the fish is a viable business model. The problem is that the neither the nation, nor the fisheries are benefiting one penny from the profits derived from the harvest of OUR fish. Currently, many IFQ shareholders don't even own a commercial fishing permit - they simply set themselves up to collect the millions of dollars from royalties derived from leasing OUR fish. The system needs to be changed to prohibit leasing between fishermen and that the fishermen ACTUALLY DOING THE FISHING lease their fish directly from the government. This would create a revenue stream of millions of dollars per year that COULD be directed towards improving our fisheries instead of padding private bank accounts at our expense.

"U.S. federal oil and gas royalties are payments made by companies to the federal government for the oil and gas extracted on public lands and waters. With a royalty, owners of the resource—in this case, U.S. taxpayers—collect a share of the profits based on the value or volume of the oil and gas extracted. On taxpayer-owned federal lands such as those managed by the U.S. Forest Service and BLM, oil and gas companies pay royalties to the U.S. Treasury, making royalties one of the federal government’s largest nontax sources of revenue. With the exception of Alaska, the revenue is split with about half going to the Treasury and half going to the state where the federal lease is located. While all taxpayers have a financial interest in ensuring that royalties on federal lands deliver a fair return, oil and gas producing states—primarily those concentrated in the West—have a particular high stake, as this money goes to fund schools, roads, and other priorities."

I wonder if these Congressmen below (RANDY WEBER and KEVIN MCCARTHY) realize they are endorsing an industry that is not paying it's fair share of its profits to the nation for the privilege of profiting from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources? Now, apparently the EDF-funded charter captains below are pushing to move the for-hire sector into the commercial sector to avoid intersector trading issues, and I'm pretty sure they will want to take their 42.7% of the recreational quota with them. If successful, that would increase the commercial % of our red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico to almost 72%, royalty-free of course.

Replies

  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,506 Captain
    I would be smiling too if I was getting rich off a public resource. Although I would probably have trouble sleeping at night, just saying.........
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    what about the 3% that goes back to NOAA from every lb sold to the fishhouse?

    I guess you forgot about that?
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    what about the 3% that goes back to NOAA from every lb sold to the fishhouse?

    I guess you forgot about that?

    Jeez, google don't take that long drgibby..

    I know what Tom is up to but you seem smart enough to not ball cup without facts?
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    what about the 3% that goes back to NOAA from every lb sold to the fishhouse?

    I guess you forgot about that?

    I guess you have reading comprehension problems?

    "Not only have commercial IFQ shareholders been exempted from paying the nation royalties, but the system has been set up so that they actually COLLECT the nation's royalties when they lease OUR fish to other commercial fishermen. In the commercial red snapper fishery here in the Gulf of Mexico, the current lease rate is about $3/pound. Considering that the wholesale dockside price of red snapper is about $4.50, that equates to a 67% royalty fee that they are collecting and depositing into their private bank accounts. The royalties cited below are based on 12.5% to 25%, so 67% is a pretty hefty fee to charge someone for something that ALL Americans own. The IFQ shareholders point to the paltry 3% Cost Recovery Fee as their "royalty" payments, but the Magnuson is very clear that is not the case."

    To put it in perspective, 3% of $4.50 = 13.5 cents per pound to pay for the management of the IFQ program - it has nothing to do with royalties owed to the nation.

    When commercial IFQ shareholders lease their snapper for $3.00/pound, that equates to a 67% royalty that they are COLLECTING and depositing 100% of that revenue into their private bank accounts.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I guess you have reading comprehension problems?

    "Not only have commercial IFQ shareholders been exempted from paying the nation royalties, but the system has been set up so that they actually COLLECT the nation's royalties when they lease OUR fish to other commercial fishermen. In the commercial red snapper fishery here in the Gulf of Mexico, the current lease rate is about $3/pound. Considering that the wholesale dockside price of red snapper is about $4.50, that equates to a 67% royalty fee that they are collecting and depositing into their private bank accounts. The royalties cited below are based on 12.5% to 25%, so 67% is a pretty hefty fee to charge someone for something that ALL Americans own. The IFQ shareholders point to the paltry 3% Cost Recovery Fee as their "royalty" payments, but the Magnuson is very clear that is not the case."

    To put it in perspective, 3% of $4.50 = 13.5 cents per pound to pay for the management of the IFQ program - it has nothing to do with royalties owed to the nation.

    When commercial IFQ shareholders lease their snapper for $3.00/pound, that equates to a 67% royalty that they are COLLECTING and depositing 100% of that revenue into their private bank accounts.
    yeah I skimmed...lol
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,506 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    what about the 3% that goes back to NOAA from every lb sold to the fishhouse?

    I guess you forgot about that?

    Funny thing. This reminds me of the stuff they used to show on the Sopranos. All that mobster, kick-back cost of doing BUSINESS stuff........
    I don`t have to Google, I have a good nose and can sniff out B.S. from at least a mile away.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    drgibby wrote: »
    Funny thing. This reminds me of the stuff they used to show on the Sopranos. All that mobster, kick-back cost of doing BUSINESS stuff........
    I don`t have to Google, I have a good nose and can sniff out B.S. from at least a mile away.

    so 3% isn't good enough, how bout 10%?

    What if you compared it dollar wise to all the other Federal kickbacks?
    specially the mineral rights, paid in vs what the lease holder made.
    And what you and I benefited off that... Did we get a break on our fuel prices? tell me?

    Did your electric bill go down, did our highways benefit from that? I doubt it..
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • drgibbydrgibby Posts: 1,506 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    so 3% isn't good enough, how bout 10%?

    What if you compared it dollar wise to all the other Federal kickbacks?
    specially the mineral rights, paid in vs what the lease holder made.
    And what you and I benefited off that... Did we get a break on our fuel prices? tell me?

    Did your electric bill go down, did our highways benefit from that? I doubt it..

    If you want to turn this into an economics debate then I am going to bow out now. I can sympathize with your passion for all things commercial. And I can certainly understand your are still reeling from the net ban. However, from an economic stand point the IFQ system as it pertains to ARS is a total failure. Except for the sea lords. From an economic dollar stand point it has been shown over and over that a pound of ARS caught by a private angler on a private vessel far exceeds the economic dollar value of the same pound caught by an IFQ holder.
    To try and compare this with timber, mineral right, etc. is unrealistic.
    If the IFQ holders were forced to pay a fair royalty coupled with your above mentioned increased fuel prices and other increased expenses then this would further increase the econonomic non-viability of the system.
    And just like the net band, life will go on after the abolishment of the ARS IFQ system.
    Peace............
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    so 3% isn't good enough, how bout 10%?

    What if you compared it dollar wise to all the other Federal kickbacks?
    specially the mineral rights, paid in vs what the lease holder made.
    And what you and I benefited off that... Did we get a break on our fuel prices? tell me?

    Did your electric bill go down, did our highways benefit from that? I doubt it..

    The commercial IFQ shareholders are charging 67% royalties to other commercial fishermen - eliminate that bloated % and the prices for our fish should go down, right?

    Commercial IFQ shareholders SHOULD be paying at least $1 to $2 per pound for the privilege to profit from the harvest of our Public Trust Resources - this COULD create a revenue stream of many millions of dollars that COULD be used to help our fisheries instead of padding private bank accounts with this federal entitlement program.

    $1 to $2 per pound would be a drastic improvement for those commercial fishermen who need to lease fish, as well as provide more opportunity for new fishermen to come into the industry.
  • Open it up, let everyone bid, and PEW will own all the quota!
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    I believe the fair and equitable way to do this would be to allow the IFQ shareholders to retain their % of access, they just need to pay for it.

    For example, Buddy Guindon has access rights to 4.774259% of the commercial red snapper quota - he can retain that % and still fish year-round, but he should be paying at least $1 to $1.50/pound for the privilege. The commercial red snapper quota is 6,003,604 pounds and Guindon's % equates to 286,627.60 pounds. If he was required to pay a royalty to the nation at say, $1 to $1.50/pound that would equate to $286,627.60 to $429,941.40 PER YEAR - those monies could be used to help our fisheries or our national debt.

    If just the red snapper IFQ shareholders paid $1 to $1.50/pound, that would equate to $6,003,604 to $9,005,406 PER YEAR, yet for some odd reason this industry is not required to pay royalties to the nation like other industries are required by law to pay. Why?

    To put it in perspective, Guindon could elect, like MANY IFQ shareholders already do, to lease out 100% of his quota at the going rate of $3.00/pound - he would be making $859,882.80 PER YEAR, brokering OUR fish, while neither the nation nor the fisheries receives a dime. In effect, he would be COLLECTING our nation's royalties and pocketing 100% of the proceeds like so many IFQ shareholders currently do.

    It's time for the NMFS and Gulf Council to explain to the American People why they are allowing these millions of dollars to remain in private bank accounts instead of being used to help our fisheries or nation.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    Open it up, let everyone bid, and PEW will own all the quota!
    yep.
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I believe the fair and equitable way to do this would be to allow the IFQ shareholders to retain their % of access, they just need to pay for it.

    For example, Buddy Guindon has access rights to 4.774259% of the commercial red snapper quota - he can retain that % and still fish year-round, but he should be paying at least $1 to $1.50/pound for the privilege. The commercial red snapper quota is 6,003,604 pounds and Guindon's % equates to 286,627.60 pounds. If he was required to pay a royalty to the nation at say, $1 to $1.50/pound that would equate to $286,627.60 to $429,941.40 PER YEAR - those monies could be used to help our fisheries or our national debt.

    If just the red snapper IFQ shareholders paid $1 to $1.50/pound, that would equate to $6,003,604 to $9,005,406 PER YEAR, yet for some odd reason this industry is not required to pay royalties to the nation like other industries are required by law to pay. Why?

    To put it in perspective, Guindon could elect, like MANY IFQ shareholders already do, to lease out 100% of his quota at the going rate of $3.00/pound - he would be making $859,882.80 PER YEAR, brokering OUR fish, while neither the nation nor the fisheries receives a dime. In effect, he would be COLLECTING our nation's royalties and pocketing 100% of the proceeds like so many IFQ shareholders currently do.

    It's time for the NMFS and Gulf Council to explain to the American People why they are allowing these millions of dollars to remain in private bank accounts instead of being used to help our fisheries or nation.
    and the % paid when the fish are sold?

    While it may not be enough there is a % paid to the feds for fish sold, you over look that at times..

    lemme ask you this, should guides/outfitters pay a royalty to the states/feds for harvesting fish/ducks/mammals from public land?
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »
    and the % paid when the fish are sold?

    While it may not be enough there is a % paid to the feds for fish sold, you over look that at times..

    lemme ask you this, should guides/outfitters pay a royalty to the states/feds for harvesting fish/ducks/mammals from public land?

    I don't know, how do they lease their quota now? Doesn't the Catch Sharecropper order a certain poundage and pay for it then, before they go fish? The funny thing is, the Sea Lords have already proven that leasing is a viable business model - they just don't want it applied to THEM.

    No, the 3% Cost Recovery Fee is meant to pay for the management / enforcement of the IFQ program. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with royalties or resource rent, and I have repeatedly pointed this out to you Art.

    "...lemme ask you this, should guides/outfitters pay a royalty to the states/feds for harvesting fish/ducks/mammals from public land?"

    I don't know. Are they given EXCLUSIVE 365 day access to those resources while private hunters are PROHIBITED same access?

    Are they given supposed "ownership" rights to those fish/ducks/mammals so that they can sell, lease or trade access to them?

    Clearly, the answer is NO.

    Clearly, it's time for the Sea Lords to pay their fair share instead of continually taking, taking, taking....
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    I don't know, how do they lease their quota now? Doesn't the Catch Sharecropper order a certain poundage and pay for it then, before they go fish? The funny thing is, the Sea Lords have already proven that leasing is a viable business model - they just don't want it applied to THEM.

    No, the 3% Cost Recovery Fee is meant to pay for the management / enforcement of the IFQ program. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with royalties or resource rent, and I have repeatedly pointed this out to you Art.

    "...lemme ask you this, should guides/outfitters pay a royalty to the states/feds for harvesting fish/ducks/mammals from public land?"

    I don't know. Are they given EXCLUSIVE 365 day access to those resources while private hunters are PROHIBITED same access?

    Are they given supposed "ownership" rights to those fish/ducks/mammals so that they can sell, lease or trade access to them?

    Clearly, the answer is NO.

    Clearly, it's time for the Sea Lords to pay their fair share instead of continually taking, taking, taking....
    Well they have access to public lands during the hunt dates and the permits are sold to the highest bidder...

    makes the Sea Lords look like street level pot dealers.... :cool::cool::cool::cool:

    http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2013/feb/15/record-480k-bid-montana-bighorn-tag/
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
  • Tom HiltonTom Hilton Posts: 1,585 Captain
    ANUMBER1 wrote: »

    "...Guaranteed Licenses/Tags for U.S. Clients in Canada
    - Hunt both Rocky Mountain and California Bighorn Sheep
    - Limited Allocations Mean Better Hunting"

    "....Hunt fees are $29,500 and all inclusive of license, tag, and tax. It doesn't include any government royalties or fees on harvested game or additional species added in combination to the hunting package."

    Thanks for making my point Art - they pay government royalties, which is what needs to happen here in the Gulf IFQ program.

    I'm glad to see you come to your senses.
  • ANUMBER1ANUMBER1 Posts: 11,595 AG
    Tom Hilton wrote: »
    "...Guaranteed Licenses/Tags for U.S. Clients in Canada
    - Hunt both Rocky Mountain and California Bighorn Sheep
    - Limited Allocations Mean Better Hunting"

    "....Hunt fees are $29,500 and all inclusive of license, tag, and tax. It doesn't include any government royalties or fees on harvested game or additional species added in combination to the hunting package."

    Thanks for making my point Art - they pay government royalties, which is what needs to happen here in the Gulf IFQ program.

    I'm glad to see you come to your senses.
    bout 3% lol
    I am glad to only be a bird hunter with bird dogs...being a shooter or dog handler or whatever other niche exists to separate appears to generate far too much about which to worry.
Sign In or Register to comment.