Maine bill would bar repeat elver-buying facilities from relaunching under new dealer names for five years, sponsor says

Representative Abden Simmons told the Joint Standing Committee on Marine Resources he introduced LD 1094 to close what he described as an accountability gap in Maine’s elver (glass eel) trade: when a dealer is sanctioned for illegally purchasing elvers, that same physical buying station can be used in a subsequent season by a differently named dealer or a newly formed limited liability company, he said.

“An elver dealer gets caught illegally purchasing elvers at a facility and loses their license. However, a new person can acquire a license and use the same facility,” Rep. Simmons said. The bill, as introduced, would bar issuance of a dealer’s license to any person using the same business address as a person whose license condition was violated, for five years following the violation.

The Department of Marine Resources testified neither for nor against the bill and described implementation challenges. DMR Director of State Marine Policy Deirdre Gilbert said the department appreciates the sponsor’s intent and recognizes enforcement concerns, but urged caution about how the proposal would affect third-party property owners and the department’s licensing rules. DMR staff explained dealer licenses are often issued to “persons,” a statutory term that includes corporations and LLCs; a suspended individual can sometimes form a new corporate entity and continue to benefit indirectly or to operate at a leased location. The department asked for Office of the Attorney General review before the committee takes further action.

Key concerns DMR raised for the committee included:

- The bill would prevent issuance of a license to any person using the same business address, which could block a property owner who had done nothing wrong from leasing the site to a new legitimate dealer for up to five years. - Because dealer licenses are often held by corporations or LLCs, a suspended individual can form a different corporate entity to operate and the department may need more tools to detect disguised control or financial benefit. - The department asked the committee and the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis to consider potential legal obstacles, including whether the federal or state law structure limits the proposed approach.

Representatives on the committee pressed sponsor Rep. Simmons about drafting; Senator Cameron Rennie asked whether a carve-out should allow a bona fide sale at fair market value (for example, a property sale to an independent buyer). Rep. Simmons said he would be open to amendment language that preserves legitimate transfers of ownership while barring repeated use of the same facility by dealers with enforcement histories.

The department requested a legal opinion from the Attorney General’s office; the AG’s office had not yet supplied formal guidance at the time of the hearing. DMR said it would welcome analysis from the Office of Policy and Legal Analysis to identify any legal obstacles and to clarify whether comparable approaches should be extended to other dealer-license categories.

The hearing record includes public testimony and no vote was taken on the bill during the session covered by the transcript.