Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2024, 01:01:11 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Recent Topics

[March 27, 2024, 12:49:04 PM]

[March 27, 2024, 07:37:59 AM]

[March 26, 2024, 09:10:45 PM]

[March 25, 2024, 05:15:36 PM]

by Spot
[March 25, 2024, 02:39:54 PM]

by PNW
[March 24, 2024, 07:14:07 PM]

[March 23, 2024, 10:59:04 PM]

[March 21, 2024, 06:23:10 AM]

[March 17, 2024, 06:42:23 PM]

[March 17, 2024, 08:44:53 AM]

[March 15, 2024, 06:45:09 PM]

[March 10, 2024, 05:55:18 PM]

[March 10, 2024, 11:20:08 AM]

[February 29, 2024, 07:05:43 AM]

[February 26, 2024, 01:31:23 PM]

Picture Of The Month



SD2OR with a trophy fall walleye

Topic: OMB and ODFW - Potential fee hikes  (Read 6010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SamM

  • Lingcod
  • *****
  • McDowellHome
  • Location: Lake Oswego
  • Date Registered: Jul 2011
  • Posts: 486
Just caught this from Oregonlive.  Look like it was originally posted over the weekend.  Has a couple potential fee  increases for those of us fishing from kayaks...

http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/bill_monroe/index.ssf/2018/07/boaters_face_fee_hikes_hunters.html

First, for kayaks in general...

Quote
And those with non-motorized, non-registered craft such as canoes, paddle boards, kayaks, etc. could be asked to replace the current $5 Aquatic Invasive Species permit with a new $17 Waterway Access permit. It would include the aquatic invasives fee, but would also fund new infrastructure for non-motorized craft.

And a proposal to make the CRE permanent...

Quote
The closest is a proposal to eliminate the sunset law on the Columbia River Endorsement fee, making it a permanent permit for those who fish for salmon, steelhead or sturgeon anywhere in the Columbia basin.

The proposal would also dedicate the fee to hatchery propagation and monitoring.

-Sam
got stop wishing,
     got to go fishing...
          - Jimmy Buffett

Hobie Oasis, Outback, i11s


Ling Banger

  • Sturgeon
  • *******
  • Location: Lincoln Beach, OR
  • Date Registered: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 2588
Less revenue is being generated from hunting licenses and more people are boating/kayaking.

I don't mind paying my fair share, but we better see some substantial improvements in non-motorized launches.




"We're going to go fishing
And that's all there is to it." - R.P. McMurphy


INSAYN

  • ORC_Safety
  • Sturgeon
  • *
  • **RIP...Ron, Ro, AMB, Stephen**
  • Location: Forest Grove, OR
  • Date Registered: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 5411
Less revenue is being generated from hunting licenses and more people are boating/kayaking.

I don't mind paying my fair share, but we better see some substantial improvements in non-motorized launches.

I vote that we see the improvements start first and then figure out a way to pay it back, and not just say it will get done.   

These jokers have a way of raising fee prices yet do nothing in return.  A great example, the shellfish permit fee.  Used to be free, then they came up with $5 fee.  Nothing changed as far as shellfish goes.  A few years later they bumped it to $7, and again no changes made.  A few more years go by and it is bumped to $9, and yet again no changes to the world of shellfishing.  Now a few years later it costs us $10 for the damn thing, and yet we still have the same requirements, same crappy bay crabbing results, same clamming rules and limits as we have had for 100 years (give or take a few years). 
 

"If I was ever stranded on a beach with only hand lotion...You're the guy I'd want with me!"   Polyangler, 2/27/15


INSAYN

  • ORC_Safety
  • Sturgeon
  • *
  • **RIP...Ron, Ro, AMB, Stephen**
  • Location: Forest Grove, OR
  • Date Registered: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 5411
So, now they want to label it a "Waterway Access permit" for waters that are already open to the public to use for free. 
And how did they come up with $17?  Why not start out at $100, as I am quite sure that after 10 years of no changes, we will certainly be paying some ridiculous number for no changes made.
 
On top of that we have to pay for parking to use this water, or we can't even get to it. 
The invasive permit money paid in for the past 6-7 years so far hasn't made a dent in any of the waterways that frequent. 
Absolutely nothing at any ramps regarding the supposed hot water wash down stations anywhere that I can find.
 

"If I was ever stranded on a beach with only hand lotion...You're the guy I'd want with me!"   Polyangler, 2/27/15


Tinker

  • Sturgeon
  • *******
  • Kevin
  • Location: 42.74°N 124.5°W
  • Date Registered: May 2013
  • Posts: 3304
Less revenue is being generated from hunting licenses and more people are boating/kayaking.

I don't mind paying my fair share, but we better see some substantial improvements in non-motorized launches.

I might agree here but the fine print got me.  Right now it costs a deckhand on commercial boats - charters, guide boats, etc. - $100/year for their permits.  OMB plans to lower that to $25 every two years.  That more than triple-offsets the increase in powerboat registration fees for those boats.

I'm not making an "us versus them" argument - the commercial guys have families to feed - but it seems like private boat owners and paddle craft owners have no voice in these kinds of decisions.

And I do agree with INSAYN that all boat owners, of any kind of craft, see little or no returns at all from the fees we pay and shouldn't expect paying more will change that.   
I expected the worst, but it was worse than I expected...


Captain Redbeard

  • Lauren
  • Global Moderator
  • Sturgeon
  • *****
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Date Registered: May 2013
  • Posts: 3290
What? They want to make the CRE permanent? I am SHOCKED!  ::) No one saw that coming!


Ling Banger

  • Sturgeon
  • *******
  • Location: Lincoln Beach, OR
  • Date Registered: Feb 2010
  • Posts: 2588
And if we have to pay...fuck it!  Everybody else should too.

Include: whitewater kayaks, canoes, float tubes, pontoon boats, inner-tubes, air mattresses, rubber rafts, row boats, dinghies.

This arbitrary 10 foot rule is horse shit. If I'm on the water and I am required to have a tag and you are on the water, well you should have a tag as well.

4,000 people on the Willy for Big Float 9 this weekend X $17 that's $68k the state missed out on.




"We're going to go fishing
And that's all there is to it." - R.P. McMurphy


YippieKaiyak

  • Lingcod
  • *****
  • Location: Hillsboro, OR
  • Date Registered: Feb 2017
  • Posts: 349
Transparency in taxation?!  Nonsense!  You expect to see results from increased fees?  What about the increased wages for the bureaucracy!?  Come on now, get reasonable.  We haven't even gotten into mandatory kayak insurance in case you get into a collision with another Waterway™ Accessee™.  24H Waterway™-side Assistance?  Coast Guard Vigilance fees!?1one!?!
Kayaking without wearing a PFD is like drunk driving.  You can get away with it for a while, but eventually someone dies.


INSAYN

  • ORC_Safety
  • Sturgeon
  • *
  • **RIP...Ron, Ro, AMB, Stephen**
  • Location: Forest Grove, OR
  • Date Registered: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 5411
And if we have to pay...fuck it!  Everybody else should too.

Include: whitewater kayaks, canoes, float tubes, pontoon boats, inner-tubes, air mattresses, rubber rafts, row boats, dinghies.

This arbitrary 10 foot rule is horse shit. If I'm on the water and I am required to have a tag and you are on the water, well you should have a tag as well.

4,000 people on the Willy for Big Float 9 this weekend X $17 that's $68k the state missed out on.

+1  Well said!

So, we have been paying for these invasive species permits since 2010.  Oregon copied the program DIRECTLY from the Idaho system, pretty much word for word.  How do I know this?  The day they put it out publicly for us to use, I read through it and sent them a list of "what the heck" questions (on Christmas week December 2009) to clarify regarding Idaho requirements, including why the other watercraft under 10' are exempt.

Quote from: Insayn's Email to OSMB
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:04:49 -0800
From: randy.h.henry@state.or.us
To: insayn@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Invasive Species Permit.

Hello. Here are some answers/comments to your questions.

>>>Powerboats.... The permit is tied to the boat, and not the person.  Fine.... I get this.  And I will have to pay this fee when I regesiter my power boat.
 
A) Yes, because powerboats already have a registration system in place, this was an extremely efficient way to levy this fee. Virtually no overhead, just a programming switch. No sweat.
 
>>>Human powered boats 10 foot and up..... The permit is tied to the person.  So, let me get this straight.   If I purchase two permits, one for each of my 13+ foot kayaks in my name, then any of my kids, wife, friends, etc can effectively paddle one or more of my kayaks as long as they are carrying "the" permit that is in my name, even if I am not in the kayak with them?
 
A) We just adopted a 14 year minimum age for the requirement. If your kids are 13 or younger, they do not need a permit when using the paddle boat. Like a fishing license, they'll need to purchase it when they are 14. At least one permit needs to be in each boat, and it should be in the name of the holder, like a fishing license. Unlike a fishing license, the holder can just be along for the ride and not operating the vessel. The other option was to adopt a sticker program like Idaho did in April. As the legislative process for this law was not ideal, we had no time to vet the process among the public, so we based this decision on previous discussions with paddle groups who very much opposed vessel registration and preferred the option of a permit you could carry on any boat you choose to operate. Idaho is hearing from people who dislike the sticker program and would prefer a permit program. As directed by the legislature, we will implement the program as best we can using the current model. If after the first year we determine that another option - perhaps a hybrid approach, perhaps the sticker approach - can serve better, we will consider that. As this is a new program, I suspect there will be modifications to the way it's delivered. The key concern isn't how the fees are raised, it's adequately funding an effective prevention effort.
 
>>>Human powered boats 10 foot and up..... Who figured, how was it determined, and why was there a limit put on the boat length?  There are probably more fishing float tubes, pontoon boats and white water kayaks all under 10 feet going from water body to water body than any other craft out there.  I strongly feel you are missing two things by not including them. 
     1. Additional revenue.
     2. Those folks are not contributing to the fix, yet very well could be contributing to the cause.  Makes no sense.  If it makes sense to you, please enlighten me.
 
A) Because the Marine Board was tasked with funding and implementing this program, and because recreational boats are viewed as the primary vector (certainly not the only vector), then boats were deemed to be the revenue source. I would absolutely agree that other waterway users should contribute more, but that's not what HB 2220 did, and we can only operate within the confines of the legislation.
 
In addition, we were directed to use Idaho's program as the basis for this program. Thus we started with their numbers: the 10' length was chosen by Idaho because it leaves out pool toys and less seriously used craft. In Oregon float tubes are exempt form consideration as a boat so we wouldn't be able to charge them a fee under our statutory authority. We have no jurisdiction over waders, anglers, rc boats, etc. In the original bill, out of state anglers would have provided some of the funding, and general fund the rest. Those revenue sources were dropped because of the economy. Other contributors, from my perspective, include the aquarium/pet industries who brought us many of the aquatic weeds we now struggle with, as well as many of the invasive fish; commercial shippers who inadvertantly bring things in via ballast water, hull fouling or freight (that's how zebra/quagga mussels came to the US; the bait industry and science education supply houses who have provided the invasive crayfish now in many northwest rivers and streams.... The list goes on and on. In addition, the hydropower industry, irrigators and others stand to lose the most if some of these critters arrive. They should, and do to an extent, participate in prevention efforts. Boaters alone should not be saddled with this.
 
 
 

Randy Henry
Randy.H.Henry@state.or.us
Operations Policy Analyst
Oregon Marine Board
www.boatoregon.com
(503) 378-2611


On another note:

Quote from: Theworldlink.com
The Oregon State Marine Board announced last week its plan to ask state representatives for an increase in motorized boat registration fees as well as an increase in a variety of other boating services throughout the state. In an attempt to combat declining revenue from boat registrations, the Marine Board will ask that the new rates jump from $4.50 a foot to $5.95 a foot, and that new titles and title transfer fees increase from $50 to $75, effective January 2020. In addition, replacement boater education cards will go from $8 to $16 and new boater education cards from $10 to $20.

In addition to the increase, the Marine Board is also asking for approval on a new waterway access permit targeted toward users with non-motorized boats. The permit would cost $5 a week, $17 a year or $30 for two years and would require all boats 10 feet or longer to carry the permit when the boats are in use. Boats with valid registration decals and children under 14 years old are exempted. Permits are transferable to other non-motorized boats. Paddle boarding, kayaking and canoeing are all considered non-motorized boating activities that would fall under the new permit. 

Wait? 
What did they just say? 
Was that declining boater registration funds?
Wouldn't that lead to less drunk or disorderly boaters on the water for the LEOs to deal with?
Now the human powered vessels are going to be targeted to keep the paycheck the same even though drunk or disorderly kayaking really hasn't been a thing to need babysat.


So, what I get from the OSMB is that they are down on boat registrations over the years, yet see an influx of kayaks, canoes and SUPs and think that $17 per unit is a fair justification to say "that since these human powered craft use the same parking facilities and ramps that they should tap into that resource" (my words, but how I read it).  They want to use this money to manage the usage of said parking and ramps, nothing mentioned about improvements to/from or on the water for said paying human powered watercraft customers. 

So, we pay the same fee to park a single vehicle and or trailer with say 1-6 people as a sport boat with driver and upwards of 6 passengers.  The boat has to use the ramp, we don't necessarily have to.  Even if we did, we paid for the single car parking space, just as the boat did.  Same headcount going for day on the water, same headcount in said parking spot.  Now, the boat full of people are on the water doing their thing for the combined price of parking/ramp fee and combined yearly registration for the boat.  The kayakers are on the water for the combined price of parking/ramp fee, AND individually with a yearly $17 permit to us the water. 

I'd really like to know exactly how are they going to put the money into improving what exactly?

It's always about them needing more money, yet don't have to give out any justifiable specifics on how they actually plan to use this new money.  All I hear is that boat registrations are on the decline, but we still need to get a paycheck even if we are not doing anything to earn it.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 08:01:21 PM by INSAYN »
 

"If I was ever stranded on a beach with only hand lotion...You're the guy I'd want with me!"   Polyangler, 2/27/15


INSAYN

  • ORC_Safety
  • Sturgeon
  • *
  • **RIP...Ron, Ro, AMB, Stephen**
  • Location: Forest Grove, OR
  • Date Registered: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 5411
BTW..

The Marine Board will be holding four open houses throughout Oregon to ask for the public’s input on their proposed concepts. They will also be taking questions and concerns community members have at each meeting. According to Ashley Massey, (a spokesperson from the Marine Board), a meeting is scheduled to take place in Coos Bay on Oct. 22 at 7 p.m. but as of right now a location has not been secured. She added the Marine Board will keep its website updated and the location will be revealed as soon as they find a space.
 

"If I was ever stranded on a beach with only hand lotion...You're the guy I'd want with me!"   Polyangler, 2/27/15


yaktastic

  • A cowboy in a kayak? I never was normal.
  • Salmon
  • ******
  • shut up and let me fish.
  • Location: The Dalles Or
  • Date Registered: Feb 2013
  • Posts: 857
In this state I will just say my kayak is a "dreamer watercraft" and can't be denied being on the water. Free and open waterways and no watercraft discrimination ;D. In all seriousness ling banger is right and I think it's coming. Just Hasn't been implemented yet. I don't mind paying for what I use but it's not nickel and dime here, it's substantial money for most people. Most people that fish from a kayak do so because they can't afford a boat or don't have the means to store or operate one so they get yaks and go out with the family. Oh yeah how will it be enforced? Better higher some kayak police now and hike some more fees to pay for that too.
4th place 2017 TBKD Rockfish.


Captain Redbeard

  • Lauren
  • Global Moderator
  • Sturgeon
  • *****
  • Location: Portland, OR
  • Date Registered: May 2013
  • Posts: 3290
Better higher some kayak police now and hike some more fees to pay for that too.

Wait no one told me I could be a kayak police. Where do I sign up?  ;D


INSAYN

  • ORC_Safety
  • Sturgeon
  • *
  • **RIP...Ron, Ro, AMB, Stephen**
  • Location: Forest Grove, OR
  • Date Registered: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 5411
In this state I will just say my kayak is a "dreamer watercraft" and can't be denied being on the water. Free and open waterways and no watercraft discrimination ;D. In all seriousness ling banger is right and I think it's coming. Just Hasn't been implemented yet. I don't mind paying for what I use but it's not nickel and dime here, it's substantial money for most people. Most people that fish from a kayak do so because they can't afford a boat or don't have the means to store or operate one so they get yaks and go out with the family. Oh yeah how will it be enforced? Better higher some kayak police now and hike some more fees to pay for that too.

You are on the right track! 

We should tell them not to assume the identity of our floaty. 
It could be identified as a log, a pool noodle, kick boat, dead shark, etc.... but don't assume it's a kayak, canoe or SUP damnit!! ;D
 

"If I was ever stranded on a beach with only hand lotion...You're the guy I'd want with me!"   Polyangler, 2/27/15


Matt M

  • Sturgeon
  • *******
  • Location: Tigard
  • Date Registered: Mar 2016
  • Posts: 1236
Oh yeah how will it be enforced? Better higher some kayak police now and hike some more fees to pay for that too.

I have been asked for my AIS permit three times already this year by law enforcement, not once did they care about my fishing license, just the AIS. Last year at a kayak bass fishing tournament at Cottage grove the sheriff patrolled the lake solely for the purposes of asking all kayakers for their AIS... On a trip with my wife last year the Washington County sheriff wouldn't believe that my wife's "Perception Rhumba 9.5" was a 9'6" kayak, yet he didn't have a tape measure to prove me wrong when I contested the need for an AIS. I said you can gladly tow our asses in to the ramp while you go find one. He didn't find that too funny.

Does my wife's 9'6" kayak use less state resources than my 12' Outback? Not really, no. Should either of us have to buy the AIS permit or a "Waterway access permit?" Not really, no.
-Matt

Old Town Sportsman 120 PDL


craig

  • Sturgeon
  • *******
  • Location: Tualatin, OR
  • Date Registered: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 3814
Personally, the fishing license/shellfish license fees don't bother me.  I drop my crab pot once at Pacific City and I have paid for that fee for 12 years if I were to buy crab.  As for fishing, I have lived in many states. This is the only one where I can provide about 1/3 of the yearly protein consumption for myself and my son in just a few weeks of fishing for fall salmon.  You can't do that with nasty ass golf course bass in other states. 

The AIS fee would not bother me either if we paid the same as boats.  But we already pay twice as much if you order it direct from the OSMB.  Almost 3 times as much if you buy it at a store due to vendor fees.   Why?  They pay $5 with their boat registration which only occurs every 2 years.  FYI- always order it from them online.  There is no shipping fee and you can print a temporary one that is good for 14 days while you wait for yours to be mailed to you.  Personally, I think they should charge at the ramp for people who park, or launch and park if they want to improve ramps.  That way the users pay for it in an equitable amount.  The more you use it, the more you pay.  I rarely use a launch.

As for lowering deck hand fees, I could give a shit if they "feed their families" from that job.  I feed my family from my kayak, but I take less of the resource.  Also, many people spend that much per week on gas to drive to and from work to feed their families, should they not pay a gas tax or have lower car registration fees?

Also, I totally agree about doing away with the 10 foot rule. That is bullshit. Float tubes and white water craft can transfer AIS just as easily as a 12 foot kayak.

Man Sam opened a can of worms with this thread. ;)