SJM 201 - aquatic invasive species prevention enhancement

So our HOW chapter came about in large part because we saw what the NorCal chapter was doing on the NCKA forum. I also observed on those posts that almost every venue that hosted an event had an improved launch for non motorized watercraft.

I talked to a guy at OSMB who is part of the approval process of these types of projects and he boiled it down to the lack of funds because we don't pay registration. Making all watercraft register would be a major pita for OSMB.

Recently adopted by the Oregon Legislative 2016 session is SJM-201 which urges the feds to ensure continued appropriation of funds to enhance the aquatic invasive species prevention program and to implement the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014 (H.R. 3080).

One of the provisions to be recommended in implementation of the enhancements is to drop the 10' and over requirement for the non-motorized aquatic invasive species permit. If you are on a boat without a motor, no matter the length you will be required to carry an AIS permit.

Feel free to discuss this, but I think it's a good idea. By using the water for recreation you should pay your fair share to protect it. If the pool expands and their are more funds available and we still aren't seeing accessible launches being installed then I can call that guy back and ask WTF? If us and a few sea kayakers are the only ones paying into the pot we really can't expect much back.

Your permits are transferable from boat to boat and you can only paddle one at a time. I don't see any negatives to leveling the field on all non-motorized watercraft.

Regards,
Anthony

Yep,  I agree that the AISP should have been applied to all watercraft, regardless of length or "portability", inflatables as well.  Species can hijack a ride on any "vessel".  Keeping the permit  portable for human powered craft still remains a concern for me.

While I like the idea of having all sizes of non-motorized watercraft paying for AIS permits and I also think we need more non-motorized watercraft launches.. I'm pretty sure the AIS permit income can't be used by OSMB for projects like making new launches.

2009 HB2220   
SECTION 11. The Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Fund is established in the State Treasury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Fund shall be credited to the fund. Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the State Marine Board for the purpose of administering the aquatic invasive species prevention permit program under sections 7 to 9 of this 2009 Act and preventing and controlling aquatic invasive species.

So unless you add an invasive species cleaning/inspection station to the non-motorized watercraft launch, I don't think it will fly.

While I like the idea of having all sizes of non-motorized watercraft paying for AIS permits and I also think we need more non-motorized watercraft launches.. I'm pretty sure the AIS permit income can't be used by OSMB for projects like making new launches.

2009 HB2220   
SECTION 11. The Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Fund is established in the State Treasury, separate and distinct from the General Fund. Interest earned by the Aquatic Invasive Species Prevention Fund shall be credited to the fund. Moneys in the fund are continuously appropriated to the State Marine Board for the purpose of administering the aquatic invasive species prevention permit program under sections 7 to 9 of this 2009 Act and preventing and controlling aquatic invasive species.

So unless you add an invasive species cleaning/inspection station to the non-motorized watercraft launch, I don't think it will fly.

Maybe he was snowing me, but that above is referring to federal funds appropriated to state treasuries for the administration of the permit and inspection program.  The funds for improvements would be come from user fees, the AISP.  That is state revenue. The feds dictate how their money is spent, OSMB spends their revenue their way.

They say the interest rolls to the fund, there's no provision all proceeds from permit sales go back into the fund. If the number of permits double under the proposed changes they aren't going to open twice as many inspection stations.

I feel it's a useless idea when I see time and time again powerboats backing into fresh water lake Lytle after pulling out of Tillamook bay so they can flush all the salt water and whatever else is on and in there boat into a fresh water system and even after authorities being notified nothing changes. It's simply politics and that = get as much cash in as possible and do as little as possible for or with it. Just my $0.02
As stated before how come bicycles don't have to register to pay for there own lanes, signs, and signals, while cars do?

As stated before how come bicycles don't have to register to pay for there own lanes, signs, and signals, while cars do?

Because you subsidize (to encourage) things that benefit society. You help the air quality, you don't require nearly the space to park it, reduce consumption (acquisition, refining, transport) of fossil fuels.

As stated before how come bicycles don't have to register to pay for there own lanes, signs, and signals, while cars do?

Because you subsidize (to encourage) things that benefit society. You help the air quality, you don't require nearly the space to park it, reduce consumption (acquisition, refining, transport) of fossil fuels.

Same as my kayak compadre same as my kayak