Oregon State Marine Board

https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/FindYourLegislator/leg-districts-mobile_new.htm
For mobile look up of your representative shoot them your opinion. Personally they should have asked us non motorized boaters first and FYI it's not an emergency

I have no doubt that our glorious, holier than though guv'nr has deemed this an emergency because of the completely horrible financial condition the state is in due to the decades long mismanagement by the controlling political party.   OSMB budget has probably been slashed and now their only means for extorting more tax/fee dollars is through this non-motorized fee.

Ever wonder about the definition of "mechanical".....  just for grins,   isn't the hobie drive mechanical?   Does the OSMB even know what they are talking about?   

From what I read it is everything no matter the size except what kids play on. Float mattresses, inner tubes and pool toys are excepted. they are targeting kayaks.

I was reading these parts:

"The bill would also, for the first time, define and regulate for safety those using inner tubes, floating mattresses and other pool toys when floating Oregon's rivers and streams."

and

"The term 'nonmotorized craft' would be used to describe items not defined as a boat and not propelled by equipment such as oars, yet still capable of supporting a person on the water, according to the Marine Board."

But again, I haven't read the Bill and don't really know what it intends to do.

Uhm...pardon me madam governor, but...doesn't your definition of non-motorized craft, for which a pfd is now required, also cover a...pfd ?

If I'm in the water wearing a pfd, do I have to have another "on board" ? Do they both qualify as needing the non-motorize sticker/fee ?

I assume the answer is yes, since you are requiring people who are already floating in a life preserver to have a life preserver.

While I dont like the fee, they already get way way too much money from me to access public waterways, the part of the bill I really dont like is the PFD required part. I know when and if I need to wear one. I'm  a big boy now.. I dont need the government telling me whats best for me....Only time I feel like i need to wear one is heading out to the jetties and back in. I take it off while im out there and actually fishing, just have it readily available. If it rough enough that i dont feel safe without having it on, I have no interest in fishing. Im an adult, thats my decision. At least it used to be......

While I dont like the fee, they already get way way too much money from me to access public waterways, the part of the bill I really dont like is the PFD required part. I know when and if I need to wear one. I'm  a big boy now.. I dont need the government telling me whats best for me....Only time I feel like i need to wear one is heading out to the jetties and back in. I take it off while im out there and actually fishing, just have it readily available. If it rough enough that i dont feel safe without having it on, I have no interest in fishing. Im an adult, thats my decision. At least it used to be......

Are you speaking of walking to and from the jetty, or kayaking out to the jetty?

Was this governor voted in on social issues?

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

Let me take this in another direction just for the sake of discussion and maybe we can come up with some ideas on further questions to ask both the OSMB, as well as our representatives working for us.

When I was getting ready for work tonight I had a thought cross my mind about the $30 penalty fine they plan to collect if a person does not have a valid non-motorized floating vessel permit on them.  Same question goes for the invasive species permit. 

At what point are you required to speak with law enforcement?  Currently as I understand it constitutionally as a person roaming the country, I am not subject to questioning as to who I am, where I am going, what I am doing without probable cause of committing a crime and all that.

With driving a motor vehicle on public roads, law enforcement cannot just pull you over to see if you have a drivers license and registration or to just gain information on who you are, where you are going, or what you are doing unless they have probable cause prior to doing so.

So, again at what point do we give up our rights to roam freely without questioning from law enforcement without probable cause?   

If a group or family is out on the water paddling kayaks in the river well away from the shipping channel, or a drift boat going down the Wilson, at what point does law enforcement have any ability to even question these people if they have their non-motorized boat permit, and or invasive permit on them?  Shouldn't law enforcement also be required to provide probable cause to begin the conversation with said boat operators?

At what point are you required to speak with law enforcement?  Currently as I understand it constitutionally as a person roaming the country, I am not subject to questioning as to who I am, where I am going, what I am doing without probable cause of committing a crime and all that.

With driving a motor vehicle on public roads, law enforcement cannot just pull you over to see if you have a drivers license and registration or to just gain information on who you are, where you are going, or what you are doing unless they have probable cause prior to doing so.

So, again at what point do we give up our rights to roam freely without questioning from law enforcement without probable cause?   

your first point sounds like a stretch of the 4th amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". 

the 'probable cause' limitation does not extend to authorities checking that you have the correct registration/licensing/insurance, as required by law, to be out doing what you are doing if it is a regulated activity, whether that is operating a car or boating or fishing or hunting or......it does keep them from going beyond that, such as searching your car or person beyond what you have already agreed to, without probable cause.

an example from Oregon fishing law would be that "The Following Activities are Unlawful: 22. Refusing to allow ODFW employees, peace officers or landowners to inspect license, catch and gear...By purchasing a license or tag a person consents to these inspections."  They cannot search your person, possessions or car without probable cause but license, catch, and gear you have granted consent to be searched when you bought your license.

 

So if you don't have, or produce the licence, you're not breaking the law. You're just....undocumented.

At what point are you required to speak with law enforcement?  Currently as I understand it constitutionally as a person roaming the country, I am not subject to questioning as to who I am, where I am going, what I am doing without probable cause of committing a crime and all that.

With driving a motor vehicle on public roads, law enforcement cannot just pull you over to see if you have a drivers license and registration or to just gain information on who you are, where you are going, or what you are doing unless they have probable cause prior to doing so.

So, again at what point do we give up our rights to roam freely without questioning from law enforcement without probable cause?   

your first point sounds like a stretch of the 4th amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". 

the 'probable cause' limitation does not extend to authorities checking that you have the correct registration/licensing/insurance, as required by law, to be out doing what you are doing if it is a regulated activity, whether that is operating a car or boating or fishing or hunting or......it does keep them from going beyond that, such as searching your car or person beyond what you have already agreed to, without probable cause.

an example from Oregon fishing law would be that "The Following Activities are Unlawful: 22. Refusing to allow ODFW employees, peace officers or landowners to inspect license, catch and gear...By purchasing a license or tag a person consents to these inspections."  They cannot search your person, possessions or car without probable cause but license, catch, and gear you have granted consent to be searched when you bought your license.

So do you think that purchasing an invasive species permit, or this new non-motorized boat permit have the same clause stating we authorize being checked for such papers?

At what point are you required to speak with law enforcement?  Currently as I understand it constitutionally as a person roaming the country, I am not subject to questioning as to who I am, where I am going, what I am doing without probable cause of committing a crime and all that.

With driving a motor vehicle on public roads, law enforcement cannot just pull you over to see if you have a drivers license and registration or to just gain information on who you are, where you are going, or what you are doing unless they have probable cause prior to doing so.

So, again at what point do we give up our rights to roam freely without questioning from law enforcement without probable cause?   

your first point sounds like a stretch of the 4th amendment "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause". 

the 'probable cause' limitation does not extend to authorities checking that you have the correct registration/licensing/insurance, as required by law, to be out doing what you are doing if it is a regulated activity, whether that is operating a car or boating or fishing or hunting or......it does keep them from going beyond that, such as searching your car or person beyond what you have already agreed to, without probable cause.

an example from Oregon fishing law would be that "The Following Activities are Unlawful: 22. Refusing to allow ODFW employees, peace officers or landowners to inspect license, catch and gear...By purchasing a license or tag a person consents to these inspections."  They cannot search your person, possessions or car without probable cause but license, catch, and gear you have granted consent to be searched when you bought your license.

So do you think that purchasing an invasive species permit, or this new non-motorized boat permit have the same clause stating we authorize being checked for such papers?

actually, the below law always applies if you choose to operate a "boat" on public waters in the state regardless of permit or registration requirements:

ORS 830.035:  (1) The sheriff of each county and all other peace officers shall be responsible for the enforcement of this chapter and any regulations made by the State Marine Board pursuant thereto. In the exercise of this responsibility, a peace officer may stop any boat and direct it to a suitable pier or anchorage for boarding.
(2) No person, while operating a boat on any waters of this state, shall knowingly flee or attempt to elude any law enforcement officer after having received a signal from a law enforcement officer to bring the boat to a stop. [Formerly 488.027]

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/830.035

and in case you wondered what the Oregon legal definition of "boat" is:

ORS 830.005:  (2) "Boat" means every description of watercraft, including a seaplane on the water and not in flight, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on the water, but does not include boathouses, floating homes, air mattresses, beach and water toys or single inner tubes.

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/830.005

here is the link to the OSMB summary of stuff, some of this applies only to "motorboats", other stuff to all "boats":

http://www.oregon.gov/OSMB/boater-info/Pages/Statewide-and-Local-Regulations.aspx

"implied consent"   by engaging in the activity you agree to submit.

While I dont like the fee, they already get way way too much money from me to access public waterways, the part of the bill I really dont like is the PFD required part. I know when and if I need to wear one. I'm  a big boy now.. I dont need the government telling me whats best for me....Only time I feel like i need to wear one is heading out to the jetties and back in. I take it off while im out there and actually fishing, just have it readily available. If it rough enough that i dont feel safe without having it on, I have no interest in fishing. Im an adult, thats my decision. At least it used to be......

Are you speaking of walking to and from the jetty, or kayaking out to the jetty?

Kayaking to jetties. I would never wear a pfd on land......lol

While I dont like the fee, they already get way way too much money from me to access public waterways, the part of the bill I really dont like is the PFD required part. I know when and if I need to wear one. I'm  a big boy now.. I dont need the government telling me whats best for me....Only time I feel like i need to wear one is heading out to the jetties and back in. I take it off while im out there and actually fishing, just have it readily available. If it rough enough that i dont feel safe without having it on, I have no interest in fishing. Im an adult, thats my decision. At least it used to be......

Are you speaking of walking to and from the jetty, or kayaking out to the jetty?

Kayaking to jetties. I would never wear a pfd on land......lol

 

I'm curious why you would take your PFD off while still on the water, near a jetty non the less?  If it doesn't fit well or is uncomfortable while fishing, then it may be that you chose the wrong PFD.

Just having it readily available in case of what? 
Have you actually tried to put on a PFD while you are in water deep enough to go over your head, AND in a situation where you feel you are in danger?