OSP

[Wood N' Fish]

How do you all feel about patrol and game enforcement officers future, in light of the January election for a tax increase? Are there any ideas about saving their very needed existance?

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

It is my understanding that current fines levied by courts against game violators go goes into a general victims fund. Unfortunately the real victims in game violations do not see any of this money. Because the victims are the resource we all want to protect, we should work to change where these funds go. I do not like the idea of putting these funds directly into enforcement. That may provide too much incentive to write too many tickets. I think we should have these funds directed toward ODFW’s general fund and that would allow other ODFW funds to be freed up for enforcement.

My $0.02 worth

[The Fishing Geek]

It's difficult in these tight economic times to come up with a sure-fire fix for the lack of OSP officers in general, let alone ones that can police the common snagging problems this time of year.

I've always felt that the ticket and confiscation (with subsequent auctions) income that is generated this time of year would pay for the salaries and expenses of as many licensed and ARMED game officers as they could put out there. In the more popular bodies of water, how often do we go and NOT see illegal bahavior? We can call OSP, but they are so spread thin that they can't get to all of the places.

So, there needs to be some sort of kick-start to get this program going. We're not likely to get it from General funds right now, and the current national administration has shown that fish survival isn't big on their minds. Do we add additional cost to salmon and steelhead tags to pay for these officers until the program starts to pay for itself? If it holds true that it will be a self-sufficient program, then it would only be a short-term fee increase; however, you and I know that they would keep the tags higher and put the money elsewhere. Possibly a stipulation could be worked in stating that once the program is up and running on it's own funds that future funds generated by the tag surcharge would go to...I dunno...hatcheries?

Sorry, just sort of brainstorming here. If anyone else has any ideas just sort of throw them out and let's see what comes up.

I remember getting worked up over the price of a license and salmon/steelhead tags at the beginning of last year (or was that this year?). Anyway, the reality of the matter is that it's cheap compared to what others pay, and Great Dane is a perfect example of that. Sort of like Americans complaining about gas prices.

So, what do you think? Tag price increase to pay for starting a program to help police ourselves?

[Wood N' Fish]

I believe that to have a sustainable resource, we need to have even ground with habitat, availablity, and enforcement. Everyone dreads the posibility of a game law infraction, but these folks are protecting OUR Resource!
Credit for credit due----- Game law inforcement is founded on O.R.Statutes. and makes our pursuits honest. I can't imagine a place where we are not supported by the demorcratic practice of law. :shocked: I just realized I'm geeting too deep! Go Fishing-----Outta Here! :rolleyes:

[Lepper]

why not have a good sized volunteer reserve program? give some training and let us get out there and do it after so long. I'd volunteer for a day a week!
dave

[mallard0311]

I was thinking along the lines of Dave's comment's. I feel that any money raised would go to other thinks than game enforcement. From what I've heard, we have the same amount of Game enforcement officers as we did in the fifties. Now I might be old but do remember much more enforcement in late fifties and 60's. Less fisherman then and more cops. Seemed to work better than.

[The Fishing Geek]

The problem with a volunteer program is that you would need to make sure that these people are trained well and that they carry firearms. Sad fact of the matter is that if you got an unarmed trainee back in some of the backwoods areas to get some snaggers that you might end up with a very unfortunate situation on your hands. I personally know of situations like this when trainees were sent in to get snaggers and they left fearing their life.

Would deputizing be the right way to do it? I don't think so.

[24 on/ 48 off]

OSP does send in cadets who are unarmed, yet can and do write game violations.

--spud-- :smile:

[bigfishon]

A volunteer program that would include law inforcment training of the same degree a OSP officer gets would be the way to go with volunteers, after full OSP training you would then be legaly able to carry a weapon. I know I would not want to go into a backwoods area alone, unarmed, and try and deal with these outlaws, good way to get sliced, stabbed, clubed, or shot. But I don't see why some of the "genral fund money" could not go for full OSP training to get armed law enforcment volunteers out there working (in plain clothes preferably) to take care of ALOT of these tyoes of problems. I would do it, and not think twice. Could be a great way to get into a good job down the road if you got the right stuff.
:cheers:

[ 11-17-2002, 01:15 AM: Message edited by: bigfishon ]