Discussion Board  |  Photos  |  Blogs  |  Videos  |  Directory  |  Kilchis Weather  |  Tides  |  Marine Info  |  AUP  |  Contact/Advertise  |  ifish Decals/Store

Carmen Macdonald

A passion for fishing and hunting grew into a career that's included Alaskan guide, media sales, writer and the politics of outdoor recreation. My company, Vaunt Marketing, represents industry-leading brands in the US and Canadian markets.

Search This Blog

Recent Comments


Recent Posts



May 12, 2014

ODFW Budget: Where The Rubber Meets The Road

by Carmen Macdonald

Back in the early 1970's, my family used to make an annual summer pilgrimage from our suburb of Pittsburg to Jekyl Island, Georgia for a summer vacation. Being the youngest of five kids, I was in the sure position of being relegated to the back of the station wagon for the trip, camped out on top of suit cases and competing for space against our brittany spaniel.

The soundtrack from these marathon trips is forever etched in my brain. I have nearly instant recall of random songs from the seventies, sometimes at really weird moments.

As I've followed the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's budget proceedings, Mary MacGregor has been a fixture I've been unable to shake.

"Torn between two lovers, feelin' like a fool. Lovin' both of you, is breakin' all the rules."

While I can't shake the songs that pop up, they don't necessarily come with an explanation of why they've chosen the moment to pop up. That takes some sorting out.

Over the last decades, the Oregon Department of Fish and WIldlife has been on a steady reduction of General Fund dollars and become largely funded directly by anglers and hunters. Even the large pool of "Federal" dollars that are received by the agency are derived from anglers and hunters in the form of Dingell-Johnson and Pitman-Robertson funds. These are both excise taxes paid by manufacturers on all the fishing and hunting goods we as consumers by. These monies are redistributed to the states based upon the number of fishing and/or hunting licenses sold.

Commercial fisheries are exempt from Dingell-Johnson taxes, that's why you see tags that say "For Commercial Use Only" on some of the gear in commercial outlets. It's untaxed and does not contribute to management or conservation.

For the record, I'm completely okay with hunters and anglers paying the freight for ODFW, as long as ODFW is both demonstrative of its commitment to the needs of this community and delivers to the best of its ability.

But increasingly, that's not the case.

To look at what's transpired, we have to backtrack two decades in fisheries. In the 1980's and early 1990's Oregon was a destination fishery for 10's of thousands. Counter to today's fisheries, ocean coho where a mega-driver of participation and fiberglass ocean boats were as common on the coast as aluminum sleds.

Harvest levels were egregious.

In 1993, the bottom fell out. Over-harvest met the most persistent El Nino (a warm water event that suppresses cold water upwelling off the coast, starves the environment and crushes juvenile salmonid survival) ever recorded and the bottom fell out from fisheries.

On the backs of closures, license sales dropped 41,000 in 1994. Rather than wait out the storm and modify harvest levels, the fish were listed. Then Oregon Trout, which included leadership that went on to be: Governor Kitzhaber's natural resource director, the founder of the Native Fish Society and the Executive Director of the Wild Salmon Center, indicted hatchery fish, not El Nino, as the driver of the decline.

For coastal Oregon, three initiatives were undertaken:
1. Harvest rates on coho were cut from as high as 80-90% of the adult population to less than 20%.
2. The largest habitat restoration plan, The Oregon Plan For Salmon, was initiated.
3. Coastal hatchery plants of silver salmon were virtually eliminated.

By 1998, license sales had dropped by more than 87,000, 13%- kaboom.

El Nino ended. Fish runs bounced back. But the 6 million hatchery coho that drove coastal fisheries were gone. Coastal communities have not recovered to this day.

But coastal coho were not the only component of the story. Hatchery fish were targeted far and wide. We reduced and/or eliminated steelhead plants. We cut stream trout programs in droves (remember when rivers were planted with hatchery trout?). We cut programs galore. Certainly that should have saved some money, but it didn't.

We initiated a whole new entity within ODFW, the Conservation and Recovery Program. From layers and layers of labor-intensive studies and monitoring, we're developing reams of reports and insight. Later, we built a world-class research facility in the Oregon Hatchery Research Center and funded it with license dollars. The only problem with both these efforts are they costs a fortune and none of it is putting any more anglers on the water.

Remember them, the people that pay for this stuff?

And there's the crux. The public at large loves the concepts of biodiversity and ecological balance, but they're not paying for it. They want nature to balance itself, in harmony, yet they appear to miss the fact that we've all moved in to nature's house.

We have recovery plans for salmon that, in cases like the Willamette system, are laughable.

We're hog-tied by the Marine Mammel Protection act in the face of a marine mammal population that has exploded exponentially. We have the Migratory Bird Act, though it's been federal projects that have created problems with avian predators.

We have conservation biologists where we need managers. We have biologists who have no understanding of anglers or hunters.

Biodiversity is a worthy goal. I can see where I'm setting myself up to be lambasted by the "see he just wants to kill everything" crowd.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm all for these efforts, a lighter touch and biodiversity, granted:

a. We're quantifying results from them, but we're not. We've initiated lots of hatchery restructuring based upon showing results to wild fish. None of it has been effective, and yet we continue these efforts with a direct negative result to participation and funding. I'm sure there are similar efforts on the wildlife side.

b. You don't ask me to shoulder the responsibility to pay for it all, and they are. These are the two lovers of ODFW and the surrounding political landscape. Over decades we've weened General Fund dollars from the agency, yet increased the responsibilities of the agency beyond components of fishing and hunting.

Want to balance a fish and wildlife budget on anglers and hunters? Embrace fish for fishing, and game to hunt.

As a country we've got a Bambi hangover, and this is much of the other side of the equation- we don't value the sporting life. Released in 1942, along with increasing urbanization, Bambi and more recently the 1970's images of the clubbing of baby harp seals, and even more recently the Discovery Channel (original documentary version, not what exists today) have created generations of charged emotion surrounding fishing and hunting. For some great thoughts on Bambi, see the 1992 article, The Trouble With Bambi

The emotion has brought us into this quest for "ecotopia." With biologists doing "God's work," we will atone for the sins of our fathers.

The problem with this path is that nature is ugly. Nature "balances" the ecosystem with catastrophic events: famine, disease and all forms of horrifying death. It includes great swings of the pendulum between prey and predator, spending very little of reality in the middle.

This is not management; it's the absence of it. Wolves are wonderfully romantic creatures. They're also refined killers and add nothing to the financial stability of Oregon, ODFW, and the conservation mission of the agency, because again, the mission is funded by anglers and hunters.

A couple comments that I've heard all too often include:
1. The agency (ODFW) first and foremost is responsible for the conservation of species above all else.
2. If everybody on all sides of debates are a little bit unhappy, the policy must be pretty good, falling right in the middle.

On the first one, that's wrong. By statute, use of resources and conservation are co-equals. It is okay to have an impact on wild populations with hatchery programs. Hatchery programs have not and will not drive wild fish to extinction as has become the pop-culture of those that would turn rivers into museums. According to ODFW documents, hatcheries return $76 for every single state dollar invested in the program. Participation is critical to funding the conservation mission, without it, there is no conservation mission.

On the second, it can also mean that the policy is no good and lacks underpinnings. This is a question of leadership. Does it feel to anybody else that ODFW does not have a driver at the wheel? At what point do you discover the potential of a 34 million dollar shortfall? Who is out in front on this, what is the plan that has been being followed? What were the expectations?

It's a difficult position for a government agency, which serves at the will of the Governor and legislature, to demonstrate strong leadership. Nevertheless, Directors of government agencies rise to this position knowing what comes with the job. They should be willing to chart a path and take the responsibility for its success or failure. Has Director Roy Elicker embodied this?

Has anybody seen or heard from or about the Deputy Director of the agency, Kurt Melcher, since he took the position?

I love Oregon. When I came to this state in 1984, it seemed we understood that we had levied numerous injustices against the available habitat for the sake of the people living here, but at the same time we were committed to managing a balanced approach to fisheries and hunting. Currently, we have an agency that is responsible for the status of fish and game, but has no real purview to effect change. ODFW can talk habitat, but they don't manage the land. They can talk about stream flows, but they don't manage the water.

Anglers and hunters see ODFW looking for more money to provide less. I have to agree. Pull back the curtain and that's all that's there. On the fishing side, ODFW manages hatcheries and harvest, and have chosen to reduce the hatchery component though it doesn't define the status of wild populations, and that cut immediately impacts harvest….it's really pretty simple.

In all that I've read from groups like Cascadia Wildlands, Oregon Wild and the Native Fish Society, they add nothing. They seek to take from those who largely fund the conservation mission and offer nothing in return.

The way out of this mess is in some broad level leadership decisions.

1. Is Oregon going to embrace fishing or not? If so, it takes fish. If not, let's just make that decision and get on with it instead of perpetuating this façade that removing hatchery programs is actual management.

2. Is the Governor or the Department going to lead on the tough issues? Marine mammals, avian predators, ill-advised cougar legislation, wolves, unfunded mandates- these topics are all in the red in the budget columns. It's going to take some leadership to get out of this mess.

3. Who will fund the future of the agency? A birdseed tax to fund non-game bird management has been shot down twice in the legislature. Non-game enthusiasts are vocal with demands, silent on funding.

Maybe we need a dog food tax to fund wolf management? I see the amazing commentary as people ooze over wolf reintroduction…he buddy, how about you pony up?

Overall, something has to change. If everyone's views are important, everyone ought to be willing to pitch in. Unfunded mandates are killing ODFW. Legislators love to deliver a pet project and sportsmen's license fees are going all directions, and more and more of those directions have nothing to do with fishing and hunting.

If the contributions of the sporting community to the lifestyle and economy of the State of Oregon is not going to be valued, I regrettably have to live with that. At this point of budget discussion, I can however, my viewpoints heard to the best of my ability.

I'm not a fan of Governor John Kitzhaber. I believe he fancies himself an angler, but those press clips are a long time gone. He led a lot of policy in his first two terms, but I don't believe the man has offered the results of those policies more than a casual view. These policies have bee destructive far in excess of any restorative qualities that were hoped from them. And yet, it appears in efforts like the Coastal Multi-Species Plan, his intention is to serve Oregonians more of the same.

Kitzhaber is responsible for much of the sitting Commission. His appointees have been anemic. The Commission in total has been anemic. They are the governor's voice in the process and they are completely and totally lackluster. If Governor Kitzhaber valued the sporting community that funds the agency, there are dozens of candidates that could lead ODFW out of the hole by focusing on the customer.

ODFW budget conversations are an opportunity for anglers and hunters to take a stand. This department is trending further and further away from those who fund its mission. They take your money, then run to other lovers. Governor Kitzhaber, the ODFW Commission and ODFW staff need to make a strong and renewed commitment to their core customers, or go get the money they need from those that make demands, while offering nothing.

I hope to see you at one of the Department's public meetings.

ODFW Budget Meetings Schedule

Monday, May 19
7 pm – 8:30 pm
Monarch Hotel
12566 Se 93rd Ave

La Grande
Tuesday, May 20

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Blue Mountain Conference Center
404 12th Street
La Grande

Wednesday, May 21

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Central Oregon Community College
Boyle Education Building, Room 155
2600 NW College Way

Thursday May 22nd

Tillamook Office of the Dept. of Forestry
Next door to the ODFW and next to the Tillamook County Fair Grounds on 3rd st
(info courtesy of Jerry Dove)

Thursday, May 22

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Hallmark Inn
744 SW Elizabeth Street

Coos Bay/North Bend
Tuesday, May 27

7 pm – 8:30 pm
North Bend Public Library
1800 Sherman Avenue
North Bend

Wednesday, May 28

7 pm – 8:30 pm
ODFW Office
4192 N Umpqua Hwy

Klamath Falls
Thursday, May 29

7 pm – 8:30 pm
Oregon Institute of Technology
College Union Bldg., Mt. Bailey Room
3201 Campus Drive
Klamath Falls

Comments (14)

Fletcher wrote 3 years ago

Unfunded federal & other pet "agendas" are only a part of the "current" fiscal shortfall issue. Way too many ineffective managers offereing poor direction making shortsighted decisions coupled with other inherent internal government waste are major driving factors for this shortfall. Business as usual until... Whoops.... guess what...

How convenient that this is coming to light now... 23 MILLION dollars in the rears, to what amounts to a self manufactured situation. Will this be the legacy of the current regime's effectiveness? Or will someone inside the agency actually step up and do the right thing for a change for the fishing public?

I believe licensed anglers have already paid a heavy and ever increasing price for the "right to ply our waters for much reduced access offered over time.

It is time for these "policy makers" and "leaders" to clean up their leavings and work themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves. Doing so at no cost to those who have already paid and continue to pay them handsomely for a job poorly accomplished to date.

Chilly one wrote 3 years ago

Thanks Carmen for your intelligent perspective on the "inside" of the issue of funding ODFW. I feel as you do too many "book learned" educated folks that are out of touch with what the real needs of our sportsmen. These folks in the upper ranks of management are poised on "opportunity" being a day on the water, perhaps lunch somewhere in a cafe or eatery along the way, throw in a few picture and that's the new "opportunity". The heritage of fishing retention has been forsaken for this new vision. We want fish for our effort, our monetary investment, and our future.

That should be the focus on all budget and management decisions upcoming. We will need to be INVOLVED if we are to sustain as sportsmen with "retention" fisheries. Let's get involved all of us, firstly by attending these ever important budget meetings.

Thanks again Carmen keep up the good stuff.

Chilly one (o:

garyk wrote 3 years ago

Regarding - "Kitzhaber is responsible for much of the sitting Commission. His appointees have been anemic. The Commission in total has been anemic."

I don't disagree, however, do recall that while the Governor nominates, a Senate Committee has to approve the nominee. For the most part, only 'anemic' nominees have been able to get through the process. And this isn't anything new and goes back many administrations.

That is why for at least the past 30 years the ODFW Commission has been populated by commissioners representing various commercial interests including Columbia gillnets, commercial ocean fishing, logging, ranching and other agriculture, but few if any strongly pro-sportfishing commissioners.

The Legislature and republican senators in particular don't want to see a pro-sports commission which would conflict with their commercial constituents.

Carmen Macdonald wrote 3 years ago

Gary, I don't think this is a democrat/republican issue at all. Governor Kitzhaber, regardless of party and beyond Columbia River spill, has not been good for me as a sport fisherman.
But for the record, Oregon has not had a republican Governor since 1987. Kitzhaber has owned 10 of the 26 years since. Hard to guesstimate how this state would look differently over such a long spread of years.
And the bottom line is, in the face of a budget crisis, sports people need to hold their government accountable.

Irish Green wrote 3 years ago

I,ve lied for 70 years in this state ! Hunted and fished here since I was 8yrs. old.Carmen is so very right,we pay more but get less as a recreational user The answer is in this commentary,"to little for to much for to long.Why we know as users what needs to be done we continue to do verv little as a group.If we want change it,s time for a "tea Party ".Appointed commission members is not a good thing !We need to change the system to reflect the needs of the users in each area of the state.people in the west have different needs than those in the east part of the state

SalmonGeorge wrote 3 years ago

I don't think this is a democrat/republican issue per se, as Oregon has both democrat/republican avid fisherman. However, I agree with garyk that Commissioners are not just appointed by the Governor, they are confirmed by the Senate. Unfortunately, the current makeup of the Senate has prevented any appointees that a solidly pro-fisherman. Hopefully this election cycle will change that reality.

As to the question as to whether Governor Kitzhaber has been good for fisherman. I'd point to the Columbia River Management Plan. Is there any benefit to the sports fishing community from a shift from 60/40 to 80/20 on allocation between the recreational community and commercials? I can tell you how the commercials feel.

FentonFly wrote 3 years ago

Carmen you are years ahead of your time! You again have nailed it. For a guy that has only lived in Oregon since 1984 you have a much better understanding then many who go well back before your time. As one who grew up in the Portland area and has experienced what we once had and where we are today, it literally sickens my soul!

Thank God you are one of the few that has the gonnies to post the truth!

HarpMan wrote 3 years ago

In Carmen I stand!

FentonFly wrote 3 years ago

It is sad how the new generation has fallen victim of today's PC generation and succumbed to the Eco left brainwashing that Hatchery Fish are evil! Though I can't parlay my comments any longer on I Fish, I find it sad how the younger generation accepts today's fishing as normal. You guys live in an area that should be considered "World Class Salmon and Steelhead Fishing" yet you except the denigrating our fishing as the norm!! Sadly we are being conditioned to buy in to this fraudulent acceptance. You need to wake up!

oregonboybend wrote 3 years ago


flystevens wrote 3 years ago

The is a nation-wide problem, we must realize. The only way for it to really change is to remove government from power. Most of this is the Federal government's fault, because, quite frankly, the state of Oregon shouldn't be receiving ANY dollars from the Fed's. But it's too late. Too many people are employed by the state and Fed. government, and the others are too apathetic to organize enough of the masses - used to be called "the mob"- to take back local control. It'e quite complex. And as far as the fish commission goes, I have tried writing them several times on issues from bag limits to hatchery vs wild coho, and they never give me a call-back on my concerns. I wonder how bad it will have to get before WE THE PEOPLE will begin to care enough to do anything about it. Having vented, there's still a lot of pleasure derived from living in this great state.

jzell wrote 3 years ago


As always, a well thought out and written piece.

So what are the possible solutions in your mind?


Carmen Macdonald wrote 3 years ago

Jzell, good question and I cut the article short. Here's what I'll be advocating for at the meeting tonight.

In order to stop a spiral of escalating fees for less opportunity, ODFW needs to shrink back to core competencies focused on participation.

- Dramatically cut Conservation and Recovery Program to necessities for fisheries only.

- Eliminate the Research Hatchery from angler funds (hopefully it survives in some manner as it has great potential, but to date it's done nothing for the millions of angler dollars)

- Come to the table with suggestions for high-impact, high-participation fisheries. I have a few in mind, but anglers need to feel that there's a future for their increases in fees.
a. Split basin approach to the Clackamas. Create an intensive fishery below River Mill Dam, close to a major population center.
b. Bring back the goal of 100,000 Willamette Spring Chinook (this used to exist). Focus on reaching it to drive participation throughout the valley, all the way to Eugene.
c. Understand that anglers are created on the bank. Buoy 10 and the Columbia are great, but anglers don't begin with boats.

- Eliminate, or secure other funding for non "hook-and-bullet" programs, or at a minimum, scale expenditures to size. If the General Fund wants out of their funding, their programs should go to.

- Instead of focusing on states that have lost participation, go look at states that have grown. There are numerous examples within the 2011 USFW National Survey. Being similarly bad to others is not good enough.

- Dramatically increase commercial fish fees. These anglers say they "fish for the public," but the public is no longer paying for their fish. The anglers themselves, similar to recreational anglers, need to pick up the slack for their programs.

- I've heard comments on the wildlife side that the Bighorn program should go. Too much money for too little opportunity with an animal that's prone to disease. I don't have any insight on this.

- Create funding strategies for non-game fish and wildlife. I mentioned a bird seed tax, and somewhat tongue-and-cheek dog food tax, but there is a reality there. We have principles in this country about taxation without representation, how about representation without taxation...something needs to give. You have demands, you ought to have methods to fund them.

There are always solutions.

edressen wrote 3 years ago

Great write up that offers good solutions. Thank you for your time and commitment.

Post a Comment

You must login to post a comment.

User Name

Need an account? Register here!

All information and pictures on ifish.net are © www.ifish.net
Terms of Service
All Coast Media Network 2 Cool Fishing Noreast.com Stripers247.com All Coast Ifish.net