IFish Fishing Forum banner

$9.75 more to fish the Columbia basin next year???

14K views 113 replies 64 participants last post by  Stick'em 
#1 · (Edited)
#3 ·
I just picked up the 2014 Sport Fishing Regs. and on page 7 it states that the Columbia River Basin Endorsement will cost $11.75 but the link provided to ODFW's website states $9.75....which is correct?

Seems like ODFW runs on misinformation!!!!

Gillfish3
George Gill
 
#6 ·
I just picked up the 2014 Sport Fishing Regs. and on page 7 it states that the Columbia River Basin Endorsement will cost $11.75 but the link provided to ODFW's website states $9.75....which is correct?

Seems like ODFW runs on misinformation!!!!

Gillfish3
George Gill
Theres a 2$ "agent fee" if you don't buy it with your fishing license.
 
#13 · (Edited)
9.75 to fish.or 1.00 a day when people bye a one day license .how much money do we have to give the netters and how long .that's one hell of a lot of money.they pay farmers to not farm or milk cows.why not pay netters not to net fish.would make more since. What a bunch of bs.next it will be 10 bucks to use a boat in the zone because boats catch. to many fish
 
#15 ·
It's probably time to find out if there are any angling related businesses who are tied to CCA and make those businesses feel the pain for this. Maybe that would get the CCA back in touch with the Gov and hammer out a fix to this. I hold CCA chiefly to blame for this garbage.

I have not decided if I will pay this or not. I will likely just stop fishing any Columbia trib waters. More importantly, stop buying any tackle from shops on the Columbia. Make this hurt and it will get fixed.
 
#20 ·
Sort of funny to me: If you fish the Klaskanine, Big Creek, Gnat Creek, etc. you'll have to pay the extra fee even though these areas are not affected by any change in commercial fishing. Furthermore, there is no guarantee by the ODFW that they will actually INCREASE consumptive fishing opportunity (increase bag limits, etc.).
 
#26 · (Edited)
Folks that fish in Washington have been paying a similar fee for a few years now for the Columbia. A couple of trays of herring is what we're talking about here.

The commercial fishing take on the mainstem won't change much. I personally would rather see them get their quota in a day and move to the off channels. They can now live sort the fish, where with a gill net, everything caught had the potential to die. They can now only harvest hatchery fish, helping preserve some wild and endangered stocks. How can this not be a good thing?

We look greedy when all we cry is "me,me,me or more, more, more".

What exactly are we blaming CCA for? Barbless hooks? What? If you really think that, then you haven't been in this game for very long,or not been paying much attention. Managing the Columbia salmon harvest is a very tricky and very political thing. If it were as easy as "Poof the nets are gone and sportsman get all the fish they want any way they want", don't you think that might have been done already?

The govenor saw that the commercial in river fisherman could be in trouble if 81 passed. At the time it was 50/50. He found a compromise that might actually work. Like Schamp said "If neither party thought they weren't getting absolutely hosed, then it wasn't a good compromise"

We complain about $9.75 and hooks. Those guys fishing commercially on the Columbia have to change the way they completely run their businesses. From boats, to gear, to personel. All to fish the mainstem. Now if they choose to fish the off channels and SAFE zones, they can keep their gillnet boats. IF 81 had passed those boats and nets would have been completely outlawed. The govenor found a compromise. It's not a compromise if either party thinks the other got everything they wanted, while they got the shaft....

Chris
 
#27 ·
Folks that fish in Washington have been paying a similar fee for a few years now for the Columbia. A couple of trays of herring is what we're talking about here.

The commercial fishing take on the mainstem won't change much. I personally would rather see them get their quota in a day and move to the off channels. They can now live sort the fish, where with a gill net, everything caught had the potential to die. They can harvest hatchery fish, helping preserve some wild and endangered stocks. How can this not be a good thing?

We look greedy when all we cry is "me,me,me or more, more, more".

What exactly are we blaming CCA for? Barbless hooks? What? If you really think that, then you haven't been in this game for very long,or not been paying much attention. Managing the Columbia salmon harvest is a very tricky and very political thing. If it were as easy as "Poof the nets are gone and sportsman get all the fish they want any way they want", don't you think that might have been done already?

The govenor saw that the commercial in river fisherman could be in trouble if 81 passed. At the time it was 50/50. He found a compromise that might actually work. Like Schamp said "If neither party thought they weren't getting absolutely hosed, then it wasn't a good compromise"

We complain about $9.75 and hooks. Those guys fishing commercially on the Columbia have to change the way they completely run their businesses. From boats, to gear, to personel. All to fish the mainstem. Now if they choose to fish the off channels and SAFE zones, they can keep their gillnet boats. IF 81 had passed those boats and nets would have been completely outlawed. The govenor found a compromise. It's not a compromise if either party thinks the other got everything they wanted, while they got the shaft....

Chris
I like the way you explained this. If I couldn't see what you were trying to say, I don't think I could be "fixed".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#28 ·
I seriously grow weary of people comparing every fee increase to some gear purchase. How much does license & tags cost nowadays? And what is the opportunity for the average person to eat a fish?

Sometimes I think it is fishing groups that are most responsible for killing fishing for the common man & turning it into the sport of kings.
 
#29 · (Edited)
If you were to fish the Columbia or a Columbia tributary 1 day a month for 12 months, it would cost you about an extra $0.81 per trip. Hardly Kingly wages. Most people probably have 81 cents hidden in their vehicle somewhere. Comparatively speaking, I cannot play golf, or ski, or even drive to a hiking trail and hike/camp for less than my yearly fishing license and tags, even with the $9.75 a year increase. Often times each of those activities costs the same for 1 day as an annual fishing license and tag (often for less time each day than you'd spend on the water). If it was only about eating a salmon or steelhead, you would be better off spending the money at a restaurant or marketplace to guarantee you would be eating a fish.

I apologize for comparing a fishing expense increase to fishing gear, how silly on a fishing forum ;)

Tight lines,
Chris
 
#31 ·
Something often overlooked with all of these increases and additional fees is that we may just be pricing our future generations out of the sport. Families and just-out-of-the-housers don't have a healthy amount of disposable income. Fixed income seniors struggle too.

Gear, tackle and bait isn't exactly cheap either. Maybe the industries that are poised to profit from these recent changes should pony up some dough.
 
#32 ·
$9.75 isn't a make or break issue on whether we'll be fishing or not. And sadly there will be more of this in the future. Increases to go towards whatever they claim is needed. Consider how much it costs to fill up a tank of gas for the truck? How much to fill up the boat? How much do we spend each year on rods, reels, tackle and bait? How about launch fees, parking passes, the list goes on and on. If you were to add the numbers up, $9.75 is pretty insignificant. Even though I'm not necessarily happy about my dollars going towards bailing out the gillnetters, It's a pay to play sport. If the CR salmon, steelhead and sturgeon numbers increase as a result of the commercial switch, then it's all good and I will consider the $9.75 fee well worth it for more fish in the river system.
 
#37 ·
This new fee to fish the Columbia Basin is firmly in place at this point. Now it's a simple decision to either pay it or do something different.

What's coming up for 2014 is the expectation that ODFW will seek a fee increase overall in the legislative session. The last one doubled controlled hunt application costs and raised fees across the board.

Look at the timing of the last fee increase and how long they said it would hold funding. The timing would lead to the expectation of action in 2014, for 2015 implementation.

Some thought for the look ahead...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top