IFish Fishing Forum banner

Columbia River Endorsement

10K views 64 replies 36 participants last post by  beachboi26 
#1 ·
#4 ·
#18 ·
Thanks for your insightful post. The posted material did not answer my questions. I do agree with you that it is a "crock"
 
#5 ·
Been part of the agreement between the governor and netters since the beginning. They just didn't advertise it since it is so popular!


We have this in Washington except our money goes into a fund to provide more recreational opportunities. Most folks I talk to are happy with the fee up here. But like I said a bit different when it is funding our own activities.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk
 
#13 · (Edited)
If you are indeed interested in the answers I can tell you what I know.

The fee was made law by the passage of Senate bill 830 passed in the Oregon legislature and signed into law this year.

The endorsement fee was part of the new lower Columbia River Reforms.


The fee paid by sport fishers makes up about 1/3 of the total funding. The other 2/3 are from general fund and lottery dollars.

The benefits to sport fisheries include:

Making the management priority of the lower columbia river mainstem selective recreational harvest

Big shift in allocation away from commercial fishing to sport fishing in the mainstem Columbia

Elimination of gillnets in the mainstem Columbia.


The fees do have a sunset.

The fees will be used to fund the transition. Including infrastructure such as net pens and studying and implementing enhanced off channel fishing areas designated for commercial harvest. And yes some will be used to fund transition of commercial harvest gear to implement selective commercial fishing gear capable of live sorting fish for the commercial market. There will also be some increased hatchery production available to both sport and commercial fishers.
 
#17 ·
If you are indeed interested in the answers I can tell you what I know.

The fee was made law by the passage of Senate bill 830 passed in the Oregon legislature and signed into law this year.

The endorsement fee was part of the new lower Columbia River Reforms.


The fee paid by sport fishers makes up about 1/3 of the total funding. The other 2/3 are from general fund and lottery dollars.

The benefits to sport fisheries include:

Making the management priority of the lower columbia river mainstem selective recreational harvest

Big shift in allocation away from commercial fishing to sport fishing in the mainstem Columbia

Elimination of gillnets in the mainstem Columbia.


The fees do have a sunset.

The fees will be used to fund the transition. Including infrastructure such as net pens and studying and implementing enhanced off channel fishing areas designated for commercial harvest. And yes some will be used to fund transition of commercial harvest gear to implement selective commercial fishing gear capable of live sorting fish for the commercial market. There will also be some increased hatchery production available to both sport and commercial fishers.
Thanks for the response. I guess I just don't understand why sport fisherman need to support the commercial industry.
 
#15 ·
Is there any reason they just can't do a lump sum that they just raise every year so we don't have to keep such a close eye on what fees to get and not get. Almost like they break the cost out enough, then catch us when we miss one? O, and if I every take a pay cut, I'll never be able to afford to fish or hunt again!
 
#23 ·
I understand the sentiment of wanting what we want, not being excited about paying more, and not liking some of the seemingly punitive aspects. Specifically the barbless rule.

I'm not passing opinion or judgement on those things. During the process things like barbless and closed areas were pushed back on. But ended up being part of a bigger package that benefits sport fisheries and the fish.

The meetings were public. Over months and months. In both OR and WA. Many meetings in and around Portland. Hundreds of involved anglers shed up and testified. All the comments are public record. It wasn't a secret meeting by any stretch.

What I am pointing out is that there was a huge change in the management priority of the Columbia River. 100 years ago and up until last year the focus was to get fish into a can and to market in the cheapest and most cost effective manner.

Folks around here have been fighting to not only end the use of gillnets in the Columbia River but also to show that selective recreational angling is better for the fish, but a better utilization of the resource to the state and citizens.

2/3 of the transition fee was paid for from general fund and lottery dollars. Sport fishers and the fish will be the beneficiaries.

You can look at the fee as "going to the gillnetters".

Or for the price of a boat launch and a tray of herring sport fishers are now being recognized as the best stewards of the Columbia River fisheries.
 
#50 ·
Looks like I wont have to pay the extra $9.75 + $1.00 :applause: There is some benefit to being old and living in Oregon for 69 years.:excited:

BUT I am willing to pay it if I have to and will not complain about it.:flag2:

What gets me is the fishermen that have boats that cost OVER $20,000 and up and a $30,000 truck to pull it with. Complaining about a $9.75 increase in the cost of going Salmon, Steelhead, Sturgeon fishing. :doh: I don't get it.

I am willing to pay it and I can only afford a used boat that cost less than $4,000 and a small truck to pull it.:applause:
 
#34 ·
For the record, I believe this will be good for the fish and sport fishermen. I just don't like the fee. If the 2/3 of the money comes from "gerenal funds" and the 1/3 from this fee. I feel I am paying twice, once with my tax dollars and again with the fee, to correct an issue for others to make money on.
 
#36 ·
For decades, 4 at least, we've tried to move the needle on nets in the Columbia. Thanks to the help of many we succeeded. After 2009 and again in 2011 I didn't think I'd ever see any change in my lifetime...the deck was stacked solidly against us.

What's missed is what we've accomplished...together. Did we get all we wanted? No. I never had any illusion that we would...but we definitely rolled the rock and the work's not over.

Fact is a number of organizations came together as a common voice and worked hard to achieve change. GRB and GaryK have provided welcome insight...they were both right there in the trenches working hard to make this happen.

I watched along with others as the room was filled with commercial fishermen making their case. Their testimony went on for hours and it was compelling. Sportsanglers were represented by far fewer and at the end just a handful who were easily outnumbered by 10 to 1.

In my view we were lucky to get what we did and all who participated --- CCA, Steelheaders and NSIA should all be congratulated.

I'm not happy about the fee but I'll happily pay it because it represents to me a new beginning and something to build on. Now we have a chance to make our case, show what we can do as a community in delivering much-needed economics to lower-river communities and a higher level of conservation to benefit wild fish.

I can tell you for sure that when I left that commission meeting after decades around this issue I'd hoped to raise a glass and celebrate but we didn't because we knew the work was just starting. I'll say it now and hope to say it again and again...thank you Bruce, Gary (a couple Garys), Bob, Norm, Russell, Liz, Randy, Dan, Dave, George, Grant and the many, many others that were a part of the solution. Your selfless dedication to the cause, the lumps you've taken before, during and after and your continued work on this issue are greatly appreciated.
 
#44 ·
Well I am kind of torn on this one if I can pay $10 a year and never have to see a gill net in mainstream columbia then bring it on. However it is getting expensive and complicated to hunt and fish in this state. we could aways get to vote on it to do away with it
 
#46 ·
Ok, I see now the cat is out of the bag. I spent some time around a fire w/ 4 fish bio's earlier this fall.
I wasn't supposed to be paying attention as it was an internal discussion but I was.
At first I mentally jumped on the defensive bandwagon, but as I quietly listened I began to understand what it really ment....... victory of sorts.
I was asked to keep it to myself until the press release.

I'm with Ron & Gary, this is a definate step in the right direction.
If the funds produce more fish and remove net from the main river & there are more fish for us sporty's......I'm all for it.
What are we talking about... the price of burger? Good grief, I'll pay it!
Hunt'nFish
 
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