The State of fishin in the State

Kentucky Hog Hunter · 04-08-2002, 09:02 AM

Hello All,

With the recent news of the possible hatchery closures on our North Coast, we all know the affect this could have on our local economy. I thought about this and felt I would write a few lines to offer my opinion. I have only lived in Oregon for 10 years but have spent much time & money in the sport I love and that is fishing.

It made me sick when I read an article in the March 29th Oregonean that stated the reasons why these 3 hatcheries need to be closed. The excuses were endless. The article went on to say that only $20 Million dollars of the $90 some million dollars for fishing & hunting liscence & fees goes back into the resource. This in my opinion is outright idiocy and flat out stealing in my opinion. How much does it cost to run these hatcheries anyway? Oh I forgot, the bulk of that money goes back into the general fund which the bulk of that goes to fund some retired state workers pension who was unwilling to put money in a 401k program. So much for that. I'm sorry back to the issue. I have heard suggestions from prominent guides who actually post to this forum that on the surface sounds like a good idea.

I heard that one guide suggested we could privitize the hatcheries by having a $10 Tillamook County liscence to fish throughout the year. Thats OK, as a non-guide I am more than willing to do this. Why not given .80c of every fishing & huting dollar we spend is being squandered on I don't know what.

But, let me suggest one even better. How about we implement a supplemental fee statewide for all the guides in the state and put it on a ballot measure that this money can only be used for fishing & hunting. Afterall, they are making their living off a state public resource.

I suggest that the Oregon Guides pay a $1000 annual fee to guide in this state and if a guide is from out of the state they be charged a $2500 fee. That way we can go to Salem and really have a means of saving this sport we all love. Just a FYI, most guides I think charge around $150 per seat these days, and as a taxpayer I have to work till May to pay my taxes givin my annual income.

Now I know these suggestions may upset a certain demographic of the state but I think if I were making a living off of a public resource and my livlihood was about to be severly threatened, I would be very willing to pay a 2% (if you made $50,000)annual fee to save my job.

And closing, I just want to reitterate, that I am one individual how has worked on restoration & enhancement projects in the past and will continue to do so in the future. In addition, I support and will continue to support the many fishing and hunting organizations I am affiliated with, with my time & my money.

Take care & thanks for reading.

Thumper · 04-08-2002, 09:07 AM

Or ..... The legislature could just get up on its hindlegs at the upcoming session and require that the Governor reduce statewide budgets across the board by 0.8%. That would still leave a budget for the next biennium that would be 12% higher than the current one. Seems simple, eh? Well it is. It just requires something called fortitude and responsibility.

Artwo · 04-08-2002, 09:31 AM

Amen Thumper, lets look at the whole budget problem for what it really is............a lack of govermental responsability to the tax payer.

JK

Phish_on · 04-08-2002, 09:58 AM

Thumper, have you noticed things getting cheaper? Food? Gas? Tackle?

Nobody ever says what government services they want to do without, though they are quick to reject fees and taxes.

For us, maybe it's hatcheries that are essential - but for every government service there is a group of people who insist it is essential, and cut "something else."

Ex-military · 04-08-2002, 10:01 AM

Phish...I think Thumper's point was not a .8% cut in the budget..but a .8% reduction in the increase of the budget. The new budget is already more than the last, (I don't remember exactly but I think it was 7-8% higher overall)and that has to do with rising costs of programs...but to cut the overall increase by .8%

Thumper · 04-08-2002, 01:55 PM

The legislature approved a budget that was to be 12% higher than the last biennium. The governor would have to decrease that 112% budget by 0.8% according to the legislature, or 1.3% according to the Governor himself. That would leave overall spending at 111.1% (i.e., up 11.1%) according to the legislature, or at 110.5% (i.e., up 10.5%) according to the governor himself.

Phish ... Do you think that any company, individual or state could get along on a budget increase of 10.5%-11.1% in a time of war occuring at the same time as a recovering recession??? Gimme a break!

Phish_on · 04-08-2002, 02:25 PM

speaking only as an "individual", all of my expenses for my "infrastructure" have gone up! Recession or no.

I understand the across-the-board thing, it's just that then you leave it up to the agency managers to decide what to cut. It might be nice to be more selective, at a higher level.

mmmmmmm what was the question?

Salmonator · 04-08-2002, 02:28 PM

Tluckett, why don't we just eliminate the guides altogether along with the license revenue that would also disappear. Many who book guided trips don't have the time to fish otherwise and would have no need for a license.

I suppose since you bought your license then you've done your part to save and improve fish runs. Talk to a few guides like Marty P and find out what they've done to improve the runs that you get to fish for...

Jennie@ifish · 04-08-2002, 04:18 PM

I'm sure that Marty Peterson would be pleased as punch to pay 1000.00 a year if that would do the trick.
As it is, the time and energy Marty puts into saving our resources probably adds up to about quadruple, or more than that.
Jen

Kentucky Hog Hunter · 04-08-2002, 05:09 PM

Like I said, I knew my comments would not appease to all the demographics. But my logic behind this is that the guides in this state make their living or part of it off a public resource.

This problem we are facing is not going to be saved with volunteer time. Heck if that were the case we would have licked this problem a long time ago. The Tillamook Anglers & Steelheaders alone could run these 3 hatcheries with volunteers.

The real issue is money. As a sportsman & a businessman in the private sector it is only obvious that the only way we will save these hatcheries is with money and privitization.

Again, all I am saying, is the guides in this state are utilizing a public resource to make money. In the private sector, all businesses have to pay taxes AND LICENSING FEES in order to paticipate in that particular area. Why not put some of it back? Heck, if it were my livlihood I would surely do it. In addition, I personally would pay a $100/yr to fish in Tillamook county if would save these hatcheries and it were mandated.

Believe me, the money is the only way it will be saved or a mandate that makes the state use more of the $90+ million as it was intended. Unfortunately, there are no business people in Salem who understand the concept of putting back into the business

I bet if you went out and took a survey, the majority of the people would be for a $10 Tillamook County License and the $1000/state & $2500/Out of State Guide Fees, especially if you regulate those funds.

Food for Thought.