anyone know what other hatchery?

[roundbelly]

read the news release today that the department of fish and game has a 8 million dollar shortfall and will be eliminating 30 field biologist and two enforcement jobs along with closing two more fish hatchery's with the elk river hatchery at port orford being one of the two. they want a $5 raise in the cost of tags. fishing for salmon/steelhead will be $46.25 and deer hunting will be $42.oo
what other hatchery are they going to close?

[Phish_on]

Thanks for voting Republican!

The last time I looked the governor was a Democrat! [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

[Dan Christopher]

Its not the feds ,its the govener he want to keep all the socal progams that cant get the votes, and cut fish,cops,fireman,schools because he knows people will vote to raise taxs for those and we wont for his dumb programs.Its all you democat govenor.not the feds. :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin:

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

roundbelly

Please post the entire news release, or provide a link.

Thank you

*** Clerk :smile:

[Straydog]

From this mornings Medford Mail Tribune
-------------------

ODFW faces some tough cuts

By MARK FREEMAN
Mail Tribune

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife would cut as many as 30 field biologists, close two fish hatcheries and eliminate two enforcement jobs if the agency does not get part or all of a proposed increase to hunting and fishing fees.

These cuts and others would be necessary to make up an estimated $8 million shortfall in the ODFW's 2003-2005 budget caused primarily by inflation and stagnant revenue.

The cuts would include permanently eliminating three of the state's eight watershed manager positions and closing at least two hatcheries - possibly the Elk River Hatchery in Port Orford - but not any field offices.

Locally, two wildlife biologists and one fish biologist would be laid off in the agency's Central Point office, and programs compensating landowners for crop damage caused by deer and elk would be cut.

The cuts were on a list of programs and positions the agency would eliminate if it does not get all or part of a proposed fee increase of $5 each for licenses and tags beginning in 2004.

"I'm not trying to scare people," said Lindsay Ball, ODFW director. "If you take an $8 million cut in an agency, you take some serious hits on things."

The cuts were revealed to a special budget committee now helping the ODFW grapple with its funding problems and were set for public release Thursday.

Any proposed cuts and/or fee increases will be submitted to Gov. John Kitzhaber for presentation to the Oregon Legislature, which sets hunting and angling fees as well as finalizes the agency's budget.

Committee member Chuck Smith of Medford said he believes Oregon's 835,500 licensed hunters and anglers will support the increased fees, given the depth of the specific cuts outlined by Ball.

"I believe he's adequately painted the picture of what may happen," Smith said. "I support it. What's the cost of a season pass to Mount Ashland, or a round of golf with a cart? I think people will pay it."

Required cost-of-living raises for most of its 1,355 employees, hits to the employees' retirement accounts and inflation have created the projected shortfall in the agency's $215 million biennial budget. That has prompted the agency to propose its first fee increase in four years.

If the top increases are adopted, anglers would pay $46.25 a year for salmon and steelhead fishing, and an annual deer-hunting trip would cost a minimum of $42.

The agency will make its funding pitch in a series of public meetings that begin April 22 in Central Point. That meeting will be at 7 p.m. at the ODFW District Office, 1495 E. Gregory Road.

Positions proposed for cutting in the Central Point office are two of the four local wildlife biologists and one of the five fish biologists.

Rogue Watershed Manager John Thiebes said the wildlife jobs are currently held by Merv Wolfer and Simon Wray, while the fish job is now filled by David Haight.

Thiebes said those jobs were targeted because they are funded solely through license and tag fees.

Thiebes' watershed manager job will remain. A similar yet currently unfilled job for the Umpqua River watershed in Roseburg would be eliminated, Thiebes said.

Ball said his agency worked up the list of cuts because budget committee members and the public wanted to know what specific programs would die if the fee increases did not occur.

"I'm not wed to these cuts," Ball said. "You can make cuts somewhere else if you can find better places."

Reach reporter Mark Freeman at 776-4470, or e-mail mfreeman@mailtribune.com




Mail Tribune Home | Ottaway Newspapers, Inc. | Dow Jones & Co., Inc. | Privacy | Contact Us
Copyright © 2001 Mail Tribune, Inc.

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Thanks Straydog...

[Straydog]

No problem....

Whaddya think?

I am headed to the meeting down here on Monday evening.

Should be "lively".

Dog

[Point-of-Sale Clerk]

Straydog

I don’t know yet. When I see the entire proposed budget and the exact fee schedule in writing I will be better prepared to decide. As I have said before I am more in favor of a graduated fee scale for S/S tags-$10 for the first 5 fish $20 for the next 5 $30 and so on.
I think it is important for ODFW to leave open a window for rivers like the Nestucca to require special local river tags if they loose all hatchery funding. Whether the local basin council or work group decides to go this route it would be smart to have this ability in place to fund on the ground projects to increase native fish runs to improve the local fishery. Just an idea

I will probably make it to the Salem budget presentation

I couldn’t get time off this Saturday to make it to the Fish Screening Taskforce meeting, not enough lead-time.

*** Clerk

[Straydog]

Yes, I am anxious to see all of the proposals and the line items as well.

The graduated scale idea has some merit.

I am not sure an across the board raise is the way go to as opposed to line item adjustments.

Sorry you can't make the Saturday meeting...

I am sure budget issues will take a large part of the discussion.

[ 04-17-2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Dan Christopher]

Like i said in an earlyer post the govenor cuts these programs insted of his pork programs then sends these to the house to raise taxes or fees so it makes them the bad guys.Do you remember way back when he was running for office ,when he ran as a fisherman and wanted the fishing votes.kind of funny now hu....not. ....

[Straydog]

All I can say is that, as one involved with our local school district both as a site council member and a member of the district budget committee as well as working on a legislative candidates campaign and worrying about Operation Assist and other health care issues for the elderly, I can not point fingers of blame at any one political entity.

Frankly, they have all done a pretty partison job of screwing things up.

What you and I may like to consider pork, is very very important to others in this little world we share.

I am sure the thousands of retirees worried about paying for the next of many, many visits to the doctor has a hard time getting worked up to protect fish hatcheries or remembers or cares that Kitzhaber made himself to be the fishermans candidate. Remember, he pictured himself to be the champion of health care as well.

Rather than point fingers and be ticked about what was said a few years ago, I urge you to become involved and help find real solutions to real money problems.

I will quietly take my beating now. :whazzup:

[Phish_on]

ooooo yeah, I knew that would fire you up! Maybe turn off the "Rush" for a while, huh?

Exactly which "pork" "social programs" would you like to do away with? I'm a little sick of paying to support losers who can't take care of themselves, personally. My idea of welfare is a bus ticket to another state.

I've given up on the Republicrats, I registered "Pacific Green."

I don't think all the blame falls on Dr. No. Visit the Legislature some day. There's another use for bus tickets to another state ...

[STGRule]

Well put, Straydog. This state is made up of all kinds of people, in all kinds of situations. I think if I had to choose between my kids education and a fish hatchery, the hatchery would go. There are too many hard choices to make these days. Lets make them without emotion. Even if you had a witch to hunt, the damage is done.

[Jerry Dove]

Their has not been much press about fee raises, has their?? If they have meetings on this subject lets all get out and voice our opinions, for or against. Let them know you care. If they raises fee's I would like to see a Percent dediciated to hatcheries!!!! Jen should do a poll --- with out looking , HOW MUCH DID YOU PAY FOR YOUR LICENSE.... bet you don't know. Then ask your self what is one nice hatchery fish worth to you. Or better yet how much is it worth for chance to just go fishing? PRICELESS!! But we need to let Salem know how we feel. I don't mean just set around and talk about it I mean get on the phone, or write e-mails, or letters to Salem NOW! bELIVE ME THE ANTI HATCHERY PEOPLE ARE!!

[Thumper]

Straydog --- Note the wording carefully .....

"These cuts and others would be necessary to make up an estimated $8 million shortfall in the ODFW's 2003-2005 budget ......"

Shortfall in the budget, not spending decreases. This smells of Dr. No again. The key here is to look at the actual dollars being spent in the current biennium vs. the actual dollars being projected. Compare real dollars, not "budget shortfalls".

[Bigdog]

Does anyone know how much the gillnetters pay for permitts and if they are suggesting an accross the boards increase or just a sportsmans increase. If I remember right sportsfishers are not the only one's who benifit from hatchery fish. It sure would be nice if the could make their annual buget availible to the public since this is who they serve. [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

[Phish_on]

Bigdog, their budget is a matter of public record. All you have to do is ask.

[chuck 'n' duck]

I have stated this before, but I would be willing to fork out several hundred dollars for an annual fishing license. I really don't think I am alone with this opinion either. IMHO, I think this is where we are headed anyway. The budget is really F*cked right now, and luxuries like fishing will be first in line to go over more necessary public services like education, welfare, healthcare, etc. It is going to come down to how much we really want our fishing opportunities here in Oregon to remain as they are. We are going to have to show this by shelling out the money.

CnD

[Phish_on]

shelling out several hundred dollars is not something that is going to attract the touristas ... just a thought ... fishing is important to a LOT of business and industry, not just us yokels. Even I buy gasoline and paint and epoxy and the occasional lure.

[STGRule]

Here is the part of the budget proposal that deals with the hatchery closings:

Close North Nehalem Hatchery - $ 458,300
Eliminate 3 positions
Eliminates the majority of the angling opportunity and hatchery production in the following streams and lakes.
– Coho - 200,000 smolts for the N. Nehalem River.
– Rainbow trout catchables - 68,300 for 11 Coastal and Lower Columbia lakes.
– Winter Steelhead - 50,000 smolts for the N. Nehalem River and 40,000 smolts for the Necanicum River.
– Winter Steelhead - 40,000 smolts for the N. Nehalem River.

Close Rock Creek Hatchery - $ 612,110 Eliminating 5 FTE
Eliminates much of the angling opportunity and hatchery production in the following streams and lakes.
· Coho – 62,500 smolts reared at Butte Falls H. for Rock Creek (N. Umpqua River).
· Rainbow trout catchables – 53,000 for 9 Umpqua Valley Lakes and Reservoirs.
· Spring Chinook – 412,000 smolts for North Umpqua River and 60,000 legal size fish for Diamond Lake experimental program.
· Summer Steelhead – 165,000 smolts for the North Umpqua River.
· Winter Steelhead – 173,000 smolts for the South Umpqua River.

[garyk]

prior post -- "If they raises fee's I would like to see a Percent dediciated to hatcheries!!!!"

Let's see, at least half of ODFW 's budget is for hatcheries and hatchery related expenses already. The maintenance backlog alone is something like in excess of $80-million.

Just how much more of the pie will be given to fish propagation -- and what will we lose by cuts in return.

I believe that 50% is way plenty enough.

How about more money instead for access rights, conservation easements, critical wetlands acquisition, key restoration projects, and so forth. Expenditures that are capital investments
and will ensure our fishing future, now that's smart money spent!

[craigzilla]

The state needs to generate more funds!!! Raise the taxes on those damned cigaretts!If people quit smoking because they can't afford it well thats a good thing!

[highdesertdrifter]

I seem to rember voting for a lottery a few years ago so our schools would have lots of money. Where is it? i think a raise in licence fees would be the same way. where did it go? we should be charged per fish caught. woo hoo i get to fish for free.