Questions for clients and fisher people:

Jennie@ifish · 05-01-2002, 05:30 PM

Tim and Shana want to know:

What would you think of a license increase for a fishing license if the money increased was allocated to the fish hatcheries?

If you could give me a response on how it would effect your purchase of a fishing license every year that would be great.

Thank you for your time and hope you can make it out for Tuesdays meeting.

Sincerely, Tim

PS from Jen

I know we have done this before, but this is info they are collecting for a meeting.

Also, what about a shellfish license?

Thanks for repeating yourself, and hangin in there! Please, DO be at the meeting!
Jen

[ 05-01-2002, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: Jennie@ifish ]

RichH · 05-01-2002, 05:36 PM

As long as it was allocated to hatchery production I would not have a problem. If it went to the general fund I would definitely have some issues.

I should add, intelligent hatchery production to that. :grin:

fish_on · 05-01-2002, 05:43 PM

Increse my licence all you want as long as it go to keeping the fish coming. If it goes to the general fund I will buy a Washington licence and fish there. A shell fish licence would be ok, but if I have to pay to crab and clam I would like to see the commercial crabbers have to crab so far from the bay entrances.

Thumper · 05-01-2002, 05:46 PM

As a non-resident, I'll pay any reasonable amount to keep the fish coming.

Pete · 05-01-2002, 05:47 PM

I would gladly pay a significantly higher fee for my fishing licence if I knew it would be used to support the sport fishery through hatchery programs or other direct benefits. I would be more than happy to pay for other tags, too, including shellfish, much as I already do for salmon, steelhead and sturgeon and my supplemental hatchery harvest card.

For the 100+ days a year I fished last year the $40 I paid is the best entertainment value going. It works out to about 6 cents an hour. By comparison, a $45 daily ski lift ticket is about $7.50 an hour, a movie is $3 an hour. Dinner at a restaurant is as much as I'm willing to pay ... you get the idea. Fishing licenses are a great deal, and would still be a great deal if the cost helped sustain the fisheries.

NETONE · 05-01-2002, 05:49 PM

I have no problem paying $5.00, $10.00 more IF such funds go for support outside of the State Funding Allowances for real projects,( if there is any money) and not money to provide salery for more non-doers. I just don't know why of two other ideas could not work:

1. On all our state 40 tax forms the back side bottom asks...Do you want part of your refund to go to...Have the State add a line to support our fishery as to the hatcheries.

2. What about that lotery money..sure that a grant of 1, 2, 3 mil could be given out...

Just my thoughts

Rusty · 05-01-2002, 06:06 PM

I would support a measure to allocate a portion of my license fee for hatcheries and fish management. The increase should be enough to cover some of the budget shortfall for at least the next 4 years.

I do not have any idea how much increase is needed, but a 30% raise probably would be the maximum that would be supported by the fishers of Oregon. This could also be a graduated increase, so as not to "hurt" as much.

Rusty

Patrick Kollodge · 05-01-2002, 06:21 PM

I would be less inclined to pay more for a license if the increase in price went toward the proliferation of hatchery fish. Would gladly pay more for a license if additional monies were earmarked for the improved health of wild, native runs.

Thank You,
Patrick

Small Fry · 05-01-2002, 06:40 PM

I would easyly pay a extra $ 20.00 per year.

DanS · 05-01-2002, 06:43 PM

Quote:

If it goes to the general fund I will buy a Washington licence and fish there.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah, but then your out-of-state license revenue will go into OUR general fund, where it WON'T be allocated to fisheries.

Nice, huh?

Good luck keeping any revenue out of the "black hole" General Fund. Our Lotto money that was SUPPOSED to go to schools, goes to the General Fund where it is allocated through the budget-making process and not necessarily to schools if they have a "more urgent" need.

BTW, I'd pay DOUBLE for my license if I saw results. As it is, I'm pi$$ed I pay as much as I do already.

SteelieSteve · 05-01-2002, 06:48 PM

It's been my feelings all along that the money spent for fishing/hunting licenses should be totally spent for only the expenses and upkeep/improvement of fishing and hunting. ie. hatcheries, wildlife, enforcement ect. Not to fill voids in State coffers(raises, pensions and whatever Taxhaber wants to spend it on).

[ 05-01-2002, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: SteelieSteve ]

Oakie Drifter · 05-01-2002, 06:59 PM

Its the best entertainment value, as posted above, for the buck! Count me in for increase to keep hatcheries OPEN!!

speyfly · 05-01-2002, 07:16 PM

If you want to keep the hatcheries open, if you fish the waters that they support then pay a special fee. If you don't fish these waters, you should not have to support the people that do. Lets see how much you want to keep the hatcheries. Don't ask me to support your play time with higher taxes and fees

.

Bait O' Eggs · 05-01-2002, 07:35 PM

I now pay $105 for the sport pac and think nothing of it. If it was upped by $10 or $20 and that money was used strictly for production of hatchery fish I would not mind.

I would probably pay what ever was charged for a shellfish license. Hopefully not more than $20/yr. I do not think this money should be used or hatchery fish. Any shellfish money should be used to manage shellfish. I would love to see Oregon take a lesson from Washington on Razors, have sections of beach made off limits for essentially razor broodstock, limited days for digging. Out of state license stucture etc.... As far as bay clams I think there should be some sort of tracking of how many clams are being taken and how the populations of clams are holding up.

Good to the Last Cast · 05-01-2002, 07:37 PM

I don't agree with the above post,I live in the Portland metro area and don't get too many chances to fish the coastal rivers but don't you think the majority of the budget goes to hatcheries in the Portland area?? Why should coastal communities and all fisherman suffer because of some reduced funding...I'd gladly pay any increase to keep those hatcheries open, because someday soon that driftboat I want will come and I'd love to fish those rivers more frequently...but :whazzup: :whazzup: :whazzup: will the fish be there

DF · 05-01-2002, 07:44 PM

I would gladly pay a little more for my license to support hatcheries and fish management. Licenses are expensive as it is, dose anyone know how much of our license fee is going to fish management? I hope its at least half [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

SouthCoastStu · 05-01-2002, 07:51 PM

I'd have no problem paying an extra $10-20/year to keep the hatcheries open. I'll be there on the 7th.
I don't like the idea of a shellfish fee.

[ 05-01-2002, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: DiamondBack ]

speyfly · 05-01-2002, 07:53 PM

The last that I heard, the entire license fee goes to administration, not hatcheries. Give them more money and they will continue to grow and need more $$$. ODFW is in the business of selling fishing licenses. Don't be fooled. They could care less about the state of our fisheries. If they did care they would not tollerate things like illegal introductions of bass and other non native exotic species that takes a toll on our cold water fishes. It's big business and they want 10 year, retirement and all of the other benifits at our fisheries expense.

husker · 05-01-2002, 08:52 PM

i would pay for a higher lisence fee if it were to support fishing and not other things.....so a non partisan board should over see how the money would be spent

Lured In · 05-01-2002, 08:57 PM

As a former resident who now pays rather steep out of state fee by comparison, I too would still pay more. IMHO the key is accountability and as has been repeated above...the money has to go to support the hatcheries. With that said, a general raise in the "fishing license" will go to support any fishing activities not just hatcheries. Similarly, a harvest tag is for salmon, steelhead, sturgeon and halibut. That again makes it diffucult to split funds among multiple needy programs.

My thought is a commitment from ODFW to give all "hatchery harvest tags" sales specifically to hatcheries for salmon and steelhead programs. These tags already exist, but are usually only bought by those who may fill a standard harvest tag and go into the general fund. With a commitment from ODFW I would buy both, just so I could support the hatcheries specifically. Another alternative, similar to the hunting world, is a "salmon stamp" like the federal duck stamp. I am not advocating a federal program, merely a analogy. The stamp could be purchased and affixed to the license in addition to the harvest tag.

These ideas, with a commitment from ODFW, could easily address the specific funding requirements of salmon/steelhead programs, with no contention from other ODFW programs. Additionally, they would individually cost more per user and only affect those interested in participating in salmon and steelhead fisheries.

24 on/ 48 off · 05-01-2002, 09:37 PM

Yup. I would pay for it.

--spud-- :smile:

rags · 05-01-2002, 10:18 PM

Bring on the fish. I don't mind paying more.

blackdog · 05-02-2002, 08:48 AM

I would pay a higher fee for licenses and tags if they would go towards the right areas. The idea was stated above, but just giving government money is no solution, they will find ways to justify their spending it on themselves if given the chance. Also, how about the general public helping to cover more of the ODFW's expenses? Last I checked, it was 'Fish and Wildlife', which goes beyond just those fish and animals that are hunted and fished for. We as sportsmen are paying the price for all the peripheral fish and wildlife studies that have to be so closely watched in these days of Oregon Trout, The Sierra Club, PETA, and whatever other do-good club of the day comes along. If the public wants to see bald eagles and spotted owls around, maybe they should help cover some costs. Just another thought from a frustrated sportsmen.

garyk · 05-02-2002, 09:16 AM

I agree that our licenses are the best entertainment value around. We pay so relatively little and get so much.

I would not support an increase to fund hatcheries, as its one more commiting step in an escalating, expensive, addictive cycle.

I would pay more if my investment was going to ensure healthy rivers that have naturally producing runs.

WaterDog · 05-02-2002, 09:29 AM

As long as the money went directly to the hatcheries I have no problem. I would go as far as saying I would pretty much pay whatever is required. $10, $20, $30��..$50 :shocked: Really makes no difference.

I would welcome a shellfish license. That money however should go to the management and study of shellfish. From what I�ve seen the last few years, the pressure is high and I can only hope that clams can stand the pressure. From what I�ve seen and read Washington seems to have a handle on their shellfish and Oregon needs to do the same.

Trollin · 05-02-2002, 09:29 AM

I have so much money invested in boats and fishin gear I can't afford to stop fishin I'd have to pay what ever they want

and I wont complain either.

HiTekRdNek · 05-02-2002, 10:14 AM

I agree with most other. I will pay the extra if it went right to the fisheries.

wishntobefishn · 05-02-2002, 10:19 AM

For what we pay to fish already, boat, tackle, gas, etc. the license fee is a drop in the bucket. As long as the money went toward the hatcheries, I'm all for it.

Artwo · 05-02-2002, 10:28 AM

I to would be up for an increase in fees as long as they went to the appropriate allocation. What I would really like to see is that the entire cost of a salmon/steelhead and/or sturgoen tag go towards funding for those species directly. I would also like to see more involvement (money wise) from the commercials and the tribes since they to harvest the hatchery fish as well. The entire burden of cost should not be the sole responsability of the sportsman.

JK

[ 05-02-2002, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Artwo ]

will_e_fish · 05-02-2002, 10:29 AM

I would pay extra for a hatchery to stay open and stock the fish they say they are going to stock when they say they are going to do it. I trout fish a lot with the kids at lakes and have issues wiht hatcheries over trout stockings,I dont think anyone has mentioned this. ODWF need to take lessons from Wash. in regards to raising and releasing all kinds of fish. ODWF needs a Shellfish fee and management program similar to Wash. This might be unpopular but a fee for a Crab license as well.

Jooky · 05-02-2002, 12:13 PM

just like the goverment to think that throwing more money at the problem will fix it. No I will not pay any more, its all ready too high.

too many chiefs not enough indians
too much boat not enough captian

time to trim the fat!

Jsail · 05-02-2002, 12:32 PM

Yes, I would pay more.
I'm still steamed that only 20% of the money goes to the ODFW budget. Talk about "taxation without representation". So far for every five dollars we pay towards Licnese and Tags, one dollar goes to what we are charged for.
Does this mean that hunting and fishing fees are a sin tax?
And as long as I'm at it..... how long to I have to be a fry?

dogfishboy · 05-02-2002, 01:03 PM

Absolutely. Hatcheries and shellfish fees needs to be allocated only for these purposes and not the ODFW general budget. Accountability and bench marks need to be set.

Is there some way of making this a choice for those who can't afford an increase. Maybe it's an addition to the salmon/steelhead/sturgeon fee in place now. This would not impact general angling license purchases for those folks that don't fish for the "big three."

Hey Pete, that Alumaweld cost more than $40 bucks dude! You need to add that and all the other boats and gear to the equation.

[img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img] While we are all willing to cough up some extra bucks, how about buying out the gillnet license holders too? Just a thought... lets not get into a [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img] here.

David

Pescador · 05-02-2002, 01:04 PM

I absolutely would pay more if the money was earmarked for hatchery use. Not very excited about a shellfish license, but I do agree that more needs to be done to manage that resource, so guess my answer on that one is also yes.

Fishen Fool · 05-02-2002, 01:06 PM

No problem for me if it goes directly to hatchery funding.

hawgcatcher · 05-02-2002, 01:51 PM

Yes and as soon as possible. We need it.

wetaline · 05-02-2002, 02:10 PM

Phis on - you had my thought exactly... I for one would have no problem paying any amount- I’m addicted and have been my whole life - its what i do with every free minute i have - every weekend and many times I’ll sneak in a mid week trip... On the other hand I have friends that like to go out with me off and on, maybe 5-6 days a year... I don’t see these people paying more for a license... nor do if believe they should have to. Not sure what a solution would be. If you have an increasing flat rate for everyone you have economics 101... at some $ point your revenues are less than before you increased the price.

And please take into consideration the population you are sampling on this board... mostly die hards. Not sure what the solution is... I for one would pay much more, but i don’t believe the general public will- and since you need their $'s to fund these projects, and they likely are the majority, taking their price point into consideration would be highly recommended.

Cohodependent · 05-02-2002, 02:25 PM

I am of the same mind as most of the others. Yes I would pay more if the funds were used to take care of the hatcheries. The thing that concerns me is like the North West Forest Pass, the money raised would not find its way to where it is supposed to be used. I fear that the money would not be used for what it was represented and once the price goes up you can't change it back.

As far as the "Time to trim the Fat" comment that was posted earlier, I think that is what this is all about. With out the additional funds the fat is about to be trimmed and that fat is the coastal hatcheries that are on the chopping block. The ones that are so important to all of us...

puddles · 05-02-2002, 03:20 PM

sure would! whats a few bucks to help with our future fisheries.

ampersat · 05-02-2002, 03:52 PM

i could afford another $5 or $10 to keep hatchery salmon and steelhead coming. a native only fishery doesn't appeal to me. without hatchery salmon in oregon, i'd either stick to trout or go fish in washington.

05-02-2002, 03:57 PM

sure, I would kick a few extra bucks in for the cause.

Joe Schwab · 05-02-2002, 04:06 PM

As long as it's dedicated to specific programs and not thrown into the pool, raise it!
I'm going to open a can of worms here that needs to be opened. Free old timers license!!
Why does the one group of fishermen who probably spend more time fishing and hunting than the average working stiff get to do it for free. If you qualify as an indigent I have no problem. I'm retired, I'm not indigent and I would gladly pay for my license. It's one of the best bargains around for entertainment. I'm going to qualify soon for one of those so I'm not speaking as a disinterested outsider. Any of you other retirees have the guts to admit you can afford to pay?
[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

riverrat · 05-02-2002, 04:23 PM

Why throw good money after bad. The ODFW will increase the license fees when they need to, which is a bad idea also. What must happen is accountability for the money spent by all people that use and profit from the resources of this great state of Oregon. By this I mean seperate all money spent on licenseing fees, include sportfisherman, hunters, commercial fisherman, boat licensing, trailer registration....etc. Reinvest this money and any other state money allocated, plus push that federal grant money be applied for. I am sure that there is enough money, the problem is the misallocation of the funds....typical government waste. Do not be held hostage for fear of losing your right to fish, instead let you representatives know how you feel. Let all the people who profit from your purchases of fishing equipment, boats, motors etc.....know that if there is a loss in any fishery it will definatley be their problem, No Sales = No Profits. Lets be smart and think what would be best for the fishery, not what would be best for the government.

SSPey · 05-02-2002, 08:43 PM

I would not pay more for hatcheries. I WOULD pay more for conservation of wild fish.

LakerBoy · 05-02-2002, 08:44 PM

River rat I totally agree with you. We pay enough already the problem is the money is not managed right. Can anyone come up with some good ideas of raising monies for the North Coast hatcheries without increasing our fishing licenses. How about a special license to fish Tillamook Bay and it tributaries and the Nestucca River and have its revenue go directly to the funding of their hatcheries? It’s just a thought.

Navigator · 05-02-2002, 09:55 PM

I would support a fish license increase - especially one dedicated to solving the funding crisis we are currently in. I like the idea of a dedicated stamp - money goes directly to the North Coast hatcheries and people who fish these rivers pay for the stamp. I would pay another $10-$20 a year for this. That is easily what I would drop just gearing up a time or two - so over a year, well worth it.

Dan Christopher · 05-02-2002, 10:52 PM

yes, i would pay more but i feel it is a short term fix.the next year they would just cut the buget more because there getting this money.its just a nother way of sneaking in a tax.if they gave odfw a set buget amount every year guarenteed and the raise in fees is in extra, great ,but it wont be.mark my words,it wont be.we will be here again,people alway give them self a tax for schools,fire,cops ,fish,ext,ext,its just your gov being sneaky........

[ 05-02-2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: MADWIZERD ]

Phish_on · 05-02-2002, 11:01 PM

You can assume that us hard-core fish freaks will continue paying whatever the license fee is.

The question that needs to be considered is at what point the soft-core anglers will stop buying licenses. As we discussed before - increasing the fee does not necessarily increase revenue, if the sales volume goes down.

I'm more indifferent on hatcheries than the rest of the crew here. I'd be glad to see more resources going to "wild" fish management. But I don't want to fight. And I like to eat a hatchery fish now and again.

Fish Hunter · 05-02-2002, 11:13 PM

I heard a few years back that Oregon has one full time staff position dedicated to the shellfish program. A shellfish license would be appropriate to bolster that program. WA seems to manage theirs better.

Native fish habitat seems to be a better area for increased funding than hatcheries to me.

speyfly · 05-02-2002, 11:30 PM

Restoring native fish runs and improving habitat is far cheaper in the long run than paying for the increasing costs of hatcheries and personel to run them. It goes back to the addiction of ODFW to the flow of money. Natural recruitment costs a fraction of what hatcheries costs.