Gov wants separate license for crab

marko · 08-08-2003, 01:58 AM

The governor has proposed a separate license for crab and shellfish. It would be required of everyone even those of us with fishing licenses. If you disagree with this idea write your representative, senator and the governor. Tell them to stop looking for new sources of revenue and start looking at ways to limit spending.

BottomFeeder · 08-08-2003, 03:02 AM

I think most of us want a shellfish liscence fee. Currently there is too little monitoring of this resource. I read in the Oregonian that it has already been approved?

-Bottomfeeder

Straydog · 08-08-2003, 06:43 AM

Actually, the public went to ODFW and asked for this. My first conversations with Lindsay Ball were met with him sharing the fact that they had tried several times in the past and failed. The Dept. wasn't planning on trying again until the public influence convinced them to go for it.

Yes, the Gov. supports it but it was passed by the overwhelming support of the public.

As I understand it, yes, it is a done deal and signed into law last week or early this week.

[ 08-08-2003, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

Flatfish · 08-08-2003, 06:53 AM

Straydog,

since you seem to be on the inside with Mr. Ball, would you ask him if

1- If we get the shellfish tag, where does he see the funding going? Will it help pay for staff to manage shellfish? Or will it patch another hole in the dam.

2-Is anyone seriously considering a 2nd rod permit? If so, where would those funds go?

3- If the ODFW were to get another source of income, what is the list of priorities to spend it on?

I do not mind spending the money, but I would just as soon get what we have paid for before we spend more on new projects. But since this is government we are speaking of, I am not sure if my logic applies.

Just wondering from the outside.

Mark and the CIA( cash in advance) dog.

Straydog · 08-08-2003, 07:00 AM

Flatfish,

No insider trader going on... [img]graemlins/eek13.gif[/img]

I simply make the effort to go the meetings and become involved. I went to a meeting and there was a discussion with Mr. Ball. Anyone can do it and I think you would be better off to go and ask your questions for yourself.

The money for shell fish has been ear marked for biologists, population monitering and enforcement.

From the outside willing to step inside and try to make a difference. :smile:

Flatfish · 08-08-2003, 07:09 AM

I did not think there was insider trading. I assumed( what is that saying? Oh yeah "makes an...", my bad for assuming) you were on a personal level with Mr. Ball.

Glad to see the shellfish lic pays for itself, and not something else.

I am more active than most. But not up to date on some issues. This is one of them. Thanks for informing me.

Mark and the dog.

marko · 08-08-2003, 07:09 AM

I wasn't aware there was a large spread clamoring for this fee. This really hurts the people who do the sport crabbing and those who depend on it for their livelihood. Sport crabbers are for the most part one of two groups. First, fishermen who all ready have a license or second, once a year weekenders who rent traps from a marina and maybe a boat as well. The $5 fee isn't going to break anyone, but wanna bet it is $25 in few years? Then what happens to the once a year traffic? How many of us who all ready fish and have licenses are going to pay the extra?

The second rod is a much better idea and would bring in more revenue. It also would not affect the once a year sport crabber. Better you all should have pushed for that.

Does anyone think the state police are going to enforce this new license requirement. When is the last time you were checked while fishing or hunting? Hell, we could not get a game cop out a couple years ago when some guys were breaking the laws elk hunting. So now they are going to be swarming the bays to enforce this?

Straydog · 08-08-2003, 07:20 AM

The commission is meeting today in Astoria.

Anyone wishing to express opinions or ask questions will be welcome and have an opportunity to do so.

There is still time to make it, if you live up North there.

Flatfish,

No problem, I have worn the "Ass........umed" hat myself a time or two. :blush: I will say that my limited experience with Mr. Ball is that he is very approachable and more than willing to take time to discuss these matters as are the commissioners.

David Johnson · 08-08-2003, 07:37 AM

I wouldn't be surprised if the people who rent to the weekend crabber are in support of this too.

Think about all the out of state res. who flood down here for a free lunch when it's open for razors. There's a extra fee in Washington for clamming.....

I just got back from Cananda and up there they have rivers that are "classified" if you want to fish a classified river you have to by a classified license for only that river and it's $22 a day. Not to mention the over $100 we spent on a week license.

chummer · 08-08-2003, 08:05 AM

Marko, I'll give to you, 2nd hand info regarding shell fish fees, It may be wrong, it may be right, I don't know for sure but I read it here on ifish, so it MUST be true! :shocked: The average shellfish license for costal states is around $30, so, even if oregon's went up to $25, it would still be below the average. There has been a lot of discussion on this topic over the last year. When you have people digging up 1400+ clams at a time, it's time to do something!

MasterMariner · 08-08-2003, 09:35 AM

I talked with some of the Game Troopers and OSP is going to be enforcing the license requirements from the start. Its about time... there have been so many abuses of the recreational clam and crab resource...

marko · 08-08-2003, 09:42 AM

WA saltwater res $10.95, non-res $25.19, two day $8.45. CA res $18.10 Pacific Ocean only, non-res $82.45, one day $6.10. I guess you could get a $30 average out of that somehow. In WA a Saltwater and shell fish combo is $30.66 Maybe that's where the $30 came from. CA includes the shell fish in the genral license as near as I can tell.

I'm still against it. Now I am in favor of doubling the cost of elk and deer tags. Boy that ought to get some danders up! [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

hookem · 08-08-2003, 09:44 AM

I guess its ok to have the shell fish fee, I find it to be a pain for those last minute trips and someone who wants to go along and they can't find a place to buy a liscence, or the kids, maybe they want to go out, or sit in the camper. Any way I'm just ramlbing here, if the money is used the right way its a good idea. I also like the second rod fee also.

marko · 08-08-2003, 09:44 AM

MasterMariner: I'll believe that when I see it.

08-08-2003, 10:20 AM

Just go to del Ray beach near Seaside on a good clamming tide and look at all the out of state plates.I think the shellfish license is a good thing.

MasterMariner · 08-08-2003, 10:25 AM

Marko,
Well, if you try the Clatsop Beaches don't be surprised to see State Troopers writing tickets for no license. They wrote a ton of clamming tickets in 01.

The money generated from the license is not going into the general fund... its going to support the biologists and enforcement. I'm happy to see the license for many reasons!!!

marko · 08-08-2003, 10:47 AM

What am I missing here. This is about sport crabbing. You must have a license now if you go after shellfish!

MasterMariner · 08-08-2003, 12:44 PM

I can understand the frustration with user fee's, but if we want to have these resources for the future, its gonna require some type of management/enforcement. A "free for all" attitude is very short sighted and poor stewardship. Unfortunately, user fee's are the down side of additional preasure on the natural resources and people wanting to recreate outdoors...
I don't like it either, but that's just the way it is....

TundraIII · 08-08-2003, 12:56 PM

What I would like to know is what Oregon will charge an out of state resident for a shellfish license. WA for example charges 25 bucks if you are an Oregon resident for a yearly fee. Will Oregon therefore charge a Wa resident 25 bucks for a yearly fee? I'm sure its not that simple of course. Seems to me it would free up our beaches, improve weekend congestion and improve clamming in general. Will local gas stations and small business be hurt by this? Personally I think a WA resident should pay in Oregon at least what they already would pay for a license in their own state. What I gathered from the previous posts is that the popular beaches have parking lots full of out of state vehicles. Simply charging a flat 5 bucks for an Oregon shellfish license isnt going to change anything. If Oregon's fees are significantly less than what WA state requires then out of staters will continue to flock here. Does anyone know what the price break- down is going to be?

TheRogue · 08-08-2003, 01:04 PM

T3...

The reason for the license is NOT to clear some room on the beaches, it's to provide some $$ for research and enforcement of shellfish. That's a good thing!! If it was so expensive as to actually visibly reduce the numbers of people, well, then it probably would be an effect on the local economy. Personally, I don't think anyone will notice a difference....which is how it should work.

TR

TundraIII · 08-08-2003, 01:33 PM

MasterMariner, no one suggested a "free for all" attitude. A true outdoorsman is also a conservationist. We know it costs money to preserve these fisheries for future generations. It's not a choice but an obligation for all of us. I dont mind at all paying reasonable fees. It's the unending yearly increases and little to show for it that concerns me. Not to mention the fact that I can see in the not so far future these sports fees becoming so high that it restricts the participation of the less fortunate residents of this state. I dont let anyone reach in my pocket without asking questions or expecting results or just complaining about it in general
[img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

lost_sailor · 08-08-2003, 01:39 PM

Out-of-staters should pay about $500!

MasterMariner · 08-08-2003, 01:52 PM

Well said Tundra! Its good to ask questions and not just go along blindly like lemings.

TundraIII · 08-08-2003, 01:53 PM

TheRogue, I totally agree, it probably wont change anything. Hypothetically speaking....Oregon charges a higher rate for out of state shellfish licenses and come next January I head to Seaside for some clamming and notice that there are far fewer out of state vehicles in the parking lot. I think I could live with that just fine.

TundraIII · 08-08-2003, 02:04 PM

[ 08-13-2003, 07:35 AM: Message edited by: TundraIII ]

CATCH AND EAT · 08-08-2003, 02:49 PM

I personally like the idea. Gives more control of this slightly unmonitored resource. Added revs for the fishery. LS's idea of $500 is a little steep but he's on the right track.

hustlerrjim · 08-08-2003, 04:35 PM

well well we finally got some agreement among us
the money for the shell fish lic.will be used to support research and enforcement {the latter I could do without}
currently this money comes out of the budget of odfw
this will make this part of odfw self supporting
does any body know what a wash guide pays?????f or out of state lic???

fishnagain · 08-08-2003, 06:21 PM

I live in Washington and my wife works in Oregon We pay full state taxes to Oregon and yet I still have to pay almost 50.00 for a out of state fishing license and tag. I would agree with a small fee for the resource but when I make a trip over to the coast for the weekend 2-3xs a year we are spending at least a few hundred dollars each time as I am sure alot of the other out of state licence plates are also. With a fee added to crab in Oregon yes you will see far fewer out of state plt's come to your coastal communities and so will the business owners that count on those tourists $$$

lost_sailor · 08-08-2003, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hustlerrjim:

the money for the shell fish lic.will be used to support research and enforcement {the latter I could do without}

I rather like enforcement, myself. If I follow the rules, I like to have everyone do likewise. :smile:

It would be great if we DIDN'T need enforcement, but in the "real world" there are "bad guys."

Quote:

Originally posted by tonyz:
With a fee added to crab in Oregon yes you will see far fewer out of state plt's come to your coastal communities and so will the business owners that count on those tourists $$$

I don't think it would be that significant. Touristas come for more than our shellfish, I'm pretty sure. And if they have the $$$ to spend on restaurants and lodging, what's a license fee? When I had the chance to go to Alaska, I didn't hesitate to throw $100 bucks at the Wal-Mart counter to go fishing for a week. Heck, I paid some $120 to go out and puke from a halibut boat. Fishermen are dumb! [img]graemlins/stupid.gif[/img]

[ 08-08-2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: lost_sailor ]

fish_on · 08-08-2003, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Straydog:
Actually, the public went to ODFW and asked for this. My first conversations with Lindsay Ball were met with him sharing the fact that they had tried several times in the past and failed. The Dept. wasn't planning on trying again until the public influence convinced them to go for it.

Yes, the Gov. supports it but it was passed by the overwhelming support of the public.

As I understand it, yes, it is a done deal and signed into law last week or early this week.

Do you know if this will go into effect this year or begin in 2004?

fishnagain · 08-08-2003, 07:09 PM

Your right Lost_Sailor I was just in shock when I first read this topic I should've known it was coming sooner or later.
I prefer to crab in Oregon because there is no fee or license required and you don't need to tag your crab,the legal size limit is smaller than it is in Washington and it is alot less hassle all around.When the rules and regs change to be more like Wash it will be a :depressed: day I was born in Oregon and had lived there 28 years I have many fond memories of crabbing the Oregon Coast and making more with my family every year no matter what they do I will allways be back.
Besides if I continue to win the $500.00 dollars every year at the crab derby it will more than pay for the fee's :grin:

TheRogue · 08-08-2003, 07:34 PM

Quote:

I live in Washington and my wife works in Oregon We pay full state taxes to Oregon and yet I still have to pay almost 50.00 for a out of state fishing license and tag.

Sorry, so maybe move??

At an extra $5 for the license, I suspect the tourists we lose are the ones that aren't spending a dime here anyway!!!!

TR

TheRogue · 08-08-2003, 11:08 PM

Use the resource, pay to monitor and support the resource, simple as that.

TR

TundraIII · 08-08-2003, 11:14 PM

I dont disagree with the shellfish license idea. What I dont like is having crab included in it. Everyone has access to the beaches regardless of where you come from so licenses seem appropriate there. But crabbing is best done from a boat, which greatly reduces accessability for the majority of the public.
Anyone can grab a bucket and a shovel and head to the beach for some clams for little out of pocket money. Crabbing on the other hand is an expensive venture and I dont like the idea of it becoming even more expensive. So this year I bought 3 licenses and tags for the family. Cost was approximately 114 bucks. So next year with the new fees (shellfish lisence and fishing license increases)its gonna cost me 145 bucks. A 22% increase over last year. The rest of you may not mind opening your wallets every time someone says "we need more of your money" but I resent it. I could care less about the comparable prices in Canada or other States, its irrelevant. You have to consider the cost of living in that respective region too. Oregon is an expensive place to live already. I'm going to do some rafting on the Deschutes this weekend with a group of friends and the river fees are going to cost nearly 140 bucks. There is not one sport or hobby that I'am involved in that doesnt have a special fee or tax associated with it. What can you do for free in this State anymore?

Grits · 08-08-2003, 11:26 PM

TundraIII- I understand point and $145 is a lot to shell out right after Christmas so your are licensed for the next year. But think of it like this. If you do 1 excursion a month that equates to $12 an excursion spent on licensing fees for 3 people.

I think what would help sportsmen out would be if your licenses was good for a year from the date you bought it not the calendar year. That way a family could spread out the cost of tags.

PapaHog · 08-09-2003, 09:19 AM

I think it is a good idea if the money was to go to enforcing the rules and writing tickets to the evildoers.

OceanBlue · 08-09-2003, 09:40 AM

The money is earmarked for enforcement and testing.

It is my understanding it was signed into law on 8/6 (per my conversation with the head of the marine resources program) and will go into effect in 2004.

At the ODFW Commission Meeting yesterday, one individual who was a marina owner on the coast expressed a great deal of concern about it and how it would affect her business. She did this in the form of questions. The Commission said that they had already addressed many of her concerns and had other details they still needed to work out in terms of licensing, who, when, how, equipment, etc.

[ 08-09-2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: OceanBlue ]

deepsix · 08-09-2003, 03:34 PM

I will be very surprised if the fees don't end up in the general fund. I really don't believe much that comes out of Oregon governments mouth especially regarding funds. Right now I license the truck, the boat, the trailer the boat sits on, myself for fishing/hunting. I pay a tax on the gasoline to get me there. All of this to enjoy the great Oregon outdoors. Oh, I forgot the user fees to park next to a trailhead and hike on federal land. And lets not forget the winter parking permit. I guess the State/federal taxes out of my paycheck just can't be expected to cover some of these things. We might as well have a user fee to park near the beach or rivers. Wadaya think about that! BTW can you guess I'm not one of the PERS recipients...what a joke. Bend over and open your wallet while your at it.

lost_sailor · 08-09-2003, 06:09 PM

deepsix,
it sounds like you are willing to give up on road maintenance, snow plowing, trash removal, etc. ??
Would there be anything left to hunt and fish for without licenses? (No enforcement, no hatcheries, and so on)

If the law restricts the revenue to certain uses, the money NEVER goes into the general fund. The government is not allowed to break the law.

Lepper · 08-09-2003, 07:30 PM

Crab license eh? What a great idea!! IT indeed will raise some more revenue to mis directed into some other fund where not a dime of it will be used for research or anything else.. kinda of like the license fee increase..

I'm Just REAL happy to pay more..
d

TheRogue · 08-10-2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lepper:
Crab license eh? What a great idea!! IT indeed will raise some more revenue to mis directed into some other fund where not a dime of it will be used for research or anything else.. kinda of like the license fee increase..

I'm Just REAL happy to pay more..
d

So your suggestion for more money dedicated for enforcement and research would be........

TR

chummer · 08-12-2003, 02:16 PM

hustlerrjim, You would'nt be one of them fellers with 1400 clams in his sack would ya'?

Really though, when the cops are only getting 60% compliance during the salmon season, that says alot about us as a group. This weekend out of garibaldi listening to the radio, You had guys asking about fin-clip or no fin-clip on silvers, 1 or 2 chinook, barbs or no barbs. It's ridiculous for us to be going out and not know the regs!!!

Ignorance deserves a financial reminder of what the rules are.

lost_sailor · 08-12-2003, 02:25 PM

Government budgets, expenditures, and audits are a matter of public record. "The truth is out there."