Joined
·
363 Posts
Annual License + Tag + Dealer fee = $134.75
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/budget/docs/Post_Legislation_Final_Fees.pdf
http://www.dfw.state.or.us/agency/budget/docs/Post_Legislation_Final_Fees.pdf
2010 Nonresident Oregon Fishing License
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
363 Posts
Info only
I travel Oregon, fish Oregon.
I travel Oregon, fish Oregon.
Joined
·
132 Posts
That is a huge one year increase, John. And we do have a bunch of greedy bastards in the state who don't know how to manage money (it's contagious, same thing's happening in Wash. D.C. as well!) but it still is pretty cheap entertainment. I know anglers over in Europe would chew their right arm off to have free reign to fish whereever they want over here at that price.
But it still feels good to bitch about it!
C
But it still feels good to bitch about it!
C
Joined
·
375 Posts
jesus!! i thought paying $70 bucks for a non-res. Wisconsin fishing license was outrageous!!! Oregons price seems a little over the top if you ask me.
Joined
·
363 Posts
I wonder if the Wa nonresident license includes the new $8.75 "Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Endorsement " which will go into effect this April...
Bet it does
Bet it does
Joined
·
320 Posts
The fee changes are interesting, the listed below is one example of where I believe they are missing the "boat". The fees charged to commercials are too low in my opinion. Then they charge for k-12 education? Sounds like some lobbists earned their respective fees on these changes.
Activity or Fee Name
Albacore Tuna Landing License
(Commercially Licensed Boats)
Current Fee $20.00
Year Last Increased 1992
New Fee $22.00
Wildlife Scientific/Education Taking Permit (K-12)
$11.50
-
$17.00
Wildlife Scientific/Education Taking Permit (Other)
$11.50
-
$102.00
Fish Scientific/Education Taking Permit (K-12)
FREE
-
$17.00
Fish Scientific/Education Taking Permit (Other)
FREE
-
$102.00
Activity or Fee Name
Albacore Tuna Landing License
(Commercially Licensed Boats)
Current Fee $20.00
Year Last Increased 1992
New Fee $22.00
Wildlife Scientific/Education Taking Permit (K-12)
$11.50
-
$17.00
Wildlife Scientific/Education Taking Permit (Other)
$11.50
-
$102.00
Fish Scientific/Education Taking Permit (K-12)
FREE
-
$17.00
Fish Scientific/Education Taking Permit (Other)
FREE
-
$102.00
Joined
·
363 Posts
I had noticed the Tuna Landing (wonder what they might have charged for taking off?) license as well. Also noticed that the" Vessel Permit, Columbia River Gillnet Salmon" jumped a whopping $17.00 ($75 to $102) over the past 18 years.
Didn't see a fee increase on the gillnet license...
Guess it would fall under commercial ($50-$82)
Didn't see a fee increase on the gillnet license...
Guess it would fall under commercial ($50-$82)
Joined
·
363 Posts
$500
Joined
·
4,020 Posts
A 7 day "non-resident" fishing license, additional required trout stamp, a large tube Aquaseal, two watch batteries and installation of one battery in my watch was a whooping $31 in Arkansas. Go figure!
Joined
·
3,211 Posts
Alaska non res + King Tag = $250
Joined
·
244 Posts
Hate to say it, but...................that is about par for the course. Especially in well know states. Does suck, but again, market driven pricing. I didn't hunt Arizona this year because you are required to be a resident for six months before you get resident rates. Well, off the top of my head I am not sure what the exact prices were. However, I do know for a license, stamps and tags for Mulies and Javalina, I would have been paying almost 4X the resident rate. F that noise! Now, this year, as a resident I can get a Super Conservation License. This includes my hunting and fishing license's', my Trout stamp, my urban waters stamp, my habitat stamp, a tag for Javalina, a tag for Mountain Lion and I believe a tag for Mulies. All of that for......................$163!
Joined
·
10,364 Posts
I fully expect all states to keep increasing these fees -- so long as we keep buying, they'll keep raising.
I always thought it would be nice if they went to a regional license, say WA, OR, MT & ID, at a slightly discounted rate ... that would take care of my fishing needs and keep my wallet from bulging out of my pocket (the WA paperwork alone weighs in at 5 lbs!)
I always thought it would be nice if they went to a regional license, say WA, OR, MT & ID, at a slightly discounted rate ... that would take care of my fishing needs and keep my wallet from bulging out of my pocket (the WA paperwork alone weighs in at 5 lbs!)
Joined
·
244 Posts
I tend to agree with the all inclusive license arguement. A regional license would be a start, however, I have always been a proponent for a national license. This sounds great in theory, however, I do not believe that it would be as easy or as effective as it sounds.
For example, how would funds be distributed to state Fish and Game departments? Who would receive funds from Trout stamps, who would receive funds from migratory fish stamps, who would receive funds from Elk, Mule Deer or Whitetail tags, who would receive funds from migratory bird stamps, etc., etc. In theory, this would be great, as well as a convienence to us all. However, I think there would be a major conflict when it came time to distribute the funds to the proper state agencies.
I will be the first to admit that I do not like paying over $300 a year for various hunting and fishing licenses. Yet, I understand the major obsticals that our state agencies and conservation organizations are trying to over come. The current party is slashing funds every which way we look, many agencies are closing offices and laying off staff. They are not only trying to manage our resources, they are now trying to keep their jobs.
I will gladly pay whatever I need to in order to enjoy our natural resources, as long as I am aware of where the funds are going. If they want to raise my migratory bird fees, go ahead. Just be able to show me that my funds went to improving marsh and wetland areas. You want to raise my migratory fish fees, go ahead. Just be able to show me that my funds went to buying out commercial netters or that the funds went into stream habitat improvement projects. I DO NOT want to see my funds being used for hatcheries that are used to increase the numbers of fish in a given steam that is still capable of producing and sustaining a wild population.
Perhaps it is just me, or may be I am of a minority, however, I know where my place is in our natural resources. My position is not to complain about "this" fee increase or that stream being off limits. My position is to understand that this thing we call hunting and fishing is about being in a small segment of this world that very few people get to experience. A segment that was here long before us and a segment that our grandchildren may not get to experience if we "complain" more than we act"
It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY as stewards of the outdoors to not only pass down our outdoor traditions, but to ensure that our successors are able to enjoy what we have, and perhaps at a higher level. If this means leaving the rod at home for a trip to the river in order to "clean up" so be it. If it means leaving the bow at home in order to participate in a population survey so be it. If it means teaching and watching a child how to catch fish or shoot a bow or gun while we stand aside, so be it.
We need to leave our lakes, rivers, streams, mountains, prairies and forests better than they were given to us. After all, we are just borrowing them, just as we are just borrowing time. If this means I need to pay a bit more, I will gladly do so.
I apoligize for the drawn out rant!
Joined
·
244 Posts
I tend to agree with the all inclusive license arguement. A regional license would be a start, however, I have always been a proponent for a national license. This sounds great in theory, however, I do not believe that it would be as easy or as effective as it sounds.
For example, how would funds be distributed to state Fish and Game departments? Who would receive funds from Trout stamps, who would receive funds from migratory fish stamps, who would receive funds from Elk, Mule Deer or Whitetail tags, who would receive funds from migratory bird stamps, etc., etc. In theory, this would be great, as well as a convienence to us all. However, I think there would be a major conflict when it came time to distribute the funds to the proper state agencies.
I will be the first to admit that I do not like paying over $300 a year for various hunting and fishing licenses. Yet, I understand the major obsticals that our state agencies and conservation organizations are trying to over come. The current party is slashing funds every which way we look, many agencies are closing offices and laying off staff. They are not only trying to manage our resources, they are now trying to keep their jobs.
I will gladly pay whatever I need to in order to enjoy our natural resources, as long as I am aware of where the funds are going. If they want to raise my migratory bird fees, go ahead. Just be able to show me that my funds went to improving marsh and wetland areas. You want to raise my migratory fish fees, go ahead. Just be able to show me that my funds went to buying out commercial netters or that the funds went into stream habitat improvement projects. I DO NOT want to see my funds being used for hatcheries that are used to increase the numbers of fish in a given steam that is still capable of producing and sustaining a wild population.
Perhaps it is just me, or may be I am of a minority, however, I know where my place is in our natural resources. My position is not to complain about "this" fee increase or that stream being off limits. My position is to understand that this thing we call hunting and fishing is about being in a small segment of this world that very few people get to experience. A segment that was here long before us and a segment that our grandchildren may not get to experience if we "complain" more than we act"
It is OUR RESPONSIBILITY as stewards of the outdoors to not only pass down our outdoor traditions, but to ensure that our successors are able to enjoy what we have, and perhaps at a higher level. If this means leaving the rod at home for a trip to the river in order to "clean up" so be it. If it means leaving the bow at home in order to participate in a population survey so be it. If it means teaching and watching a child how to catch fish or shoot a bow or gun while we stand aside, so be it.
We need to leave our lakes, rivers, streams, mountains, prairies and forests better than they were given to us. After all, we are just borrowing them, just as we are just borrowing time. If this means I need to pay a bit more, I will gladly do so.
I apoligize for the drawn out rant!
Screamin' Drags to All!
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
