AIS Prevention Pass

[Beartooth83]

http://fwp.mt.gov/news/newsReleases/headlines/nr_4301.html

Why not implement this next year, instead of in the middle of a current license season? Must need to pay for sunscreen & beer for all the boat inspectors.

 

[Wapiti Warrior]

I don't mind them implementing this now and even the retroactive part, and being proactive and aggressive is good when it comes to trying to limit these invasive mussels. but why only target fishing license? All boats, from sailboats to kayaks should have to pay, they can spread these too.

 

[TheJason]

This shows a complete lack of thought by the Montana legislature.

1) Stop this continued bullshit of funding your issues with out of state money. I'm okay with paying more for an elk tag. It's a limited resource. But 15 bucks vs. 2 for AIS prevention and eradication? WTF? There are invasives IN Montana already, and they are just as, if not more likely to be spread by in state boats as they are out of state boats. Last I checked, this SHOULD be a big concern for the residents. Pony up the fuggin' money. Next thing you know the legislature will be adding an additional gas tax on out of state plates to control invasive noxious weeds.

2) Limiting this to angers is completely stupid. Invasives don't discriminate by walleye boat vs. party barge vs. sailboat.

Make it an across the board $10 launch fee (or whatever you need it to be to fund the program) for ALL vessels. I support the fight against aquatic invasives, but this one just astounds me.

 

[el unit]

Glad I saw this this morning before we floated and fished the Big Hole today. I agree, doesn't seem right that they implemented it now and the fee difference between NR and RES is strange.
And I agree to include all boats and boating-related recreation, not just fishing license holders.

 

[Big Sky]

JLS, when I first read about it in the news paper I thought the non-resident fee seemed disproportionate to the resident fee. You are well justified to feel slighted. I also do not see why it's just anglers footing the bill. This seems like it was rushed through and not well thought out. The article said that it was the fwp's goal to warn fisherman, and not look for violations when checking to see if they had their AIS paid for or not. I'm sorry, but I know my luck. I'd get that one rogue zealot that just has to write a ticket and fine me for not having it. So I'll pay my two dollar fee so I don't get fined. Heck it's still fairly early in the season and I've already had my license checked twice, so odds are that it will happen a few more times by summer's end.

 

[Nameless Range]

The discrepancy between residents and non-residents is a bit ridiculous, but making anglers fund this probably makes the most sense. The folks who came up with this probably asked themselves, "How do we reach the most people". Whether paddle-boarders, party boats, or canoes, I'd wager the vast majority of the people using those things will have a fishing license. It makes sense to focus on the single attribute most potential vectors have in common, which is a fishing license purchase.

 

[vanish]

The discrepancy between residents and non-residents is a bit ridiculous, but making anglers fund this probably makes the most sense. The folks who came up with this probably asked themselves, "How do we reach the most people". Whether paddle-boarders, party boats, or canoes, I'd wager the vast majority of the people using those things will have a fishing license. It makes sense to focus on the single attribute most potential vectors have in common, which is a fishing license purchase.

I guarantee that's not true here in Colorado. Many, many folks are out on the water and are not fishing.

To me, its sounds like a lazy "solution".

 

[Nemont]

It should have been funded through a watercraft sticker for everyone who uses puts a watercraft in public waters. It can't be any more work to issue an new license to everyone who pays the AIS as it is to require every watercraft to purchase one. Now you have all the pleasure boaters, jet skiera, kayakers etc getting a free ride on the backs of fisherman. I have no issue with paying it but the way it was written is stupid.

Nemont

 

[Frenchy]

I don't mind them implementing this now and even the retroactive part, and being proactive and aggressive is good when it comes to trying to limit these invasive mussels. but why only target fishing license? All boats, from sailboats to kayaks should have to pay, they can spread these too.

Yep!

 

[Nameless Range]

This is an Aquatic Invasive Species prevention program, not an Aquatic Invasive Species Transplanted By Watercraft program. Though mussels were certainly a catalyst in getting after this, this program is aimed at all AIS. The fact is that of the 5% of Montanans who own jet skis, the majority of that 5% own a fishing license. Focusing on watercraft alone would leave out far more potential vectors, such as fisherman and their waders. Not that this pass would prevent any fisherman from transplanting AIS, but they are a part of the problem and should pay for it.

Sure, focusing solely on fisherman leaves out a few potential vectors, but so would focusing solely on watercraft, and the latter would be more ineffective. This is just a decision based on "bang for your buck", which is not necessarily the most fair, but is what agencies with scope creep are forced to do.

Here's the bill text:

https://legiscan.com/MT/text/SB363/2017

 

[Nemont]

The last stats I could find said about 15% of the population bought a fishing license (2012). If 5% of the population owns Jet skis, what is the total number of watercraft out there? If bang for the buck is an issue, increase the resident fee to $10. Make it an all users deal so everybody has some skin in the game. Other than hydro electric producers and fisherman, there are a whole lot more users of the public waterways. If it is about prevention then hit up everyone who is capable of spreading Invasive species.

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_69efa69e-ffab-11e1-a4e7-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[MKotur325]

This might turn into a rant, and will go off topic some. Just a heads up, ignore it if you want... Granted, I don't know everything about this topic, so my information may be a bit off... Just frustrated with fishermen basically getting blamed for AIS when anyone on the lake or river can transport them.....

Recently I have noticed a significant trend of putting the majority of water resource management on the shoulders of anglers alone. Frankly, Every boot, flipflop, boat, tube, jetski into the water could potentially transmit invasive species. Not just waders/wading boots and anglers. While I don't disagree that something should be done to help prevent AIS, and control/eliminate them once introduced into a body of water. The Madison in the summer comes to mind as an example. How many hundreds of College students tube from Warm Springs down to Cherry Creek or Blacks Ford daily during the summer. I'd imagine that many of them have little to no idea that invasive species can be moved on their shoes, tubes, any other wet gear. This is one example that comes to mind of people who are not educated to the issue and have 0 monetary stake in prevention or management of AIS. Yet a non resident angler would get charged $15 with a short term license to fish a couple days floating with a local guide? I realize that Montana typically charges 10x or close to it for non-resident fees, but $15 sounds high for this AIS prevention fee. Yet if a small fee were charged to tubers on the madison, that could also provide a significant source of funding. Even if citations were not issued for the first while to people tubing the Madison, but the education aspect in itself may help.

Another recent frustration for me (which will be off topic) is in my new home river. The Lower Sacramento in Northern CA. We have an endangered Winter/spring Salmon run here. The best of the spawning gravel is concentrated into a couple miles of river. To protect the spawning gravel, and to keep people from catching the fish (which are illegal to fish for anyhow) they have decided that every year they will close a 7ish mile stretch of the river (the best wadefishing section) for 4 months each year. Yet fisherman are the only ones who bear any burden in this. Tubers, Jet Skis, pleasure boats, waders, swimmers... All still have access to the river, just don't fish it... Yet All the traffic from the boats (especially the Jet Skis who love going up and down the shallow spawning riffles) is still kicking up silt and gravel that will cover the reds and can kill the eggs... and people still go play in the shallow riffle water, Anglers are the only ones who have any restrictions due to low fish counts. We are not the only people who would effect the spawning gravel or health of these fish. Don't get me wrong. If DFG feels that closing this section river to fishing for 4 months helps an endangered species, so be it! I'll fish elsewhere, but if you are going to close it to anglers; Shouldn't you close this section of river to EVERYONE who would effect those salmon??? Like the Jet Skis, and power boaters?? I'm not saying just completely close the river for 4 months, but at least close it to motorized travel... Especially since the Jet Skis gravitate toward that section of river so that they won't have to avoid fishermen...

In General... I'm not saying that we as anglers shouldn't bear part of the burden for AIS prevention, or Salmon health; but we should bear PART of the burden. PS, for you guys in MT, even with an extra $2, you still have it really good. Here in CA, Resident fishing license with the typical extra endorsements (Steelhead card, Salmon Card) for the season will run you about $55, and close to $200 for a non resident season.

End Rant

 

[TheJason]

Nameless,

Putting the fee on fisherman, but leaving out all boats is simply foolish. Pure and simple. Yes, fisherman are a significant factor, but you can't tell me there aren't a number of purely recreational boats in Montana.

 

[Big Sky]

The purely recreational boats are why I don't bother to fish Canyon Ferry. Too many water craft with their stereos on full blast and jet skies for my taste. Thankfully Montana is a big state with a lot of options, where I can find peaceful settings, with plenty of fish to catch. However the recreational crew should have to pony up as well for the AIS!

 

[Nameless Range]

Nameless,

Putting the fee on fisherman, but leaving out all boats is simply foolish. Pure and simple. Yes, fisherman are a significant factor, but you can't tell me there aren't a number of purely recreational boats in Montana.

JLS, It's not whether there are purely recreational boats out there, it's whether those boats are owned by people who also own a fishing license. I don't have stats to prove this, so I may be wrong, but I would bet that the majority of people who own recreational boats, jet skis, etc, also purchase a fishing license in a given year. I'm skeptical that very many people would be left out. I was arguing against targeting watercraft alone because non-watercraft vectors exist and it would leave out a lot of people: For example, one boat could have 6 fishermen in it, AIS are spread by non-watercraft, and watercraft registration and fishing licenses are managed under different systems( I assume). As far as making both fisherman and those watercraft users who aren't fisherman pay their way I could get on board and that would certainly be the most fair. Seems like that would require an entirely new system that is entirely dependent upon recreating on water, so whether you are fishing or boating, or swimming, or tubing you have to have paid the AIS fee. I wonder if there are legal issues with that type of thing? I can only assume they were trying to use existing infrastructure to get this rolling immediately.

Not saying I like it, and I don't want to come off as a staunch defender of it, but I sympathize with agencies having to create brand new systems and programs under the gun and on a timeline that is essentially immediate. The fishing license route seems like a quick and dirty and relatively effective method to me. I acknowledge that my impression is based on assumptions that could be false.

 

[BuzzH]

Its just on par with the way the Legislature and MTFWP department both work...like total shit.

The legislature should be kicked hard in the crotch for ever implementing a retro-active license requirement. Shows how little thought is put into anything in Montana these days. They should have either waited until the next license year or had an effective date of say...May 31 that any fishing license issued after said date, would be assessed the new fee. Those that purchased licenses prior, didn't have the associated fee increase.

Its just a complete, and oh so typical shit show that is business as usual for all things Montana FWP and the Legislature...

Between this and the jacked up draw results, tag issues, refund issues...is there even a question of the incompetence that is running rampant?

 

[Big Sky]

BuzzH, sometimes you make perfect sense. This would be one of those times. While talking with a friend of the phone today I said almost work for word what you just stated as I was trying to explain the stupidity this additional retroactive license. While I didn't curse everything else was nearly identical. I was actually smiling as I read your post as it was like a re-run from my phone conversation just an hour prior.

 

[BuzzH]

BuzzH, sometimes you make perfect sense. This would be one of those times. While talking with a friend of the phone today I said almost work for word what you just stated as I was trying to explain the stupidity this additional retroactive license. While I didn't curse everything else was nearly identical. I was actually smiling as I read your post as it was like a re-run from my phone conversation just an hour prior.

Common sense within the Legislature and MTFWP seems to be, not very common these days.

Lots of people in a fired up hurry to make easy stuff difficult. The other question I would have, is how much does it cost administratively to re-issue the retroactive license? I would have a hard time believing the time invested, cost of the printing, etc. would hardly make the $2 fee that they gain worth it?

I don't know...just irritating that so little thought is put in by the people we pay to manage our resources and represent us.

Oh, and BTW, you're a better man than me if you can talk about the Legislature and MTFWP without profuse and copious swearing...

 

[TheJason]

I'm still trying to figure out why a NR needs to pay 7.5x the resident price. It's antics like this that really make me reconsider spending license dollars there.