I am USCG Master Licensed to 200 miles offshore, yet the Longview Bridge is my cutoff for fishing Salmon, however I can fish Steelhead and Sturgeon below the bridge. I guess that when you fish Salmon the water must always be dangerous enough to keep me above the Longview Bridge . I have talked to Tony Floor, Terry Rudeneck, plus department personal at the North of Falcon meeting in SeaTac this year and last year about removing the band on selling new charter licenses and have pretty much received the same answer IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN FACT THE STATE WANTS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF CHARTER LICENSES TO AROUND 80. Just do the numbers Commercial Fishing brings in a small small fraction of Revenue to the State compared to Sports fishing and Charter Fishing. I had read the impact numbers from the over harvest of Springers by the Commercial's, it something like $400k gain in Revenue to the State for the Commercial fleet and $23.5 million loss from the uncertainty of the week to week Sport Fishing closures and or openings. The loss was due to hotel cancellations tax, gas tax, fishing gear, bait and rental taxes etc. It's a now brainier to me by back all of the Commercial Licenses and open up the sale of Charter Licenses, I think our State would be more finance sound with the gain in tourism revenue and Local Revenue to the small fishing towns that are Dieing off because everyone heads to OR for guided trips on the Columbia, Coast Bays and Ocean.

IMHO:

River guides should be required to pass a test to get a guide license - not just send in a license fee.

Saltwater guides should (& do) have to satisfy much more rigorous requirements than river guides. Particularly offshore skippers.

So, the question is, where do you draw the line between river & salt? The lower CR can be big water.

Charter boats are and have always been regulated as commercial fishing enterprises as they should be. I fully agree that they and other commercial fishing enterprises, including river guides, should be limited in numbers to prevent both overfishing and excessive competition with personal use and sport anglers.

While limiting the number of commercial fishermen may be a wise thing to do, the bartering of and person to person sales of licenses reminds me of the scalpers at games and concerts. A license should not, in my opinion, be treated as a commodity. If there are to few licenses to meet the damand then a simple waiting list would more fairly handle the problem.


I also found some more information at the following link: http://www.marinebd.osmb.state.or.us/Guides/index.html

It's not just a matter of plopping down $100.00 for a washington resident to qualify as a guide in Oregon.

Except for the moratorium on new charter licenses in Washington and the Washington designation of Lake Washington the Lower Columbia as marine waters for guiding/chartering purposes the laws of the two states seem to be quite similar.

The charter requirement for the lower Columbia predates the moratorium on new WA charter licenses and seems to be a reciprocosity issue currently in need of resolution.

This is what it takes for a Washington resident to qualify as guide in Oregon.

For a Sole Proprietor type guiding business...

Price for a non-resident Oregon license:
$730 (Salmon guide)
$600 (Steelhead and other fishing)
$50 (Any other type of guiding)

It is necessary to submit a completed, signed and dated application form.

The applicant must submit a signed affidavit stating that the outfitter/guide and any employees have current, valid first aid and CPR cards, insurance coverage and a current Coast Guard Operator's license if the operation is on federally navigable waters.

If advance deposits from clients in excess of $100 per person or a credit card number is taken in advance, a $5,000 surety bond or a letter of credit must be submitted.

The guide and all employees must maintain a current First Aid and CPR certification card.

Oregon law requires that outfitter/guides have liability insurance of at least $300,000 combined single limit per occurrence general liability coverage. This insurance must cover the outfitter/guide and employees for occurrences of bodily injury and property damage.
All Outfitter/guides who use boats are required to display identifying decals on their boats. On a boat with a motor, this decal shows the number of passengers the outfitter/guide is insured to carry.

If a motorboat is used to carry passengers for hire on federally navigable waters, a notarized copy, front and back, of your current Coast Guard Operator's license must be on file with the Marine Board and a decal identifying you as an outfitter/guide and the number of passengers you are insured to carry must be displayed on your boat.

To operate in the ocean, you must have a charter vessel license. Information on this program can be obtained from the Marine Board. An outfitter/guide registration does not take the place of other local, state or federal use permits. The guide registration is required to obtain a federal use permit. If you will be guiding on Federal land, contact the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regional managers in the appropriate regions.

Plunker,
All of the points and laws that you listed are true if you hold a USCG Master License, you are required to keep CPR and first cards current plus be on a random drug test program. The Charter boat association have there hands deep in the pockets of our politicians, I saw this in action at the North of Falcon meeting in April we broke out in groups i.e. commercial and sports and state employees sat in with the commercials and did not attempt to meet with us.

Good point Aunty but... Do you think that with the opportunity to catch fish in the Puget Sound region being what it is the demand for licenses there will ever exceed a reasonable available number?

What we need to regulate is the big meat boats out on the coast. Hundreds of these boats will take tens of thousands of fish in a season.

If unused licenses expired after two years of idleness and went back in the pool availability might be better.

How about if the number limit were smaller for huge ocean charters and a much larger for the smaller 2-4 client charters?

What I'd like to see is each fishing area managed according to its capacity to provide opportunity. Big ocean/big numbers... small creek/no comercial boats. A river like the Cowlitz with lots of fish could support more guides than the Nasselle or Kalama.

We could learn from BC where recreational fishing is fast becoming the priority use for the resourse. They issue numbers of licenses to guide on a river by river basis according to that rivers capacity to provide opportunity. Those licenses are area specific and roaming is not allowable. New river/new license.

River Liver - Do you remember the "Ban Nets" initiatives? The charter boat association strongly opposed that because most of its members are also commodity fishermen during that season. They are well versed in the commercial fishermans influence peddling techniques.

Plunker,
You are absolutely correct the commercials and charter boat association are sewn tight at the hips! Unfortunately the sportsman cannot band together because group a doesn't agree with group b and group c doesn't agree with either group and group d has there own agenda. It's too bad because if we could all agree on banning the nets we would stand a good chance of getting it through

I do like the ideal of a waiting list and also an inactive period.... Just the procurement of a license is an investment in itself!

What I have really notice is, these licenses don't hit the market, they are sold to close friends and acquaintances with the intent of keeping at close hand!

One other thing I forgot to mention...

I have wrote the Director several times and asked for consideration on a special issue. With the intent of providing a service to the numerous service personnel in our state (for recreation and morale), I got the usual response- NOTHING! There is nothing I hate worse in this world than getting blown off! I should have expected it though! Seems to be the norm at the WDFW.

One thing for sure, WDFW needs to target the coast boys! I would like to see a separate license for the Sound...

I do know there is a RCW on this very issue- charter license, so it isn't likely to change anytime soon, but I don't give up that easy!

We need change in a big way!

Downriggin - I don't know where you've tried for charter licences but I have seen several of them for sale in the North Sound over the past few years. They're six pack licenses which is what you want. You might try Gary Krien. He's fished up here for years and is president of Puget Sound Charter Association. He's a nice guy and if anyone would know of a license it would be him. Here's his website: http://home1.gte.net/ifish4u/

Hoghunter,

I have been hitting most of these guys straight up.... I haven't talked with Gary yet, but eventually the word will get around..
Appreciate the assistance.

The "master" license will be a piece of cake for me... By trade, I have been navigating for 20 years and have already been licensed for vessels under 150 tons.. If chartering falls through- there always tugs!

Excellent feedback and discussions. Reading all the opinions and view points has made me re-think my stand on this issue. I've learned a lot from this thread. Once I digest it all and do a little more research, I'll try to add my comments. After all (stealing a friend of mine's line), everybody is entitled to my opinion.

However I can say that I still stand strong with my belief that only guides/charters that meet a certain criteria should be allowed to take paying customers into waters deemed dangerous. I also am glad to see WDFW enforcing the current law. Seems like everyone complains that there's not enough enforcment, but then when they do step up to the plate. People complain that they've gone too far. I personally applaud the efforts of WDFW! After all there are lives at risk here and these "Guides" know better or at least they should know better, they got what they deserved.

I personally know of one individual/Guide, that takes people out of Chinook and other areas of the CR and guides illegally on a regular basis, this person goes as far as telling his clients what to say if they get checked by WDFW. Basicly the spil is "I am not guiding you and we are just freinds fishing for the day". As far as I am concerned that is a criminal activity. It also is not fair to other people who obey the law and are trying to make a living guiding.

I think that charter/guided fishing is good for sport fishing intrests and the resource in general. It gets the maximum number of citizen/voters involved and informed about the economic and recreational aspects of fishing. It brings people over to "our side".

It's the commercial operations that need to be curtailed.

Well, again I am in agreeance with CFM. Having been a Columbia River Guide for 6+ years, I often guided at Buoy 10 and had NO idea about this "Charter vs Guide" thing.
As far as the USCG test goes, I took that test and also classes for a week to insure passing that test. It was probably the roughest test I have ever taken, and it involved all sorts of navigation calculations, and questions on what buoy's meant, lights on ships, distress beeps, etc. It was a grueling 5 hour test, and you were allowed only a pencil (one) to take in. No calculators, nada...... I was licensed to carry six passengers and had to have $1,000,000.00 liability insurance on each person. Also had to have boat safety inspected. They have that law only to protect the "monopoly" and I guarantee you that the Charter companies were right behind all of this and demanded action. When I guided at Buoy 10, I was kicked out of the marina at Warrenton because "we protect our Charter's around here". That is exactly what they said. I had a sign that said "Salmon Trips" and I was charging $25.00/head for 4hr trip, which was a lot less than they were charging. It was protectionism pure and simple. Kinda like the farmers, I have not met many (actually none) Charter owners that were poor......
I think they should really protect fish, we do not pay them to protect business's.....

MC