Northwest Kiteboarding
Forum | Classifieds | Lost & Found | CGKA | Industry | Sensors | Forecast | Spots | Seattle | Decals | RSS | Facebook

Events | Photos | Search | Register | Profile | Log in to check your messages | Log in 

Slider Project/other impacts of HR2320 – The highlights
Page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast
previous topic :: next topic  
Author Message
Sabo

Since 13 May 2013
51 Posts
Hood River
 



PostWed Mar 08, 17 4:23 pm    Slider Project Reply with quote

Thanks for bringing this all up! As head of The Slider Project this is definitely scary, but doesn't look too bad.

The section that says it "may" require a permit is strange because we already 100% require a permit for each feature...and have them!

Also looks like we may have to mark everything with buoys...which we were going to do this year anyways.

_________________
Rich Sabo
Pure Action Sports
US Sales Representative | West Coast and Mexico

Office: (252) 489-2959 x0248
Mobile: (720) 480-7933
Skype: pureactionsports_Rich
www.bestkiteboarding.com

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
snowbunny

Since 05 Nov 2013
23 Posts

 



PostThu Mar 09, 17 9:08 am     Reply with quote

Even though there isn't a new hearing date, it sounds like any comments that you submit should still be relevant; here's what I heard back from the committee assistant regarding the process for anyone who is interested. Sounds like more comments = more likely to get attention.

We have not yet scheduled the bill for another public hearing or a work session. When we do, the agenda containing the bill has to be up at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. To provide testimony on that hearing of HB 2320, you can email your comments to htp.exhibits@oregonlegislature.gov as you did today. If you send the email before 9:45 on the meeting day, it will be numbered and added to the recording log as "submitted for the record without public testimony."

The bill is still ours--we haven't moved it yet because there's too much contention. Additionally, I think a couple of amendments are in the works. These also are not guaranteed to be adopted, but if they modify the bill in such a way that the committee communicates that they'd be ready to pass it, then we'll post an agenda before the meeting, post the proposed amendment(s) before the meeting, possibly hear the bill again, then open a work session, then adopt one or more amendments, then move the bill as amended out of the committee.

The committee should review all the testimony that is currently available on OLIS so that they can make informed decisions when it comes to voting on the bill next time it's on an agenda. Not all members are especially active when it comes to reading testimony, but those that don't read every piece personally often have a staff that reads testimony for them and notes what people have problems with, or what people specifically support. If you read some of the testimony that is up now, you can see that people have comments on many different aspects of the bill.

As far as suggesting an amendment and getting it drafted by Legislative Counsel, the analyst for my committee says you'd have to speak to a Representative or his/her staff. The way you would do that is by phone or email, which is available on OLIS. They get literally hundreds of calls and emails in a week, so it really takes some persistence to get through to anybody.

I know that the life jacket part of the bill is one of the most contentious, and an amendment regarding that requirement may be in the works already.

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
217 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostFri Mar 10, 17 11:14 am     Reply with quote

It looks like this one is morphing to be a bit more expensive than just $12 fee per person it was original being sold as. Here is the amendment in the House Committee on Transportation policy right now.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/9140

"“830.790. (1) The biennial fee for the original or renewal certificate of number or registration is:

“(a) $4.50 per foot, or portion thereof, for all sailboats 12 feet in length or more and for all motorboats except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
“(b) $3 per foot, or portion thereof, for all canoes, kayaks, stand-up paddleboards, inflatable row boats, float tubes and other hand-launched boats, as defined by the State Marine Board by rule, that:"

Start adding that one up! 2 - 10' paddle boards plus an invasive species permit.......well you get the picture. Kite, windsurf, and SUP shops should really be screaming on this one. Thinking back on it, I used to take 7 windsurfboards out to the gorge. And the length thing? Talk about a nail in the coffin of big ole' windsurf boards. But still, if I had to register all of my kiteboards??? Maybe I will give the east coast a shot this year.

On a positive note: Used boards should get super cheap next year as kiters and other outdoor watersports enthusiasts dump boards and boats that they do not want to hassle with having to register. So put those boards you almost never use up for sale now.

_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

View user's profile Send private message
Pepi

Since 16 Jun 2006
1605 Posts
Hood River's local kite
Shop Owner

CGKA Member


PostFri Mar 10, 17 1:07 pm     Reply with quote

Thank you Matt for taking the time to continue to follow up on these details and sharing them with us.

During our Waterfront Rec Advisory Committee meeting with the Port of HR, a few of us hashed out some discussions on this matter.

Today I am meeting with Bart from the CGWA and Steve from Big Winds to discuss the situation and how it will affect each of us. Bart has been actively participating with the Marine Board to represent the wind and paddle users, and has much light to share on the motives for these changes and has shared similar concerns as Anthony as to how widesweepingly flagrant these proposals are.

Although we have not been actively posting on this forum regarding this situation, many of us have been pursuing this behind the scenes via other avenues, or joint ventures.

I have also spoken with one of our friends over at Alder Creek Kayaks, and they have been actively following this proposal, as well as taking the time to visit Salem to speak with our representatives.

I have been focussed on this issue as business owner, CGKA rep, and recreational boater/kiter/paddler/sailor.

_________________
2nd Wind Sports
Hood River, OR
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hood-River-OR/2nd-Wind-Sports/35891485558?ref=mf
www.2ndwind-sports.com

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
217 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostSun Mar 12, 17 7:00 am     Reply with quote

Here is an article on where the money will go:

http://www.mailtribune.com/news/20170125/fees-considered-for-nonmotorized-boats

According to this article,

this law would generate 2.17million
the program would cost 1.87million for 2 full time employees and 1 part time employee
If my math is right, that would leave $300,000 left over for "grants" most likely to be used for education

Hopefully, we can dodge this just like Florida did:

https://forums.paddling.com/discussion/2934611/florida-paddlers-dodged-vessel-registration-again

Good references above as to how they stopped it from going through with good old fashion just showing up at the hearings.

_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

View user's profile Send private message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
240 Posts

Stoked

CGKA Member


PostSun Mar 12, 17 10:23 am     Reply with quote

Matt V wrote:
It looks like this one is morphing to be a bit more expensive than just $12 fee per person it was original being sold as. Here is the amendment in the House Committee on Transportation policy right now.

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1/Downloads/ProposedAmendment/9140

"“830.790. (1) The biennial fee for the original or renewal certificate of number or registration is:

“(a) $4.50 per foot, or portion thereof, for all sailboats 12 feet in length or more and for all motorboats except as provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection.
“(b) $3 per foot, or portion thereof, for all canoes, kayaks, stand-up paddleboards, inflatable row boats, float tubes and other hand-launched boats, as defined by the State Marine Board by rule, that:"

Start adding that one up! 2 - 10' paddle boards plus an invasive species permit.......well you get the picture. Kite, windsurf, and SUP shops should really be screaming on this one. Thinking back on it, I used to take 7 windsurfboards out to the gorge. And the length thing? Talk about a nail in the coffin of big ole' windsurf boards. But still, if I had to register all of my kiteboards??? Maybe I will give the east coast a shot this year.

On a positive note: Used boards should get super cheap next year as kiters and other outdoor watersports enthusiasts dump boards and boats that they do not want to hassle with having to register. So put those boards you almost never use up for sale now.


Matt (and everyone else working on this behind the scenes),

Thank you for your efforts on this.

You're starting to win me over with your arguments.

While I feel that paying a fee for water access/usage makes sense from an ongoing maintenance perspective, it appears to me that the fee's being presented are potentially prohibitive and likely more than required for ongoing sustainability.

I feel a $12 (ish) annual fee to Oregon (annually adjusted for cost of living changes), and even potentially an additional $12 annual fee to Washington would be within my acceptability range if it provided ongoing access and sustainability of services.

However, a fee of $3/foot per water toy could get pretty expensive quickly. After all, you can only be on one toy at a time.

Due to cost constraints, most boaters only have a single boat (often shared by many people). However, due to low purchase prices, most kiters / windsurfers / SUPers / Kayakers have many toys per person. Registering all of them could easily cost in the hundreds of dollars per person... Something that in my opinion would have a direct and negative impact upon local communities.

It will be interesting to see how this bill evolves. Law makers have the opportunity to do things right... I hope they do.

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
ErraticAKn

Since 08 Jul 2011
460 Posts

Obsessed

CGKA Member


PostSun Mar 12, 17 12:18 pm     Reply with quote

What if we ditch the boards and get surgically modified feet. Then have prosthetics attached. We could customize them to any shape or size.

Then be considered disabled and almost certainly exempt from said fees.

_________________
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." ~Xenocrates
www.erraticway.com

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
macgruber

Since 06 Dec 2011
341 Posts
SE PDX volcano
Obsessed

CGKA Member


PostSun Mar 12, 17 4:03 pm    Outdoor Retailer Convention Reply with quote

Utah is losing the 45 million dollar Outdoor Retailer Convention because their Governor is anti-public lands. Oregon is hoping to get it and I can imagine a lot of the retailers would be against this bill. Someone who has the ear of this bill's committee should speak up

View user's profile Send private message
HRnico

Since 22 Mar 2008
217 Posts
Da Hood
Stoked

CGKA Member


PostSun Mar 12, 17 9:39 pm    OMG per foot on a kiteboard Reply with quote

They are going to have to catch me. Cause there is going to be non compliance on this one.
PS. The 129cm twin tip will be making a come back, maybe lunch trays will be the must have board.

_________________
CGKA Member

View user's profile Send private message
Pepi

Since 16 Jun 2006
1605 Posts
Hood River's local kite
Shop Owner

CGKA Member


PostTue Mar 14, 17 10:00 am     Reply with quote

Just an FYI.
Here in Hood River, locally, myself, the CGKA, CGWA and another shop owner are initiating discussions in our community on what the positive and negative outcomes of this legislative agenda might be, and how it might ultimately affect us as business owners, association representatives and recreational water users.

Here is a modified response that I had formulated via PM discussions with MattV, that I thought might be worth sharing on the forum.

"The windsurf and kite community have always had an 'out' clause in regards to PFDs due to the concern of PFDs actually being a safety hindrance for certain weather conditions (as in high winds, swell, or the need to swim aggressively in times of need to either escape or retrieve equipment - similar rules guideline as surf zone recreational activities).
This is a recognized Coast Guard rule/guideline, which over-rides any regional regulation/rules that may be intended for these sports.

As for the permitting fees, this is something of a concern as it could be inserted at any point in the discussions via the legislative process. Same goes with any extraordinary fees structures meant to capitalize on easy prey.
For this reason specifically, a few of us have met and are formulating discussions with th e Hood River Sheriffs Dept and our state representative Mark Johnson (Parkdale lifelong resident). The concerns we have are that if the fees are initiated, what guarantees do we have that (A) our sheriffs dept can/will enforce them (B) our sheriffs dept will in turn receive a proper amount of funding to result in an increased budget for improving our local watersafety patrol (which, truly is non-existent).
The local meeting consensus is, if the permit fees are for good use and result in increased safety/rescue operations, we are in support of this decision. (We would also need a guarantee from Mark that he would personally oversee that our sheriffs dept were to truly receive this budget increase/support).
If the permit fees cause unwanted stress for the local businesses and sheriffs dept to enforce and there are no quantifiable guarantees for improved safety/rescue operations, then we need Mark to fight for our county to be exonerated from this permit fee structure on the basis that it has no beneficial merit for our community and in fact would be a financial and administrative burden for both the business community and law enforcement community."

Hope that this helps fill you in a bit on what we are doing.

Pepi

_________________
2nd Wind Sports
Hood River, OR
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hood-River-OR/2nd-Wind-Sports/35891485558?ref=mf
www.2ndwind-sports.com

View user's profile Send private message
bigjohn

Since 13 Mar 2012
240 Posts

Stoked

CGKA Member


PostTue Mar 14, 17 10:19 pm     Reply with quote

Pepi wrote:

"The windsurf and kite community have always had an 'out' clause in regards to PFDs due to the concern of PFDs actually being a safety hindrance for certain weather conditions (as in high winds, swell, or the need to swim aggressively in times of need to either escape or retrieve equipment - similar rules guideline as surf zone recreational activities).
This is a recognized Coast Guard rule/guideline, which over-rides any regional regulation/rules that may be intended for these sports.
Pepi


Pepi,

I like your perspective on this however I question how it would hold up in court. This is completely outside my wheelhouse (perhaps someone with actual legal knowledge will comment), however it seems to me that usually there are two options:

Option 1) a law is deemed illegal - and thus unenforceable

Option 2) a law is deemed legal. In the event two laws are deemed enforceable, both laws are required to be abided by.

Once again... This entire post is completely opinion and conjecture from a complete neophyte on the subject of law...

_________________
mowing the river like Jack Nicklaus was comin to town.

View user's profile Send private message
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
217 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostWed Mar 15, 17 6:40 am     Reply with quote

This bill is not just bad because of the life jacket thing, it is bad in its entirety.

The revenue projections (likely to be optimistic) vs the cost (even more likely to be optimistic) are outrageous. As in an article I referenced before:

Revenue projection (2 years) from $12ea permits …………................. $2,170,000

Cost for implementation and enforcement (2 full time & 1 part time enforcement officers).................................................................................. $1,870,000

Surplus for “education”, cost over runs, and unforeseen expenses………...$300,000

That means that for every $12 spent on a permit, at best $1.66 is “left over” after projected costs incurred in implementation and enforcement. This "dollar and sixty-six cents" is what could come back to the non-motorized community. If anyone is having a hard time with that concept, read the next statement over and over until you get it.

As HR 2320 is currently written, its passage would create a new fee system to create and support a new law enforcement branch to enforce the fee system the law created – and virtually nothing else.

See my feelings on this > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRifKEf0xr8

_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

View user's profile Send private message
voy-tech

Since 08 Apr 2014
219 Posts
SE Portland
Stoked



PostWed Mar 15, 17 7:36 am     Reply with quote

Matt V wrote:
That means that for every $12 spent on a permit, at best $1.66 is “left over” after projected costs incurred in implementation and enforcement. This "dollar and sixty-six cents" is what could come back to the non-motorized community. If anyone is having a hard time with that concept, read the next statement over and over until you get it.

As HR 2320 is currently written, its passage would create a new fee system to create and support a new law enforcement branch to enforce the fee system the law created – and virtually nothing else.


Great summary - this sounds more like 'legal' extortion/corruption scheme than a law

_________________
My pictures of the beautiful PNW
http://behindtheviewfinder.com

Life is better when you're kiteboarding (and slacklining).

View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Matt V

Since 26 Oct 2014
217 Posts
Summer- OR Coast, Winter - My van near good snow
Explosive Diarrhea



PostWed Mar 15, 17 9:55 am     Reply with quote

An amendment to this law that I would suggest is to eliminate the APPOINTED Marine Board and replace them with a body of 5 ELECTED members. This way, we could hold them accountable for their actions and the performance of the legislation they support.
_________________
On NEFGA Forum posted by "Forum Moderators" "This has been recently discussed on two previous threads. Forum moderators feel no further discussion is warranted at this time. Have a nice day! (This thread has been closed)

View user's profile Send private message
Pepi

Since 16 Jun 2006
1605 Posts
Hood River's local kite
Shop Owner

CGKA Member


PostWed Mar 15, 17 4:15 pm     Reply with quote

We are currently in communication with our State Rep Mark Johnson, and Senator Chuck Thomsen has responded to us that he is not in support of HB2320, and in fact, against it.
Bart, the new CGWA Exec Dir, has been taking the lead on this for us and doing an exceptional job of communicating the exact challenges that we are concerned about locally.

On another note:
Some discussions in this posting regarding HB2320 are starting to spin out a little bit, just something to be aware of.

I will update as details emerge and progress with our discussions in regards specifically to HB2320.

_________________
2nd Wind Sports
Hood River, OR
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hood-River-OR/2nd-Wind-Sports/35891485558?ref=mf
www.2ndwind-sports.com

View user's profile Send private message
Ho-Toe

Since 30 Apr 2014
52 Posts

 



PostWed Mar 15, 17 5:20 pm    marine bored Reply with quote

The State of Oregon Marine Board has a long history of proposing preposterous ideas, then backing down when confronted with the voice of reason from their constituency.

For example, many years ago a mid-valley (Willamette Valley, that is) contingent of good ol' boys decided they wanted to convene a big ol' jetboat race hoo-haw on the Willamette River, running between Corvallis and Eugene. They requested a special permit from OSMB to shut down that stretch of the Willamette to *all* other river users during the weekend the race was to be held--which just happened to be Memorial Day weekend. The OSMB, to their credit, solicited public input.

To nobody's surprise (except for perhaps the race promoters), local canoe & kayak & trout fishing enthusiasts were pissed. Concerned individuals pestered their local representatives, the OSMB, and anybody else who would listen. Letters were published in local newspapers. Cranky posts were made on Craigslist rants & raves. Cords of firewood were purchased to lob off of bridges into the river on race day... You get the picture.

Take home message: make some noise--now. Make your displeasure with this stupid law known to your local representatives. The more they hear "this is a bad idea", the more likely they are to come around to our way of thinking.

View user's profile Send private message
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Northwest Kiteboarding -> Gorge / Portland / Oregon Coast All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum