# Invasive Species Could Cost Us



## Fowlmouth (Oct 4, 2008)

I find this interesting.http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33593957&ni...ay-lead-to-new-fee-for-boaters&s_cid=queue-11 
We all know about the Quagga Mussel infestation that is happening is some of our lakes and reservoirs. Legislators want to implement more fees to boaters to pay for Quagga Control. The thing that bothers me about charging a fee for every registered boat is the fact that not every boater uses their rig for fishing. A lot of us have utility boats that are used in marshes for duck hunting only, but we would still have to pay. I'm sure some guys have a boat for duck hunting and a boat for fishing/skiing, you will pay double.

Not to mention the money generated from a $10 fee will probably find it's way somewhere else. Maybe the wolf or sagegrouse fund.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

many also have one boat to fish, bowfish and waterfowl from... 

although, like you mention the new "dedicated fund" will be open for grabs the next time some state rep gets a wild hair to steal from it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't have a problem at all with people having to register each boat they put on any water. The thing is, this WILL impact ALL waters, no matter what the water is used for (fishing, skiing, hunting, photographing)

the only issue I have is the out-of-state boats. They won't have to pay anything. 


The thing is: YOU will end up paying one way or another. Whether through state legislation (registration fees) or other means (water district fees), you will end up paying. If the water you use ends up getting infested, you'll really pay!


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

PBH said:


> I don't have a problem at all with people having to register each boat they put on any water. The thing is, this WILL impact ALL waters, no matter what the water is used for (fishing, skiing, hunting, photographing)
> 
> the only issue I have is the out-of-state boats. They won't have to pay anything.
> 
> The thing is: YOU will end up paying one way or another. Whether through state legislation (registration fees) or other means (water district fees), you will end up paying. If the water you use ends up getting infested, you'll really pay!


They should just do it like Idaho for out of staters, You must have your boat inspected before you put it in the water.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Fowlmouth said:


> I find this interesting.http://www.ksl.com/?sid=33593957&ni...ay-lead-to-new-fee-for-boaters&s_cid=queue-11
> We all know about the Quagga Mussel infestation that is happening is some of our lakes and reservoirs. Legislators want to implement more fees to boaters to pay for Quagga Control. The thing that bothers me about charging a fee for every registered boat is the fact that not every boater uses their rig for fishing. A lot of us have utility boats that are used in marshes for duck hunting only, but we would still have to pay. I'm sure some guys have a boat for duck hunting and a boat for fishing/skiing, you will pay double.
> 
> *Not to mention the money generated from a $10 fee will probably find it's way somewhere else. Maybe the wolf or sagegrouse fund.*


I have no problem with a Quagga fee. But it looks like they want to add another $1 million to the fight over public lands. Let's see, if 100,000 of us pitch in $10 each, we can all listen for the sound of a giant toilet flushing. There will be no negative repercussions, as per usual.


----------



## dkhntrdstn (Sep 7, 2007)

I just dont think the money will go to what it needs to go to. I look at it another way to get more money out of us.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

dkhntrdstn said:


> I just dont think the money will go to what it needs to go to. I look at it another way to get more money out of us.


I can only hope that the money does go where it should to fight aquatic invasive species.

I'm sure all of us are skeptical. But, even if some money was to be diverted, I can only assume that a portion of the money _would_ go towards aquatic invasive species control. In my mind, that is a positive. What happens if NO money is allocated towards this problem? I already answered that in my first post: we'll still pay for it.

The title of this thread is incorrect. There is no "could cost us". It WILL cost us. It IS costing us. We need to step up and allocate _something_ to fight it.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

It's fair. You have a boat you pay.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

MuscleWhitefish said:


> They should just do it like Idaho for out of staters, You must have your boat inspected before you put it in the water.


Now that's funny (sort of anyway). I would be coming from a state free of Quagga Muscles to a state that has them and I would need to get my boat inspected prior to launching at Powell?

I have no problems paying a fee to help fight the invasion as long as the problem gets resolved.


----------



## rjefre (Sep 8, 2007)

A fee applied to boaters with funds going to a restricted account for the mussels is a good idea. Unfortunately, like the Great Salt Lake FFSL restricted account, it will be raided for other stuff like anti-wolf and anti-grouse costs. Sad to say, but they have a history of not being trustworthy to a restricted account. 
R


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

High Desert Elk said:


> Now that's funny (sort of anyway). I would be coming from a state free of Quagga Muscles to a state that has them and I would need to get my boat inspected prior to launching at Powell?
> 
> I have no problems paying a fee to help fight the invasion as long as the problem gets resolved.


The Irony :mrgreen:


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

don't they think mining equipment brought mussels to some waters here?, same thing with the phrag problem? Hmmm, seems about right, give corporations a pass because they've bribed our politicians and then place the whole responsibility on to the tax payers?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Yep, that about sums it up - cause, blame, then burden.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

rjefre said:


> A fee applied to boaters with funds going to a restricted account for the mussels is a good idea. Unfortunately, like the Great Salt Lake FFSL restricted account, it will be raided for other stuff like anti-wolf and anti-grouse costs. *Sad to say, but they have a history of not being trustworthy* to a restricted account.
> R


No need for the last qualifying phrase, R. They are not trustworthy in any way. Or accountable. On a multitude of issues. They do not represent outdoorsmen. Period.


----------



## Longgun (Sep 7, 2007)

rjefre said:


> A fee applied to boaters with funds going to a restricted account for the mussels is a good idea. Unfortunately, like the Great Salt Lake FFSL restricted account, it will be raided for other stuff like anti-wolf and anti-grouse costs. Sad to say, but they have a history of not being trustworthy to a restricted account.
> R


FACT!

Well intended but,

In $hort, its nothing but another pool for the $tate to dip into when they $ee fit. _Restricted Account_ means nothing...

I agree about the nonres boats, why not mirror the Idaho plan?


----------

