Re: [Paddlewise] Registration and Safety

Robert Woodard wrote (in response to Jerry's provocative charge):
> 
> > Regarding registration,
> > It is just revenue collection and nothing more.
> 
> This makes sense, and leads me to ponder another thing or two:
> 
> Why the high interest in revenue collection from canoes/kayaks? Is this to
> offset the potential increase in enforcing some yet unwritten canoe/kayak
> regulations? New safety programs?

Maybe yes, maybe no.  See below.

> What do others think about canoe/kayak registration if the revenues were
> used for what I just mentioned?

Not much.  However, if the money is spent on developing and maintaining water
access points and/or campsites, then I'm for it.  We have to face facts:  in
many of the "settled" parts of our paddling domain, access is not improving,
and in many places, it is disappearing.  We need to become a political force
to help keep our access.

Regarding registration revenue, here's what happens in Oregon:  power boaters
(and other craft larger than 17 feet, IIRC) pay a reg fee, *and there is a tax
on fuel sold for marine uses.*  The reg fee provides a small revenue stream to
the State Marine Board, while the fuel tax provides a humongous revenue stream
to the Board.  No way the (reasonable) registration fees from all the canoes
and kayaks in Oregon can even touch the latter, but IF yakkers and canoeists
had *some* part of the revenue stream, then we would have a leg to stand on in
the discussions and plans leading to development/repair of access points.

As it stands now, power boaters are in the driver's seat (naturally), and
paddlers' needs are largely ignored.  If we continue to keep our heads
underwater, we are likely to get swamped out of existence.  I'd like to see a
sandy beach as part of every "launch ramp" plan, as our part of the deal.  We
have no clout now, but would have some clout if we paid $20/year.  And be
realistic:  is $20/year a significant cost relative to all the *other* costs
associated with paddling?  How could we object to that if the money were spent
on stuff to improve paddling?

Regarding "some as yet unwritten canoe/kayak regulations ...," I'm as opposed
as anybody else to unneeded regulations.  As the previously posted excerpt
from the ACA discussion points out, however, we need to be aggressive in
preventing the "good folks" who will protect us from ourselves from
legislating ridiculous safety restrictions on our sport.

Climbers (so far) are not controlled by such stuff, and the potential for
injury while lead climbing on rock is much greater than for even WW paddlers. 
If that is the direction registration fees go, then I will oppose them.  If
the (reasonable) registration fees go to improve paddling access, I am for
them.

-- 
Dave Kruger
Astoria, OR


***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not
to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission
Submissions:     paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net
Subscriptions:   paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************