# $800 permit for a bass boat in 2008?



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

Hey guys, if you haven' already contacted your representatives-senators you need to.

Please see http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?p=543139#post543139


----------



## TomC (Aug 14, 2007)

Glad i got a john boat


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

Hey TomC, I'm not sure you won't have to pay that $800. You might want to check.


----------



## KSUFLASH (Apr 14, 2004)

I must be missing something, I did some reading, and I can't find where it states something about $800.

flash-------------------------out


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2007)

You will need a permit to put any water in to the lakes. Live wells and motors that are water cooled.


----------



## Wolfhook120 (Oct 17, 2007)

I will be passing the word around to my club. I read the proposal but I did not see where it said specifically about "$800.00 per registered boat for the permit. Obviously that would put about 95% of the recreational boaters not to mention tournament Anglers out of business and the state would lose millions in the process. Can we get any clarification on the specific dollar amount for a permit? My entire gas and oil budget for my boat for the year is about $900.00, and thats just for tournament season. At any rate I will be passing this on. Hope everyone else does the same. :B


----------



## smallie75 (Dec 9, 2005)

This is a joke! I will not pay 1 cent and still use my boat anywhere I want, and try and stop me! This country needs to take matters in their own hands because it's crap like this that they put on us citizens! They can blow this up their EPA (EVER PROTRUDING AZZES)

On another note away from venting! I have connections to Boaters World, I will get a petition started up there so we can get signature's and send them to the right people.

They can try and take more money out of our pockets, but good luck, they can stop me from getting plates or whatever they want! I will continue to take my boat anywhere, eventually I'll even write you all from jail! Screw this!


----------



## misterpeabody (Jul 21, 2005)

someone clear this up for me...I can barely afford to license, title, register, and maintain my truck, 2 boats and trailers... I buy full year fishing licenses for KY, TN, IN, FLA, and OH, pay launch fees for some ramps and parks, not to mention gas to get there...we pay our money as it is...is this for real?


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

Yep it's for real RM.
For everyones benefit, I'm adding some good info/notes from the boatus FAQ page.

(from boatus FAQ).
You would need a permit in each state.
One permit required for each boat - from an inflatable dinghy to a cruiser and everything in between.
The cost is not defined by the EPA yet, but it would be several hundred dollars.
etc.....
What can we do? You already started by reading and replying to this post BUT, you need to 
EMAIL YOUR REPRESENTATIVE and copy [email protected].
Ask them specifically for their support of H.R.2250.
Also you can email the EPA at [email protected] and include "Docket ID No. OW-2007-0483"
(keep in mind that your email becomes public info on the internet).
I would also encourage you all to proof read your email to them before sending. Sit back and wait 2 minutes before sending it.

I'm about to send an email off to the EPA. I've already sent one to my representatives.
For a list of current co-sponsors of this bill please go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02250:AAAP
If your Senator is co-sponsoring the bill already, please send them an email and thank them. If not, send a polite email requesting their support.
What else can you do?
PASS IT ON to everyone boated you know.

Thanks to OGF for allowing us to post this info. This is a great web site!


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

Click here to email your Representative Use your 9 digit zip code: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Click here to email or call your Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...state&Sort=ASC

Click here to read the House bill text http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2550:

Click here to read the Senate bill text http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.2067:


----------



## WalleyeJones (Feb 15, 2006)

There should be a limitation on the number of boaters permitted on any waterway at a given time. Some lakes are simply WAY over crowded by recreational boaters. Just try and get your boat of CC mid-day on a Saturday in July...Perhaps the permits (and the corresponding fees) could reflect the designed use of the water craft. Or, even offer 'as-use' permits. In other words, you could get an annual permit (that would be good all year) or have the option to purchase a permit for that day for a specific lake. I would want to be able to specifiy the lake because some lakes have HP limits and would obviously limit the type of water craft. Also, commercial water craft providers (renters) could have their own permitting dynamic.

Sounds complicated, but it could make life easier for many people and better apply financial 'pressure' where we need it most.


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

I have to agree with you on the fact that there are too many boaters on a lake.
CC is a great example. Yep, been there on Saturday in the summer before, I'll never do that again.

Three things would help CC and most overpopulated lakes.
1) Don't act like a madman.
2) Be a little more courteous.
3) get some common sense.

Now, as for a permit for a lake or lakes in a state, yeah I could handle that as long as it wasn't an outrageous amount. Indiana already does that, at least at Brookville they do (or used to). I know there have been several times that I wanted to go there and didn't because of the sticker you have to purchase.
The state could use the money from the permits to arrest the crazy a$$ people who get too wild and endanger other boaters.


----------



## crappieben (Dec 2, 2007)

Fletch,
Indiana updated their permits last year. They now have a non-motorized ($5 @ year) & a motorized ($20 @ year). These permit's are good at any state forest, state park , or reservoir in Indiana. I know from jumping the state line to expand my personal fishing area. But there are smaller lakes controlled by cities ; like Richmond has Middlefork Reservoir where the anual Launch permit for a non-resident is $56 total (there is an improvment fee added to cost of permit). My opinion is, If they keep adding more cost on anglers, how soon till we can not afford to fish unless we are rich?
As for your three things to help CC , I agree whole heartedly and not just CC , but all boat able lakes!


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

Thanks for the info Crappieben.
So in previous years at brookville, was that launch permit for brookville only? I thought it was for any Indiana lake.


----------



## Crazy4Smallmouth (Apr 13, 2004)

I just send letters to my Senators and Representative and it took about ten minutes. Follow the links and you will have no trouble. If we can get this passed, then I just saved myself $800 for 10 minutes of my time. Come on people, let your voices be heard.


----------



## Crazy4Smallmouth (Apr 13, 2004)

It has been five days and I have heard back from two of the three congressmen on this issue. I encourage everyone to take 10 minutes and do your civic duty. Here are the replies.

Dear Jeffrey : 



Thank you for your recent communication regarding H.R. 2550, the Recreational Boating Act of 2007. It is good to hear from you. 



As you know, the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 was introduced by Representative Gene Taylor on May 24, 2007. This bill seeks to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (popularly known as the Clean Water Act) to exempt any deck runoff, engine cooling water, gray water, bilge water, laundry, shower, and gallery sink wastes from a recreational vessel from being environmental restrictions, as enacted under the Federal Water Pollution Act. However, this exemption does not apply to rubbish, trash, garbage, or other such materials discharged overboard by a recreational vessel. 



I, like any other citizen, am in favor of protecting our waters to promote a healthy environment. However, as the common discharges from recreational boats are not causing a significant environmental impact, I do not believe they should be subject to the complex and costly permitting requirements under the Clean Water Act. 



H.R. 2550 is currently in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Unfortunately, no hearing has been scheduled to push this piece of legislation. However, please rest assured that I will seek to protect recreational boating by supporting H.R. 2550 if it reaches the floor of the House of Representatives. 



Thank you aga in for contacting me with your thoughts. Please don't hesitate to inform me of your concerns in the future. 


Sincerely, 
John A. Boehner 

Second reply!

Dear Mr. Wenrick:

Thank you for writing me regarding the recent exemption made to an EPA regulation on the Clean Water Act regarding recreational boating

The Clean Water Act was originally enacted in 1948, but was significantly revised in 1972. Part of the bill, which set out to improve water quality, required permits for ships known for heavy polluting, such as cruise ships, container ships, and supertankers. While the legislation affected all aquatic vessels, the EPA exempted small recreational boats. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals recently determined that the EPA was acting beyond its scope with the exemption, and required the creation of a new permit system by September 2008.

We should be proud of the abundance of outdoor and recreational activities Ohio has to offer. Our state is home to the countrys eighth largest group of registered watercraft users, and the boating industry contributes $5.4 million in watercraft registration fees, $15.6 million in marine fuel taxes annually, and has an estimated overall impact of $2 billion dollars a year on Ohio's economy. Implementation of a new permit system has the potential to deter prospective recreational boat buyers and could also be harmful to the industry not only in Ohio, but across the United States as well.

I will continue to monitor this issue in the months ahead and will keep your thoughts in mind as legislation regarding this issue moves before the Senate.


Sincerely,
Sherrod Brown


----------



## MEISTERICS (May 15, 2006)

I would pay it under certain conditions. Otherwise its un acceptable

1. IF it was good for at least 8 to 10 years. Or just make it smaller annual fees.
2. It goes for a boating/clean water cause. and is justifiable
3. Protected waters from alien species.
4. it was properly enforced correctly
5. You could get cheaper temperary permits in states you visit for short periods.

Sorry $800 is pennies over 10 years. or if it was permenant permit. Bottom line is, You have to pay to play. Maybe it would keep a few Disrespectful boaters off the water and start pointing are environment in the right direction. But that doubtful. We all abuse the earth in our own way. 

I laugh at people who buy a $40-60K boat and complain about filling their boat up with gas. Its the governments fault the world has come to this and we have encouraged it! It will only get worse before it gets better.

PS. I doubt this will pass. It will get tied in with someother crazy a$$ law and get shot down. The way the government works.


----------



## walleyevision (Aug 4, 2005)

I contacted my representatives and senators. I say why not tax those that dont fish, at least most fisherman want to fish again so they will do what they can to protect thier resources. I do not have a problem sharing the water with non fishermen but I feel they do more harm than the guy in a 16 ft boat going after a muskie or 2.


----------



## TomC (Aug 14, 2007)

So eactly what kind of boats would and would not be covered???????????


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

MEISTERICS said:


> I would pay it under certain conditions. Otherwise its un acceptable
> 
> 1. IF it was good for at least 8 to 10 years. Or just make it smaller annual fees.
> 2. It goes for a boating/clean water cause. and is justifiable
> ...


Everyone needs to take care of mother earth no doubt - and adding some other crazy a$$ law (pork) to this bill will probably happen (having nothing to do with clean water).

Not to slam you or anything but the current laws regulate and restrict potential polluting from gas/oil/sewage/trash - they have been in place for years, they just don't enforce it. It all leads back to mismanagement. With the money we contribute already, it should be taken care of. Truth be known, the current permit/tax money is spent on things other than what is was originally earmarked for. It's the nature of the political business - I would say that vast majority of political officials are on the verge of being criminals (both sides of the isle) because of either mismanagement or outright theft. I've voted for both sides in the past. But now, I'm an Independent.
What I feel we need is more lake management folks. How often do you see the water "Five-O"? Part of the reason Taft isn't in office any longer and a perfect example of money not being used for what it was earmarked for is because he (Taft) took money away from natural resource organizations causing layoffs these good folks.

$5.4 million in watercraft registration fees, $15.6 million in marine fuel taxes annually, and an estimated overall impact of $2 billion dollars a year on Ohio's economy and we can't have a someone on the water to enforce the current laws - what a joke. People just get used to it and don't complain, then the Gov comes back and asks for more money so they can fix what they broke.

My problem is with more money being demanded by the Gov -that can't be good for me and my family. If you take into account all the taxes and permits you pay - they have to be taking more than half your check.
Consider the all of the taxes you and I pay already, Property taxes, permits, tax on shopping, income tax, SS (which probably won't be there when I attempt to retire), State tax, fed tax, tax the interest on the money you put in the bank, Boat registration, trailer license, truck license, fishing license, tax the bait you buy, hotel tax when you vacation etc.. Heck, we actually have tax on carbonated drinks! What the fork? I mean come on people, a tax on when I buy a Pepsi/Coke? Not sure who came up with this great idea but can you imagine the politician sitting in his office thinking of how he can pry more money from the taxpayers?
Let's see,
1) We screwed up and mismanaged the taxpayers money.
2) Raising taxes is too difficult so we need to come up with a new tax, what can we do? Oh I got it, we'll tax the soda that everyone drinks LOL.

Is this one ridiculous tax or what? I can see them sitting in their offices laughing their A$$ off.
Apologies and sorry to go on a rampage. It's just that taking money out of my check really gets me going. I think of it as legalized robbery.
And don't get me wrong, I realize we need tax money. It's just so mismanaged and corrupt.

So I hope this passes unless someone can come up with something better.
Note that it will probably take an Independent to do it


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

TomC said:


> So eactly what kind of boats would and would not be covered???????????


Currently, every boat you put in the water would require a separate permit, from your dinghy, to your cruising boat, and everything in between.

http://www.boatus.com/gov/fed_alert.asp


----------



## gulfvet (Apr 14, 2004)

The upcoming bill S2067 IS, ostensibly a pollution control measure, is nothing more or less than an attack on recreational boating. Though I am not a boat owner at this time, I do aspire to be soon and I cannot imagine having to abide by a bill that calls deck runoff pollution. And the fine is $800. 

It's clear where this bill originated. The liberals want us off the waterways so we will stop annoying the poor fish that they seek to imbue with Constitutional rights. It's an end run. They figure that if they can't get our rights to usage of this country's limnal and riparian resources curtailed any other way, they'll just make it so costly that none of us can pursue the sport. Oh, and we'll also be branded criminals and polluters. It won't be long before they extend this prohibition to our fishing gear as well. "Oh! You wore those waders last week fishing the Chagrin and now you're in the Mad? Here's your ticket, you polluter!" 

Aren't these the same people who champion evolution? So why are they so set against that little paragon of natural selection, the zebra mussel! It found its own way, quite naturally I might add, into the Great Lakes. It has done a marvelous job of cleaning up those waterways; some say too good a job. Now these people want to take away the zebra mussel's right to be all it can be. If they were certain other types of living beings, we would be prohibited by law already from restraining them from fulfilling their biological destiny.

Don't the people on The Hill get it? We sportsmen, who pay our license fees and abide by the fish and game laws, are the number one protection our wild lands, waterways fish and game have and that has always been the case. If this bill is successful, it will almost completely remove sportsmen from our waterways. There will be no more revenue from boats being licensed, or taxes on marine gas or the boats themselves or service to those boats or dock fees. It was sportsmen who initiated hunter safety programs, Operation Game Thief to catch poachers, slot limits and numerous other useful programs that protect our natural resources. How many waterfowl would we have right now if not for Ducks Unlimited? 

The bottom line is: If you really want to totally wreck our waterways, pass this bill and make it nearly impossible for law-abiding sportsmen to spend time on them to be the eyes and ears that alert the authorities to problems before they get out of hand.


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

I think you have it backwards?
"The bottom line is: If you really want to totally wreck our waterways, pass this bill and make it nearly impossible for law-abiding sportsmen to spend time on them to be the eyes and ears that alert the authorities to problems before they get out of hand."
This bill will help to push Congress to pass legislation &#8220;The Recreational Boating Act of 2007&#8221; (H.R. 2550/S. 2067) that will reinstate the permit exemption for recreational boats.


----------



## fisharder (Mar 18, 2005)

I also got replys from the hill and the only one who does not come out in support is sherrod brown at least in my district. He talks about the impact of this law but wont say if he will support us or not.That leads me to think that he won`t support us and after reviewing his voteing record I dont think he will.I am going to target him daily with e-mails and phone calls he needs a little push from all of us.The big thing is getting the majority to get this thing on the floor. This bill may never see the light of day untill its to late..Remember who your freinds are in november boys...


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

I hear that.

I just passed this on to my nephew in Oregon. He runs a fishing web site out there and this will get a lot of attention.
Also going to post this on other sites.


----------



## cjbrown (May 22, 2007)

Please except my oversight if it is, but I have still yet to find anything about 800.00???


----------



## bassman1976 (Sep 13, 2006)

niether have I


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

I read an article from one of the senators that said $800 but the boatus site says it would be several hundred dollars


----------



## fisharder (Mar 18, 2005)

Its not the money there after they want us off the water end of story.Is that enough for you to fight for??


----------



## missingND (Aug 26, 2005)

As usual both the house and senate members have thier heads up their @sses. I just searched the records on these two bills. The senate version went this route:
9/18/2007:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

the house version got this far 
5/24/2007:
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 
5/25/2007:
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

BTY if you're ever interested in tracking legislation here's the link: http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d110query.html


----------



## PhotoGuy513 (May 29, 2005)

so... any new info on this??


----------



## shroomhunter (Aug 6, 2004)

gulfvet said:


> The upcoming bill S2067 IS, ostensibly a pollution control measure, is nothing more or less than an attack on recreational boating. Though I am not a boat owner at this time, I do aspire to be soon and I cannot imagine having to abide by a bill that calls deck runoff pollution. And the fine is $800.
> 
> It's clear where this bill originated. The liberals want us off the waterways so we will stop annoying the poor fish that they seek to imbue with Constitutional rights. It's an end run. They figure that if they can't get our rights to usage of this country's limnal and riparian resources curtailed any other way, they'll just make it so costly that none of us can pursue the sport. Oh, and we'll also be branded criminals and polluters. It won't be long before they extend this prohibition to our fishing gear as well. "Oh! You wore those waders last week fishing the Chagrin and now you're in the Mad? Here's your ticket, you polluter!"
> 
> ...


Thought this website was supposed to be NON political. But since it was posted and allowed I'll ask a question. Is it possible that maybe a bunch of wealthy people are pushing this to keep the middle class off the lakes?


----------



## Fletch (Apr 10, 2004)

(I am glad the admin allowed this post to stay on here - thanks!)

"Your voice counts! And we need it to make sure the Recreational Boating Act of 2007 is passed quickly. Without this federal legislation you will need to apply and pay for a discharge permit to legally operate each of your boats, starting September 30, 2008.

Please take a few minutes and contact your one Representative and two Senators, even if you have already done so. We need them to support and co-sponsor "The Recreational Boating Act of 2007" (House Bill #2550 and Senate Bill #2067)." 

http://www.boatus.com/gov/actionalert_1107.asp


----------



## misfit (Apr 5, 2004)

the thread will remain open as long as the political agenda is not forced.the subject is important to all of us,and is a little political by nature.that does not however,open the door for unrelated political "opinions",etc.


----------



## PhotoGuy513 (May 29, 2005)

^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## fishnohio (Jan 7, 2008)

anyone heard anything else on this issue?????????????????????????????????????


----------



## BlueBoat98 (Nov 5, 2004)

It appears that both the Senate and House bills are still just sitting in committee, untouched since they were introduced last year. The basic concern is that the pollution from washing decks and other discharges will be a problem. While this is totally true for big boats it is a total overreaction for our fishing and other rec boats. The problem is where to draw the line of what boats create the problems.

I searched quite a bit for more information about the permit process and found nothing. Finally, I broke down and wrote to the Ohio EPA asking the question point blank. That was just this past Saturday, the 15th. When/if I hear anything from them I will post it here.

MC


----------



## Fishman (Apr 5, 2004)

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2250 

It's what H.R.2250 is.... IT HAS NOTING TO DO WITH BOATING..... lol

Docket ID No. OW-2007-0483 sounds like it has something to do with commerical boats/barges. It's also dated from over half a year ago.


----------



## BlueBoat98 (Nov 5, 2004)

It's HR 2550. Not 2250. The Senate version is S.2067

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR02550:@@@L&summ2=m&
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:SN02067:@@@L&summ2=m&

MC


----------



## Fishman (Apr 5, 2004)

Ah thanks!

Still seems dated though.


----------

