Ok, I'll bite.

Besides the safety violations, why should I care if guides don't have a charter license at Buoy 10? Is the point that only charter license holders are safe?

There at TONS of guides with clients fishing below the Astoria bridge which is much further down river than the Longview bridge. I had not heard this charter boat law. When I stay at the Red Lion in Astoria there are many small sleds that are obviously guide boats. It must either be legal in Oregon or there isn't much enforcement.

Jimh,

The reason is a huge one- protect over-fishing.
Think about this... every licensed guide fishing the Columbia below the Longview bridge or even the Sound for that matter!

There are less than 180 charter license in the state. Just so happens I am looking for just one!

Wrong or right it is the law. Just because someone does not agree with the law does not give them the right to break the law. I'm sure there's people out there that think that snagging should be legal also.

I personally do not want to take a guided/chartered trip with a guide or a charter that breaks the law. If you don't agree with it the best course of action would be to work towards getting the law changed.

I agree with having a cap on the number of charter boat license's, in fact I would even support having a cap on Guide license's.

I do not think that just anyone should be able to go out and buy a $150 a year guide license, then start taking people across the B10 bar or any other Navigable waters. These water can be very dangerous and I want to know that my guide/charter is qualified.

"These water can be very dangerous and I want to know that my guide/charter is qualified."

Granted, but it seems that charter boats capsize in the ocean, too. In addition, people capsize on smaller rivers as well. Going out in the ocean or on a fast flowing river are both dangerous. Restricting one body of water to charter only doesn't make sense to me.

so to fish any saltwater you need a charter license? does that include the sound?

If you dont like the law, work to change it. But don't rant about enforcing the law.

This law only applies to enrty on the Washington side. If you are an Oregon Guide you can launch in Oregon and DO NOT need a charters license to fish those waters. about 90 % of the Oregon guides only have the "6 pack inland Coastal waters License." Which allows them the Columbia River Upstream of 10.

It seems we don't have more imortant crimes to get, than a guide trying to make a buck.I believe He can pay 750$ and get his Oregon guides lic. and solve the whole deal.

USCG lic are good for more than one state.

Maybe we should just ignore these criminals in their unlicensed and uninspected boats who are doing nothing more than endangering the welfare of their clients for some quick cash at the expense of our resources and go back to whining about the sneeky-assed floss-line snaggers?

BTW: Here's an interesting legality...

RCW 77.70.050
Reciprocal agreements -- Annual operating permits -- Education and enforcement programs.

(1) The department may enter into reciprocal agreements with other states concerning the operation and inspection of charter boats from those states that operate on the waters of the state of Washington. Reciprocity shall be granted only if a state can establish to the satisfaction of the department that their laws and standards concerning charter boats meet or exceed the laws and rules of the state of Washington. A charter boat that operates on state waters under a reciprocal agreement pursuant to this section shall obtain an annual operating permit from the department for a fee for each year the charter boat does business on the waters of the state of Washington. The department shall deposit the fees from annual operating permits issued pursuant to this section in the industrial insurance trust funds.

(2) The department shall develop an education and enforcement program designed to eliminate the operation of charter boats that have not been inspected and certified as required by this chapter, and shall provide the public with information regarding the safety features and requirements necessary for the lawful operation of charter boats.

I would be willing to bet that some of the intent here is safety. Last year 4 people died on the bar near Buoy 10 just on a weekend that I was there. I am a very experienced skipper and water safety instructor with CPR and first aid training and I was in the soup out there and saw the dangers first hand. A less experienced skipper in a smaller boat could kill himself and his customers. Witness the experienced guide who killed half his passengers crossing the bar out of Tillamook this year. The water there is very dangerous and kills lots of people. Part of the charter licensing is a much more extensive training and certification program. That alone doesn't make a safe skipper but in this day and age of lawsuits and libilities gone wild I think government errs on the safe side.

OK grandpa

I am at a lost here! Maybe I am just outdated, so walk me along if you will.
You said;

Maybe you are right, but what else do they do? And if that was the case, how can they just "sell" their licenses to who ever pays the price?

Not trying to hammer on you, I am just trying to figure out what the laws are now for these "special charters" licenses.

Besides being responsible for "carrying more special" gear for the amount of people that some carry, what special training are they required to take? All guides are required to take and have CPR and First Aid training, so does anyone really know what is so special?

Cowlitzfisherman

Let me go one step further here, I have been the owner of a Charter License, I used to run a 6 pack out of Ray's Boathouse - long story, another time. However, the point I want to make is that I believe Fisheries looks at Charter Boat fishing as part of the Commercial allocation because of the old split between Dept. of Fisheries and Dept. of Game. Since salmon are a "food fish", charter licenses have been used to limit the entry into the "commercial fishing industry". This really does look like a carryover from the time when the Depts. were seperate.

Now, I will tell you that the only way I made any money as a charter boat owner was when I sold my 6 pack license. Since the State is not issuing any more, those that own one get to sell at a premium price.

The law is clear, CR downstream of Longview Bridge requires a charter license. I may disagree but that is the law. CFM, once again, if you disagree with the law please try to change it but don't deride those who support it.

CFM - I think that it is a significant leap of logic (if not faith) to say that I "got to screw the guy that you sold YOUR license to". How did I screw anybody? I sold my license at the market value, no more, no less. Now, you may vehemently disagree with the market forces that set the price but I take personal offense at your contention that I screwed someone. It would be like you going to the local gas station and making an accusation of bad morals, ethics, and business practice to the owner because of the obscene price of gas today. Again, you and I may agree that the market forces that set the price are immoral, unethical, and the result of price gouging. However, if you exercise your right to accuse, understand that the accused may take offense.

In regards to the charter requirements that coincide with the WDFW charter licenses, I can speak from personal experience that I had to hire a Coast Guard Certified Captain to run my boat. I investigated what it would take to get that license in my name and discovered (this was 1991) that I could do it if I worked no other jobs. It is (was?) a rigorous process that involved 100's of hours of operation under the supervision of a CG licensed Captain. Does that CG certificate mean something and can we as users of the resource put value on it? That may be the debate especially when compared to the requirement(s) that a river guide attains. My point is the law is clear, downstream of the Longview bridge requires a charter license and by extension requires the Coast Guard certification. If you feel the law is wrong I salute your efforts to change it. Once again however, I would remind you that the way you deliver your message is important too. And when you question the ethics, morals, and business practices of someone you do not know it becomes difficult to gain their support.

the guides had to know the law i know that some guides were ticketed at cathlement for same thing during springer season. and a guy was ticketed in the forks area for guiding without a license

Aunty...Controversy seems to have left this board to some extent....What is Ramon up to? Maybe he'll come back and tells us what he thinks. WT has been supiciously quiet while they scrutinize the hatcheries they are trying to close. I wonder what WT thinks about guides??? and not fly fishing guides on the private ranches. Real guides.

Eddie: Selling a charter license is no crime. Allowing them to be sold as a commodity is probably ill advised but the idea of keeping a lid on the numbers is a good idea in my book. The idea that Washington has one law and Oregon contradicts it on the same piece of water is goofy. The Oregon side of the Columbia stretches a long ways across at the famous fishing grounds below the Astoria bridge and having that side heavily populated with "guides" while the smaller Washington side prevents the same is nuts. Especially since those Oregon "guides" get to fish on the Washington side under all the other reciprocal rules.

CFM: The coast guard certification process is a rigorous one. I have a friend who has a charter license that he rarely uses and he spent months of heavy studying and testing to get the CG certificate. I say this is the only way to fly for those boats venturing out in dangerous waters with paying customers aboard. Like I said before, there are many families mourning their lost relatives due to accidental drownings at sea in our area. Anything to help the safety of those paying customers is right by me and is not just bureaucratic BS.

Aunty

Your right on the money!!!


Cowlitzfisherman

AuntyM - Lots of people without boats or pals with boats can't afford to hire either charters or guides.

That's just not fair either.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just add a 20-30% user tax to all guided and chartered trips to operate a state funded boating access program for this underprivileged minority?

How about if it were privatized?

In all seriousness I must agree that the Oregon/Washington rules should concur. I can understand why the Columbia might be considered charter territory with the shipping lanes, ocean hazards and the commercial nature of the fishing there but what about Lake Washington?

I personally believe that personal use fishermen should have first priority with the citizens 50% of any excess salmon and that only those fish beyond the predicted personal use catch should be given to the just-for-fun recreationalists and commercial interests such as guides, charters and commodity fishermen.

The cap on charter licenses isn't about saving fish, it's about money for the holders of the existing charter licenses. Capping the number of holders restricts competition, which keeps prices and income higher for the holders of the existing licenses. On the Columbia, in particular, with the Oregon licenses being unrestricted, the regulation is really meaningless.

I guess I can't get too enthusaistic about the gamies chasing these guys down in these days of tough budgets. Is this the best use of our tax dollars?

It's easy to see what is really going on though. Those forfeitures of boats that the article discusses? Those funds typically go directly to the department, as opposed to fines paid, which go back to the State's general fund. This is about the department making a little money. That's not right, whether you agree with taking these guys off the river or not.

Got a first hand report today from a friend who was fishing out of Chinook all week. He saw what he described as tons of law enforcement of all types in many different uniforms busting lots of people and confiscating one boat right after the other. The paying customers were separated from the guides and the guides were handcuffed and taken away. Their boats and gear were taken away too. I guess there was a massive enforcement show of force. Guys getting boats taken away for having over limit catches hidden under the floor and every other abuse of the regs and laws you can imagine. So much for the lack of enforcement cries....

As far as the guide license issue goes I think Oregon and Washington need to get together on this. I think CFM needs to get out the research books and see who was behind the law concerning guides below the Longview bridge and see what the reason for passing the law was. No rhetoric on this one just the law as it was proposed and written.

Grandpa

You know as well as I do who was pushing this sting on the guides! Do "Carter license" guys ring a bell?


Cowlitzfisherman

Cowlitz - The "inside information" I got from my "contacts" is that the entire sting operation was a cover for a covert sweep to remove any possible boating suicide bombers from the big river in preparation for Bush's visit last week. They had intelligence indicating that some terrorist operators were posing as guides.

Seems to have been a good idea because Bush made it safely back to Texas in time for the traditional weekend BBQ

Plunker

You just blow your cover!!

My sources told me that Al Gore was the one who was behind this whole mess! I hear that he also holds one of those special "charter licenses"

Cowlitzfisherman

Gore also invented the "NET"!

If he had not have done that the commodity fisherman would have had a much harder time getting all of our fish.

And Bill almost got inter Monica!

So if Bill could have gotten together earlier with Al and joined forces, they could have invented the Inter-net

Now I am with you!

Cowlitzfisherman

Dang it Cowlitz! Now you blew your cover too!
I guess we'll have to turn the operation over to Agent 99 if we can get our shoes working.

But... Back to the issue.

For those interested I have compiled a bit more info pertinent to the questions raised here.

The rules are quite clear so I feel that the blatant violations are inexcusable. Anyone who has or continues to operate a guide or charter service without fulfilling all of the requirements must be of poor moral character and have total disregard of the law. They also give the sportfishing community a bad reputation and are a potential danger to their clients.


From WDFW: http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/lic/charter_guides.htm

*Can a holder of an Oregon guide or charter license pick up passengers in Washington?
No.

*Can a holder of an Oregon guide license operate in Washington waters of the Columbia River?
This question is under review by WDFW. More information will be available in the near future.


REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A LICENSE
You must complete an application, submit the appropriate fees, provide a copy of your vessel registration or documentation if applicable, and meet the following criteria:

Game Fish Guide (residents $180; non-residents $600)
*If you use a motorboat in your business to carry passengers for hire on federally navigable waters you must be licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard and meet certain safety requirements.
*If you use a motorboat in your business to carry more than 6 passengers for hire on waters within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington that are not federally navigable waters,
a) your boat must be inspected annually by the U.S. Coast Guard or the Department of Labor and Industries, and
b) the boat operator must be licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard or the Department of Labor and Industries.

Professional Salmon Guide (residents $150; non-residents $730)
*You must be at least 16 years of age.
*If you use a motorboat in your business to carry passengers for hire on federally navigable waters you must be licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard and meet certain safety requirements.
*If you use a motorboat in your business to carry more than 6 passengers for hire on waters within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington that are not federally navigable waters,
a) your boat must be inspected annually by the U.S. Coast Guard or the Department of Labor and Industries, and
b) the boat operator must be licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard or the Department of Labor and Industries.

Salmon Charter (renewal fee: residents $480; non-residents $785)
*You must designate on the license a vessel that you will use.
*If you use a motorboat in your business to carry passengers for hire on federally navigable waters you must be licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard and meet certain safety requirements.
*You must renew your license each year. A salmon charter license that is not renewed each year shall not be renewed further.
*New salmon charter licenses will not be issued. However, licenses may be transferred.


U.S. COAST GUARD OPERATOR'S LICENSE.
*If you use a motorboat in your business to carry passengers for hire on federally navigable waters:
You must be licensed by the U.S. Coast Guard and meet certain safety requirements. Federally navigable waters include many rivers and lakes, such as the Columbia River, Lake Washington, the Skagit River, and others. A list of navigable waters can be found at http://www.uscg.mil/d13/Exhibit11K1.doc. Additional information on U.S. Coast Guard Operator's licenses and federally navigable waters can be obtained from the U.S. Coast Guard Office in Seattle at (206) 217-6115 or Portland at (503) 240-9346.

--- --- ---

You can learn more at:
http://www.salmonuniversity.com/edpr_how_to_start_charter.html
The Salmon University

I am not sure this was a sting but an opportunity. A friend who was down there had a good analogy...like fishing at Woodstock...(those of you too young to know what Woodstock was look it up).....and H2o it's allright if you don't remember....

The fishery in August on the Columbia below the Astoria bridge brings out thousands of boats so what better place to enforce the laws. What better place to enforce safety as well since so many drown there.

I'm all for free enterprise CFM and less frivolous regulation but on this issue I land squarely in favor of regulation for the safety of the clients. I think you may be right that the Charterboat Association (Mark Cedargreen) had something to do with influencing enforcement but they have lots of influence on lots of issues concerning WDFW seasons and rules because they are active in the process. They were active in getting Umatilla open for halibut this year and the 7 day a week season in the ocean. This is not undo influence just organized influence. You, too, can influence these policies but it won't happen here.

Grandpa

Don't get me wrong about the "safety" issue! I just think the "money" thing that a guide has to pay for a "dead obsolete charter license" is a monopoly and a joke. All guides should go through the same safety training and hold the same licenses as each other. It's more of a "turf war" than anything else, and it needs to be fixed!

Cowlitzfisherman

Well, at least watching the customers get interviewed, the guide get cuffed, and the boats seized provided us with some good entertainment at the Chinook Marina last Tuesday. We were back early with our fish....
:p

There were also a ton of sport citations issued and a sport boat seized that had mass fish hidden under the floor.

I'm really surprised at the responses to this thread, particularly by the fact that no one seems to notice the obvious - B10 is so loaded up with guide boats that private fishermen can hardly find room to launch their boat or fish. Maybe I'm being selfish, but I happen to like the fact that saltwater at least is one place where I can be somewhat assured of having a patch of water to fish in. All the blatant disregarding of the charter law by guide boats going on down there was leaving very few patches to fish in this last week. Personally, I'd rather see limited entry for all guides, not just charters - I happen to think that there are too many guide boats on all our waters. And I think that guide licensing requirements should include boating safety and first aid training, regular drug testing, and other types of requirements similar to those of chauffers and commercial drivers. And anyone with a criminal record and especially any fish and wildlife violations on their record should be excluded from consideration forever. Apologies in advance to those who will flame me for proposing more layers of bureaucracy, and especially to all the guides who obviously should oppose my views for economic reasons, but as I said earlier, maybe I am being selfish in my view that our sportfish should be for recreation and not for profit.

I beg your pardon but the thousands of boats fishing the Columbia River below the Astoria bridge are predominantly sports fishers in private boats. There are lots of guides and a few big charter boats but they are there providing a service too. Believe it or not there are tons of people including tourists who don't have a boat to fish out of and need a guide or a charter to enjoy fishing in our state. I have two boats and a canoe and yet I spend a bunch each year on guided fishing trips. Going with a competant guide can be a good way to learn a river and the techniques that work. As long as they are licensed and checked out to be safe I say more power to them. Unlicensed and unsafe and breaking the laws ??? You deserve what you get. Don't like the laws? Stop electing morons! Like the morons you vote in? Quit beaching.

Whenever fish concentrate or "stack up" as in rivers and especially at the mouth of the Columbia or tributaries of the Columbia there will be tons of boats because that is where the best chance at catching a fish will be. duh?? Short seasons and quotas exascerbate this problem because everyone wants to get in on it before it is too late.

grandpa

Cowlitzfisherman

As someone who is looking for a charter license, I can honestly say... I am with CFM on this. It is all about the money- a monopoly if you will. "Good ol' Boy Networking."

True, I am looking at making a little cash, but enough to supplement my monthly retainer check.

Of the two opportunites I had, they have both wanted a ridiculous amount of money for the license (and that's without the boat!). I figured it out... I would have been in the red for years to come! This wasn't a fair market price in my book!

Isn't it called a "black" market?

Maybe all the enforcement will weed out the guides who really have no business being a guide. I've been fishing here all my life and can't count the number of guys who go out and fish a few year's and then think they can make ton's of money guiding. I wouldn't trust half of them with my money let alone my life. Some people were meant to be guides and some weren't. I have met both types and unfortunately I think the bad ones outnumber the good ones. It doesn't make any difference if you have a guide license or a charter license, you can still get yourself and other's killed. The problem is that a lot of the guides break the rules as much as a lot of regular fisherman. Look at Buoy 10 this year. I've ready about fish hidden under floors etc. It seems that eveyone wants enforcement until some people start getting seriously pinched and then everybody cries wolf. If you break the law and get caught then you have no one to blame but yourself.
Guides are a needed resource but they need to be better regulated to prevent all the abuse that takes place.

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