Oral Testimony on Montana Boat Registration Bill
Posted: 02/11/2003
By: John Gangemi
Oral Statement of John Gangemi, Conservation Director American Whitewater
Before the Montana Senate Fish and Game Committee
Hearing on Senate Bill 287
Funding for Managing Water-based Recreation
(Thursday, February 5, 2003, at 3:00 PM)
Contact Information:
782 Swan River Road
Bigfork, MT 59911
Phone: 406-837-3155
Fax: 406-837-3156
301-589-6121 (fax)
jgangemi@digisys.net
Good afternoon.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege to speak on proposed Senate Bill 287, Funding for Managing Water-based Recreation.
I am John Gangemi, Conservation Director for American Whitewater.
I speak here on behalf of the whitewater boating community both residents and non-residents of Montana. American Whitewater is a national non-profit 501(c)3 river conservation and recreation organization founded in 1957. We have over 8,000 members and 160 canoe club affiliates, representing approximately 180,000 whitewater paddlers across the nation. A significant percentage of American Whitewater members reside in Montana.
American Whitewater's mission is to conserve and restore America's whitewater resources and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. As a conservation-oriented paddling organization, American Whitewater has a strong interest in the protecting the water quality and landscape of Montana's rivers, lakes and streams. American Whitewater has been and continues to be a strong supporter of State and Federal plans designed to protect and restore instream flows, water quality and riparian habitats. American Whitewater clearly recognizes the need to fund recreation management and natural resource protection however Senate Bill 287 fails to achieve either of these goals. In this testimony I will identify alternative mechanisms for funding recreation management, maintenance of FWP fishing access sites and natural resource protection but first I would like to point out the reasons we oppose Senate Bill 287 as it is presently written.
Despite our belief and commitment to contributing our fair share in the protection and restoration of these rivers, lakes and streams, American Whitewater cannot in good conscience support the current version of Senate Bill 287. American Whitewater does, however, believe there are alternative and more appropriate means for generating revenue to fund maintenance of FWP fishing access sites and water based recreation management. These alternatives will be presented at the conclusion of this testimony.
First and foremost, Senate Bill 287 contains no language identifying specific programs, management plans or fishing access sites this new revenue source will fund. The Bill contains no estimate of the revenue generated from this registration fee or a budget associated with the administrative costs. In addition there is no reporting requirement to the legislature on the progress, efficiency, and suitability of the expenditures. The lack of language directing funds to specific programs and accountability underscores my concern that this revenue source will simply fall into the general FWP fund covering budget shortfalls for existing FWP programs but providing no tangible services for the non-motorized boating community.
In further support of this theory, the Department of FWP failed to do any outreach to the constituents required to pay registration fees under Senate Bill 287. American Whitewater and the general whitewater paddling community only learned of this proposed legislation when it was drafted for the 2003 legislative session in early January. To our knowledge the same is true for the angling community. At the least I would expect the Department of FWP to meet with groups and individuals affected by the registration requirement to explain the rational for the fee system as well as the services that would be provided in return. The fact that no outreach effort was attempted leaves me suspicious that there is no defined plan or program where this new revenue source is targeted. Clearly this new revenue source will simply cover shortfalls for existing FWP programs.
Speaking for the private whitewater paddling community, the current FWPs programs do not provide services for the whitewater paddling community. The existing enforcement program focuses primarily on fishing and hunting. While I am extremely appreciative of the warden department and have great respect for their work protecting wildlife resources the whitewater community has little need for enforcement.
In addition, few if any FWP fishing access sites are located on rivers with whitewater rapids. Those that do exist on whitewater rivers are not used by private boaters because they are not located at the put-in and take-out locations. In fact, the whitewater community prefers undeveloped access sites. Whitewater boaters typically need few amenities to pursue their recreation. Most whitewater reaches are in mountainous terrain in a natural to semi-natural setting. Formal access sites would further degrade this natural setting.
Revenue generated from Senate Bill 287 is not destined to fund programs proposed by the River Recreation Advisory Council. This twenty-two member Advisory Council, appointed by the Department of FWP, is charged with developing a guidance document for managing river recreation. I serve as a member of this Advisory Council. Ironically, this draft bill was never presented to the River Recreation Advisory Council for review or input. The Advisory Council agreed there is a future need to secure revenue mechanisms to fund new programs but only after the need for these programs has been identified and the associated management plans are fleshed out. However, the Advisory Council agreed in their January 16th meeting that drafting legislation for revenue mechanisms was premature since no specific programs had been proposed let alone adopted by the FWP Commission.
I fear that most or all of the revenue generated will be consumed by the cost of administration and what little remains will be consumed by enforcement. I've taken the liberty to do some calculations of the potential revenue generated through registration of non-motorized boats. Although there is no estimate on the number of non-motorized watercraft in the state I selected a rather optimistic number to illustrate my point. 30,000 boat registrations times $8.50 equals $255,000 in revenue. Allocating $55,000 to administrative costs leaves $200,000. This would fund three full-time enforcement officers plus vehicles and mileage. In a state the size of Montana three enforcement officers is barely noticeable for enforcement. Furthermore, as stated earlier, whitewater boaters and non-motorized boaters in general have little need for enforcement.
From a practical standpoint, registration decals will not remain attached to kayak hulls very long because the boats are subject to heavy abrasion from rocks, trees and other objects found on rivers and streams. In addition, whitewater boaters typically own more than a single canoe, kayak or raft. As a result, they will pay a disproportionate share of boating fees as compared to the owner of a single, much more expensive powerboat. There is also a high rate of turnover of whitewater boats that will make it difficult for either the owners or the administering agency to keep up with registration paperwork. For civic organizations, university programs, tour operators, commercial angling outfitters and whitewater outfitters the bill will increase operating costs.
There is a general misconception that canoeists, kayakers and rafters do not pay their fair share for management of Montana's rivers and the purchase and maintenance of fishing access sites. This is simply not true. A great majority of canoeists, kayakers and rafters are also anglers. As such these individuals purchase a state fishing license. Of that $17 license $1 dollar is dedicated to maintenance of fishing access sites. This additional boat registration fee proposed in Senate Bill 287 equates to a second fee on a user group that is already funding the existing FWP fishing programs and fishing access sites.
Lastly and likely most important from a revenue generating standpoint, no other states require the registration and numbering of canoes, kayaks and rafts. Montana's registration fee will create an inconvenience and added cost for paddlers non-resident paddlers. This will discourage paddlers from traveling to Montana thereby decreasing revenue generated from tourists' spending money on campgrounds, motels, food and gas. This decrease in tourism revenues will have a far greater impact on the state economy than the limited funding benefit generated by the registration fee.
American Whitewater clearly recognizes the role and responsibility that recreationists play in funding programs designed to manage recreation and protect natural resources. First of all, fees should only be adopted as a last resort for revenue generation. Fees must NOT target a single recreation user group particularly when the resource is utilized by a wide variety of groups. In other words all recreation users regardless of activity should pay equally. Any fee system designed to generate revenue must first have a management plan in place prior to charging the fee. This management plan must be subject to public review and comment. Fee systems must not be adopted where management plans and regulations are not necessary or warranted. All fees collected, less 10% for administration costs, must go directly back into natural resource protection and the specific user groups targeted by the fee.
Should the Fish and Game Committee elect to proceed with Senate Bill 287 American Whitewater asks that the existing language be amended in a fashion that exempts canoes, kayaks and rafts. This exemption is warranted because, as stated in my testimony today, this constituency will receive no services from this legislation but will be taxed nonetheless.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you. I am more than willing to answer questions or speak with each of you individually at the close of this hearing. Thank you for your attention and time.
Before the Montana Senate Fish and Game Committee
Hearing on Senate Bill 287
Funding for Managing Water-based Recreation
(Thursday, February 5, 2003, at 3:00 PM)
Contact Information:
782 Swan River Road
Bigfork, MT 59911
Phone: 406-837-3155
Fax: 406-837-3156
301-589-6121 (fax)
jgangemi@digisys.net
Good afternoon.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is an honor and a privilege to speak on proposed Senate Bill 287, Funding for Managing Water-based Recreation.
I am John Gangemi, Conservation Director for American Whitewater.
I speak here on behalf of the whitewater boating community both residents and non-residents of Montana. American Whitewater is a national non-profit 501(c)3 river conservation and recreation organization founded in 1957. We have over 8,000 members and 160 canoe club affiliates, representing approximately 180,000 whitewater paddlers across the nation. A significant percentage of American Whitewater members reside in Montana.
American Whitewater's mission is to conserve and restore America's whitewater resources and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely. As a conservation-oriented paddling organization, American Whitewater has a strong interest in the protecting the water quality and landscape of Montana's rivers, lakes and streams. American Whitewater has been and continues to be a strong supporter of State and Federal plans designed to protect and restore instream flows, water quality and riparian habitats. American Whitewater clearly recognizes the need to fund recreation management and natural resource protection however Senate Bill 287 fails to achieve either of these goals. In this testimony I will identify alternative mechanisms for funding recreation management, maintenance of FWP fishing access sites and natural resource protection but first I would like to point out the reasons we oppose Senate Bill 287 as it is presently written.
Despite our belief and commitment to contributing our fair share in the protection and restoration of these rivers, lakes and streams, American Whitewater cannot in good conscience support the current version of Senate Bill 287. American Whitewater does, however, believe there are alternative and more appropriate means for generating revenue to fund maintenance of FWP fishing access sites and water based recreation management. These alternatives will be presented at the conclusion of this testimony.
First and foremost, Senate Bill 287 contains no language identifying specific programs, management plans or fishing access sites this new revenue source will fund. The Bill contains no estimate of the revenue generated from this registration fee or a budget associated with the administrative costs. In addition there is no reporting requirement to the legislature on the progress, efficiency, and suitability of the expenditures. The lack of language directing funds to specific programs and accountability underscores my concern that this revenue source will simply fall into the general FWP fund covering budget shortfalls for existing FWP programs but providing no tangible services for the non-motorized boating community.
In further support of this theory, the Department of FWP failed to do any outreach to the constituents required to pay registration fees under Senate Bill 287. American Whitewater and the general whitewater paddling community only learned of this proposed legislation when it was drafted for the 2003 legislative session in early January. To our knowledge the same is true for the angling community. At the least I would expect the Department of FWP to meet with groups and individuals affected by the registration requirement to explain the rational for the fee system as well as the services that would be provided in return. The fact that no outreach effort was attempted leaves me suspicious that there is no defined plan or program where this new revenue source is targeted. Clearly this new revenue source will simply cover shortfalls for existing FWP programs.
Speaking for the private whitewater paddling community, the current FWPs programs do not provide services for the whitewater paddling community. The existing enforcement program focuses primarily on fishing and hunting. While I am extremely appreciative of the warden department and have great respect for their work protecting wildlife resources the whitewater community has little need for enforcement.
In addition, few if any FWP fishing access sites are located on rivers with whitewater rapids. Those that do exist on whitewater rivers are not used by private boaters because they are not located at the put-in and take-out locations. In fact, the whitewater community prefers undeveloped access sites. Whitewater boaters typically need few amenities to pursue their recreation. Most whitewater reaches are in mountainous terrain in a natural to semi-natural setting. Formal access sites would further degrade this natural setting.
Revenue generated from Senate Bill 287 is not destined to fund programs proposed by the River Recreation Advisory Council. This twenty-two member Advisory Council, appointed by the Department of FWP, is charged with developing a guidance document for managing river recreation. I serve as a member of this Advisory Council. Ironically, this draft bill was never presented to the River Recreation Advisory Council for review or input. The Advisory Council agreed there is a future need to secure revenue mechanisms to fund new programs but only after the need for these programs has been identified and the associated management plans are fleshed out. However, the Advisory Council agreed in their January 16th meeting that drafting legislation for revenue mechanisms was premature since no specific programs had been proposed let alone adopted by the FWP Commission.
I fear that most or all of the revenue generated will be consumed by the cost of administration and what little remains will be consumed by enforcement. I've taken the liberty to do some calculations of the potential revenue generated through registration of non-motorized boats. Although there is no estimate on the number of non-motorized watercraft in the state I selected a rather optimistic number to illustrate my point. 30,000 boat registrations times $8.50 equals $255,000 in revenue. Allocating $55,000 to administrative costs leaves $200,000. This would fund three full-time enforcement officers plus vehicles and mileage. In a state the size of Montana three enforcement officers is barely noticeable for enforcement. Furthermore, as stated earlier, whitewater boaters and non-motorized boaters in general have little need for enforcement.
From a practical standpoint, registration decals will not remain attached to kayak hulls very long because the boats are subject to heavy abrasion from rocks, trees and other objects found on rivers and streams. In addition, whitewater boaters typically own more than a single canoe, kayak or raft. As a result, they will pay a disproportionate share of boating fees as compared to the owner of a single, much more expensive powerboat. There is also a high rate of turnover of whitewater boats that will make it difficult for either the owners or the administering agency to keep up with registration paperwork. For civic organizations, university programs, tour operators, commercial angling outfitters and whitewater outfitters the bill will increase operating costs.
There is a general misconception that canoeists, kayakers and rafters do not pay their fair share for management of Montana's rivers and the purchase and maintenance of fishing access sites. This is simply not true. A great majority of canoeists, kayakers and rafters are also anglers. As such these individuals purchase a state fishing license. Of that $17 license $1 dollar is dedicated to maintenance of fishing access sites. This additional boat registration fee proposed in Senate Bill 287 equates to a second fee on a user group that is already funding the existing FWP fishing programs and fishing access sites.
Lastly and likely most important from a revenue generating standpoint, no other states require the registration and numbering of canoes, kayaks and rafts. Montana's registration fee will create an inconvenience and added cost for paddlers non-resident paddlers. This will discourage paddlers from traveling to Montana thereby decreasing revenue generated from tourists' spending money on campgrounds, motels, food and gas. This decrease in tourism revenues will have a far greater impact on the state economy than the limited funding benefit generated by the registration fee.
American Whitewater clearly recognizes the role and responsibility that recreationists play in funding programs designed to manage recreation and protect natural resources. First of all, fees should only be adopted as a last resort for revenue generation. Fees must NOT target a single recreation user group particularly when the resource is utilized by a wide variety of groups. In other words all recreation users regardless of activity should pay equally. Any fee system designed to generate revenue must first have a management plan in place prior to charging the fee. This management plan must be subject to public review and comment. Fee systems must not be adopted where management plans and regulations are not necessary or warranted. All fees collected, less 10% for administration costs, must go directly back into natural resource protection and the specific user groups targeted by the fee.
Should the Fish and Game Committee elect to proceed with Senate Bill 287 American Whitewater asks that the existing language be amended in a fashion that exempts canoes, kayaks and rafts. This exemption is warranted because, as stated in my testimony today, this constituency will receive no services from this legislation but will be taxed nonetheless.
I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you. I am more than willing to answer questions or speak with each of you individually at the close of this hearing. Thank you for your attention and time.