Oregon's Proposed Raft and Kayak Tax

Oregon House Bill 3447 would require Oregonians to buy nonmotorized boat permits for their rafts and kayaks.

The biennial fee would be $50 for one boat or a maximum of $300 if you own a play boat, creek boat, inflatable kayak, raft, and cat (5 or more boats is $300 total). The maximum penalty for failing to display a permit would be $90.

Apparently this is Oregon's attempt to pay for House Bill 2220, which would require check stations to examine boats for aquatic invasive species. HB 2220 doesn't provide for any funding, thus this tax on Oregon's rafters and kayakers.

Whitewater boating is not cheap to do safely. The above photo is the author's wife rafting the middle McKenzie River at higher water.

This bill would tax our family $150 after we already injected thousands of dollars into the Oregon economy purchasing all of the gear, not to mention the hundreds of dollars in gas money and the resulting gas tax traveling around Oregon to rafting destinations.

I challenge the legislature to produce any evidence of a whitewater kayak or raft ever transferring an invasive species. Ever seen a zebra mussel attached to the bottom of a creek boat? I haven't.

Oregon's whitewater boaters do more to protect our creeks and rivers than almost any other group. Visit http://www.oregonkayaking.net/ for an example of Jason Rackley's efforts.

This bill originated in the House Rules Committee. I contacted Vice-Chair Chris Edwards' (D-Eugene/Santa Clara) office and learned that it was referred to the Transportation Committee, where Terry Beyer of Springfield is the chair. This committee has until April 17th to hear all of its bills.

Please call (503-986-1412) or email Terry Beyer's office and tell them to bury this in committee. It should never see the light of day. Call Rep. Beyer's office and say, "Please stay out of our rafts and kayaks by drowning House Bill 3447!"

Click here to find your Oregon legislator.

by C. Michael Arnold, Attorney at Law,
Eugene, Oregon Arnold Law Office, LLC

Landlubbing Law Enforcement to Determine Class III Whitewater

The Oregon State Legislature is considering a bill (HB 2079) that would require all boaters to wear life jackets in Class III whitewater. Great idea but they don’t say who will determine what particular stretch of water is Class III versus Class II.

David Molina, the administrator of the House Veterans and Emergency Committee, stated that law enforcement on the ground will determine if it’s a Class II versus Class III at a given water level. This is unacceptable. Most Oregonians don’t trust government employees to determine areas within their expertise and will be hard pressed to trust them outside of their range of experience. Unless a law enforcement officer has been on the river as a decision-maker (not a passenger in a commercial trip) in a paddle- or oar-powered boat, he is not qualified to classify a given rapid.

Sure, there are rapids around the state where there is agreement on a rapid's classification. However, there are plenty of rivers and creeks that do not have much exposure or general agreement on their classification. A prudent boater would wear a life jacket on many of those waterways during the rainy season but would feel comfortable floating them in the summer without one. As water levels change, so does a rapids’ class.

The Illinois River in southern Oregon is a great example. At different water levels during the rainy season there are stretches that vary between Class III and IV. However, that same river in the summer is a trickle where you might find backpackers in inflatable kayaks next to swimmers. The vagueness of this legislation does nothing to protect river users from capricious implementation.

Even experienced river guides will have different opinions about how to classify a given stretch of the river. I have heard hardened whitewater guides debate what class a given rapid is at a given water level. If you put four experienced whitewater guides together (commercial or private), you’ll get five different opinions, ranging from 2+ clear to 4- given varied water conditions.

That’s because rating whitewater is largely in the eye of the beholder. Despite this, the State Legislature wants to put that determination in the hands of local law enforcement with questionable whitewater rafting or kayaking experience.
Keep in mind that the Oregon State Marine Board did NOT propose this legislation and it’s questionable if this bill would even save lives. A large percentage of fatalities in Oregon occur in flat water and less scary river sections where folks are lulled into a false sense of safety. If the legislature is serious about saving lives they should consider a requirement of life jackets on all moving water.

It is truly rare to ever see a rafter or kayaker without a PFD in Class III whitewater. Occasionally, you’ll see fishermen in private drift boats without them, but even them usually put them on when running Class III. Personally I would like everyone to wear a life jacket, because not wearing one puts experienced boaters in other boats at risk when they may need to save the careless.

For photographic evidence of the legislature attempting to legislate a solution to a non-problem, take a look at rafters at the McKenzie’s most popular Class III rapid. You will hardly ever see a photograph of someone not wearing a life jacket here: http://www.martinsrapids.com/.

The photo to right
is an example of Class III whitewater on the Siuslaw River after a June storm. A life jacket is necessary after a downpour. However, in the summer it's a trickle where it is perfectly safe to lounge around in an inflatable raft without needing the government to tell you to wear a PFD. As some of my more cynical Libertarian whitewater friends have said, "Let personal responsibility and Darwin work this out."

---------------------
Here's video of the author guiding R2 down Husum Falls (Class V) on the White Salmon River in Washington:

Yes, life jackets should be required on Class IV/V. I require them in my boat without the help of the government.