Washington State Aquatic Invasive Species Permit

Guess BC needs to have an offsetting permit only for WA registered vessels. I do not follow the logic for saltwater.

I just towed my boat through WA and guess I needed to buy a permit just to transport my boat through the state on a trailer. That's a terrible law.
 
Last edited:
Guess BC needs to have an offsetting permit only for WA registered vessels. I do not follow the logic for saltwater.

The logic is obvious as they state it is to fund Govt/ Programs and mentions the cost of programs related to prevention and eradication of invasive species. So it is nothing but a tax grab and will have to be done every year which for those Canadians who want to take their boat over to the San Juan Islands etc, for the weekend, they will be dealing with a annual processing pain as well as a cost. This will result in less Canadian boats, especially the spur of the moment types from taking their boats over to some of the US touristy type destinations and spending money in US ports and destinations. This pain in the butt move will cost the Washington State economy and the taxes that would accrue from that activity.
If they are smart they should exempt Canadian vessels period and we should not reciprocate with a tax grab fee of our own on US boats. We probably will of course because our politicians are not ones to ever miss a tit for tat excuse and an opportunity for a new tax grab even if it is a bad idea in terms of the over all economy. It will likely get raided for general revenue, not its intended purpose, because that is what politicians do.
 
Last edited:
So if I run from tswassenn to the gulf islands I need one of these permits

Unless you go around US waters yes. By the letter of the law you are also required to report to customs upon re-entry to Canada even though you never landed in the US
 
The logic is obvious as they state it is to fund Govt/ Programs and mentions the cost of programs related to prevention and eradication of invasive species. So it is nothing but a tax grab and will have to be done every year which for those Canadians who want to take their boat over to the San Juan Islands etc, for the weekend, they will be dealing with a annual processing pain as well as a cost. This will result in less Canadian boats, especially the spur of the moment types from taking their boats over to some of the US touristy type destinations and spending money in US ports and destinations. This pain in the butt move will cost the Washington State economy and the taxes that would accrue from that activity.
If they are smart they should exempt Canadian vessels period and we should not reciprocate with a tax grab fee of our own on US boats. We probably will of course because our politicians are not ones to ever miss a tit for tat excuse and an opportunity for a new tax grab even if it is a bad idea in terms of the over all economy. It will likely get raided for general revenue, not its intended purpose, because that is what politicians do.
I agree with most of what you wrote but what SALTWATER invasive species prevention will they do with the money? Probably nothing.
 
Unless you go around US waters yes. By the letter of the law you are also required to report to customs upon re-entry to Canada even though you never landed in the US
That's not the case anymore.

"
If you are returning to Canada, you are not required to report to the CBSA if you:

  • did not land outside Canada and did not anchor, moor or make contact with another conveyance while outside of Canadian waters, and
  • did not embark or disembark any people or goods while outside Canada."
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/travel-voyage/pb-pp-eng.html
 
I sent an email to Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife and asked, "I note that under Washington state law, owners of watercraft registered in another state or country must purchase an Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) prevention permit before placing or operating the watercraft in any waterbody in the state. Does this include private/recreational boats operating in tidal waters transiting from a Canadian port such as Sidney BC to Friday Harbor?"

WDFW responded "Thank you for contacting the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Yes, you will need an Aquatic Invasive Species Permit in tidal waters within Washington. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact us at 360.902.2464."

I didn't ask about moving through US waters such as from Active Pass to Tsawwassen. Personally, I wouldn't.
 
I agree with most of what you wrote but what SALTWATER invasive species prevention will they do with the money? Probably nothing.

I agree that the issues that are related to problem fresh water invasive species, such as Snakehead fish, Carp, Milfoil, and Zebra Mussels do not, for the most part, have an equivalency in the ocean. In fact some of the introduced ocean species seem to be considered a good thing such as Japanese and Nova Scotia Blue Point Oysters. Further with our seas getting warmer, there appears to be a slow migration of warm water species north into our waters.
There is one introduced ocean species that Washington was very much concerned about this past summer and I suspect a considerable amount of Government funds went into addressing the problem. That was the massive release of alien Atlantic Salmon from one of the Open Net Feed Lots.
Since their recent decision to protect native salmon and remove all open net pen Atlantic Salmon from their waters over the next few years, the need to recover costs for dealing with this particular ocean invasive species should dissipate, at least in Washington State. I still think it is unwise to impose a new fee and bureaucratic process on non American pleasure and sport fishing boats in US waters, at least for salt water.
Why should salt water pleasure boaters and the taxpayers of either country be responsible for picking up the cost for a problem that is caused by a particular industry? If they want to impose some new fees, impose them on the industry. That would also have the added advantage of leveling the playing field a little and make land based salmon aqua culture more competitive.
 
Last edited:
The logic is obvious as they state it is to fund Govt/ Programs and mentions the cost of programs related to prevention and eradication of invasive species. So it is nothing but a tax grab

I don't see this permit as a "tax grab", but then this opens up the larger topic of who should fund various government services. Should every citizen pay for every government service (through their general income taxes), even those services that they do not use? I think in a lot of cases, the answer is "no": it's user-pay these days.

Some examples:
In this particular case, should the little old lady who doesn't even have a boat, have to pay for management of the spread of invasive species by watercraft, through her income taxes?
Should a person who doesn't drive over a certain bridge or highway have to pay for these structures?
Should a person who is not a land developer have to pay for developers' building permits?
Or how about this one: Should a person who doesn't fish, have to pay for fisheries management? (Think: fishing licences)

These are just a few things that are funded by specific permits, that come to mind when I read "tax grab."
 
I don't see this permit as a "tax grab", but then this opens up the larger topic of who should fund various government services. Should every citizen pay for every government service (through their general income taxes), even those services that they do not use? I think in a lot of cases, the answer is "no": it's user-pay these days.

Some examples:
In this particular case, should the little old lady who doesn't even have a boat, have to pay for management of the spread of invasive species by watercraft, through her income taxes?
Should a person who doesn't drive over a certain bridge or highway have to pay for these structures?
Should a person who is not a land developer have to pay for developers' building permits?
Or how about this one: Should a person who doesn't fish, have to pay for fisheries management? (Think: fishing licences)

These are just a few things that are funded by specific permits, that come to mind when I read "tax grab."

Lets Hold in abeyance for now the dubious advisability and potentially self defeating decision to create bureaucratic barriers to recreational boating international travel between Canada and the US in the marine environment.

I would suggest that all fees, charges and increasing even increasingly massive fines that Government in its many renditions impose, can be viewed as indirect taxation. What you seem to be arguing for is targeted taxation as in user pay. That logic only goes so far. For example, does it work in reverse? We have fees to ICBC for insurance and licensing, makes sense right, user pay, after all we drive the Vehicles and I would not ask your hypothetical little old lady to help subsidize my vehicle license and insurance. She probably does not even drive. But wait Prov Govt. of both the left and right have raided ICBC cash reserves into general revenue extensively for years, some of which may well have paid your little old ladies medical care. I suspect she is not upset about that. You mentioned fishing license. The fees for that and the salmon enhancement stamp fee have kept increasing and up until the very recent change for years/decades the salmon enhancement stamp money went into general revenue even as salmon enhancement and other fishery related services were being cut back.

There may be a case to be made for user pay fees for fresh water issues related to rec. boaters transporting invasive species from one fresh water body of water to another but I do not see a case to be made for the same in the ocean.

If you really want to go to those paying preventive fees that actually cause the problem concerning invasive species in the salt chuck, would you not go after the international shipping companies which have done a great deal of damage all over the planet by long distance transporting invasive species on their hulls and in bilge water, Zebra Mussels come to mind. Curiously, if I read it correctly, Washington state went out of its way to exempt that commercial shipping from this new fee. I guess they have a stronger lobby than small rec. boat owners and sport fishermen. The same could be said of Atlantic fish farms given all the costs which Washington State had with the massive escape of Atlantic salmon last year. In terms of User Pay and fees for ocean invasive species, are not salt water small recreational boat owners and sport fishermen actually, the “little old lady” ?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top