tightlines
Well-Known Member
https://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/ais_prevention/out_of_state_vessels.htm
FYI those travelling to local USA waters.
FYI those travelling to local USA waters.
Guess BC needs to have an offsetting permit only for WA registered vessels. I do not follow the logic for saltwater.
So if I run from tswassenn to the gulf islands I need one of these permits
I agree with most of what you wrote but what SALTWATER invasive species prevention will they do with the money? Probably nothing.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.
That's not the case anymore.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
I agree with most of what you wrote but what SALTWATER invasive species prevention will they do with the money? Probably nothing.
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."