Article on fees and revenue for the PAFB commission

Everything proposed is a mechanism to kick the can down the road, so to speak, and does not fix the underlying financial issues the agency faces. The same situation pretty much plays out with all the commonwealth agencies; PA is broke, financially.

Two quotes I agree with, though:

"“Anything we do, I think we have to do in small increments, with prices going up gradually, and compound that over time. That’s always more palatable to the customer than one big jump,” Brock said."

And in principle:

"But if the commission can come up with $1 million in “revenue enhancements,” perhaps it can make $1 million in cuts rather than $2 million, he said."

You can balance a budget by reducing expenditures (cutting $2 million), increasing revenue ($2 million in license and fees) or a combination of both. I generally prefer the latter, as it means you have to take a look at what can be left go and get rid of some programs to save some money, and then balance that with reasonable cost increases, as the cost of providing any program generally goes up over time.
 
" The same situation pretty much plays out with all the commonwealth agencies; PA is broke, financially."
So am I.
 
To the PFBC...

I'm willing to pay more, but only if you're willing to spend less...Best of both worlds! See the Wild Brookie thread for some ideas on how to start spending less.
 
I'll pay more- no problem there. I think the privilege to fish in PA is more than worth it, and lord knows I spend a whole lot of money on things way less essential to life than fishing :))

License fees would have to be A LOT more for me to make a fuss about it considering the time I spend on the water. It ends up being far less than a dollar a trip.

What I'd like to see as others have suggested is the pafbc cutting costs for programs (I.e. Stocking over wild fish populations) that don't make a whole lot of sense to me in combination with incremental increases corresponding to cost of living rates. As others noted as well, PA agencies are, in general, with lack of funding and generally are combating lots of debt going back many years but still spend a lot on inessentials to "at least preserve the status quo" as to not ruffle to many feathers. IDK.

 
The commission could conceivably offer anglers willing to pay more a few additional opportunities, staff said. Fishermen could, perhaps, buy a permit allowing them to keep three times the daily creel limit on some fish, or use more rods or hooks than is currently permitted.
Click to expand...

Because the few dollars generated by these slobs is going to save you from the black hole of oblivion you created called pension debt while not screwing up fishing for the rest of us?

 
Start by combining the PFBC with the PGC, DCNR & DEP like all of the surrounding states do with ONE executive director, etc and see how that goes first.

PA government is a giant black hole of revenue wasting inefficiency.
 
I hate paying more for something, but lets be honest. The cost of a fishing license is less than a case of cheap beer.

Legislators can't be upset with the fish commission losing money, but not green-light a price hike for 13 years or ever in the case of launch permits.

I hate buying my launch permit too; yet I'd pay a couple bucks more.

But raising fish isn't cheap. Cut that back too.
 
Just some thoughts on the different ideas they discussed in the article:

Increasing the cost of a launch permit could be an easy way to get some cash flowing. Kayaking is only getting more popular and they have some head room over the current cost, meaning the could raise the fee and it would still be "cheap."

The option to buy additional creel space also piqued my interest. I personally wouldn't buy it, but I imagine there is a decent crop of people who would pay an additional $10 to increase their daily limit to 7 or 8 fish.

In the big picture I wish the state legislature would get their act together and let the PaFBC set their own license fees. It's bunk that they can't.
 
Let's see some cost saving measures first....maybe in the way of 6 cylinder vehicles instead of all them gas guzzling vehicles they drive around in all day long. That may save a lot of money in fuel each year. There is a good start.

Ron
 
>>Start by combining the PFBC with the PGC, DCNR & DEP like all of the surrounding states do with ONE executive director, etc and see how that goes first.>>

So far as I'm concerned, the PA Legislature has never demonstrated the level of maturity that would warrant giving them the unimpeded level of control over our fish & game agencies that this sort of consolidation would give them.

I mean, if I had a 16 year old who I'd caught sniffing solvents a half dozen times, you can rest assured I'd never give him the keys to the family car, licensed driver or not.

Same principle applies here....
 
It's obvious that even if they can raise more revenue that they have a problem that's not going away (pensions) .I think we all have to accept the fact that there will probably be less trout being stocked in our waters. This could be a silver lining for some of our wild trout waters but at the same time be disappointing to the anglers who don't have much good wild trout water around. Also much of the heavily stocked streams have decent access which is why were usually there along with the abundance of fish.

We can also look to the article to see clues that the fish commission is out of touch with managing what fish they stock. When I read of brainstorming ideas like permits for " three times the limit" " multiple rods" it only proves they have some internal issues.

In short I think we're are going to have to learn to Target other species of fish besides Trout. If you've got decent access to good smallie water give it a try this year. The last few years I've had a great time fishing for bass and Carp. There's a bunch of wild fish in the river to chase that don't have a stocking schedule because they don't need one. As Anglers we're going to have to adapt as well.
 
The PFBC should be allowed to keep their funding up with the rate of inflation by increasing their license fees accordingly. If the current rate of inflation is 3% per year, then they should be allowed to increase their fees by that much each year.

That just seems like common sense.

What I can't understand is why the legislature is preventing them from doing this. It's like they are trying to starve out the PFBC.

But why? What is the legislators' beef with the PFBC?

Are they trying to force the PFBC to do something? If so, what?
 
Theory:

PFBC is one of our great water protectors. Since the industry (NG) has come, PFBC ramped up finding new wild trout streams through surveys to get those waters protection.
The legislation is in the NG industries pockets.

Starve out the PFBC and then say, "well we will bail you out but you are no longer an independent agency. Now we will control what you do."
 
troutbert wrote:
The PFBC should be allowed to keep their funding up with the rate of inflation by increasing their license fees accordingly. If the current rate of inflation is 3% per year, then they should be allowed to increase their fees by that much each year.

That just seems like common sense.

What I can't understand is why the legislature is preventing them from doing this. It's like they are trying to starve out the PFBC.

But why? What is the legislators' beef with the PFBC?

Are they trying to force the PFBC to do something? If so, what?
Click to expand...

If the legislators allow the PFBC to raise license fees independent of the any action of the legislature, than the politicians lose influence / power over the commission. Right now they (the politicians) have the hammer, since they control the revenue stream of the PFBC, giving them the ability to ask for favors in return for funding.

quid quo pro > you scratch my back.... > Do what we say or we'll pass a term limit for you Mr. ED > Yada yada yada
 
afishinado wrote:
troutbert wrote:
The PFBC should be allowed to keep their funding up with the rate of inflation by increasing their license fees accordingly. If the current rate of inflation is 3% per year, then they should be allowed to increase their fees by that much each year.

That just seems like common sense.

What I can't understand is why the legislature is preventing them from doing this. It's like they are trying to starve out the PFBC.

But why? What is the legislators' beef with the PFBC?

Are they trying to force the PFBC to do something? If so, what?
Click to expand...

If the legislators allow the PFBC to raise license fees independent of the any action of the legislature, than the politicians lose influence / power over the commission. Right now they (the politicians) have the hammer, since they control the revenue stream of the PFBC, giving them the ability to ask for favors in return for funding.

quid quo pro > you scratch my back.... > Do what we say or we'll pass a term limit for you Mr. ED >
Click to expand...

Right.

But what do they want from the PFBC? What are they trying to force them to do?

They are threatening to get rid of the ED. So they are mad about something. But what?

 
Just out of curiosity how many of us donate some extra dough when we buy our license? I always do. I donated $5 above and beyond the cost or my regular license, button, and trout stamp. I have no idea what that money will get appropriated for but I also don't care. I can part ways with a small trivial amount of money and hope that I'm doing some good.
 
http://www.paflyfish.com/forums/Open-Forums/Conservation/Search-for-Kittatinny-Trout/6,45844.html

Launched in 2011, the Unassessed Waters Initiative has led to the discovery of more than 5,600 miles of wild trout water in the Keystone State. Pennsylvania boasts more than 86,000 miles of running water, second most in the US only to Alaska. There are still thousands of miles of streams that have yet to be assessed given this vast landscape but the success rate of the UWI has shown how resilient trout can be in even some of the most pressured watersheds. Trout require the cleanest and coldest waters to survive and are often referred to as the canary in the coal mine—in such that the health of a stream can quickly be assumed based on the presence of trout.


The Kittatinny Ridge encompasses 360,000 acres in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and a small chunk of Maryland. It boasts more than an 80% intact forest and shrub habitat and is one of the most renowned birding destinations in the East. Given its undeveloped status, the Kittatinny Ridge is also a perfect place to focus protection efforts for wild trout. However, it sits atop both the Utica and Marcellus Shale, and in the coming years will be affected by the construction of multiple pipelines, including Atlantic Sunrise, which is under construction, and PennEast, which is under review by state regulators. These development pressures threaten the wild nature of the corridor and offer potential threats to trout, birds, and humans alike.
Click to expand...

You really don't think this has anything to do with it?
 
troutbert wrote:
afishinado wrote:
troutbert wrote:
The PFBC should be allowed to keep their funding up with the rate of inflation by increasing their license fees accordingly. If the current rate of inflation is 3% per year, then they should be allowed to increase their fees by that much each year.

That just seems like common sense.

What I can't understand is why the legislature is preventing them from doing this. It's like they are trying to starve out the PFBC.

But why? What is the legislators' beef with the PFBC?

Are they trying to force the PFBC to do something? If so, what?
Click to expand...

If the legislators allow the PFBC to raise license fees independent of the any action of the legislature, than the politicians lose influence / power over the commission. Right now they (the politicians) have the hammer, since they control the revenue stream of the PFBC, giving them the ability to ask for favors in return for funding.

quid quo pro > you scratch my back.... > Do what we say or we'll pass a term limit for you Mr. ED >
Click to expand...

Right.

But what do they want from the PFBC? What are they trying to force them to do?

They are threatening to get rid of the ED. So they are mad about something. But what?
Click to expand...

Well, the unvarnished truth is they're "mad" about John Arway, proposing (threatening?) to cut stocking in districts where the legislator opposes a licnse increase.

Read this article for more details.

The sad thing, this whole controversy proves where and how much stocking is done is based on political reasons rather than conservation, biological or even angler desires. Very sad, indeed.
 
It might be all about stocking.

But, if the legislators wanted a lot of trout stocked, you'd think they would realize that it requires money to raise and transport trout.

And that if the PFBC is not allowed to raise fees to keep up with inflation, then their ability to raise trout will be gradually eroded by inflation.

Another theory I've heard is that some legislators are trying to strong arm the PFBC in regard to their putting all these streams on the wild trout list, which gives them additional environmental protections. And the coal and oil & gas industries are complaining about that to their legislators, so the legislators are leaning on the PFBC and trying to starve them of money.

In some ways this seems like a more plausible theory than the stocking theory. Because starving the PFBC of money would lessen their ability to raise and transport trout and support the coop hatcheries.

Starving the PFBC of money could also reduce their ability to do wild trout surveys, water quality & sediment surveys, and environmental law enforcement.

Maybe that's what the legislators care more about.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top