Display of the new voluntary wild trout permit

[Mike]

In another thread there was a voluntary wild trout permit screen shot that showed the wording included on the permit indicating that the permit needed to be displayed on an outer garment. I checked with the regional law enforcement mgr for SE Pa and he informed me that this instruction is generic and is printed out on each license or permit that the PFBC prints, but that the voluntary wild trout permit does not need to be displayed. Required displays of Trout-salmon permits, Lake Erie permits, combination trout-salmon/Lake Erie permits continue as before along with your fishing license.

 

[Swattie87]

Thanks for clarifying Mike.

 

[salmonoid]

Any updates on proposed rulemaking 276? Public comment period closed over a year ago and 2019 licenses are now available. I mistakenly thought this had already passed and fished the first half of 2018 with my license safely stowed away, until I looked this up to see when it actually went into effect.

 

[PennKev]

Perhaps you should pass along some of the other concerns folks have and get clarification.

Just sayin'.

 

[Dave_W]

salmonoid wrote:
I mistakenly thought this had already passed and fished the first half of 2018 with my license safely stowed away, until I looked this up to see when it actually went into effect.

I was under the impression that this had passed and license display was no longer required.

Is this rulemaking proposal still up in the air?

 

[Mike]

Per pennKev's comment...That's why the fishing hole exists when you click on "contact us" on the PFBC web site home page.

 

[Swattie87]

Just a heads up for those that don't know, Mike's a biologist. Regulation interpretation and enforcement, and budgeting and fund allocation aren't necessarily his wheelhouse. He'll often chime in when he has direct knowledge on something on those fronts (as he did here) and it's greatly appreciated, but regardless, I don't think it should be expected or implied that he should be our PAFF liaison to the PFBC. He's just a forum member like the rest of us.

Mike - I debated on sending a personal inquiry to the PFBC to address my questions with the WT stamp funds, but I think that somewhat circumvents part of the point I'm making...The PFBC should be publicly, and transparently explaining how the extra new revenue generated from the WT funds will work, and what their intention behind its creation was.

Any response I would get to a direct and private communication from the PFBC I would not publish publicly on PAFF or anywhere, out of respect for the person who responded and attempted to answer my questions - Whether I liked the response, and thought it properly addressed my questions or not. While that may help answer my personal concerns and help me make up my mind on whether to purchase the stamp personally, I do not think privately answering one off individual questions as they come in is ultimately the right way to go about this. At least as it pertains to the basics of how the math in the budget will work with the new WT funds.

 

[geebee]

Swattie87 wrote:
Just a heads up for those that don't know, Mike's a biologist. Regulation interpretation and enforcement, and budgeting and fund allocation aren't necessarily his wheelhouse. He'll often chime in when he has direct knowledge on something on those fronts (as he did here) and it's greatly appreciated, but regardless, I don't think it should be expected or implied that he should be our PAFF liaison to the PFBC. He's just a forum member like the rest of us.

Well said swattie.