Here is an explanation from Mike Parker the PFBC spokesman >
From an article post by FrankTroutAngler >
Proceeds from each of the four stamps will remain in their dedicated areas, but can cover a broad range of activities, such as research, raising and stocking fish (musky and bass), and fisheries surveys, said commission spokesman Mike Parker.
"Their sole purpose is to supplement what we're already doing and to offset rising program costs."
The commission came up with the stamp concept to try to compensate for stagnant license revenues. Lawmakers haven't increased fishing fees since 2005 and the number of anglers has failed to measurably grow.
"If more people bought licenses, or we got an increase in fees, we probably wouldn't be doing this, but we have to find alternative funding sources, " Parker said. "This is one of them."
The hope is that anglers will like the idea of donating to an aspect of fishing or conservation they strongly believe in, he said.
"If your thing is to protect wild trout, the wild-trout stamp is an avenue for you to do that. If you're a muskie fisherman and are impressed with how the muskie fishery is doing or want to see a stronger muskie fishery, this is a way to do that."
The habitat and wild-trout permits, he said, "pretty much speak for themselves."
Here is a post from Mike Kaufmann the SE Region AFM from the PFBC aka "mike" on here >
Per the article provided earlier in this thread and the comment by the PFBC's Brian Barner, Area Fisheries Mgrs have been given the opportunity to suggest how they think the monies generated by each specific voluntary permit should be spent. This also allowed AFM's to suggest how these future expenditures could be documented for the angling public.
Regarding possible options for trout streams, my comments were strongly aimed at habitat and water quality enhancements, such as in-stream work, riparian buffer zone planting, which can be done relatively quickly due to no permits needed for out of the stream work, Agricultural BMP's, and mine discharge (sediment control or chemical water quality) enhancements, particularly to aid or expand projects that are already partially or fully underway in order to be able to initially report results back to anglers much more quickly than if brand new projects were being started.
I would also include dam removals as another option, as there is one project that will soon start and another being seriously discussed in Area 6 alone that are fully or partially aimed at trout. After dams are removed, habitat enhancement should often follow, but in my experience that aspect is sometimes short on funding.
Additionally, another thought would be to enhance portions of select stocked trout streams that also support wild trout, particularly those with Class A sections immediately upstream from stocked sections so that enhancements to the upstream stretches of the stocked sections might result in a downstream extension of Class A stretches if and when the biomasses responded favorably.
No man is an island, as they say, and my thoughts may or may not be in tune with those of others. Broad program priorities will undoubtedly be established at the administrative level, not by AFM's, but through this process AFM's will have had an initial and welcomed opportunity to participate.
^Don't tell me TL/DR!!!
I'm not sure what some of you guys are looking for.....stream names or specific projects? Until the PFBC has a handle on how much revenue is generated > 26K? > 260K? > 2.6M? I don't believe it's possible from them to list what projects the money is assigned to for wild trout fund.
Mike took the time above to give you some of the ideas he has to enhance wild trout fishing using the fund. Sounds good to me....good job Mike!
I'm glad to finally have a way to help fund these worthy projects to help our wild trout streams and fish.
