Wild Trout Stream Stamp

[wildtrout2]

Jays latest thread got me wondering. Suppose the PF&BC came up with a new stamp ($10 fee) required to fish Class A and Wilderness Trout streams, would you buy one or stop fishing these types of streams? I would pay for the stamp.

 

[jayL]

Where is the money going to go?

I pay for an erie stamp and a trout stamp already.

I do not fish stocked streams very often. If I paid for a wild trout stamp, I would not think that I would need a regular trout stamp for unstocked streams. (Does the stamp only apply to stocked streams) I would probably buy all three, but I do think it's a case of double charging.

Provided that the commission convinced me that the money was being put to good use (access, restoration, preservation), I would probably pay it.

Also, I think this will create a harvest mentality among some wild trout anglers. The "I paid for em" argument is all too common.

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

Yeah exactly, don't want to spend another ten dollars, over the already increased price of fishing licenses if the PFBC is going to misappropriate their money. Just exactly what am I buying with my money. I would pay more if it were for the wild streams' benefit.

 

[wildtrout2]

Jay, perhaps the money could go into more detailed stream studies and or AMD clean-ups. Something along those lines. Your last statement made sense, but I was thinking this "stamp" would appeal more to the "hard core" wild trout guys/gals who usually practice CR anyway?

 

[jayL]

I think it will definitely have appeal to the c&r commnity, but I think we're all a bit out of the loop when it comes to the amount of harvest on small, unstocked streams. I can see a lot of "locals" getting pretty mad that they have to pay an extra $10 to fish "their" streams.

 

[MKern]

I think it should be in place of the stamp now.

I don't think it's fair to charge for fish that they didn't raise.

 

[FarmerDave]

wildtrout2 wrote:
Jays latest thread got me wondering. Suppose the PF&BC came up with a new stamp ($10 fee) required to fish Class A and Wilderness Trout streams, would you buy one or stop fishing these types of streams? I would pay for the stamp.

Fine by me. I rarely fish class A or wilderness trout streams anyways.

So, what about the Bs and Cs that aren't stocked?

 

[ryguyfi]

How is it going to be regulated... are WCO's going to walk 3 miles to find someone fishing a small mountain freestoner? I barely ever see one on a SR or open water stocked stream let alone some streams the guys on here fish. Good concept, not too practical though.

 

[wildtrout2]

jayL wrote:
I can see a lot of "locals" getting pretty mad that they have to pay an extra $10 to fish "their" streams.

Yes, I see where you're coming from, but the reality is these are everybody's streams, not "theirs". The lands these streams are on mostly "public" land.

 

[FarmerDave]

jayL wrote:
Where is the money going to go?

I pay for an erie stamp and a trout stamp already.

I do not fish stocked streams very often. If I paid for a wild trout stamp, I would not think that I would need a regular trout stamp for unstocked streams. (Does the stamp only apply to stocked streams) I would probably buy all three, but I do think it's a case of double charging.

Provided that the commission convinced me that the money was being put to good use (access, restoration, preservation), I would probably pay it.

Also, I think this will create a harvest mentality among some wild trout anglers. The "I paid for em" argument is all too common.

Technically, if I am reading the most current regs correctly, I think the trout stamp is not required to fish in any stream that is not on the approved list, not a special reg, not a Class A, or not designated Wilderness Trout Stream.

That leaves a whole lot of streams where you can still fish as long as you throw all the trout back.

I think it used to be that you didn't need a trout stamp to fish some of those after a certain date as well.

 

[jayL]

wildtrout2 wrote:

jayL wrote:
I can see a lot of "locals" getting pretty mad that they have to pay an extra $10 to fish "their" streams.

Yes, I see where you're coming from, but the reality is these are everybody's streams, not "theirs". The lands these streams are on mostly "public" land.

I don't disagree. What I am saying is that there are an awful lot of people that feel that way, and I'd fear that they would harvest more to make up for the added cost.

I grew up in Berks county, and personally witnessed people begin to take more fish each year when license fees increased. I see no reason why this wouldn't apply to wild streams, which see more harvest than we probably realize.

 

[wildtrout2]

ryguyfi wrote:
How is it going to be regulated... are WCO's going to walk 3 miles to find someone fishing a small mountain freestoner?

The same way they do it to make sure someone has a license at all. Whatever that entails.

 

[wildtrout2]

Dave, I believe you need the trout stamp to pursue any trout. Even if your a CR fisher, you still run the risk of "killing" a trout, which I think makes that a "harvest". Which you need a stamp for. Is this not the case?

 

[mrflyfish]

I say a voluntary stamp with moneys going either to easement opportunities or habitat work (studies, other work) and the best part there is all ready a program started. Just need to work out a plan to dedicate the money to such and such program.
It would be nice if they could make up a "nice stamp" for the program and not just an image on the printed license.

 

[3wt7X]

I know it is just a "pipe dream," but it would be nice if they would use money raised from such an additional stamp to obtain more land and extend some of the access to these wild trout streams from a state owned perspective rather than a private owned. I'd pay it, but I don't think there are enough true wild trout catch and release advocates to generate a lot of funds. (Not that I'm complaining)

 

[mrflyfish]

i think the same and only attract meat hunters.

 

[tomgamber]

Land goes to the highest bidder. What land are they going to buy at what price and who are they going to outbid for it? That's a real stretch. And yes it'll be impossible to enforce and enforcement is one of their biggest problems now. Some streams have mulitple designations. One section is stocked, one section is Class A, another section might have natural reproduction but only be class B or C.

And lets just say that they suggest a 5 dollar additional stamp for wild trout streams (of which most of the ones I know are also stocked) when they ask the other 90 % of the anglers in this state whether it is a good idea you will be deafened by a resounding NO!

Personally, I would pay an additional 5 for a combination, trout/Erie/wild stamp. But good luck getting that to pass.

 

[FarmerDave]

wildtrout2 wrote:
Dave, I believe you need the trout stamp to pursue any trout. Even if your a CR fisher, you still run the risk of "killing" a trout, which I think makes that a "harvest". Which you need a stamp for. Is this not the case?

I suppose, but the same argument is used for whether or not you can fish a non-approved trout stream between Labor day and opening day. just sayin... and tht one was answered in the Q&A.

I personally would just buy the stamp.

Awhile back, I looked this up, and it appeared that you didn't need a trout stamp after some time in May for many trout streams, but apparently somebody pointed it out and the wording was changed.

 

[wildtrout2]

Tom, in my original thread post I mentioned Class A & Wilderness streams. These are NOT stocked streams. So, I guess you're answering for that deafening 90%?

 

[rrt]

I kind of go along with mrlfyfish. I would enthusiastically buy one if the money were set aside for easements on privately owned, presently publicly acessible but vulnerable wild trout streams.