PFBC - slice of gas tax

[wgmiller]

Seems fair to me; hopefully they get some of the money:

http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/278847

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

The Fish and Boat Commission is now using money from fees for fishing and boating licenses for the monitoring of drilling activities.

It's not enough, he said.

The Fish and Boat Commission is now using money from fees for fishing and boating licenses for the monitoring of drilling activities. It's not enough, he said. "And it's not fair," said Bob Bachman of West Cocalico Township, who represents Lancaster and surrounding counties on the Fish and Boat Commission's board of directors. "Our officers are on the front lines of protecting the water all of us need in this state, but it's the fishermen who are paying the bill."

What i would like to know is what does this mean for the stocking program? Are they going to stock even less now than they already do?

I hope so.

Time to stop stocking some of our good wild trout streams. This is the perfect excuse to cut back John. Use it.

Either way im glad they are worried. Im glad they are now trying to band anglers together. We all need to monitor the drilling.

 

[osprey]

I don't think the stocking program should be cut back , I think it's more a realignment that's needed. Stop putting stockers in waters that have good natural reproduction and put the stockers in the marginal waters where little or no natural reproduction goes on. The price of a license isn't going to go down. Unless you are hard core into fly fishing and catching wild trout means more to you than catching a bunch of fat stockies , a fisher probably not devote a day to go where they have to use barbless flies , return everything to the water and have to really work to catch what most consider to be trout that are on the small side. My program would make more of our waters "Special Regs" , although calling them that bugs me , lets go with "wild trout waters" and put the trout that went into those waters in the marginal streams where the angler who just wants to catch some trout can go and not disrupt the folks who are willing to work a little to catch some wild trout.....or something like that.

 

[jayL]

I feel that stocking needs to be increased, but they need to concentrate on lakes, ponds, and streams devoid of trout reproduction.

 

[RyanR]

jayL wrote:
I feel that stocking needs to be increased, but they need to concentrate on lakes, ponds, and streams devoid of trout reproduction.

It doesn't need to be increased rather the priority only needs to be shifted to better maximize the stocking program by stocking ONLY waters that do not support self-sustaining wild trout populations. That's the best way to protect the wild trout resource (remember the mission statement is now Resource First when it comes to managing waterways) AND put a maximum # of trout into streams, lakes and ponds that do not support wild trout populations- especially with the continuing funding crunch. Arway is a resource first man and a wild trout aficianado, I think under his leadership the PFBC will make more strides in that direction. Its really the most efficient & fiscally responsible way to utilize the stocking program money. Why stock streams that have proven self-sustaining wild trout populations? Just because the stream "has always been stocked" is no longer an acceptable reason IMO.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

RyanR, my sentiments exactly. Good post! I think alot more flyfisherman feel the same way as you and I.

 

[jayL]

RyanR wrote:

jayL wrote:
I feel that stocking needs to be increased, but they need to concentrate on lakes, ponds, and streams devoid of trout reproduction.

It doesn't need to be increased rather the priority only needs to be shifted to better maximize the stocking program by stocking ONLY waters that do not support self-sustaining wild trout populations. That's the best way to protect the wild trout resource (remember the mission statement is now Resource First when it comes to managing waterways) AND put a maximum # of trout into streams, lakes and ponds that do not support wild trout populations- especially with the continuing funding crunch. Arway is a resource first man and a wild trout aficianado, I think under his leadership the PFBC will make more strides in that direction. Its really the most efficient & fiscally responsible way to utilize the stocking program money. Why stock streams that have proven self-sustaining wild trout populations? Just because the stream "has always been stocked" is no longer an acceptable reason IMO.

I say it should be increased as a method of mitigating the public outcry. I think it's reasonable.

I want the same end result as you, but I feel that increasing the number of fish will be a nice bit of sugar to sweeten the medicine.

 

[franklin]

No mention of any revenue coming their way due to gas leases on state owned land. Several state agencies should be getting a slice of that as well.

 

[RyanR]

WildTigerTrout wrote:
RyanR, my sentiments exactly. Good post! I think alot more flyfisherman feel the same way as you and I.

Thank you, sir.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

Your welcome. I can't understand the logic involved.Stocking hatchery trout over "Wild" trout makes no sense to me. Anybody else out there feel the same as myself and RyanR?

 

[jayL]

A vast majority of posters here.

 

[Acristickid]

Think this sentiment is becoming more widely accepted. But some stream is going to have to suffer these problems due to political reasons. Some can be saved but you cant save them all.

Would'nt want to be the WCO who has to tell about of landowners/cabing/camp owners who have been fishing a specific stream for decades that it will no longer be stocked. Guess what, it will be posted by the end of the week and still got stocked by locals anyway. "I been fishing this same hole with my uncle and my brother for 34 years." blah blah blah

 

[trowpa]

Just putting up a straw man (i know this will be ripped apart) - but why not stock ONLY marginal waters that can't support reproductive populations, then sell two different licenses:

1. Stocked fishing license (more expensive - as this money goes towards the stocking) Allows you to fish marginal waters, lakes, etc with no wild fish. Stock the #$## of these waters and let the catch and keep anglers have at it.

2. Wild fish only license (cheaper as these licenses would not have money going towards stocking, but only enforcement, conservation, etc). Anglers with this license cannot keep any trout.

Then the stocked marginal waters you can keep your 5 a day and not harm anything.

But all waters that can support natural reproducing populations will be STRICTLY catch and release all year.

Only two different rules to remember. streams are either stocked or not stocked.

 

[trowpa]

acristickid wrote:
Would want to be the WCO who has to tell about of landowners/cabing/camp owners who have been fishing a specific stream for decades that it will no longer be stocked.

OOOOH OOOOH! ME! ME!!! (waves hand)

Would be a happy day indeed. And if i were the landowner - to hear that "my" stream was considered well enough to support wild fish and will be converted to a catch and release wild trout stream would thrill me.

I'd tell them, if you want to eat trout, here are the directions to your local wegmans.... buy some farm raised fish there, cook them up for dinner and enjoy. And then after dinner - catch and release some beautiful wild fish from "your stream".

 

[Acristickid]

trowpa- that's going to mean tons of posted waters.

 

[trowpa]

acristickid wrote:
trowpa- that's going to mean tons of posted waters.

You sure? Seems to me, if i were a landowner and was faced with two choices

1. stocked catch and keep regulations
2. wild - catch and release regulations


I'd rather have people on my property catching and releasing than catching and keeping, so i'd be more apt to post my land to prevent the catch and kill anglers than to prevent the catch and release anglers.

 

[jayL]

Agreed. Many, many miles of stream are just open due to stocking. The landowners see it as a trade-off. If the state isn't going to stock, why should they leave the land open?

I obviously know why they should, but imagine how the average landowner will feel.

Keep in mind that the average pennsylvanian knows nothing about wild trout. Also keep in mind that many harvest-minded anglers don't care much for "dinks". Your average angler is of that mold.

 

[Acristickid]

trowpa- share your thought on the subject but now we need to get fat uncle Pat to get off his bait bucket, and granpa Jim who makes the really great camp hotcakes- to come around - which they wont.

Wish each county had a couple ponds or ditch where the commish would just dump in some fish every week to satify the meat heads. They would really like it, accept they cant carry on a new tradition.

 

[jayL]

As someone that grew up on the tradition of fishing for stocked trout (in a wild trout stream) on opening day, I am sorry to say that I think Paul's right.

 

[afishinado]

Keep my Uncle Pat and Grandpap out of it!

Paul, drinking too much of that "heavy water?" ;-)