Bill Authorizing Fish & Boat Commission To Set Own Fees
- Thread starter afishinado
- Start date
CRB
Well-known member
Very true.
I have no desire to "starve" PFBC for funds, however, my idea of how monies should be allocated and spent is much different than how they currently allocate and spend. For example, the majority of the budget (less pension funds) is spent on non-sustainable fishies via hatchery programs. This money spent does absolutely nothing to improve or create self-sustaining fisheries, it's basically money flushed down the drain after the heathens fish the opening weekend and get their limit.
Same goes for the Steelhead program in Erie. If you've fished it in recent years you will understand what I giant waste of money the program is. It's become a fishery for jack-sized fish that is overcrowded and full of more outlaws than the wild west. Unless the commission is willing to revisit the creel limits and direct more money towards enforcement in this area it's a lost cause and a giant waste of monies. Again, less money on the hatchery program and more on enforcement would be a much better solution than just throwing more money into a poorly operated program that doesn't allow fish the opportunity to return to the streams multiple times.
And then the issue of stocking over class A and borderline class A streams. How many dollars are spent on this and why? I think we can mostly agree that these streams would be better off if the PFBC managed them as sustainable wild trout fisheries and ceased the stocking of them.
So, I guess my point is that instead of assuming the problem is an income problem, perhaps we should consider that it's a spending problem? I'd love to see a proposed budget that puts more emphasis on improving/expanding sustainable fisheries and less on the hatchery program. A good start would be looking at how much money can be saved by eliminating the stocking over wild populations and lowering creel limits to reduce in-season stockings.
Due to the revenue freeze for the last 15 years, some hatchery maintenance and improvements have been held off.
But I agree, too high of a percentage of the license fees are spent on stocking trout. Perhaps a hatchery may need to be closed to save funds to be used in other areas.
The problem is trout stocking program is very near and dear to many license-buying anglers. But, judging from all I see from the PFBC, they continue to promote the stocking program first and foremost, even though costs are escalating and becoming more and more of a budget buster. To make up for this shortfall, less and less can be spent on other worthy projects to improve all types of fishing and access for anglers.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
When license sales generate revenue which is used to operate the program, the goal becomes license sales. The stocked fish prop up license sales, so that gets priority. Arguably, if you eliminated stocking, license sales would decrease, but so would expenses. The reason they stock fish is to promote the sport and generate revenue, but it's to continue the operation at the current level. If the net result is positive cashflow (or breaking even), should it matter whether it's with $5.5 million in revenue and $5 million in expenses or or $505,000 in revenue and $500,000 in expenses?
This is kind of the problem with the PAFBC operating more like a self funded business. The focus becomes keeping the business running rather than the environment, fish or anything else. I hate to say that, but it's true. From a biology standpoint, there can't be any positive outcome from stocking 5lb brown trout in a stream full of naturally occuring brook trout. That's exactly what they do though, so that should tell you where the priorities are.
Right now, they need to keep stocking to generate enough revenue to support the entire operation. What will be interesting is at what point the general public stops buying licenses due to cost regardless of the quantity of stockers available in April.
I fully support the PAFBC and I know there are a lot of passionate people who work there who do put the environment and fish/biology above all else. At the same time, I believe the current/historical approach is fundamentally, inherently flawed.
This is kind of the problem with the PAFBC operating more like a self funded business. The focus becomes keeping the business running rather than the environment, fish or anything else. I hate to say that, but it's true. From a biology standpoint, there can't be any positive outcome from stocking 5lb brown trout in a stream full of naturally occuring brook trout. That's exactly what they do though, so that should tell you where the priorities are.
Right now, they need to keep stocking to generate enough revenue to support the entire operation. What will be interesting is at what point the general public stops buying licenses due to cost regardless of the quantity of stockers available in April.
I fully support the PAFBC and I know there are a lot of passionate people who work there who do put the environment and fish/biology above all else. At the same time, I believe the current/historical approach is fundamentally, inherently flawed.
I will say that the state trout stocking program has been cut down over the past several years. Near my place they once stocked three times a year with 15 buckets of trout now its twice a year with 3-4 buckets of trout and I know its caused sleepless nights for the guys that like to fill their freezers with trout. Maybe its just time to quit stocking some streams where local sportsman clubs and landowners stock.
Ron
Ron
Unfortunately, sportsman clubs do way more harm than good in many instances. The PFBC funds many of these through the Co-Op Nursery program, however, they aren't able to provide adequate oversight and as a result, many clubs do whatever the hell they want when it comes to the stocking of these fish. If you ever saw the video of the Penn's Creek section 5 meeting the PFBC did you will hear the Union County Sportsman nursery guy admit to buying fingerling trout and stocking them into Penn's Creek knowing that this was illegal. Sportsman Clubs have ruined many wonderful wild trout streams in the state with their complete disregard to regulations. Young Women's Creek is a prime example and one that really hits a nerve with me.
^ No doubt true. While many clubs and co-ops play by the rules and do a service for all anglers, there are clubs that disregard the rules and do harm to wild trout streams. Oversight of all private stocking should be a priority for the PFBC.
We have two of the best trout fisheries in the east: the superb limestone streams in the middle of the state and a still great freestone fishery in the north-central section. Since Operation Future and the cessation of stocking in many of our better streams, wild trout fishing has just gotten better and better. The Clean Air Act made many freestone streams again able to support brook trout. Now that the pH has gone up a bit, those that are not being stocked are coming back big time. I know because I’m still fishing them as i approach 83. Why stock perfectly good trout streams? It just doesn’t make sense. Put them somewhere they are truly needed in order to provide a trout fishery. We can’t afford to do it the same way we have been for the last 100 years.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,267
Amen.
The problem isn't primarily rule-breaking.
The coops have permission to stock wild trout streams, including streams with native brook trout populations, so long as they are not Class A streams. And about 90% of wild trout streams have populations that fall into the categories of Class B, C, or D.
The PFBC does the same thing. A large percentage of their stocking is done in wild trout streams, including streams with native brook trout.
So, both the PFBC and the coops routinely stock over native brook trout populations, on hundreds of miles of stream, totally within the rules.
Mike -
I am not sure what would be needed to have the state stop the stocking of fish where local clubs currently stock. I'm sure it would require some bureaucratic committees and talking points to figure it out so the 'freezer fisherman' don't get too upset.
Ron
I am not sure what would be needed to have the state stop the stocking of fish where local clubs currently stock. I'm sure it would require some bureaucratic committees and talking points to figure it out so the 'freezer fisherman' don't get too upset.
Ron
You can't judge the overall numbers of trout the PFBC stocks by the changes you see on one stretch of stream.
The PFBC publishes the numbers of hatchery trout they produce each year.
WHERE the trout are stocked can shift though, for various reasons. I don't know the situation on your local stream stretch.
But in some cases in stretches where the access isn't so good (parking limitations and scattered posting) the number of trout stocked gets reduced.
Also, some of stream stretches with good wild trout populations have had the numbers of stocked trout reduced.
On the flip side, you have places like the Bennett Branch of the Sinnemahoning near Benezette which previously got no stocked trout because it was "red and dead" from mine drainage. Now that has been cleaned up, and it is now stocked.
I think these shifts make perfect sense.
I can't judge the stocking statewide but Fishing Creek (Columbia County) is one of the most popular creeks in the state and the stocking has significantly declined over the years. It may have declined due to the local Benton club stocking and also some landowners.
Ron
Ron
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Well, it first has to go through the Senate process. Subcommittee, then full vote. If it passes that it will be law and then the PAFBC sets the new fee structure, which then goes through public comment, commission reviews, submitted to committees and can still be shot down by the general assembly etc. etc. etc.
Could be a while.
mt_flyfisher
Well-known member
On the subject of trout stocking, etc., for those of you that may not be familiar with what was done in Montana (which has pretty decent trout fishing, by the way) you might be interested in this brief article:
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/****Vincent.htm
There are very few streams and rivers in Montana that are stocked with trout, and most of the stocking that is done there now is a primarily in lakes or reservoirs. In addition, enforcement of environmental regulations have also resulted in closure of a number of private hatcheries across the state there in the past several years.
On a related, but somewhat different subject, how is it that PA is the only state in the entire country that can operate more effectively (more economically) with separate fish and game commissions?
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/****Vincent.htm
There are very few streams and rivers in Montana that are stocked with trout, and most of the stocking that is done there now is a primarily in lakes or reservoirs. In addition, enforcement of environmental regulations have also resulted in closure of a number of private hatcheries across the state there in the past several years.
On a related, but somewhat different subject, how is it that PA is the only state in the entire country that can operate more effectively (more economically) with separate fish and game commissions?
