Outdoor News Commentary: Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission should cut back on trout stocking

[Letort]

Think where we would be if the Fish Commission had used their funds to purchase easements and access rights to quality water for fisherman, much as the Game Comm. did with SGL.

Access to quality water is a prime issue for fisherman and will only continue to get worse.

 

[dudemanspecial]

What Tobasco Joe is asking that isn't getting answered is how much would actually be saved by cutting stocking over class A trout water? I think his point is it wouldn't put a dent in the cost of trout stocking (but would have good merits otherwise).

He has a good point. The vibe here is that they would save money. Would they?

 

[riverwhy]

I didn't say the cost of stocking doesn't matter. I said the cost of overstocking of Class A waters is insignificant to the overall stocking cost issue.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, I live in Bucks County. Philadelphia and the adjoining counties have but a few miles of class A water. Much of it inaccessible to most fishermen. The area contains about 1/3 of the state population. Why would residents of that area give up trout stocking in favor of habitat investments that would likely be outside their area? Wouldn't that be depriving a lot of people an opportunity to get into trout fishing? Some possibly becoming motivated in supporting programs like brook trout initiatives which have almost no direct impact on SE PA.

Certainly, the cost of stocking is concerning, especially with the numbers of licensees declining. I think people from areas of the state with more wild trout fishing opportunities tend to overlook the value those in other areas place on stocking.

Not sure how the rural populations would like to get their welfare trout taken but the urban areas get to keep theirs.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

What Tobasco Joe is asking that isn't getting answered is how much would actually be saved by cutting stocking over class A trout water? I think his point is it wouldn't put a dent in the cost of trout stocking (but would have good merits otherwise).

He has a good point. The vibe here is that they would save money. Would they?

No one knows. We can't put a figure on it without knowing how many fish actually go in them.

The point everyone else is making is that figure is moot. The stocking program isn't fiscally sustainable as is, why expand further class A stocking then? Do they save money by stocking class A? Is expanding that to more waters going to save money? Of course not.

FishTale (Arway) is going even further and saying we shouldn't stock wild trout water at all. I generally agree with that statement. I think rare exceptions can be made in the interest of public service but they have to be rare.

This would save a ton of monies considering that includes classes A,B, & C.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I honestly think the bottom line is this:

If you want the stocking program to continue as is then one of these, or multiples of this is likely to happen:

1) the trout stamp and/or license fees need to increase significantly on the user base to continue the current rate and program

2) continue to take large sums from taxable households of Pennsylvania via Capital Funds or some other means.

Or

1) make significant cuts to to stocking program so the stamp and/or license fees avoid increase, while keeping the stocked trout resource sustainable and manageable.

 

[dudemanspecial]

I honestly think the bottom line is this:

If you want the stocking program to continue as is then one of these, or multiples of this is likely to happen:

1) the trout stamp and/or license fees need to increase significantly on the user base to continue the current rate and program

2) continue to take large sums from taxable households of Pennsylvania via Capital Funds or some other means.

Or

1) make significant cuts to to stocking program so the stamp and/or license fees avoid increase, while keeping the stocked trout resource sustainable and manageable.

I think it likely needs to be your first and last point. I think they will probably do your first and second point.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I think it likely needs to be your first and last point. I think they will probably do your first and second point.

Likely but if they do the second, when the public starts becoming aware and then the entire mass of non fishing citizens get angry, expect the politicians to revamp the whole system anyways.

I'm honestly surprised they aren't already but they are probably distracted by their idols too much to notice

Like it or not something is going to change and drastically.

 

[Tabasco-Joe]

What Tobasco Joe is asking that isn't getting answered is how much would actually be saved by cutting stocking over class A trout water? I think his point is it wouldn't put a dent in the cost of trout stocking (but would have good merits otherwise).

He has a good point. The vibe here is that they would save money. Would they?

Glad someone comprehended what I was saying.

I knew that my posts would stir emotions of many forum members. But I posted with the hope of seeing where the discussion went. Mention stocking on this forum and you get a strong emotional reaction against it. The truth is that in most populated areas of the state we have already irreparably altered stream habitat. And stocking of these streams is the primary exposure many have to experience trout fishing.

We really are mixing two issues that the PFBC will ultimately need to address.

1. Stocking trout over class A waters. Thereby negatively impacting waters capable of sustaining wild trout populations. This is a resource issue. Not a financial issue.

2. The PFBC stocking program is currently not financially sustainable. Even if there are small cost savings due to elimination of overstocking of wild trout populations. It needs to be addressed. All levels of government are spending beyond their (our) means. We are going to need to learn to put emotions aside and make some hard decisions. Part of that process will involve a large part of the state population that doesn't have wild trout populations within easy reach.

 

[mr7183]

Glad someone comprehended what I was saying.

I knew that my posts would stir emotions of many forum members. But I posted with the hope of seeing where the discussion went. Mention stocking on this forum and you get a strong emotional reaction against it. The truth is that in most populated areas of the state we have already irreparably altered stream habitat. And stocking of these streams is the primary exposure many have to experience trout fishing.

We really are mixing two issues that the PFBC will ultimately need to address.

1. Stocking trout over class A waters. Thereby negatively impacting waters capable of sustaining wild trout populations. This is a resource issue. Not a financial issue.

2. The PFBC stocking program is currently not financially sustainable. Even if there are small cost savings due to elimination of overstocking of wild trout populations. It needs to be addressed. All levels of government are spending beyond their (our) means. We are going to need to learn to put emotions aside and make some hard decisions. Part of that process will involve a large part of the state population that doesn't have wild trout populations within easy reach.

You are correct. That is why I suggested stopping stocking on any water included in the Natural Reproduction list. If that happened it would save significant money.

 

[Cznymph]

Glad someone comprehended what I was saying.

I knew that my posts would stir emotions of many forum members. But I posted with the hope of seeing where the discussion went. Mention stocking on this forum and you get a strong emotional reaction against it. The truth is that in most populated areas of the state we have already irreparably altered stream habitat. And stocking of these streams is the primary exposure many have to experience trout fishing.

We really are mixing two issues that the PFBC will ultimately need to address.

1. Stocking trout over class A waters. Thereby negatively impacting waters capable of sustaining wild trout populations. This is a resource issue. Not a financial issue.

2. The PFBC stocking program is currently not financially sustainable. Even if there are small cost savings due to elimination of overstocking of wild trout populations. It needs to be addressed. All levels of government are spending beyond their (our) means. We are going to need to learn to put emotions aside and make some hard decisions. Part of that process will involve a large part of the state population that doesn't have wild trout populations within easy reach.

Why does everyone in the state need to have access to trout? Are the waters in those area devoid of fish?

 

[DomR]

The stocking program isn't fiscally sustainable as is, why expand further class A stocking then? Do they save money by stocking class A? Is expanding that to more waters going to save money? Of course not.

Government in general is not sustainable as they typically spend more than they take in from tax revenue. Why should this be any different? Don't go letting logic and reason guide decisions, that's not the government way!

 

[DomR]

Why does everyone in the state need to have access to trout? Are the waters in those area devoid of fish?

Is their license money less green than yours? So they should not have access to trout strictly due to the geography reason they may choose to live?
Slippery argument here that can be applied to many other programs.

 

[Cznymph]

Is their license money less green than yours? So they should not have access to trout strictly due to the geography reason they may choose to live?
Slippery argument here that can be applied to many other programs.

Why can’t I fish for shad in the Susquehanna? My license dollars are just as green as those people the live near the Delaware.

 

[mr7183]

Is their license money less green than yours? So they should not have access to trout strictly due to the geography reason they may choose to live?
Slippery argument here that can be applied to many other programs.

Though it's the arrangement today, I don't think a logical conclusion is that because someone likes to trout fish they are entitled to an artificial fishery in their backyard. The PFBC has the mandate to direct license revenues as they see fit so long as the direction is communicated transparently. In my self-serving opinion, the best strategy would be to 1) significantly increase license costs and 2) direct spending in the following areas:

• Premier stocking programs in a small subset streams that cannot support wild trout (that are geographically convenient to large population centers)
• Increased funding for stream and wild trout assessments
• Habitat improvement projects in Class B/C streams that could become Class A with some TLC
• Expansion of public waters in Class A streams.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Government in general is not sustainable as they typically spend more than they take in from tax revenue. Why should this be any different? Don't go letting logic and reason guide decisions, that's not the government way!

Because we are talking about a recreational activity in stocking, not pillars of society.

 

[troutbert]

Reducing the numbers of trout produced and stocked wouldn't solve the problem of stocking over native brook trout populations.

They could still continue stocking the same mileage of brook trout streams. Suppose a brook trout stream is currently stocked with 1000 hatchery trout, and they cut it 40% and continue stocking it with 600 hatchery trout.

How much would that benefit the brook trout population? The stream would still be stocked, which would still attract harvest-oriented fishermen who keep the native brookies along with the hatchery trout.

Regardless of how many hatchery trout are being produced, the issue of getting them off the brook trout streams still remains. I think that needs to be addressed head on.

 

[The Rodfather]

Think where we would be if the Fish Commission had used their funds to purchase easements and access rights to quality water for fisherman, much as the Game Comm. did with SGL.

Access to quality water is a prime issue for fisherman and will only continue to get worse.

This is so on point.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Reducing the numbers of trout produced and stocked wouldn't solve the problem of stocking over native brook trout populations.

They could still continue stocking the same mileage of brook trout streams. Suppose a brook trout stream is currently stocked with 1000 hatchery trout, and they cut it 40% and continue stocking it with 600 hatchery trout.

How much would that benefit the brook trout population? The stream would still be stocked, which would still attract harvest-oriented fishermen who keep the native brookies along with the hatchery trout.

Regardless of how many hatchery trout are being produced, the issue of getting them off the brook trout streams still remains. I think that needs to be addressed head on.

True.

It's both.
Stop stocking wild trout streams and stock a number of fish in the streams fit for such action with a fiscally responsible number of trout.

That's it.

 

[The Rodfather]

It's as if PFBC doesn't have 1 person on staff that took even a remedial economics class

 

[DomR]

Because we are talking about a recreational activity in stocking, not pillars of society.

PFBC is still a government entity no?

Govt is govt at any level, national, local, municipal. And "pillar of society" is probably the last phrase that'd come to my mind. More like RICO case.