PA Stream Access and PFBC Budget Woes

Acquiring access is relative to finding an opportunity...

I happen to be in favor of grabbing the opportunity if it becomes available and has merit, regardless of whether it benefits me directly or the kind of fishing I favor and do most often.

Just wondering...

If the PFBC had the opportunity to acquire property on a section of a Stocked Trout Water or lake to either protect access going forward or reestablish stocking of a section or lake lost to landowner posting...

Would you be "fer or agin?"

If you are "agin;" should the PFBC to only bother acquiring access on wild trout streams or places where there is NO stocking and does that include species other than trout??

Again, just wondering...
 
I guess those state park lakes with Brookie feeders get all rainbows now?
 
Im confused....

People that cant fish streams for a variety of reasons need lakes stocked so the have a place to fish. But if we dont stock them, then they will over run and crowd the streams. So do they need the lakes or not?
BTW, I think lakes are a good place to stock.

Use the funds saved by not stocking or highly limiting stocking to buy access then buy access to reestablish stocking. It won't take an eternity for that Ouroboros to devour itself again.
Stocking is the budget woe.
Access can be fixed by fixing the budget woe
 
Im confused....

People that cant fish streams for a variety of reasons need lakes stocked so the have a place to fish. But if we dont stock them, then they will over run and crowd the streams. So do they need the lakes or not?
BTW, I think lakes are a good place to stock.

Use the funds saved by not stocking or highly limiting stocking to buy access then buy access to reestablish stocking. It won't take an eternity for that Ouroboros to devour itself again.
Stocking is the budget woe.
Access can be fixed by fixing the budget woe

I have read most of this thread and I feel like of all the posters, you enjoy twisting words to fit whatever argument you want to make. You should be a politician.
 
Acquiring access is relative to finding an opportunity...

I happen to be in favor of grabbing the opportunity if it becomes available and has merit, regardless of whether it benefits me directly or the kind of fishing I favor and do most often.

Just wondering...

If the PFBC had the opportunity to acquire property on a section of a Stocked Trout Water or lake to either protect access going forward or reestablish stocking of a section or lake lost to landowner posting...

Would you be "fer or agin?"

If you are "agin;" should the PFBC to only bother acquiring access on wild trout streams or places where there is NO stocking and does that include species other than trout??

Again, just wondering...
To try to answer your question. I would be for any access gained. Stocked trout, smallmouth, anything. It should have been a major focus 50 years ago and on.

I just want to know if not from fixing the budget woe (the hatchery system), where does this money come from?

Opportunities are all over. Money talks and there is a reason the industries have been able to make large acquisitions of land. Money. Generally speaking, fishing access is much cheaper and i doubt the CAP program could fund a large scale access campaign alone.

Where does the money come from for it?
 
I wouldn't say i enjoy it.
Im genuinely confused by the two scenarios presented above.
You can clearly understand that lakes benefit anglers with a disability. You can also separate the fact that there are anglers that do not have a disability, that if the option would be taken away, would start fishing streams. This really is not a hard concept, but such you feel the need to argue, maybe it is?
 
Back
Top