PA Stream Access and PFBC Budget Woes

[Bamboozle]

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...

 

[riverwhy]

I guess those state park lakes with Brookie feeders get all rainbows now?

 

[FisherOfMen]

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

 

[SBecker]

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.

 

[FisherOfMen]

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.

I wouldn't say i enjoy it.
Im genuinely confused by the two scenarios presented above.

 

[FisherOfMen]

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?

 

[SBecker]

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?

 

[FisherOfMen]

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?

Well this is what was said:

"And people with disabilities, limited mobility and children and families should not be able to fish? "

So they were all lumped together as not being able to fish with out the lake.
No one's arguing but you Shane. It was a genuine observation or question.

If I peed in your wheaties or something just get another bowl.

 

[RLeep2]

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 couldn't break down the specifics, but I'm sure a pretty good chunk of the money comes from partnerships, both with NGO's like conservancies, etc. as well as private sector partners, often companies that are in the extraction business. Some also comes from fines and other legal settlements. Back 25-plus years ago, I took CWA standing in a pollution case on the Allegheny. The court fined the company involved 250K, all of which was earmarked for remediation and enhancement of waters in the Allegheny drainage. This was in 1997. That 250K back then translates to about 520K in today's dollars.

Point is, there are a lot of sources of the money in question here..

 

[PennKev]

I wouldn't say i enjoy it.
Im genuinely confused by the two scenarios presented ababove.

Lakes are used by people with handicaps.
They are used by a lot of other people who prefer their stocked trout to come out of non-moving water. A non-zero number of both groups would fish streams if that was the only option.

 

[FisherOfMen]

I couldn't break down the specifics, but I'm sure a pretty good chunk of the money comes from partnerships, both with NGO's like conservancies, etc. as well as private sector partners, often companies that are in the extraction business. Some also comes from fines and other legal settlements. Back 25-plus years ago, I took CWA standing in a pollution case on the Allegheny. The court fined the company involved 250K, all of which was earmarked for remediation and enhancement of waters in the Allegheny drainage. This was in 1997. That 250K back then translates to about 520K in today's dollars.

Point is, there are a lot of sources of the money in question here..

So you're saying the PFBC could acquire funds from those types of earmarks for fishing access?

 

[FisherOfMen]

Lakes are used by people with handicaps.
They are used by a lot of other people who prefer their stocked trout to come out of non-moving water. A non-zero number of both groups would fish streams if that was the only option.

Thats kind of what I figured too.
I honestly think they should take a good number of streams off the stocking list and stock more lakes. It more sense than what happens now.

 

[jifigz]

I personally think they should stop stocking lakes. It’s not a natural environment for trout. Use those dollars to better stock top streams and buy more access.

Really? So all of those brook trout that classically inhabited the ponds/lakes of the ADK, Maine, etc - those weren't natural? Or the cutties that lived in Lake Tahoe?

Trout absolutely naturally inhabit lakes across their range. Yes, they aren't natural to our PA reservoirs, but......so what? I am all for the stocking of many of our lakes with trout, as long as it is done in a financially stable manner.