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 historically 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.

 

[PennKev]

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...

This scenario assumes that a desirable lake and stream section are available at the same time and funding for some reason allows for only one choice.

We're kinda into stretching hypotheticals, but....

You (the PAFBC) should pursue any opportunity that is available if the water in question is of any quality. In fact, they should be throwing money around and seeing what sticks. If they can spend tens of millions on hatcheries a few mil every year to secure easements should be doable. If they had been spending that much on stream access for the last 25 years, we would be in really good shape. If the water in question is a lake, that's cool too.

The only problem would be this spending might incentivise posting if landowners come to expect a nice payday from the PAFBC.

 

[Bamboozle]

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?

Having funds is less than half the battle that needs to be fought to gain access, first you have to find available property along a desirable waterway and then you have to be able to afford it without doing something stupid like grossly overpaying.

I'm just guessing, but I bet there is less AVAILABLE desirable property than money...

In regards to stocking lakes, while I agree with the premise they are used by people with handicaps, etc., there's a reason why you will see WAY more anglers sitting in chairs or 5 gallon buckets at most Stocked Trout Waters...

There just happens to be a LOT of people for one reason or another who don't wade. Maybe not on FFO's or Delayed Harvest, but FOR SURE on regular Stocked Trout Waters (STW). Maybe they can't wade or they catch enough trout without the added hassle, but at the closest STW's to my home, I'm lucky if I see one or two wading anglers a season.

So I'll also go out on a limb and say there are probably MORE places to set up a chair and fish (relatively) still water on a creek from the bank than on most stocked lakes. Most of the stocked lakes I've fished in my life may have a fishing pier and some bank access, but it's usually NOT all the way around the lake.

And the lake bank fishing trout anglers know if the bucket brigade can't get to a far-off spot on the other side of the dam, it is probably a waste of time to walk way over there in the hopes of catching some trout.

So it is my unscientific opinion that the reason stocking trout in lakes is popular is less about access for the challenged, but because the lake is already a destination for warmwater fish and adding trout to the mix makes it more exciting & special for anglers that fish there.

I still remember a day over Memorial Day Weekend warm water fishing Lyman Lake for bass. If you know the lake, you know that it is hardly an ideal bank fishing impoundment with a beach, boat launch and a fishing pier on one side along with a narrow bank area anywhere from a foot or two above the water to WAY above and a far side that is a PIA to get to or fish from, let alone set up a chair on and relax.

But this day (and I am taking the holiday weekend into consideration) there were one or two guys on the floating pier catching trout and WHOLE lot of other folks lined up on the bank catching other stuff and hoping for a trout. It was nice to see the enthusiasm.

I also remember a day on small pond in the Poconos that got stocked once or twice with trout by the town. I fished this pond often, but always for bass or sunfish. One day I unexpectedly caught a couple of trout which was pretty cool in my book.

Still water fishing for trout isn't my thing, but that experience changed my appreciation and the way I approached fishing that pond going forward.

 

[Mike]

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.

Following a one of the statewide trout angler telephone surveys the lentic (lake) vs lotic (flowing water) allocations were set up to match angler preferences. Seventy percent of Pa stocked trout anglers preferred fishing streams and 30 percent preferred lakes, thus catchable trout production was allocated accordingly. Of course there were anglers who fished both, such as me, but that was a fairly low percentage as I recall; I know it was much lower than I expected. It wouldn’t surprise me if the present day differential regarding trout allocation is somewhat similar, but varies from the original percentages.

 

[CRB]

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) received a historic $76 million in state capital funding to execute an extensive, multi-year $93 million hatchery capital improvement project.

I am inclined to view the matter somewhat differently.

This money is bond issue and the State has to go about it this way because that is how our state works.
Being a bond the repayment can go both ways payed back by the commission or out right by the State treasury.
Most of that money is going toward hatcheries in NWPA where economic impact studies show the positive impact these funds will make into the local economy.
This money is fully supported by the elected officials in the area.
IMHO the PAFBC will never be left with no money in there coffers.
Look to the PA Turnpike commission which is out of money building the extensions of the turnpike in SWPA and the Big cut to bypass the Allegany Tunnel.
Moneys will be found.

 

[flyguyfishing]

Senate Bill 915 was a massive Capital Budget Project Itenmizatin Act for 2021-2022. It was sponsored by Patrick Browne, who was the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. It was his job to introduce capital improvement bill itemization. In PA, before the itemized bill can be submitted, the Governor has to establish the overall capital budget boundaries, in 21-22, it was House Bill 2008. House Bill 2008 was passed and set the maximum capital project debt at $1.01 billion. House Bill 2008 was approved in the house with a 200-1 vote. It was passed in the senate with a 50-0 vote.

Senate Bill 915 funded capital improvements for museums, theaters, stadiums, industial parks, business plazas, downtown revitalization projects, state university funding, state correctional, state parks, state forest, state building improvements, and transportation assistance projects. It was passed in the State Senate by 50-0 vote. It passed the House by a 201-0 vote. It was signed into law by Gov Tom Wolf. Before voting, during the session to vote on it, there was no discussion on hatcheries.

It was funded by General Obligation Bonds. Eventually, the state needs to repay those bonds, which comes from the General Fund. The General Fund is heavily funded by taxpayer money.

2021-2022 was a unique year. The commonwealth received $7.3 billion from the American Rescue Plan Act. Out of that, the commonwealth used $4.6 billion to cover everyday operating costs to fund the government. By using federal ARPA money to pay for basic operations, the commonwealth had a budget surplus. This surplus allowed the state government to aggressively fake on new long-term capital bond debt without creating a deficit or need to raise taxes. Federal COVID money did not pay for the capital improvements; however, COVID money made it possible because it created the surplus. Without COVID money, it is extremely unlikely senate Bill 915 would have passed (or even introduced)...because not enough money,

The Bellefonte State Hatchery (trout, Huntsale State Fish Hatchery (trout, Oswayo State Fish Hatchery (trout), Fairview State Hatchery (steelhead), and Linesyille State Hatchery (Musky, Walleye, and largemouth) are being upgraded because of Senate Bill 915. The Bellefonte, Huntsdale, and Oswayo hatcheries seem to be getting the most renovations but I could not find costs of any specific hatchery project; it seems the bidding process is just getting started.

I hope this post is not considered political. I did not give any opinions regarding my thoughts on any of it. This is based on publicily available reports and reporting facts. My intention is to give more details about where/how/why the hatchery money upgrades were funded and the circumstances at the time.


Bringing this into access issue, it is my understanding that the $76mil could not have gone towards purchasing land, but I could not find a source that specifically stated this.

 

[Mike]

Flyfishing guy,
Thank you for doing the research and taking the time to write up that educational narrative.
Mike

 

[Mikey2006]

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.

Man made lakes are just about as natural as warm water streams when it comes to trout environment. And in a case where a warm water stream technically could mimic a natural trout environment during colder times of the year, there’s like a 99% chance that brown trout already exist there in some capacity.

For the people who would say that invasive browns aren’t much better than stocked fish, the same applies to native brookies as well. The brookies should be using those downstream marginal areas during the same times when stocked fish are dumped in every late winter/early spring.

Artificial lakes are the ideal place to create a fake fishery. Then at least there are no consequences to an actual natural environment, not only wild trout but also to all the other native species as well