PFBC Meeting regarding proposed fee increases - Friday June 10 2022

[silverfox]

The agenda for the commission meeting tomorrow to discuss fee increases.

https://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/MinutesAgendas/Documents/agendasDocs/2022-06-10-SpecialMtg-agd.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1zvE_Z9UteBRcFj9QrITcfG2hZ-KEgO-SHpT8rValRP5-7pZTKbfw9-V0

Announcement:

Home

Home

www.media.pa.gov

The meeting will be live-streamed on Facebook: Facebook.com/pafishandboat

I'll abstain from any commentary...

 

[tomgamber]

Still a bargain.

 

[bigjohn358]

I'll gladly pay more as long as us the anglers can see where the money is going...and not just more stocked trout

 

[DomR]

Geez, $65.50 for a non-resident license. Barely can go for appetizers and beers for less. As stated above, still cheap relative to most other endeavors.

 

[Fish Sticks]

65$ is cheap ~13 million dollars for stocked trout is not, can barey get beer and appetizers for the amount of money that the voluntary wild trout stamp kicked towards our struggling state fish as an afterthought to the hatchery program.

 

[goose54cdd]

I think we need an increase after all of the these years. I'm okay with it.

 

[wildtrout2]

I'm fine with an increase. Especially since I've got my Lifetime Senior License along with 5 years of the Trout Permit. Either way, it's always been some of my best spent money.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Id pay $1000 annually if they would actually make a net positive impact for our our species of greatest conservation need instead of just running a commercial scale aquaculture program with invasive species.

 

[tomgamber]

Fishsticks, i don't think anyone on here disagrees with your motives. You just refuse to understand that no matter how many times you say it over and over and over, we are the minority. Period. Majority rules. You're just preaching to the choir. You need to find a good bait dunkin', cook em up feeshin' site to spin your tales of blue spotted unicorns and unpolluted water. I wish ya luck.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I can tell ya all about standing in front of multiple organizations that stock for private put and take that I’ve never met before in my life and trying to kindly educate them their stocking of invasive trout species that harm the ecosystems they stock in. Its not unique to any demographic. Death, taxes, and Fishsticks.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

You could get some folks riled up on huntingpa.com

 

[silverfox]

You could get some folks riled up on huntingpa.com

The bottom line is that whether it’s a fly fishing forum, a general angling forum, or in person at angling club meetings, it’s little more than venting about esoteric issues. You can quote scientific studies, point to what other states are doing, or make water-tight logical arguments, but unless the state agency in charge of the resources changes its approach, it’s all little more than screaming at a wall.

 

[tomgamber]

No its not. They don't spend a lot of time getting meaningful input here. Why? We represent a tiny portion of the revenue. PAFBC isn't your target. License buyers are. Otherwise you're just j@#%in' @ff.

 

[silverfox]

No its not. They don't spend a lot of time getting meaningful input here. Why? We represent a tiny portion of the revenue. PAFBC isn't your target. License buyers are. Otherwise you're just j@#%in' @ff.

When Maryland implemented statewide regs for brook trout, it wasn’t because the majority of anglers demanded it.

 

[tomgamber]

You need to stop trying to compare MD to PA. They have almost nothing in common beyond a dotted line on a map.

 

[silverfox]

You need to stop trying to compare MD to PA. They have almost nothing in common beyond a dotted line on a map.

Except fisheries management is supposed to function the same way. How about NJ? NY? VA? WV? They've all done far more for brook trout. You're right though, we have very little in common. Especially when it comes to fisheries management.

 

[Fish Sticks]

No its not. They don't spend a lot of time getting meaningful input here. Why? We represent a tiny portion of the revenue. PAFBC isn't your target. License buyers are. Otherwise you're just j@#%in' @ff.

I haven’t gone blind yet Tom. If “the choir” was a little more organized and vocal we could probably get a small win or two for native fish species. Alot of this is perception of visibility. If the commission thinks no one knows their ignoring hellbender experts warnings about dangerous stocking behavior or that their stocking and invasive carnivore over threatened log perch that are left in like 6 streams on planet earth, they fee more comfortable doing it.

 

[silverfox]

On topic, there's little to no mention of reductions in expenditures in this agenda for the fee increase. Usually, when you're faced with a budget imbalance, you look at expense reductions and possibly in conjunction with ways to increase revenue. What I (and others) have been begging for (stop stocking over native brook trout) would be a reduction in expenses. Instead of that though, we'll get a fee increase and nothing will change. So I'll pay more to support the continued stocking over native brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

On topic, there's little to no mention of reductions in expenditures in this agenda for the fee increase. Usually, when you're faced with a budget imbalance, you look at expense reductions and possibly in conjunction with ways to increase revenue. What I (and others) have been begging for (stop stocking over native brook trout) would be a reduction in expenses. Instead of that though, we'll get a fee increase and nothing will change. So I'll pay more to support the continued stocking over native brook trout.

Does PAFB have to answer to the auditor general or state treasurer if their doing something fiscally unsustainable/risky(like no cutting expenditures and running low reserves) or operating counter to their stated purpose(resource first). A.K.A would investigation of waste fraud and abuse be only in hands of the house and senate fish and game committees or do these other people have any regulatory authority? I know for federal money waste, fraud, and abuse is pursued a lot more aggressively. Is Dingle Johnson excise tax money federal?

 

[silverfox]

Does PAFB have to answer to the auditor general or state treasurer if their doing something fiscally unsustainable/risky(like no cutting expenditures and running low reserves) or operating counter to their stated purpose(resource first). A.K.A would investigation of waste fraud and abuse be only in hands of the house and senate fish and game committees or do these other people have any regulatory authority? I know for federal money waste, fraud, and abuse is pursued a lot more aggressively. Is Dingle Johnson excise tax money federal?

Yes, but it would require the oversight to understand the issues beyond accounting. The last audit I read never mentioned the fact that fish reproduce in the wild once. Not even a hint that the "product" can be self-sustaining with little to no human intervention. It was all revenue/expenses and how to increase revenue. The expense side was billed as "they've done everything they can to reduce expenditures".

This will continue to be a tug of war between rising costs of fish production and limited ability to increase fee and permit costs. There's a point at which you can no longer raise the license cost without severely reducing the number of buyers. In the meeting proceeding today's meeting they had projected loss of buyers based on certain fee hikes. Not everyone is fanatical anglers like us. While we're happy to pay whatever the cost, there's a strong contingent of license buyers who won't.

Trout manufacturing will continue to cost more and more money because it's strongly tied to private sector production costs (labor, fuel, utilities, infrastructure repair/upgrade costs, supplies etc.). Reduction in trout production seems to be completely off the table. Even in this agenda, the threat is that they'll be unable to expand "programs" or cut "programs" that "benefit anglers". I'd bet money those cuts and stalled expansions have nothing to do with trout produciton.