bigjohn358
Well-known member
Gotta have the dashes between your phone numbers...mine went through after that
wildtrout2
Well-known member
For whatever reason, mine went through without having the dashes in my phone number. Seems to have a mind of it's own.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
One of the universes great mysteries lol
Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,234
Done
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Note that the deadline for public comment has been extended to 9/17/22 and a fisheries and hatcheries committee meeting is scheduled for 9/28/22 at 1 PM at the Harrisburg headquarters.
www.media.pa.gov
Fish and Boat Commission Details
www.media.pa.gov
R
riverwhy
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 541
Submitted!
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I can’t believe a lot of the fear mongering I am seeing predicting the end of days for fishing as we know it from commercial hatcheries and clubs despite the fact PA being the only state left in the northeast without a stocking auth. The sky hasn’t fallen and fishing is alive and well in those states.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
The act of writing a waybill for a truckload of fish is being referred to as an unmanageable burden and overreach of authority. This is what happens when we allow things to continue unchecked for so long. Simple acts to benefit the resources become unfathomable.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,421
Perhaps it’s simpler than that; maybe it’s just bad timing as businesses have staff shortages on top of trying to recover from the Covid restrictions.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Oh, I'm sure it's based on the reluctance to add ANY steps to their sales-side process due to any number of reasons, but I'm just challenging the characterization of the proposed additional steps as being "unworkable" in their current form. I personally think that's driven by the historical laissez-faire attitude toward the private raising and stocking fish.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I agree its very hard if not impossible to point to something that has been implemented in every other state in the northeast I believe and say its is unworkable.
I agree its all motivated by $
I don’t think when it comes to diseases and harmful stocking that the commonwealth can argue the financial health of these hatcheries are our problem in the setting of gill lice and rampant uncontrolled stocking of AIS.
The irony that the slate run brown trout club is complaining about this proposed regulation when they are one of the most egregious example of stocking over high quality native brook trout populations is mind numbingly painful. Just shows where we are now culture when ya cross into PA.
I agree its all motivated by $
I don’t think when it comes to diseases and harmful stocking that the commonwealth can argue the financial health of these hatcheries are our problem in the setting of gill lice and rampant uncontrolled stocking of AIS.
The irony that the slate run brown trout club is complaining about this proposed regulation when they are one of the most egregious example of stocking over high quality native brook trout populations is mind numbingly painful. Just shows where we are now culture when ya cross into PA.
Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,234
I was wondering, no sarcastically and no pun intended, what the revenue streams of the PAFBC are. License sales, of course. But don't they get income from sales tax on fishing items (rods, lures and such)?
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Correct the dingle johnson excise tax I believe. Also they have used growing greener grant money in the past before to clean up hatchery effluents. This was mentioned in a 2009 document detailing their expenditures on the hatchery program at just short of 13 million on 8-9 million stockers(counting adult, fingerlings, cream-sickle freak show skid marks in natures underpants, and trophy trout)
Only problem is their expenses with gas, cost of the fish pellets, and other expenses are growing at an unsustainable rate compared to license sales. So to sustain the current angler expectations and hatchery barrage of aquatic invasive species license fees have to increase for the individual purchaser to keep the circus going. Id pay alot more personally but to fund the resource not stocking rubber bricks.
I think Trout Hatchery program is second largest expenditure at commission. Its been a little while since I read on that. Can anyone confirm on that last statement?
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,421
Note: There is still time to comment as the comment period had been extended to Sept 17.
I would guess that by extending the comment period by another thirty days the agency is hoping for additional comments from those who have not previously commented.
I would guess that by extending the comment period by another thirty days the agency is hoping for additional comments from those who have not previously commented.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Based on the information provided during the fisheries and hatcheries committee meeting, supporters of this initiative had a terrible turnout in the public comment statistics.
bigjohn358
Well-known member
That's sad...I submitted my survey and I know my brother did as well. It shows you how far we have to go in educating anglers. Flathead anglers seem to love those things. I just can't do the sit and wait with bait fishing anymore. To me thats boring no matter how large the fish are. Stocked trout are king in this state and I don't feel there is much changing that. The PFBC has to do a better job of educating the average angler about the importance of wild/native species. They just do what promotes license sales for the most part.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
To be fair, it sounds like there were a lot of "can letter" responses spurred by alarmism from the hatchery industry. They're used to doing whatever they want for the most part, so any form of control now will be a shock, and they'll respond in kind.
All of that gets to your point that people have become trained to value certain types of fish in this state. When you look at what the state fisheries agency is pumping out in promotional material, it's almost entirely promoting stocked trout. The state boasts about the number of stocked trout they produce and release yearly, and now we expect people to understand why it needs to be reigned in. Same with the hatcheries. It's been the wild west of fish production and distribution here for so long that people just don't understand why it's bad.
The messaging has to come from the agency, and in my opinion, it would be wise to start laying the groundwork from an educational standpoint first and then work on changing the norms.
C
Cznymph
Active member
I submitted a comment in opposition of the proposed rule making.
My reasoning is this, if the PFBC wants to restrict fish stockings by private individuals in the state…..fine. I think that they should. I feel that this is killing overdue. However, I feel that PFBC should be leading by example and not stocking fish riddled with disease and invasive species.
Other state and federal hatcheries have depopulated and cleaned out hatcheries for cases of disease that PFBC frequently stocks, such as IPN, Bacterial Kidney Disease, Furunculosis and Whirling Disease. Now an entirely separate can of worms has been opened with the PFBC attempting to sweep the discovery of Mudsnails at two Centre Country hatcheries.
All fish hatcheries in PA need oversight, and not from the PFBC.
My reasoning is this, if the PFBC wants to restrict fish stockings by private individuals in the state…..fine. I think that they should. I feel that this is killing overdue. However, I feel that PFBC should be leading by example and not stocking fish riddled with disease and invasive species.
Other state and federal hatcheries have depopulated and cleaned out hatcheries for cases of disease that PFBC frequently stocks, such as IPN, Bacterial Kidney Disease, Furunculosis and Whirling Disease. Now an entirely separate can of worms has been opened with the PFBC attempting to sweep the discovery of Mudsnails at two Centre Country hatcheries.
All fish hatcheries in PA need oversight, and not from the PFBC.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I think almost everyone in PA would agree that a state entity whos funding currently depends on angler popularity of their top priority, stocking, Through license sales is like the fox watching the henhouse.
Invasive species have been the most ignored, danced around, and straight up swept under the rug threat facing Pennsylvanias brook trout. We need large scale stocking reform like lake mead needed water this summer. You can’t over state how desperately this is needed relative to the crazy stuff we are doing in this state while other states are adopting science based management already paying HUGE dividends for native brook trout.
That being said its ashame there was not more support for this authorization. It is faaarrrr from perfect but at the very least it will gelp us quantify how many stocked invasive species are actually going in. Invasive species are an ultimate impairment just like sediment, warm temps, lack of habitat, flood/drought connectivity issues and tbat has been demonstrated by a crushing mountain of literature.
You can’t clean up the Chesapeake bay if you don’t figure out a TMDL (how many tons of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment are polluting it and where we need to get down to) and without knowing where impairments are coming from.
This auth is an important step to quantifying the pollution and seeing where its getting dumped in. We are managing blind without it. So im not happy about who is watching who either but this data alone is CRITICAL if we have any hope of managing these fish. We need to get this one done for our state fish there is no teo ways about it. We can revise or hold PAFB approving iRresponsible stocking further accountable when the dust settles but this is a step by step game we cannot hold out for perfect, we need incremental progress and momentum.
C
Cznymph
Active member
I don’t believe that this proposed rule making is concerned with effluent discharge from hatcheries, at least in the traditional sense. That falls under the NPDES permits that are issued by DEP.
This is more about fish health and stocking fish with possible pathogens, something that is far more concerning to native trout lovers. The PFBC wants the authority to restrict what is stocked and where it is stocked, all the while releasing millions of pathogen laden fish themselves.
Think about it for a moment, the PFBC has already chosen to ignore numerous fish health issues that other states have depopulated hatcheries over, because they are so dependent on the stocked trout industry that they’ve created. We’re seeing it occur right now with NZM in hatcheries, all the while PFBC tries to keep it hush hush. What would happen if a PFBC hatchery was infected with gill lice? Do you trust the PFBC to do the right thing and depopulate? I sure don’t, not with what I’ve seen over the last decade or so.
