I’m happy either way, but the final decision to move to raising an avg 11” trout from avg 9.5-10” trout was solidified through statewide on-the-stream, opening day interviews of anglers asking the question that dealt with angler preference: fewer but larger trout or more but smaller trout.
This is a fun game to play by PFBC. Interesting they listen to internal polling of what anglers want to see for opening day but not for what anglers want to see overall on the stocking program/locations of stocking.
Lets take a look under the hood here for a second.
2025 per PFBC data:
437,436 fishing license with trout stamps sold. x $42.94 = $18,783,501.80 revenue through license sold with trout stamp.
With about 700,000 total license sold, the rest of them want nothing to do with fishing for trout, let alone a lab-created pellet fed disease filled rubber fish. Don't even get me started on the Gill Lice issues going on in Lancaster County the last couple years from a co-op hatcheries.
The total population of PA over 18 years old is 9.3m
This means 4.7% of taxpayers are willingly paying for trout stamp to fund this "self-sufficient" program.
PFBC claim
3.2m fish stocked by PFBC
1.1m by co-ops
so at 4.3m stocked fish / 437,000 trout stamps = 9.84 fish stocked per trout stamp.
then we take $18,783,501.80 revenue on trout stamp license sales / 4,300,000 stocked fish = $4.37 per stocked fish from the revenue of stamps sold.
PFBC is asking us to trust these numbers that they have budgeted for. I dont.
Perhaps some of you know more than me, but I don't believe that it only costs $4.37 to raise an 11 inch trout over the course of 18 months. I could be wrong, I have been in the past, and certainly will be in the future, but I don't think I am here. Maybe, just maybe, this is why they are opening up boat launch slips to be used for "other" projects within the fisheries management as well as taking capital funds to the tune of $100,000,000 over the next few years to subsidize the hatchery infrastructure and stocking programs. the more they can get into the "general fund" the more they can pull away from other projects and divert those funds to stocking and hatcheries. That is just the monies they are taking from the state general fund that is on the books. That doesn't include grant monies from other entities that had be funded by capital funds that made their way through.
Separate from my thoughts on where they stock trout, I question whether its even fiscally responsible for them to grow and stock this many trout in general. I am sure there is a number of fish they could grow and stock that would work within the budget, but the number they are putting forward currently is not sustainable long term without pulling even more taxpayer dollars to a program that has claimed since its onset in its very charter that it is self-sufficient.
The Rodfather
Engagement Czar and Conservation Chair
Dauphin County League of Chubsmen
