The Rodfather
Well-known member
I read the GoErie piece about the PFBC and PGC staring down a pretty serious long-term budget problem, and I think we're focusing on the wrong part of the problem.
The article talks about combining services, eliminating duplication, sharing resources, etc. Fine. I'm all for government finding ways to stop spending money twice for the same thing. But if we're really going to have an honest conversation about the PFBC's finances, somebody needs to put the hatchery and stocking program squarely on the table.
And before anybody gets their feathers ruffled, no, I'm not saying eliminate stocking.
I fish Pennsylvania. I know what stocked trout mean to a lot of anglers, and I understand the economic value of the program. But let's not pretend this is some little line item we're talking about.
PFBC is putting roughly 3.2 million adult trout into Pennsylvania waters every year, plus fingerlings and fish produced through the cooperative nursery system.
That's a hell of an operation. And the cost isn't just the fish. It's the hatchery buildings. The employees. Fish food. Electricity. Water systems. Maintenance. Equipment. Trucks. Fuel. Oxygen. Transportation. Stocking crews.
Add it all up and we're talking about a very expensive machine whose job is to produce fish and put them in the water.
Here's where it gets really interesting.
PFBC's own numbers have shown for years that the trout/salmon permit doesn't come close to paying for the trout program. In 1991, trout/salmon permits covered about 57% of the cost of raising trout.
By 2014, that had fallen to just 46% of the cost of running the trout hatchery program, despite the fact that PFBC was collecting more money from those permits. PFBC projected that percentage could fall to 30% without changes.
In other words, the trout permit wasn't even paying for half of the hatchery program.
The rest was increasingly being picked up by general fishing-license revenue.
So when somebody buys a regular fishing license but doesn't buy a trout permit, some of that general license money is effectively helping support a very expensive trout hatchery program.
That's where I think the conversation gets interesting.
Because when we talk about PFBC's financial problems, the immediate answer seems to be, "We need more revenue." Maybe we do. But before I reach deeper into my wallet, I'd like to know exactly where the money is going.
What is the fully loaded cost of a stocked trout?
Not just feed and production. Everything. Hatchery personnel. Buildings. Utilities. Maintenance. Equipment. Transportation. Fuel. Stocking labor. Capital costs.
What's the real number?
Then let's ask whether we're getting a good return on that investment.
Are we putting fish in places that actually need them?
Are we stocking waters that already have good wild-trout populations?
Would some of that money do more for Pennsylvania fishing if it went toward habitat, stream restoration, wild-trout management, access, or protecting the resource that produces fish naturally? Maybe the answer is no.
Maybe the current stocking program really is the best use of the money. But shouldn't we at least know?
That's the part that bothers me.
PFBC is, by charter, user-funded agency. There isn't supposed to be some giant pot of General Fund money waiting to bail them out. The people buying licenses, trout permits, boat registrations, etc. are supposed to be paying the bills.
So if the agency is telling those same people that the cupboard is getting bare, I think we're entitled to look at both sides of the ledger.
Yes, find administrative efficiencies.
Yes, look at what PFBC and PGC can share.
But don't just look for savings around the edges while ignoring one of the most expensive programs PFBC operates. And this isn't an argument for shutting hatcheries down and dumping the trout program. It's an argument for asking whether we're getting the best fishing bang for the buck.
We've been doing things a certain way for a long time. That doesn't automatically mean it's still the smartest way to spend today's dollars. If the answer is that we need to spend $X million producing and stocking millions of trout every year, fine.
Show us the numbers.
Show us what the trout permit actually pays for.
Show us what general license revenue is subsidizing.
Show us the fully loaded cost per fish.
Then let anglers decide whether that's the best use of their money. Because if we're going to have the conversation about raising license fees and asking Pennsylvania anglers to pay more, and potentially merging with PGC to cut more cost, then we ought to have the equally important conversation about whether we're spending what we already have in the best possible way.
The budget problem isn't simply that PFBC doesn't have enough money. It's also that PFBC has some very expensive programs. And when the agency's own numbers have shown that the trout permit historically covered less than half the cost of the hatchery program, I'd say the hatchery/stocking machine is the 800-pound trout in the room that deserves a whole lot more scrutiny.
The Rodfather
Engagement Czar and Conservation Chair
Dauphin County League of Chubsmen
The article talks about combining services, eliminating duplication, sharing resources, etc. Fine. I'm all for government finding ways to stop spending money twice for the same thing. But if we're really going to have an honest conversation about the PFBC's finances, somebody needs to put the hatchery and stocking program squarely on the table.
And before anybody gets their feathers ruffled, no, I'm not saying eliminate stocking.
I fish Pennsylvania. I know what stocked trout mean to a lot of anglers, and I understand the economic value of the program. But let's not pretend this is some little line item we're talking about.
PFBC is putting roughly 3.2 million adult trout into Pennsylvania waters every year, plus fingerlings and fish produced through the cooperative nursery system.
That's a hell of an operation. And the cost isn't just the fish. It's the hatchery buildings. The employees. Fish food. Electricity. Water systems. Maintenance. Equipment. Trucks. Fuel. Oxygen. Transportation. Stocking crews.
Add it all up and we're talking about a very expensive machine whose job is to produce fish and put them in the water.
Here's where it gets really interesting.
PFBC's own numbers have shown for years that the trout/salmon permit doesn't come close to paying for the trout program. In 1991, trout/salmon permits covered about 57% of the cost of raising trout.
By 2014, that had fallen to just 46% of the cost of running the trout hatchery program, despite the fact that PFBC was collecting more money from those permits. PFBC projected that percentage could fall to 30% without changes.
In other words, the trout permit wasn't even paying for half of the hatchery program.
The rest was increasingly being picked up by general fishing-license revenue.
So when somebody buys a regular fishing license but doesn't buy a trout permit, some of that general license money is effectively helping support a very expensive trout hatchery program.
That's where I think the conversation gets interesting.
Because when we talk about PFBC's financial problems, the immediate answer seems to be, "We need more revenue." Maybe we do. But before I reach deeper into my wallet, I'd like to know exactly where the money is going.
What is the fully loaded cost of a stocked trout?
Not just feed and production. Everything. Hatchery personnel. Buildings. Utilities. Maintenance. Equipment. Transportation. Fuel. Stocking labor. Capital costs.
What's the real number?
Then let's ask whether we're getting a good return on that investment.
Are we putting fish in places that actually need them?
Are we stocking waters that already have good wild-trout populations?
Would some of that money do more for Pennsylvania fishing if it went toward habitat, stream restoration, wild-trout management, access, or protecting the resource that produces fish naturally? Maybe the answer is no.
Maybe the current stocking program really is the best use of the money. But shouldn't we at least know?
That's the part that bothers me.
PFBC is, by charter, user-funded agency. There isn't supposed to be some giant pot of General Fund money waiting to bail them out. The people buying licenses, trout permits, boat registrations, etc. are supposed to be paying the bills.
So if the agency is telling those same people that the cupboard is getting bare, I think we're entitled to look at both sides of the ledger.
Yes, find administrative efficiencies.
Yes, look at what PFBC and PGC can share.
But don't just look for savings around the edges while ignoring one of the most expensive programs PFBC operates. And this isn't an argument for shutting hatcheries down and dumping the trout program. It's an argument for asking whether we're getting the best fishing bang for the buck.
We've been doing things a certain way for a long time. That doesn't automatically mean it's still the smartest way to spend today's dollars. If the answer is that we need to spend $X million producing and stocking millions of trout every year, fine.
Show us the numbers.
Show us what the trout permit actually pays for.
Show us what general license revenue is subsidizing.
Show us the fully loaded cost per fish.
Then let anglers decide whether that's the best use of their money. Because if we're going to have the conversation about raising license fees and asking Pennsylvania anglers to pay more, and potentially merging with PGC to cut more cost, then we ought to have the equally important conversation about whether we're spending what we already have in the best possible way.
The budget problem isn't simply that PFBC doesn't have enough money. It's also that PFBC has some very expensive programs. And when the agency's own numbers have shown that the trout permit historically covered less than half the cost of the hatchery program, I'd say the hatchery/stocking machine is the 800-pound trout in the room that deserves a whole lot more scrutiny.
The Rodfather
Engagement Czar and Conservation Chair
Dauphin County League of Chubsmen
