2019 License News

[wildtrout2]

Just got my gold star. Other than rare (decade intervals) surveys of the wild streams I fish, this money doesn't/won't really help any of them. But, I believe the overall cause to be worthy of my donation.

 

[geebee]

Fredrick wrote:

Dave_W wrote:

geebee wrote:
it does not mention it anyway on the License though. i would of thought it would have on the back.

i wonder if they will publish the funding figures for each voluntary category.

Agree that the voluntary permits should appear on the regular license just below the trout/salmon stamp. Should be an easy fix for the future.

I too am interested in seeing the results from these permits. I've long been in favor of voluntary permits such as these. I hope my optimism about their success is not excessive.

Why would you need to show that you paid for a voluntary permit ?.

To raise awareness of it, to encourage others to consider it.

 

[FarmerDave]

Good answer. Here's your star. ;-)

 

[Swattie87]

Been keeping an eye on the poll on the bottom right corner of the home page. So far, it appears support for the voluntary WT stamp amongst Trout anglers on PAFF is roughly 40% (15 out of 39). By Trout anglers I'm including those that purchased a Trout stamp on its own, or a Combo stamp, in the denominator. Not exactly a glowing endorsement from what I would generally consider PA's "hardcore" wild Trout supporting demographic. I would expect an even lower rate of return among the general Trout stamp buying public.

Still hoping for some clarification on its usage, intentions, and fund routing so I can add a tick to the numerator.

 

[Andreas]

This could be how the PFBC takes a really accurate survey of anglers. After all, money talks and bull**** walks. They will get a real accurate count of who cares about what resource. And that count could very well have an impact on where the PFBC focuses.

Yeah, I know... I sense a conspiracy behind every rock.

 

[afishinado]

Swattie87 wrote:
Been keeping an eye on the poll on the bottom right corner of the home page. So far, it appears support for the voluntary WT stamp amongst Trout anglers on PAFF is roughly 40% (15 out of 39). By Trout anglers I'm including those that purchased a Trout stamp on its own, or a Combo stamp, in the denominator. Not exactly a glowing endorsement from what I would generally consider PA's "hardcore" wild Trout supporting demographic. I would expect an even lower rate of return among the general Trout stamp buying public.

Still hoping for some clarification on its usage, intentions, and fund routing so I can add a tick to the numerator.

For those looking for info about what the habitat / wild trout permit money will be used for, the details are below. The actual projects the fund will support cannot be determined until the amount of funds available are tallied. Hope this answers your question.

Proceeds from each of the four stamps will remain in their dedicated areas, but can cover a broad range of activities, such as research, raising and stocking fish (musky and bass), and fisheries surveys, said commission spokesman Mike Parker.

"Their sole purpose is to supplement what we're already doing and to offset rising program costs."

The commission came up with the stamp concept to try to compensate for stagnant license revenues. Lawmakers haven't increased fishing fees since 2005 and the number of anglers has failed to measurably grow.

"If more people bought licenses, or we got an increase in fees, we probably wouldn't be doing this, but we have to find alternative funding sources, " Parker said. "This is one of them."

The hope is that anglers will like the idea of donating to an aspect of fishing or conservation they strongly believe in, he said.

"If your thing is to protect wild trout, the wild-trout stamp is an avenue for you to do that. If you're a muskie fisherman and are impressed with how the muskie fishery is doing or want to see a stronger muskie fishery, this is a way to do that."

The habitat and wild-trout permits, he said, "pretty much speak for themselves."


Mike wrote:
Per the article provided earlier in this thread and the comment by the PFBC's Brian Barner, Area Fisheries Mgrs have been given the opportunity to suggest how they think the monies generated by each specific voluntary permit should be spent. This also allowed AFM's to suggest how these future expenditures could be documented for the angling public.

Regarding possible options for trout streams, my comments were strongly aimed at habitat and water quality enhancements, such as in-stream work, riparian buffer zone planting, which can be done relatively quickly due to no permits needed for out of the stream work, Agricultural BMP's, and mine discharge (sediment control or chemical water quality) enhancements, particularly to aid or expand projects that are already partially or fully underway in order to be able to initially report results back to anglers much more quickly than if brand new projects were being started.

I would also include dam removals as another option, as there is one project that will soon start and another being seriously discussed in Area 6 alone that are fully or partially aimed at trout. After dams are removed, habitat enhancement should often follow, but in my experience that aspect is sometimes short on funding.

Additionally, another thought would be to enhance portions of select stocked trout streams that also support wild trout, particularly those with Class A sections immediately upstream from stocked sections so that enhancements to the upstream stretches of the stocked sections might result in a downstream extension of Class A stretches if and when the biomasses responded favorably.

No man is an island, as they say, and my thoughts may or may not be in tune with those of others. Broad program priorities will undoubtedly be established at the administrative level, not by AFM's, but through this process AFM's will have had an initial and welcomed opportunity to participate.

 

[tomgamber]

My guess is this all happened on a bet. Someone said "let's raise the price" and got voted down because others thought people wouldn't pay more. He said, "I bet I can get them to pay more and not even raise the price". The others said, "I bet you can't."
Here we are...

 

[Swattie87]

Thanks Afish. I think that's the same article and packaging referenced earlier in the thread in another post, but thanks for reiterating it.

Do you interpret the below statement by Mr. Parker to essentially mean "in addition to previous WT funding?"

"Their sole purpose is to supplement what we're already doing and to offset rising program costs."

 

[afishinado]

Swattie87 wrote:
Thanks Afish. I think that's the same article and packaging referenced earlier in the thread in another post, but thanks for reiterating it.

Do you interpret the below statement by Mr. Parker to essentially mean "in addition to previous WT funding?"

"Their sole purpose is to supplement what we're already doing and to offset rising program costs."

Yes. To supplement is to add to what already is being spent.

sup·ple·ment
noun
/?s?pl?m?nt/Submit
1. something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.

 

[ryansheehan]

afishinado wrote:

Swattie87 wrote:
Thanks Afish. I think that's the same article and packaging referenced earlier in the thread in another post, but thanks for reiterating it.

Do you interpret the below statement by Mr. Parker to essentially mean "in addition to previous WT funding?"

"Their sole purpose is to supplement what we're already doing and to offset rising program costs."

Yes. To supplement is to add to what already is being spent.

sup·ple·ment
noun
/?s?pl?m?nt/Submit
1. something that completes or enhances something else when added to it.

I think it's the second part that he/we are talking about, the offset language. I don't see the point in this, it's all been said, and then some.

 

[Swattie87]

afish - Thanks for the Webster’s citation. That was the antidote that cleared it up for me. Thanks. Hope it did for the roughly 60% of other illiterates on the site too. Was just looking for your opinion on how that is to be interpreted, which I would typically respect and value. I’m surprised you took the opportunity to play that like you did.

Going back into hibernation and other Cabin Fever related activities now.

 

[troutbert]

"Voluntary Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters permit"

What does the "Enhanced Waters" part mean?

 

[afishinado]

Swattie87 wrote:
afish - Thanks for the Webster’s citation. That was the antidote that cleared it up for me. Thanks. Hope it did for the roughly 60% of other illiterates on the site too. Was just looking for your opinion on how that is to be interpreted, which I would typically respect and value. I’m surprised you took the opportunity to play that like you did.

Going back into hibernation and other Cabin Fever related activities now.

My post not intended to offend at all. I'm sorry if you took it as offensive.

You asked a question of how I interpreted the statement from the PFBC and I explained my interpretation and included the actual definition of the word used.

I do not believe the Commission is hiding anything or looking to do some sort of end-around to fund the hatcheries or fatten up their pension fund. I am so tired of hearing this from a surprising amount of anglers online, in things I've read, as well as in person.

Again, I feel funding to help wild trout and wild trout streams has been too low in PA, and I welcome a chance to contribute to a fund dedicated to helping wild trout and improving their habitat.

If any one feels their money will be misspent or wasted by contributing to the fund, even after reading an explanation of how the money is intended to be spent, than so be it. I only encourage them to do something to contribute in some other way over and above buying the required general license and trout stamp.

 

[Swattie87]

If you didn’t intend for it to come off that way, and I misinterpreted, no apology necessary. I’m still hibernating til Spring though. At least on this issue.

Final thought...I’d argue that if a significant or surprising portion of the license buying public is questioning it though, especially among those that typically support wild Trout causes, that’s a good indicator clarification or more information may be called for.