P
poopdeck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,420
What about fllyfisherman who do not trout fish. What I absolutely hate is how the state stocks trout in my local creek even though it cannot sustain trout. I'd rather see the money spent on stream improvements that will improve the WW fishery. All the while the wild, native or whatever trouters don't want stocked trout in the streams that can support trout. Why do we stock trout at all?
It's not about the resources. If the trout population is in such peril and protecting our resources is the goal then close the season all together.
It's not about the resources. If the trout population is in such peril and protecting our resources is the goal then close the season all together.
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,830
Lightbulb...
If you’re looking to generate revenue why not offer a Tasty Gemmie stamp? Unlimited harvest of any size with stamp purchased (and displayed). I’d be seasoning in my cast iron and stocking up on peanut oil now if such a product was offered.
If you’re looking to generate revenue why not offer a Tasty Gemmie stamp? Unlimited harvest of any size with stamp purchased (and displayed). I’d be seasoning in my cast iron and stocking up on peanut oil now if such a product was offered.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
OMG...this is terrible!!!....the PA fish & Boat Commission is trying to raise money to help wild trout in PA :evil:
Uuuuuhh.....if we don't support raising money for wild trout streams by the agency in charge of taking care of all the fisheries in PA...who will?!
Uuuuuhh.....if we don't support raising money for wild trout streams by the agency in charge of taking care of all the fisheries in PA...who will?!
Maurice
Administrator
Staff member
You guys crack me up.
In the numerous threads where we bash stocking, stocking over wild trout, lack of law enforcement, budget strapped PF&BC, John Arway is the new Ralph Able, etc., I seem to recall that we boasted how "if there was a stamp for wild trout, we'd pay it". "If there was a stamp for Bass, we'd pay it." "We'd pay $100 to fish in PA for the number of days we pursue angling."
It sounds to me like the PF&BC, which is pretty "dialed in" to this website listened. Couldn't get their Fee increase, E.D. fell on the sword trying and here we are bashing the very things we asked for.
Well done. Does anything make you happy. Its $26 bucks fer criminy sakes. So if it goes to wild trout and shifts the prior appropriations to another program, then there is the license increase we said we would pay.
Because...Remember those first day knuckle draggers you look down your nose at, the freezer fillers taking those pathetic stocked trout out of the streams you didn't want them to stock anyway? remember them? Well until now they were footing the bill for those Wild Trout Streams along with the bass programs and habitat improvement projects and staff that they couldn't care less about. But those people are evil.
Now you have a chance to take some ownership for your user group and resource and ***** about the allocation. SMH...
It all falls back to Users and Losers. Some are users who don't give back. Some are the losers who give their time and money for the users to utilize. Pick a side and wear it on your sleeve.
The only surprise to me is Swatties position. the rest I figured.
In the numerous threads where we bash stocking, stocking over wild trout, lack of law enforcement, budget strapped PF&BC, John Arway is the new Ralph Able, etc., I seem to recall that we boasted how "if there was a stamp for wild trout, we'd pay it". "If there was a stamp for Bass, we'd pay it." "We'd pay $100 to fish in PA for the number of days we pursue angling."
It sounds to me like the PF&BC, which is pretty "dialed in" to this website listened. Couldn't get their Fee increase, E.D. fell on the sword trying and here we are bashing the very things we asked for.
Well done. Does anything make you happy. Its $26 bucks fer criminy sakes. So if it goes to wild trout and shifts the prior appropriations to another program, then there is the license increase we said we would pay.
Because...Remember those first day knuckle draggers you look down your nose at, the freezer fillers taking those pathetic stocked trout out of the streams you didn't want them to stock anyway? remember them? Well until now they were footing the bill for those Wild Trout Streams along with the bass programs and habitat improvement projects and staff that they couldn't care less about. But those people are evil.
Now you have a chance to take some ownership for your user group and resource and ***** about the allocation. SMH...
It all falls back to Users and Losers. Some are users who don't give back. Some are the losers who give their time and money for the users to utilize. Pick a side and wear it on your sleeve.
The only surprise to me is Swatties position. the rest I figured.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
^Right on.
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,830
Sorry to disappoint PAFF fans. I vote based on the issues and facts. The facts are that the WT program isn’t why the PFBC needs to generate more revenue.
I think the PFBC has done an EXCELLENT job with managing and improving wild Trout resources in PA. Proof’s in the pudding...The WT lists keeping growing, well done. I’ve sent numerous emails to PFBC staff highlighting locations I’ve found wild Trout that weren’t on the lists. Every time I’ve received a prompt and gracious response, thanking me for the information and assuring me that those locations would be surveyed. Those streams are on the lists now. Thank you again PFBC, and I’ll continue to report what I find.
It’s not the PFBC’s fault there hasn’t been a much needed license cost increase in the last 15 years or whatever. I get it. I’m on their side there too. The facts are that the stocking program, more specifically the Trout stocking one, is what is driving the lion’s share of the costs. There’s a ton of Trout still stocked into places with very good WT populations. Why are we spending money on that?
My issue is simply tell me, with reasonable detail, how the money will work from this WT stamp. I don’t want my specific $26.90 to go to WT programs, so that $26.90 from general license funds can go elsewhere. Specifically, continuing to stock over wild Trout populations. Show me that the $26.90 is a straight windfall bonus for WT, and I’ll be as big of a supporter of it as anybody. Nothing the PFBC has communicated (thus far) outlines what the master plan is. Not sure what is all that surprising or unreasonable about that position from a big WT supporter.
Let me ask the WT Stamp supporters this...Would you still support it with a purchase if the math from my previous example (see post #10 in this thread) was true? If so, why?
If the PFBC chose to make it mandatory. I’d buy it, no question. They probably just should have done that to be honest. I still couldn’t control how the money from it was spent, but whatever. If they were choosing to fund the stocking budget requirements from WT anglers who were willing to pay more, so be it. I’d voice my displeasure with it, but I like to fish for WT...a lot. My demand curve to do so for a year dictates that I’m willing to pay a pretty high price to do it. Ideally, I’d just want the money ultimately going to benefit WT. I’m ok with stocked Trout too, but put them in places where they’re needed, and not where they’re not.
I think the PFBC has done an EXCELLENT job with managing and improving wild Trout resources in PA. Proof’s in the pudding...The WT lists keeping growing, well done. I’ve sent numerous emails to PFBC staff highlighting locations I’ve found wild Trout that weren’t on the lists. Every time I’ve received a prompt and gracious response, thanking me for the information and assuring me that those locations would be surveyed. Those streams are on the lists now. Thank you again PFBC, and I’ll continue to report what I find.
It’s not the PFBC’s fault there hasn’t been a much needed license cost increase in the last 15 years or whatever. I get it. I’m on their side there too. The facts are that the stocking program, more specifically the Trout stocking one, is what is driving the lion’s share of the costs. There’s a ton of Trout still stocked into places with very good WT populations. Why are we spending money on that?
My issue is simply tell me, with reasonable detail, how the money will work from this WT stamp. I don’t want my specific $26.90 to go to WT programs, so that $26.90 from general license funds can go elsewhere. Specifically, continuing to stock over wild Trout populations. Show me that the $26.90 is a straight windfall bonus for WT, and I’ll be as big of a supporter of it as anybody. Nothing the PFBC has communicated (thus far) outlines what the master plan is. Not sure what is all that surprising or unreasonable about that position from a big WT supporter.
Let me ask the WT Stamp supporters this...Would you still support it with a purchase if the math from my previous example (see post #10 in this thread) was true? If so, why?
If the PFBC chose to make it mandatory. I’d buy it, no question. They probably just should have done that to be honest. I still couldn’t control how the money from it was spent, but whatever. If they were choosing to fund the stocking budget requirements from WT anglers who were willing to pay more, so be it. I’d voice my displeasure with it, but I like to fish for WT...a lot. My demand curve to do so for a year dictates that I’m willing to pay a pretty high price to do it. Ideally, I’d just want the money ultimately going to benefit WT. I’m ok with stocked Trout too, but put them in places where they’re needed, and not where they’re not.
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,830
To be clear, I’m in no way saying I don’t or wont’t support the voluntary WT Stamp. I’m undecided. I’m asking for more information to help me make up my mind. PFBC - Election Day for me is December 31st.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
Yes I would. See post #11 If the PAFBC is so desperate for funding that they need to play a shell game with the WT permit, then WT programs are likely first on the chopping block when funding becomes too tight without the new permit.
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,830
^ Thanks Kev. Fair and good point. Money is money, and more of it period in this case is generally good. I’ll concede that.
More money for stocking, and the same for WT, I’d argue is not however.
More money for stocking, and the same for WT, I’d argue is not however.
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
#45 well said Maurice.
I plan to contribute and reevaluate after two years
I plan to contribute and reevaluate after two years
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
I think that is fair enough. I'm on the other side of the fence. I intend to buy the voluntary permit unless something really shady comes up. For instance, if we find out that there is no plan to differentiate the WT permit revenues from general license revenues.
T
tracker12
Member
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 377
Im still waiting for them to get in the 21st century and make my license good for one year from the day of purchase.
bigjohn58
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,355
I would rather donate my personal time on the water doing the actual habitat improvement then giving it to the PFBC to waste on something not related to it. I just do not trust them with my money! I've seen the PFBC waste too much money in years past to have confidence that my money would be put to good use.
ryansheehan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,520
Asking for more information and wanting to know where my money would go is reasonable. Seeing that you feel differently, well... I figured as well.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Quotes from the OP article explaining how the money will be spent:
The commission is making (the special permits) available as a means for anglers and others who want to provide extra support to special areas of operation by the cash-strapped commission.
“Any revenues that are generated by the sale of those permits will be reinvested into those resources to enhance the fisheries,” explained Tim Schaeffer, executive director of the commission.
For example, “if you purchase one of our voluntary habitat permits, that can help us with instream habitat as well as streambank stabilization in maybe your favorite trout stream. And, that benefits the local water quality, as well as downstream water quality.”
Being voluntary, the new permits likely will not raise much concern among license-buyers. >>>>> ...except for many PA fly fishers on here, especially many of the very ones that complain all the time that the PFBC isn't doing enough to help wild trout streams and wild trout. Nice!
Editorial comment:
You know what, I have always been proud of the guys on here and have invited thousands of people to join our group of FFers looking to do the right thing concerning FFing and wild trout and really all fish in PA.
For the first time I can say I am actually ashamed for anyone to come in here and read this thread.
No support at all, and for some outright disdain for the most important organization charged with the task of protecting as well as enhancing our wild trout streams.
The commission is making (the special permits) available as a means for anglers and others who want to provide extra support to special areas of operation by the cash-strapped commission.
“Any revenues that are generated by the sale of those permits will be reinvested into those resources to enhance the fisheries,” explained Tim Schaeffer, executive director of the commission.
For example, “if you purchase one of our voluntary habitat permits, that can help us with instream habitat as well as streambank stabilization in maybe your favorite trout stream. And, that benefits the local water quality, as well as downstream water quality.”
Being voluntary, the new permits likely will not raise much concern among license-buyers. >>>>> ...except for many PA fly fishers on here, especially many of the very ones that complain all the time that the PFBC isn't doing enough to help wild trout streams and wild trout. Nice!
Editorial comment:
You know what, I have always been proud of the guys on here and have invited thousands of people to join our group of FFers looking to do the right thing concerning FFing and wild trout and really all fish in PA.
For the first time I can say I am actually ashamed for anyone to come in here and read this thread.
No support at all, and for some outright disdain for the most important organization charged with the task of protecting as well as enhancing our wild trout streams.
F
FrankTroutAngler
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 323
There is an article in the 12/7/18 issue of Pennsylvania Outdoor News about these new voluntary permits.
Here is part of the article (written by Deborah Weisberg):
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, 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."
Here are my thoughts/opinions on the subject:
As a retired accountant who has worked with restricted funds, I believe what PFBC spokesman Mike Parker is saying in a roundabout way is that the donated money will be combined with their other revenue and will be spent throughout the organization to continue their overall mission.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. All money is green, and from my experience with working with restricted funds, restricted fund money (or specific-purpose fund money) is typically used to cover normal operating expenses in the area or for the purpose that it was donated for. The only time restricted fund money results in additional money being spent in an area or for a purpose is when more money is donated than what was going to be spent in that area or for that purpose anyway. And that pretty much never happens.
If someone were to question this practice, a strong argument can be made that the donated money was in fact spent in the area or for the purpose that it was intended for because more money was spent in that area or for that purpose than what was donated.
We all know that the stocked trout program drives license sales, and I think a strong argument can be made that wild trout have benefitted immensely from this flow of cash, in the past, now, and in the future. So if my wild trout permit donation gets combined in with the stocked trout program money, it is still benefitting wild trout.
I support the new permit program 100% and I see no reason to nitpick the validity of it.
Here is part of the article (written by Deborah Weisberg):
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, 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."
Here are my thoughts/opinions on the subject:
As a retired accountant who has worked with restricted funds, I believe what PFBC spokesman Mike Parker is saying in a roundabout way is that the donated money will be combined with their other revenue and will be spent throughout the organization to continue their overall mission.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. All money is green, and from my experience with working with restricted funds, restricted fund money (or specific-purpose fund money) is typically used to cover normal operating expenses in the area or for the purpose that it was donated for. The only time restricted fund money results in additional money being spent in an area or for a purpose is when more money is donated than what was going to be spent in that area or for that purpose anyway. And that pretty much never happens.
If someone were to question this practice, a strong argument can be made that the donated money was in fact spent in the area or for the purpose that it was intended for because more money was spent in that area or for that purpose than what was donated.
We all know that the stocked trout program drives license sales, and I think a strong argument can be made that wild trout have benefitted immensely from this flow of cash, in the past, now, and in the future. So if my wild trout permit donation gets combined in with the stocked trout program money, it is still benefitting wild trout.
I support the new permit program 100% and I see no reason to nitpick the validity of it.
BrookieChaser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,480
The PFB&C lost my trust on wild trout management when, despite 90%+ disapproval from those responding to their solicited public opinion, they still decided for stocking over Class A wild trout populations.
Y'all high and mighty moderators can be ashamed of me.
Y'all high and mighty moderators can be ashamed of me.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
^ I agree, that was not the PFBC finest hour allowing stocking over Class A's. In my opinion that was the ideal time to make a stand and declare the state will not stock or allow stocking over a large, thriving population of wild trout. But that's for another discussion.
Don't worry, as a high and mighty moderator, you're okay in my/our books.
But speaking for myself as a fellow fly fisher, I'm deeply ashamed of you.
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,830
Thanks Frank. The excerpt you quoted gets closer to the heart of my questions. Thanks for posting it.
It doesn’t explicitly say it, but it does seem to point toward the WT Stamp funds being an ADDITION to the current funds allocated to WT management. I’d like the PFBC to come out and confirm that, that’s all. And that it’s not a way to backdoor funds previously allocated to WT to the struggling stocking program. Which, as acknowledged, still supports stocking over Class A WT populations.
Sincerest apologies if my questions and calls for transparency have ashamed or embarrassed anyone. I’ll wear bootfoot waders to the Jam this year as punishment and we can call it square.
Edit: It’s my opinion that anyone supporting the WT Stamp without actually knowing how the money will flow, is possibly unintentionally hurting WT in PA. Or at least the ones that are in streams that get stocked. Maybe we should all just wear bootfoots.
It doesn’t explicitly say it, but it does seem to point toward the WT Stamp funds being an ADDITION to the current funds allocated to WT management. I’d like the PFBC to come out and confirm that, that’s all. And that it’s not a way to backdoor funds previously allocated to WT to the struggling stocking program. Which, as acknowledged, still supports stocking over Class A WT populations.
Sincerest apologies if my questions and calls for transparency have ashamed or embarrassed anyone. I’ll wear bootfoot waders to the Jam this year as punishment and we can call it square.
Edit: It’s my opinion that anyone supporting the WT Stamp without actually knowing how the money will flow, is possibly unintentionally hurting WT in PA. Or at least the ones that are in streams that get stocked. Maybe we should all just wear bootfoots.
