2019 License News

Good will always be the enemy of perfect..

If your insurmountable grudge is the minor handful of class A's where stocking continues for social reasons, I suggest you try running the Commission for awhile and trying to balance and deal with the drum banging of the various angling interest groups. It can't be easy.

Otherwise, I'm with Frank and the balance of those who support the Commission and their plan in this matter. Fisheries management wise, we have it pretty good here in PA. I trust the Commission to do their best to keep it that way.
 
I kind of agree. PA is one of the lowest priced State permits around.

I will voluntarily pay the extra fee.
 
I, too, am going to buy the wild trout permit and the bass permit. I am fine with blind faith in where my dollars are going because I trust the PFBC. Sure, they have their problems but what organization doesn't. Overall I think that they do a lot more good than harm. That said, my favorite trout stream is a Class A stream that still gets stocked to hell and back, oh well. I would like to see a cessation of stocking but I also understand that that would anger many people here in Mifflin County and it isn't just that simple.

I don't have a lot of money but I can spare $30 bucks or whatever to something that I have faith in. I think Maurice had a great post for sure. Many of us offer up our criticisms and solutions and when they are given to us as an option we complain. Seems strange. I understand that Swattie wants to know where our money will go, I think that we all do, but at the same time it isn't that easy. Even if they showed us documents they may not be real and could easily be very skewed. On this one I'll move forward on faith.
 
Our society these days almost forces us to be satirical when things like this come up. However, I feel we are very blessed here in PA with many high quality fishing opportunities. I will gladly donate on both fronts because I feel that the Commission needs our support. If we don’t support them, who will?
 
I don't remember the masses saying They would pay a voluntary tax for any fishery. I don't recall most saying They wanted more regulation with more rules on where they can fish and what they can fish with. What reasonable person would want that. I remember most saying they would be okay with an increase on the price of a fishing license.

Generally I think the PFBC does a good job with everything except trout fishing. I'm sure not sending them more earmarked money so they can screw trout fishing up more.

I'm not paying more when I don't have to. If somebody else wants to go right ahead. Again, if it's about the trout and their demise is imminent, close the season. Everybody concerned about the health of wild trout should be doing backflips over a closed season. Nope, it's not about the trout.
 
It isn't a tax if it's voluntary. If you don't want to pay into this program, that's completely OK. Also I do not see anywhere this WT "permit" is associated with new regulations. Repeatedly saying that is purposefully misleading. Those who do not purchase an optional WT permit do not miss out on any fishing priveleges. Period.

Also, I do not understand where your "imminent demise" comments are coming from. We do not need to be on the verge of catastrophe to want to take steps to further improve trout habitat and fishing opportunities. If this additional money funds more study of our fisheries, habitat improvement, or even angler access, then it is worthwile. We have plenty of trout fisheries that are stable or already improvong, but we have so many miles of trout water that I'm sure we can find some that need one of those improvements.

Finally. I'd like to remind you that we're fisherman. So no, it is not JUST about the trout. I think most want a balance between improving our fisheries both for the fish and the angler. They go hand in hand in regard to how and how much money we are willing to throw at the situation. Trying to suggest to a group of anglers that they are ignoble for having a desire to improve their sport along with the fisheries themselves is laughable.
 
Please beware once they make these voluntary permits mandatory there will be additional regulations to justify the permit and associated costs. This could mean for an example you might have to buy the wild trout permit if you would like to access a class A stream. This seems a little bit of a stretch but it could very well happen I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing but making the point that additional regs always follow a permit. Also frank is right on as far as where the additional money will go into the general fund for all uses.
 
Mwheaps32 wrote:
Please beware once they make these voluntary permits mandatory there will be additional regulations to justify the permit and associated costs. This could mean for an example you might have to buy the wild trout permit if you would like to access a class A stream. This seems a little bit of a stretch but it could very well happen I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing but making the point that additional regs always follow a permit. Also frank is right on as far as where the additional money will go into the general fund for all uses.
Click to expand...

While possible that new regs will be in place IF the permit become mandatory, that is not the case currently. I think suggesting that this is the ultimate and certain outcome undermines the viability of the program as it currently stands.

I'll keep it short this time. Posoining the well will not have the outcome that some think it will. While I can understand the disdain some have for all things government, I think that hyperbole and misinformation are flat out the wrong course of action. Also, keep in mind the difficulty the commission has with increasing license fees. Implementing new REQUIRED permits is going to come under the same political pressure as the resistance to higher license fees. MANDATORY permits are not going to just happen out of the blue.
 
poopdeck wrote:
Generally I think the PFBC does a good job with everything except trout fishing. I'm sure not sending them more earmarked money so they can screw trout fishing up more.
Click to expand...

This statement should get some kind of an award for the most uninformed comment of the year.

In my opinion, trout fishing has never been better in Pennsylvania than it is now. I won't mention any numbers because I'm sure the wrath of the board would descend upon me, but let's just say that the year 2018 was my second best year in 40 years of serious trout fishing.

We are one fortunate bunch of anglers to have the PFBC managing our resource.
 
Mwheaps32 wrote:
Please beware once they make these voluntary permits mandatory there will be additional regulations to justify the permit and associated costs. This could mean for an example you might have to buy the wild trout permit if you would like to access a class A stream. This seems a little bit of a stretch but it could very well happen I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing but making the point that additional regs always follow a permit. Also frank is right on as far as where the additional money will go into the general fund for all uses.
Click to expand...

Very possible slippery slope once the Pafbc establishes a permit it seldom is repealed.
Fewer fisherman fishing WT will eventually lead to less money being spent, and fewer fisherman out on the stream.
 
FrankTroutAngler wrote:
poopdeck wrote:
Generally I think the PFBC does a good job with everything except trout fishing. I'm sure not sending them more earmarked money so they can screw trout fishing up more.
Click to expand...

This statement should get some kind of an award for the most uninformed comment of the year.

In my opinion, trout fishing has never been better in Pennsylvania than it is now. I won't mention any numbers because I'm sure the wrath of the board would descend upon me, but let's just say that the year 2018 was my second best year in 40 years of serious trout fishing.

We are one fortunate bunch of anglers to have the PFBC managing our resource.
Click to expand...

Frank,

I can agree with you that trout fishing is pretty darn good right now when compared to previous years. However, I’m not sure that it’s quite fair to give full credit, or even majority of credit to PFBC. This is especially true if we are talking strictly wild trout. DEP, TU, and many non-government agencies have done a lot of good work in recent years that has had major impacts on the wild trout waters. The truth of the matter, in my mind at least, is that the PFBC follows the money, which in PA is the put and take fishery and the anglers that buy their licenses strictly because of the stocking program. I view the PFBC as more of a hatchery program first and a wild trout/wild anything agency somewhere down the list of priorities, again following the money trail. I believe DEP and other organizations have done much more for the wild trout in pa than the PFBC. So, forgive me for being skeptical that the PFBC will not spend WT funds on what is in their best interests as a government agency, which is generating revenue via the hatchery program.
 
CRB wrote:


...Fewer fisherman fishing WT will eventually lead to less money being spent, and fewer fisherman out on the stream.
Click to expand...

this would lead to better populations of WT, better for the trout...no?

I probably would have paid for one or more of those permits in the past. I probably will not now. I'll get the Erie and trout combo as I always do. I just don't get out enough to justify the cost. I just don't have the conviction to the cause I once did. If I made a donation it would probably be to a local TU chapter. I do like the idea of making it possible to make such a "donation" as long as it doesn't become a mandatory thing.

If they do I suspect I'll pay it. Its too convenient being able to pull over at any body of water and kill minutes or hours doing something enjoyable without having to have any money on me at the moment.
 
in a broad sense I agree that all credit does not go to PFBC. TU, LJRA etc rely HEAVILY on the contributions of the PFBC for their projects. PFBC and organizations are great partners. Leaders of these organizations (well, lets say for certain the LJRA) are indebted to the PFBC for most of the improvements to the Little J AND increased access. Without the help and support of the PFBC and its biologists/ habitat professionals most (all?) projects would not be possible.
Non- fishing groups like Clearwater conservancy (Centre county), Blair co. conservation and huntingdon co. conservation and western pennsylvania conservancy likewise play big role. We are all in this together.
I suspect most anglers don't have a full appreciation for what PFBC does.
 
Mwheaps32 wrote:
Please beware once they make these voluntary permits mandatory there will be additional regulations to justify the permit and associated costs. This could mean for an example you might have to buy the wild trout permit if you would like to access a class A stream.
Click to expand...

As I said I will voluntarily buy the WT Enanced permit, but based on other states, I will also say you are right - but is that such a bad thing ?

Look at Virginia, they have the ability to buy a wild trout license, or a stocked trout license, or both.

So I buy the wild trout license only.

Which I think some people, depending on County would prefer.
 
Make the Habitat/Waterways permit mandatory. If you don't buy the permit you can't get a fishing license. Or just stop fooling around and raise the general annual fishing license. I have a grandfathered Senior Life Time license but I would be fine with a $10 annual increase.

I fish Montana every summer for about two weeks. Many years ago they instituted a Conservation license. It costs $10.00. You can't get a nonresident fishing license if you don't purchase the conservation license. A ten day license and the conservation permit used to cost me around $75. Two years ago they added another special permit that I don't like. It is a non invasive species permit that costs $15 for non residents and I think just $5 for residents. In effect they are charging the nonresidents $10 more for the same permit yet the nonresidents spend hundreds, and thousands, more than most residents.
 
jifigz wrote:
I, for one, don't think that this is a bad idea. If you can't raise the license fee you can always graciously ask those to donate for what they care about. And seriously it will only be more serious anglers that are going to opt to donate money. I'd consider donating if I was 100% sure the money would be appropriated for what they tell me..
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Two of my 3 favorite things to do in life is hunt and fish. When the Game Commision added a bunch of extra tags about 10 years ago I decided to buy all of them whether or not I intended to trap fishers, hunt pheasants or hunt bear that year. Right or wrong I wanted to support the organization that oversees one of my favorite hobbies.

Similarly I will buy all 4 stamps offered by the fish commission and probably 2 wild trout stamps. I’ll do that despite not fishing for bass for over 6 years and not fishing for musky for over 18 years.

I understand why some people want proof that their money is being spent the way they intended. I’d rather err on the side of giving money to a group that may use it for purposes that support my interests rather than withholding money. The latter only assures that $0 will be spent to enhance the sport that I love.
 
>>Two years ago they added another special permit that I don't like. It is a non invasive species permit that costs $15 for non residents and I think just $5 for residents. In effect they are charging the nonresidents $10 more for the same permit yet the nonresidents spend hundreds, and thousands, more than most residents.>>

The Montana fee scale makes sense to me... Whether NR anglers bring in more tourist dollars is immaterial and of no value to the discussion. What matters is that NR anglers, simply by virtue of being from a lot of rather far flung locales, are probably more likely to bring invasives in with them on their boots or boats.
 
geebee wrote:
Mwheaps32 wrote:
Please beware once they make these voluntary permits mandatory there will be additional regulations to justify the permit and associated costs. This could mean for an example you might have to buy the wild trout permit if you would like to access a class A stream.
Click to expand...

As I said I will voluntarily buy the WT Enanced permit, but based on other states, I will also say you are right - but is that such a bad thing ?

Look at Virginia, they have the ability to buy a wild trout license, or a stocked trout license, or both.

So I buy the wild trout license only.

Which I think some people, depending on County would prefer.
Click to expand...

I actually purchased a freshwater fishing license for VA recently and didn't see anything about a wild trout license. I did see the license to fish in stocked water. Is the wild trout license seperate from the freshwater license?."Even though I live in VA I rarely if ever fish here. Most of my time is spent on MD streams.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top