2019 License News

[jifigz]

There seems to be some confusion on this thread. I will acknowledge some folks' fears here what once is voluntary could become a required permit. I understand that fear.

Now, the picture that afishinado posted is his license showing his voluntary "wild trout permit" at the bottom, not a separate piece of paper showing an additional document that somehow "must be displayed" but yet is optional. Also, you don't need the wild trout permit to fish wild trout water. It is a voluntary contribution..once again I get the fear that these could become actual required permits but I'm doubting that.

Maybe this is obvious to all, but when I read a few of the comments through the previous 6 pages it seems like there was some confusion involved with the people posting in this thread.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

I see they are charging $3 for the Regulations Digest which was and has always been included with your license for free and they also increased the optional display button fee from $5 to $10. So I guess I will be giving them an extra $8 this year. I will pass on the voluntary license fees for now.

 

[jifigz]

WildTigerTrout wrote:
I see they are charging $3 for the Regulations Digest which was and has always been included with your license for free and they also increased the optional display button fee from $5 to $10. So I guess I will be giving them an extra $8 this year. I will pass on the voluntary license fees for now.

I can understand them charging for the paper copy of the regs. If you are broke that costs money to create and distribute. An online PDF file is a one time fee that can be downloaded by anyone all year long. I did not notice that the button has increased but I'll be buying one if it is only $10 for the simple fact that I like the buttons, even though I've lost more fishing than I've actually had at the end of the year.

 

[Bamboozle]

jifigz wrote:

I can understand them charging for the paper copy of the regs. If you are broke that costs money to create and distribute. An online PDF file is a one time fee that can be downloaded by anyone all year long.

If you are old enough to remember the old Summary Booklets that were about 4" X 3", printed on decent paper and free, you also remember that when they went to the larger magazine sized format printed on cheaper newsprint, they also started having pages of advertising, we were told to pay for the Summary.

So will be $3 fee for the no-longer-free Summary be ad free?

Also, while I am not naive enough to believe that the average angler ever really reads & studies the Summary, I expect an increase of enforcement issues with "ignorance of the law" used an an excuse.

I'm sorry but charging for the Summary is petty, especially when the PFBC marketed license buttons for YEARS that cost MORE to make and distribute than they charged for them?

 

[bigjohn58]

Bamboozle wrote:

jifigz wrote:

I can understand them charging for the paper copy of the regs. If you are broke that costs money to create and distribute. An online PDF file is a one time fee that can be downloaded by anyone all year long.

If you are old enough to remember the old Summary Booklets that were about 4" X 3", printed on decent paper and free, you also remember that when they went to the larger magazine sized format printed on cheaper newsprint, they also started having pages of advertising, we were told to pay for the Summary.

So will be $3 fee for the no-longer-free Summary be ad free?

Also, while I am not naive enough to believe that the average angler ever really reads & studies the Summary, I expect an increase of enforcement issues with "ignorance of the law" used an an excuse.

I'm sorry but charging for the Summary is petty, especially when the PFBC marketed license buttons for YEARS that cost MORE to make and distribute than they charged for them?

I 100% agree with you right there! People don't know the rules and regulations as it is (PFBC's regs are very hard to understand at times) but very few are going to go out of their way to read it online! On the other hand the county I mostly fish in has no one to enforce the regs anyways.

 

[CLSports]

What they need to do to raise funds is something like Rep Your Water does and team up with Simms or some other outdoor clothing supplier to make shirts and hats for the donors. This will get the word out and also allow those that donate to show off their gear to make others feel jealous and inferior. In other words, hire a marketing professional to raise funds in a more creative way than this.

I plan to donate next year for the musky and wild trout permits. I had donated to TU for many years and never knew where the funds were allocated, so this is the same principal.

 

[Swattie87]

CLSports wrote:
This will get the word out and also allow those that donate to show off their gear to make others feel jealous and inferior.

I already have been made to feel inferior by simply wanting to make sure that the additional WT Stamp windfall will actually go to benefiting wild Trout, and not help subsidize a reallocation of general license sale funds previously devoted to wild Trout to other budgetary areas, Stocked Trout specifically.

The shirt or hat would be a nice bonus "**** you Swattie" though.

 

[Prospector]

Interesting comments about the awareness (or lack thereof) of the actual regulations. I agree both fishing and hunting rules are more confusing than ever. When I was a kid, 40 years ago, our local waterways patrolman would always say “my #1 concern is if people have a license because that pays my salary”.

I imagine that might work both ways. If someone had visible evidence of supporting PFC through donations, the WP might be a little more understanding if a minor regulation mix up occurs. Sometimes but not all of the time.

 

[jifigz]

I don't think that the regulations are difficult to understand at all. Also, the interpretation of regulations doesn't matter to many that buy a license because they fish stocked waters for the first two weeks following the general regulations that are easy to understand in those waters. So understanding regs isn't that big of a deal for 99% of people. Just my opinion.

If we are going to talk about a waste of PFBC money I'll give you a prime example. I live on River Road directly on the Juniata in Mifflin County. From September or so through February I may see the PFBC drive extremely often in a gas guzzling SUV. They've checked my license before when I've been out walleye fishing with a fly rod, totally legal of course, but their office is out of Newville. Not exactly just "down the road." They waste so much time and money "patrolling" these waterways in the colder months, which basically means they drive around and stay warm all day in an SUV. I've seen them many times and have been checked many times all during colder weather and always on the Juniata. Never on a trout stream and definitely not on one a little more off the beaten path. Driving around all day to find maybe one or two crazy people fishing in 25° weather in February is a HUGE WASTE OF MONEY!!

 

[bigjohn58]

jifigz wrote:
I don't think that the regulations are difficult to understand at all. Also, the interpretation of regulations doesn't matter to many that buy a license because they fish stocked waters for the first two weeks following the general regulations that are easy to understand in those waters. So understanding regs isn't that big of a deal for 99% of people. Just my opinion.

If we are going to talk about a waste of PFBC money I'll give you a prime example. I live on River Road directly on the Juniata in Mifflin County. From September or so through February I may see the PFBC drive extremely often in a gas guzzling SUV. They've checked my license before when I've been out walleye fishing with a fly rod, totally legal of course, but their office is out of Newville. Not exactly just "down the road." They waste so much time and money "patrolling" these waterways in the colder months, which basically means they drive around and stay warm all day in an SUV. I've seen them many times and have been checked many times all during colder weather and always on the Juniata. Never on a trout stream and definitely not on one a little more off the beaten path. Driving around all day to find maybe one or two crazy people fishing in 25° weather in February is a HUGE WASTE OF MONEY!!

At least you are seeing the money being used! I finally got checked last opening weekend by a WCO...the county I fish mostly doesn't even have a WCO due to budget cuts. I'd enjoy seeing the PFBC patrolling the waters I fish or checking me from time to time then I know they are at least trying to do their job.

 

[krayfish2]

#1 - if cafe press will allow me to design a "**** you Swattie" t-shirt, I'm going to do it. I'll post the link in case anyone wants to buy one. LMAO.

#2 - As some have stated, I fear the voluntary will become the mandatory. Free "voluntary $$" the gubment will be like giving a meth addict a 55 gallon drum of the stuff. If there's a stocked trout permit, a striper permit, a fallfish permit, a flathead permit and a bluegill permit, I'll join the party.

Let's say they get 2.4 million dollars in donations for wild trout in 2019..... Which would make one believe that there would be an additional 2 and 1/2 million dollars for use in the wild trout programs. What is keeping anyone from pulling 2.5 million from the regular budget and reappropriating it for the failing pension system? It may sound cynical to say but it's probably closer to reality than you'd like to admit. I'd be more comfortable lending a 16 yr old my only vehicle. LoL

 

[Swattie87]

krayfish2 wrote:
#1 - if cafe press will allow me to design a "**** you Swattie" t-shirt, I'm going to do it. I'll post the link in case anyone wants to buy one. LMAO.

Utah, get me two.

 

[fredbruckman]

For comparison.

http://www.wvdnr.gov/fishing/license.shtm

 

[bigjohn58]

krayfish2 wrote:
#1 - if cafe press will allow me to design a "**** you Swattie" t-shirt, I'm going to do it. I'll post the link in case anyone wants to buy one. LMAO.

#2 - As some have stated, I fear the voluntary will become the mandatory. Free "voluntary $$" the gubment will be like giving a meth addict a 55 gallon drum of the stuff. If there's a stocked trout permit, a striper permit, a fallfish permit, a flathead permit and a bluegill permit, I'll join the party.

Let's say they get 2.4 million dollars in donations for wild trout in 2019..... Which would make one believe that there would be an additional 2 and 1/2 million dollars for use in the wild trout programs. What is keeping anyone from pulling 2.5 million from the regular budget and reappropriating it for the failing pension system? It may sound cynical to say but it's probably closer to reality than you'd like to admit. I'd be more comfortable lending a 16 yr old my only vehicle. LoL

This right here! I do not have faith in the commission using my donation properly! I'd rather donate my time to actual stream improvement then give away my money and hope its actually being used correctly.

 

[Swattie87]

If we don't get a transparent explanation on this (I understand some don't want or need it, and that's ok), the answer may ultimately lie in some of the budget documents silverfox posted earlier.

If most (I'm not necessarily expecting to see dollar for dollar, just a general good faith effort to use the extra funds for WT causes) of the additional WT Stamp funds are actually used for WT management, I'd expect to see a year on year relative increase in the proportion of spending in the Bureau of Fisheries Management bucket, with everything else remaining relatively proportionally constant. If there's a net increase in revenue from the new voluntary stamps (all else being equal and assuming relatively constant general license purchases), and the budget shows increases in spending in other bureaus, with Fisheries Management remaining relatively the same, that's a significant red flag.

I know some are advocating for donating first on good faith, and then reviewing and reconciling on the math later if it doesn't pan out like they think - I think that's a reasonable and fair approach too. I just think being forthright up front when requesting donations from a constituency is very important.

 

[silverfox]

bigjohn58 wrote:

This right here! I do not have faith in the commission using my donation properly! I'd rather donate my time to actual stream improvement then give away my money and hope its actually being used correctly.

I'm genuinely curious where this notion comes from. Is all of this negative sentiment toward the PFBC from the fact that they stock over Class A water (which I agree is the dumbest thing ever)? Or are there some other actual examples of the commission squandering money?

These statements and sentiments that the PFBC is not to be trusted must be coming from some actual experience or event that I'm not aware of? Really curious if anyone could share what exactly the PAFBC has done to deserve the immediate reaction that they'll "misuse" funds? I mean actual, factual evidence of money mismanagement other than "it's the government".

 

[Prospector]

Swattie87 wrote:
If we don't get a transparent explanation on this (I understand some don't want or need it, and that's ok), the answer may ultimately lie in some of the budget documents silverfox posted earlier.

If most (I'm not necessarily expecting to see dollar for dollar, just a general good faith effort to use the extra funds for WT causes) of the additional WT Stamp funds are actually used for WT management, I'd expect to see a year on year relative increase in the proportion of spending in the Bureau of Fisheries Management bucket, with everything else remaining relatively proportionally constant. If there's a net increase in revenue from the new voluntary stamps (all else being equal and assuming relatively constant general license purchases), and the budget shows increases in spending in other bureaus, with Fisheries Management remaining relatively the same, that's a significant red flag.

I know some are advocating for donating first on good faith, and then reviewing and reconciling on the math later if it doesn't pan out like they think - I think that's a reasonable and fair approach too. I just think being forthright up front when requesting donations from a constituency is very important.

Well said!!

 

[Swattie87]

silverfox wrote:
Really curious if anyone could share what exactly the PAFBC has done to deserve the immediate reaction that they'll "misuse" funds? I mean actual, factual evidence of money mismanagement other than "it's the government".

To be clear, I'm not assuming they would mismanage here, or that they've mismanaged what they've gotten in the past. I'm just looking for more detail on how the extra net funds generated from the WT (and similar new stamps) will be appropriated.

Most of my reasoning as to why I'd like to know this before I contribute doesn't stem from the PFBC's actions, but more their public packaging of their budget problems, and the decision to offer the new stamps as they did.

I mentioned it earlier on in the thread, but I'll reiterate here. Time and time again we hear that the budget shortfalls originate from the lack of a general license cost increase (which I agree is long overdue) and the costs associated with the stocking program, specifically the Trout stocking program - This includes salaries, benefits, and pensions for those needed to staff it. The reports you supplied earlier in the thread factually support this. Never have we publicly heard that WT management is what's sinking the ship. If someone has evidence of this, by all means, show me.

Now we hear that the PFBC is selling WT (and other similar) stamps with the proceeds to go directly to the management of WT, or whatever the stamp is designated for. For the record, I completely believe that the funds directly from the stamp will go to what they've been designated for. As mentioned earlier, and others have as well, my question is whether or not there's components of a shell game here. And the true intention by raising money specific to WT, is to reapportion funds from the general license sales previously devoted to WT, to other areas - the Trout stocking program mainly. If there wasn't a history of the PFBC citing the stocking program as being the main cost driver, supported by the facts and numbers in the budget reports, I wouldn't feel the need to ask for more clarification.

If it's the Trout stocking program that's driving the costs, why not market a voluntary Stocked Trout stamp? The proceeds going toward more, and bigger stocked Trout than could otherwise be produced for those that enjoy and support fishing for stocked Trout. My guess is because the PFBC assumes (correctly I think) that the year round, avid WT anglers, are more likely to voluntarily contribute extra money than stocked Trout anglers, the majority of which generally only fish for Trout a handful of times immediately following the opener. This is evidenced by the many good faith donors in this thread.

Again, as long as the bulk of the additional newly generated revenue is going toward WT management, without a simultaneous reallocation of funds previously devoted to WT from the general license sales, I'm 100% for it.

 

[falcon]

I feel stocking over class A water is where the animosity comes from. I recall an instance where the commission wanted to discontinue stocking on a Class A waterway. Politicians all the way up to Congressman pressured them not to so.

 

[wildtrout2]

Lots of good thoughts on the subject. But, I figure that if you don't buy the optional WT stamp (for whatever reason) you have ZERO chance of helping the WT specifically. Buying it at least gives you a chance of that happening.

I'd be a hypocrite if I wasn't in favor of it, because I'm one of those folks who said they would gladly purchase one (pretty much regardless of cost) if it were made mandatory to fish for WT. I'm all in!