2019 License News

[krayfish2]

Purchased a trout stamp since it's inception. Over the last 10 years, probably fished for trout in PA less than 20 times and haven't kept a trout in 30+ years. Not likely I'll buy one without proof that the voluntary donation goes toward wild trout. I'll be in later if I see something I like.

 

[falcon]

I hear you Kray. I bought the stamp for as long (a long time)as I remember. I don't kill trout and rarely fish a predominately stocked stream. I fish the upper Delaware 99% of the time and I buy a NY and PA license. If I feel they are nor appropriating dollars correctly I will never buy a license again. I will buy this year in good faith ...

 

[tomgamber]

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is a user-funded agency that operates primarily on funds generated through the sale of fishing licenses, boating registrations and associated fees. PFBC receives no Pennsylvania General Fund tax revenue to support its programs.

So how, as has been suggested in this thread, will will previously allocated state funds go somewhere else if they do not receive ANY?

 

[Dave_W]

I purchased the 2019 voluntary wild trout and muskie stamps.

It's easy to do if you buy your license through the PFBC online vendor.

When you print your license, the voluntary stamps come up as essentially separate licenses. That is to say - unlike the old trout stamp which is noted on your fishing license - the voluntary stamps print out in the same format as the actual license. You're supposed to cut them out. The actual fishing license still says, "Display this license on an outer garment." The vountary stamps also have this requirement to display them with both sides visible. I think this is a poor printing format and they should simple be noted on the regular fishing license stacked below the Trout Salmon Stamp that we all already have.

Anyway, all things considered, I like the voluntary stamp plan and have long favored this. Money is fungible. The PFBC could use some help from those of us who fish a lot and purchasing the stamps is easy.

(EDIT: Forgot to mention a previous thread from Mike in which he points out that display of the permits is not required.)

 

[Swattie87]

tomgamber wrote:

So how, as has been suggested in this thread, will will previously allocated state funds go somewhere else if they do not receive ANY?

Tom - Not sure if that was directed at my questions or not. To clarify if so, I was talking about general fishing license sale funds previously allocated to WT being reallocated within the PFBC to other ventures, offset by the additional WT stamp revenue. In essence, the concern being raised is the same amount of money being devoted to WT despite the WT stamp, with increases in spending elsewhere within the PFBC, namely Trout stocking. I wasn't referring to any state allocated funds, only those generated from fishing license sales.

 

[tomgamber]

Swattie87 wrote:

tomgamber wrote:

So how, as has been suggested in this thread, will will previously allocated state funds go somewhere else if they do not receive ANY?

Tom - Not sure if that was directed at my questions or not. To clarify if so, I was talking about general fishing license sale funds previously allocated to WT being reallocated within the PFBC to other ventures, offset by the additional WT stamp revenue. In essence, the concern being raised is the same amount of money being devoted to WT despite the WT stamp, with increases in spending elsewhere within the PFBC, namely Trout stocking. I wasn't referring to any state allocated funds, only those generated from fishing license sales.

yeah, I don't know if it was you either. thanks for clarifying. It was a long thread, then I went to PAFBC site and then had that question. I must have misunderstood.

Would we have to wait for a year end report to see where money was spent? Wouldn't the commission have to put a budget out and pass it and wouldn't that be public information? Rather than assume the commission is not trustworthy as some are doing on this thread. again, not singling anyone out.

 

[silverfox]

Swattie87 wrote:

tomgamber wrote:

So how, as has been suggested in this thread, will will previously allocated state funds go somewhere else if they do not receive ANY?

Tom - Not sure if that was directed at my questions or not. To clarify if so, I was talking about general fishing license sale funds previously allocated to WT being reallocated within the PFBC to other ventures, offset by the additional WT stamp revenue. In essence, the concern being raised is the same amount of money being devoted to WT despite the WT stamp, with increases in spending elsewhere within the PFBC, namely Trout stocking. I wasn't referring to any state allocated funds, only those generated from fishing license sales.

Really wish this ****amamy conspiracy theory was never brought up. It isn't based on any kind of history or reality for that matter. Might as well have suggested they would simply squander the donations on hookers and blow.

You realize that you might be responsible for several people (maybe a bunch of people) not donating money based on a falsehood? Frankly, I think it's pretty irresponsible to fear monger on something like this that could have a positive impact on WT and habitat.

FWIW (though apparently nothing they say can be trusted) the PAFBC states:

Funds generated through these permits will be reinvested into their respective program.

https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/fish-and-Boat-Commission-Details.aspx?newsid=230

 

[timbow]

silverfox wrote:

Swattie87 wrote:

tomgamber wrote:

So how, as has been suggested in this thread, will will previously allocated state funds go somewhere else if they do not receive ANY?

Tom - Not sure if that was directed at my questions or not. To clarify if so, I was talking about general fishing license sale funds previously allocated to WT being reallocated within the PFBC to other ventures, offset by the additional WT stamp revenue. In essence, the concern being raised is the same amount of money being devoted to WT despite the WT stamp, with increases in spending elsewhere within the PFBC, namely Trout stocking. I wasn't referring to any state allocated funds, only those generated from fishing license sales.

Really wish this ****amamy conspiracy theory was never brought up. It isn't based on any kind of history or reality for that matter. Might as well have suggested they would simply squander the donations on hookers and blow.

You realize that you might be responsible for several people (maybe a bunch of people) not donating money based on a falsehood? Frankly, I think it's pretty irresponsible to fear monger on something like this that could have a positive impact on WT and habitat.

FWIW (though apparently nothing they say can be trusted) the PAFBC states:

Funds generated through these permits will be reinvested into their respective program.

https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/fish-and-Boat-Commission-Details.aspx?newsid=230

Personally, I’d rather them spend the money on hookers and blow then on more stocked trout.

 

[Swattie87]

silverfox - I think everyone should make up their own mind. I don't have a conspiracy theory, or intend or want to influence others in their decisions. I have questions. I certainly haven't been campaigning for folks not to buy it. Heck, I want to buy it!...For the right reasons. There's been good points and discussion brought up throughout this thread from all viewpoints, certainly enough to get me to think and consider my position. Folks should make up their own mind.

Bottom line, I have questions. I'd like to understand the answer to those questions, before I make up my mind. Those questions arise from where the actual historical costs for the PFBC lie, as indicated in the financial reports. That's the history and reality behind them. It doesn't seem I'm the only one with those questions. I haven't kept count, but my guess is the sentiment in the thread is about 1/3 or so have similar questions. For wild Trout anglers, most of whom want to go out of their way to help WT, that's a significant amount. It'd be nice to have some simple clarification so as WT anglers and supporters, we could all be behind this 100%. I'll admit, maybe the better thing to do if those questions aren't answered, is to just buy the stamp on good faith, see what happens, and re-evaluate in a year or two, as several have suggested. I don't know. Maybe it's not as easy of a question to answer as I think it is on the surface.

I have no doubt that the direct funds from the WT stamp will be used for WT. I'm not questioning that at all, and sincerely believe the PFBC when they state that. My question is whether the funds historically devoted to WT from the general license sales (whatever that may be) are for the most part staying put with WT, hence creating additional new funds for WT from the stamp. I don't expect it to be dollar or dollar or every penny to be accounted for. Just the assurance that there is more money for WT after the stamp than before...That's enough for me, and I think a lot of the guys with similar questions. The line you quoted from the 12/01 article below doesn't explain that...It says stamp funds will go to the program on the stamp. I'm certain they will. As long as there is more money for WT in the end, the WT stamp is a great thing for WT in PA, and I'll buy one and offer to sing a solo with the chorus in this thread already praising it.

You're the only one (so far) to equate stocked Trout with hookers and blow, but I think as WT fans we can all agree that if the WT funds were a vehicle for shifting general license funds toward stocked Trout, we wouldn't be quite as warm and fuzzy on it. Why not eliminate that concern if you could?

Edit: Ok, timbow makes two on the hookers and blow thing.

Edit 2.0: Read some of the comments to the article posted in the OP. It's not just roughly 1/3 of PAFF that has these questions.

 

[timbow]

I bought my voluntary WT permit last week bit I still want answers to my questions before I decide for next year

 

[Fly-Swatter]

"...hookers and blow." Um....isn't that redundant? ;-)


Seriously, though, I completely agree about the negative impact of fear mongering. I'm as jaded as the next guy about government ons misappropriated money, but don't assume PAFBC is going down tat road until they do. It's well worth the price of admission to see if they handle the WT money right. We can always boycott in future years if it's warranted.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

With 2 opening days, the PFBC DOES waste a ton of revenue on "hookers" and blow(hards), I've seen this first hand. ;-)

 

[tomgamber]

Fly-Swatter wrote:
"...hookers and blow." Um....isn't that redundant? ;-)

Not during the 90s

 

[krayfish2]

Shame on you Swattie for your fear mongering. Now shut up and by your voluntary unicorn permit.
"Funds generated through these permits will be reinvested into their respective program.". Prove it to me and I'll sign up. Yeah, I'm a doubting Thomas and will need proof before I join in.
When legislative folks and truck chasers influence the PFBC as much as they do, it's really hard to believe that the money will find it's way to any programs for wild trout. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it and donate way more than the cost of the voluntary permit.

I just view it like an arm of the gubment. They will continue to squeeze every dime out of the public that they can. When the well dries up, new programs / plans will follow to keep the money flowing in. Fix the damn pension plan issue instead of ignoring it and maybe I'll buy some of the stuff they are selling.

And..... Merry Christmas to all on PAFF.

 

[timbow]

So let me ask this question of the folks that think there is no need to question the PFBC on their intent for the funds and their overall attitude towards wild trout. Here’s the question- why is Spruce creek not classified as class A, giving it the protection that comes with being class A? They did just add the Harvey section to class A with over 400 kg/ha brown trout, but conveniently didn’t assess or classify the rest of the joke of a fishery.....

 

[timbow]

My mistake, it’s the new PFBC Indian Caverns property that has been added. The Harvey section has been class A. Guess there are no wild fish in between though

 

[RivDiv521]

Would be nice to see some additional funds for the maintenance crews. I've used the upper Delaware access areas since the 1960's and have never seen them is such poor shape as this past summer.

 

[moon1284]

What upper delaware access areas were there in the 60s that are around today?

 

[RivDiv521]

Narrowsburg, Damascus, Callicoon

 

[silverfox]

timbow wrote:
So let me ask this question of the folks that think there is no need to question the PFBC on their intent for the funds and their overall attitude towards wild trout. Here’s the question- why is Spruce creek not classified as class A, giving it the protection that comes with being class A? They did just add the Harvey section to class A with over 400 kg/ha brown trout, but conveniently didn’t assess or classify the rest of the joke of a fishery.....

There is a difference between legitimate questions related to how the funds will be used and baseless assumptive speculation about how the program is a ruse. That's my only issue here.

It's completely logical and legitimate to question how the funds will be used. It's not as logical or legitimate to suggest that the funds will be misused. So if I were to say that they'll probably use the funds for WT to develop a strain of brown trout with lasers for eyes that are genetically trained to vaporize gemmies on sight, that would be irresponsible. In my opinion, that would be no different than suggesting that they'll play accounting games to move money around and underhandedly fund stocking w/ WT money.

As for Spruce creek, I have no idea why that one (or 2) section(s) is/are listed as Class A. Personally, I don't think that freakshow of a stream should be Class A. Half/most? of it is a pay-to-fish playground as far as I'm concerned. The results of those activities is without a doubt why it's inhabitants are what they are. You can't seriously catch one of those browns and think that you're catching a naturally occurring creature. I get a chuckle out of a few guys who spam instagram with those things and tag them as #wildtrout. No they aren't. They may have been born there, but they didn't grow to that size by nature.

According to the state, Class A means: Definition of Class A Waters:
Streams that support a population of naturally produced trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery. Maybe since they can't control how many metric tons of trout chow are dumped into the water outside of the harvey/cavern sections they can't say for certain that it will be a long-term OR "rewarding" sport fishery.

Also, for the record, I hate the stocking program as it exists. I'm a WT (brookies specifically) fisherman almost exclusively. I wish they would stop stocking class A streams. HOWEVER, the several class A's that I fish that have stockings, would still get hammered by freezer stockers whether the state stocked it or not. Without zero creel regs (and people to actually enforce it) on those class A streams, they wouldn't be class A for very long if they stopped stocking it. It's a bit of a catch 22.

In my view the freezer fodder they dump in the streams simply keeps the meat fishermen occupied long enough to not decimate the WT populations in the stream. Without them, it would be 100% wild trout lining their freezer door.