2019 License News

[timbow]

silverfox wrote:

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.

I understand your point and agree on the speculation part of it. However, my point on Spruce Creek was that the PFBC decisions can be swayed by money and political interests.

Here's my thought on Spruce- It could be a wonderful wild brown trout fishery if the PFBC did something to control the pellet pigs and stocking of fish by pay for play clubs. In fact, I'm SURE if they surveyed the stream on the private sections it would easily surpass the biomass to classify it as Class A. Why don't they? Isn't that would be the best way to manage the fishery for wild trout? Wouldn't cost the PFBC much money from the fund to survey and classify. My guess is that the reason they don't survey or publicize the results if they have is that they are influenced by the landowners and clubs to keep it off the Class A list so that they can continue to dump pellets in and stock over the wild fish.

Therefore, I can already picture politicians being lobbied by various groups to spend MORE money on stocking now that these voluntary permits have generated additional revenue for the commission. If there's nothing on the books that dictate how the WT funds can be spent and they provide a vague language of "Enhanced Waters", which is NOT a designation of anything within the commission, I can be left to assume they have wiggle room on how to spend the money. When other groups and politicians see this wiggle room they will all be lined up to lobby the PFBC to spend the funds on what gets them re-elected.

 

[silverfox]

timbow wrote:

I understand your point and agree on the speculation part of it. However, my point on Spruce Creek was that the PFBC decisions can be swayed by money and political interests.

Here's my thought on Spruce- It could be a wonderful wild brown trout fishery if the PFBC did something to control the pellet pigs and stocking of fish by pay for play clubs. In fact, I'm SURE if they surveyed the stream on the private sections it would easily surpass the biomass to classify it as Class A. Why don't they? Isn't that would be the best way to manage the fishery for wild trout? Wouldn't cost the PFBC much money from the fund to survey and classify. My guess is that the reason they don't survey or publicize the results if they have is that they are influenced by the landowners and clubs to keep it off the Class A list so that they can continue to dump pellets in and stock over the wild fish.

Therefore, I can already picture politicians being lobbied by various groups to spend MORE money on stocking now that these voluntary permits have generated additional revenue for the commission. If there's nothing on the books that dictate how the WT funds can be spent and they provide a vague language of "Enhanced Waters", which is NOT a designation of anything within the commission, I can be left to assume they have wiggle room on how to spend the money. When other groups and politicians see this wiggle room they will all be lined up to lobby the PFBC to spend the funds on what gets them re-elected.

I understand the concern about how the money will be spent, however, as was mentioned, it will come out in the laundry so to speak. I'm sure they understand that if the people who donated money for WT/Habitat find out that the money was spent raising freezer fodder that will be the end of the "donations" from the WT folks. Which is why I HIGHLY doubt they're going to be playing games. IF they were to do something like that, it would be a one time shot and it wont likely be a significant amount of money anyway. It makes absolutely no sense that they would establish an avenue for direct public funding of a resource and then immediately undermine it.

I guess the point is, let's take a try it and see how it goes approach rather than simply assume it's a train wreck. My concern now is that most people will not donate and wait and see how it goes for those of us who did.

 

[timbow]

silverfox wrote:
I guess the point is, let's take a try it and see how it goes approach rather than simply assume it's a train wreck. My concern now is that most people will not donate and wait and see how it goes for those of us who did.

If this does happen, the fault lays entirely on the PFBC and not the folks who were suspicious. They have basically told us, when questioned on how the funds will be used, to hang tight and they will be releasing the details in early 2019. So basically, give us your money blindly THEN we will tell you how to spend it. Typical government BS. What if I went to my boss at work and said, "hey I need you to add $100,000 to my project's budget. I can't tell you how I'm going to spend it, but I promise it will be spent accordingly and I'll give you the details after I have the money." I think I'd be looking for a new job....

 

[rrt]

Spruce Creek: A number of politicians belong or belonged to the Spruce Creek Rod & Gun Club. Former President Jimmy Carter fishes at Harpsters'. It is unlikely that the PFBC is going to do anything about Spruce Creek that would antagonize politicians who fish there, esp when hoping for a license fee increase.

 

[timbow]

rrt wrote:
Spruce Creek: A number of politicians belong or belonged to the Spruce Creek Rod & Gun Club. Former President Jimmy Carter fishes at Harpsters'. It is unlikely that the PFBC is going to do anything about Spruce Creek that would antagonize politicians who fish there, esp when hoping for a license fee increase.

Exactly my point. Exactly why a license fee increase didn't happen and Arway was pushed out. Politicians refused to allow it because the majority of "fisherman" didn't want it. These are the same people that would love to use the WT funds for more hatchery fish.

 

[krayfish2]

Silver Fox wrote:
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.

Would it not also be not logical or legitimate to suggest that all funds will be spent exactly as intended? Just saying. If somebody wants to blindly follow doesn't mean it's the right thing, does it?

Silverfox wrote:
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

I just might donate to the program :-o :lol:

 

[silverfox]

krayfish2 wrote:

Would it not also be not logical or legitimate to suggest that all funds will be spent exactly as intended? Just saying. If somebody wants to blindly follow doesn't mean it's the right thing, does it?

If they say the funds will be invested in those programs and they'll provide further detail, then yes, I think it's logical to assume that will be the case. If most of the information available points to them using the funds appropriately, then I don't see why the immediate reaction would be that they're going to build WT killing machines with the money.

 

[Swattie87]

I think the additional increase in revenue generated from WT stamps possibly (I'm not saying it will be, I'm looking for clarification) being a vehicle to free additional general license funds to be spent on the stocking program and its costs is a more plausible and reasonable question to have than on Brown Trout with lasers. And blow and hookers. And again, I'm not saying that WT stamp money will be used for this. I'm confident it won't be. My question is in regard to the general license sale funds that were historically routed to wild Trout, presumably as part of that 13% Fisheries Management bucket in the reports. It doesn't get broken down further than that in the report to Trout specifically, but is that 13% staying roughly the same? If so, right on! Utah, get me two stamps.

Beyond the Brown Trout laser thing I have nothing new to add that hasn't already been said.

 

[ryansheehan]

silverfox wrote:
[
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.

There is a huge difference between "sharks with laser beams" and suggesting that funds will get moved around. Moving funds when receiving grants, federal money, etc is common place in government. Trout with freaking laser beams not so much. If this is so offensive and so harmful just to ask the question pfbc would need to release a simple statement. Funds received from the wild trout stamp will be used in addition to the previous years budgeted amount to improve wild trout fisheries.

 

[silverfox]

Swattie87 wrote:
I think the additional increase in revenue generated from WT stamps possibly (I'm not saying it will be, I'm looking for clarification) being a vehicle to free additional general license funds to be spent on the stocking program and its costs is a more plausible and reasonable question to have than on Brown Trout with lasers. And blow and hookers. And again, I'm not saying that WT stamp money will be used for this. I'm confident it won't be. My question is in regard to the general license sale funds that were historically routed to wild Trout, presumably as part of that 13% Fisheries Management bucket in the reports. It doesn't get broken down further than that in the report to Trout specifically, but is that 13% staying roughly the same? If so, right on! Utah, get me two stamps.

Beyond the Brown Trout laser thing I have nothing new to add that hasn't already been said.

The reason I hate your theory so much is because you've setup a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. That is, that event A happened after Event B and therefore event B caused event A.

The problem is, we don't know exactly what funding is historically, currently or PLANNED to be spent solely on WT. I suspect there is part of engineering, hatcheries, administration, fisheries and especially special programs etc. all spent on WT. BTW, I believe, not all of the hatcheries money is spent on raising WT vaporizers. I recall reading that they do work to try to raise fry from WT strains to stock in order to supplement WT populations. So it might be hard to identify whether there is a direct correlation between reductions in spending relative to revenue increases from the voluntary permits.

Also, it's abundantly clear that they are actively trying to reduce spending. Almost every report they have starts out explaining that their expenses outpace revenue. So you're probably going to see reductions in spending across the board regardless.

Similarly, it's going to be impossible to confirm that they did reduce spending on WT because they got donations for WT from the voluntary permits.

Finally, the only silver lining here is that as I mentioned in an earlier post, there is already a vehicle for funds generated from these voluntary permits. These funds are "restricted use", meaning that they can only be used for what they are intended. So while nobody may ever be able to prove that they didn't reduce general fund spending because they got WT donations, at least you know that the WT money you donated, did in fact, go to WT.

pages 49 and 50: http://lbfc.legis.state.pa.us/Resources/Documents/Reports/554.pdf

PS, I was trying to inject a little humor in a tense situation w/ the hookers, blow and cyborg trout thing. Sorry I rustled your jimmies.

 

[ryansheehan]

FWIW Iove the trout with laser beam comment, saw you put the pinky up to your mouth and everything as I read it.

 

[silverfox]

Freaking lasers!

 

[Swattie87]

silver - No worries, nothing was rustled. The Browns with lasers thing was funny, no doubt. I laughed and smiled when I read it, and knew where it came from. Poor analogy in the context it was used, but funny nonetheless.

I read your "post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy" thing. I got a B- in Philosophy in college. Got an A in other more important things though...beer, girls, won the flag football championship one year. I did note though that your logic analysis allowed for the possibility of fund distributions from the general license sales not staying proportionally similar in response to the WT stamp, hence my suggestion for clarification. Why not just clarify it? From what some have been posting, it sounds like they may be working on something like that to clarify. Props to the PFBC if they do.

It certainly is reasonable that expenditures may go up or down in gross numbers based on changes in year to year revenue or spending practices, but if Bureau of Hatcheries proportionally goes up, while Fisheries Management proportionally goes down after the stamp is implemented, that's a red flag. Not a lock tight confirmation of anything, but something that many WT fans and stamp buyers would probably want some further explanation on. If things proportionally stay relatively similar, and there's more money for WT from the stamp in the process, hey that's great. That's what we all want. We won't know that until we see next year's revenues and expenditures though, unless it's clarified in the meantime. Probably a point for those arguing to donate, and ask questions later, admittedly. As I mentioned before, I'm warming to that.

Your post kinda reminded of the scene from Princess Bride where the guy is working through the logic on which poisoned wine glass to drink from. Also funny, but also bad analogy probably.

Come to the jam next year and we can fish together. Heck, we'd probably even like each other. I'll be the guy in bootfoot waders hooking Fallfish on Penns on Sulphurs.

 

[silverfox]

Inconceivable!

I agree, that the F&BC needs to make a statement about how the funds will be used to ease people's minds. It would help if they outlined projected spending on WT and then show how the voluntary funds would apply.

Something I read about this is interesting;

“Instead of just rolling out a permit, we want to try to put some kind of program behind it, so that customers get something for it rather than just the permit or the ability to make a donation,” said deputy executive director Brian Barner.

From here: http://adventures.everybodyshops.com/voluntary-permits-might-support-fishing/

It will be interesting to see if that panned out, and what it might be Mr. Barner was referring to.

Guess we'll wait and see. Though, you would think at this point they might have a lot of incentive to promote these voluntary permits and provide as much enticing information as possible.

I personally care a lot about WT and habitat work. I guess I've taken a defensive position here because I think we need as much help as we can get in terms of helping WT. So I'm pretty stoked anytime there is news of WT improvement or that organizations are making them a priority. It should be something we all get behind the F&BC on. We complain about the priority of stocking and then when they try to do something for WT we get critical of them for it.

I get questioning things. Any organization who collects money for WT should be kept honest via criticism and questioning.

I'll think about the jam thing. Never been to one. Despite my F&BC cheerleading here, I'm generally pretty easy to get along with. I think. My wife might disagree. :-D

 

[afishinado]

silverfox wrote:
Inconceivable!

I agree, that the F&BC needs to make a statement about how the funds will be used to ease people's minds. It would help if they outlined projected spending on WT and then show how the voluntary funds would apply.

Something I read about this is interesting;

“Instead of just rolling out a permit, we want to try to put some kind of program behind it, so that customers get something for it rather than just the permit or the ability to make a donation,” said deputy executive director Brian Barner.

From here: http://adventures.everybodyshops.com/voluntary-permits-might-support-fishing/

It will be interesting to see if that panned out, and what it might be Mr. Barner was referring to.

Guess we'll wait and see. Though, you would think at this point they might have a lot of incentive to promote these voluntary permits and provide as much enticing information as possible.

I personally care a lot about WT and habitat work. I guess I've taken a defensive position here because I think we need as much help as we can get in terms of helping WT. So I'm pretty stoked anytime there is news of WT improvement or that organizations are making them a priority. It should be something we all get behind the F&BC on. We complain about the priority of stocking and then when they try to do something for WT we get critical of them for it.

I get questioning things. Any organization who collects money for WT should be kept honest via criticism and questioning.

I'll think about the jam thing. Never been to one. Despite my F&BC cheerleading here, I'm generally pretty easy to get along with. I think. My wife might disagree. :-D

Thanks for the link. There is a survey near the bottom of the article showing that 8% of the respondents would buy the permit to benefit wild trout and 9% of bass anglers would participate. The bass anglers come up big! While 74% would not buy any permit to benefit any category.

I agree I don't understand why so many FFers and WT guys complain about so much stocking being done in PA, and yet only purchase a general license and trout permit which is used to fund the stocking program, yet pass or some become incensed when given the opportunity to support a fund to benefit wild trout.

The PFBC needs more funding. I gave to the CAP fund and hoped some dollars benefited wild trout. I also gave and give to the SOS Susky fund because I have fished for smallies all my life on the river and care deeply about the health of the Susky.

I welcome the opportunity to help out wild trout in PA. Previous to this permit there was no way to designate any funds to benefit wild trout. Don't let your anger or mistrust of the government stop you from participating in something they offer that can be a real benefit for PA streams.

One last time for me. Again, as I have posted, I look at this permit as yet another opportunity to do something to benefit wild trout in PA. One can also or instead choose to help out TU monetarily or by donating time, or volunteer to help out some conservancy or other organization working to conserve coldwater streams.

I encourage everyone to do something over and above just buying a fishing license every year. The coldwater streams of PA need a lot more help. And if the wild trout anglers don't take the lead to help out, who will?

 

[rrt]

afish,

Good, thoughtful post. I, too, think it is worth taking a chance that buying the vol. trout waters permit might help wild trout, even if just a little bit.

 

[supervdl]

"One can also or instead choose to help out TU monetarily or by donating time, or volunteer to help out some conservancy or other organization working to conserve coldwater streams."

I think this is the best/ most efficient way to help wild trout and I have mad it a goal of mine since last year to get more involved with my local TU and will continue to do so. I donated time and money for local stream improvement projects and you can actually see where the money goes. Also, participation and transparency in public advocacy is great.

afishinado wrote:

silverfox wrote:
Inconceivable!

I agree, that the F&BC needs to make a statement about how the funds will be used to ease people's minds. It would help if they outlined projected spending on WT and then show how the voluntary funds would apply.

Something I read about this is interesting;

“Instead of just rolling out a permit, we want to try to put some kind of program behind it, so that customers get something for it rather than just the permit or the ability to make a donation,” said deputy executive director Brian Barner.

From here: http://adventures.everybodyshops.com/voluntary-permits-might-support-fishing/

It will be interesting to see if that panned out, and what it might be Mr. Barner was referring to.

Guess we'll wait and see. Though, you would think at this point they might have a lot of incentive to promote these voluntary permits and provide as much enticing information as possible.

I personally care a lot about WT and habitat work. I guess I've taken a defensive position here because I think we need as much help as we can get in terms of helping WT. So I'm pretty stoked anytime there is news of WT improvement or that organizations are making them a priority. It should be something we all get behind the F&BC on. We complain about the priority of stocking and then when they try to do something for WT we get critical of them for it.

I get questioning things. Any organization who collects money for WT should be kept honest via criticism and questioning.

I'll think about the jam thing. Never been to one. Despite my F&BC cheerleading here, I'm generally pretty easy to get along with. I think. My wife might disagree. :-D

Thanks for the link. There is a survey near the bottom of the article showing that 8% of the respondents would buy the permit to benefit wild trout and 9% of bass anglers would participate. The bass anglers come up big! While 74% would not buy any permit to benefit any category.

I agree I don't understand why so many FFers and WT guys complain about so much stocking being done in PA, and yet only purchase a general license and trout permit which is used to fund the stocking program, yet pass or some become incensed when given the opportunity to support a fund to benefit wild trout.

The PFBC needs more funding. I gave to the CAP fund and hoped some dollars benefited wild trout. I also gave and give to the SOS Susky fund because I have fished for smallies all my life on the river and care deeply about the health of the Susky.

I welcome the opportunity to help out wild trout in PA. Previous to this permit there was no way to designate any funds to benefit wild trout. Don't let your anger or mistrust of the government stop you from participating in something they offer that can be a real benefit for PA streams.

One last time for me. Again, as I have posted, I look at this permit as yet another opportunity to do something to benefit wild trout in PA. One can also or instead choose to help out TU monetarily or by donating time, or volunteer to help out some conservancy or other organization working to conserve coldwater streams.

I encourage everyone to do something over and above just buying a fishing license every year. The coldwater streams of PA need a lot more help. And if the wild trout anglers don't take the lead to help out, who will?

 

[PennKev]

supervdl wrote:


I think this is the best/ most efficient way to help wild trout and I have mad it a goal of mine since last year to get more involved with my local TU and will continue to do so. I donated time and money for local stream improvement projects and you can actually see where the money goes. Also, participation and transparency in public advocacy is great.

My local TU is a glorified stocking club. So... caveat emptor.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I will second that some TU chapters really are not active in the realm of stream improvements and or conservation of wild trout, however some of those same chapters are very involved with project healing waters and youth angler outreach. I can not speak for the actual plans that PFBC has for the new wild trout funds, but keep in mind that the vast majority of the stream/ habitat improvement projects spoken of on this thread have PFBC involvement in some way. Whether it is permit approval, grants, planning, design etc.

 

[dc410]

I just bought my 2019 PA fishing license. I bought the resident annual, the trout/salmon permit, the alternate display button, the voluntary wild trout permit and the voluntary bass permit. It cost me $81.60. I hope the additional funds are put to good use but I view it mainly as supporting the overall cause of the PFBC which have not been permitted to raise license fees for well over a decade. If they charged me $81.60 for a general fishing license fee I would pay it in a heartbeat. Being a year round flyfisherman for many different species here in PA, $1.57 a week is a no brainer for me.