Article about priorities of the PFBC

No talk about wild/native trout or invasive species...NOT GOOD!
 
I think everyone thats commented on this thread thus far would agree that this whole song and dance around the harms of stocking(its ok here over these native brook trout but we won’t do it over class A brook trout but we will still stock 10 feet away from the class A section). With the mountain of publications in fisheries science on this topic it’s indefensible and they know that.

I am glad they have proposed the auth because I guess you have to start somewhere and this is probably the minimum that could be done IF it passes as silver fox pointed out. I guess the bigger question is will this become a stepping stone to badly needed more comprehensive stocking reform or just something to point to in the future to say “hey we did something”. This remains to be seen.
 
bigjohn358 said:
No talk about wild/native trout or invasive species...NOT GOOD!
Click to expand...
I mean, that was a brief article/interview. I don't think it means much of anything what was or wasn't said there.

I bet there is/will be a lot of grumbling from the general trout fishing public of truck chasers about a license increase, though.
 
jifigz’s first sentence is absolutely correct. It’s a general introduction to the new pres. Having done hundreds of interviews, I can tell you that you don’t always get to say all that you wished and the writers don’t always write all that you said.
And sometimes because we are all human we forget to mention a topic of importance.
 
Mike said:
jifigz’s first sentence is absolutely correct. It’s a general introduction to the new pres. Having done hundreds of interviews, I can tell you that you don’t always get to say all that you wished and the writers don’t always write all that you said.
And sometimes because we are all human we forget to mention a topic of importance.
Click to expand...


A "friend" who was a politician once told me about the press.. "what you say, what they hear, and what they print are 3 different things."
 
B.J. Small is the new Board President. So, he's the top guy on the Board of Commissioners.

The Executive Director of the PFBC is Tim Shaeffer.

Which one has more power to set the direction of the PFBC or be "the decider," I'm not really sure.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
jifigz’s first sentence is absolutely correct. It’s a general introduction to the new pres. Having done hundreds of interviews, I can tell you that you don’t always get to say all that you wished and the writers don’t always write all that you said.
And sometimes because we are all human we forget to mention a topic of importance.
Click to expand...
I tried to get a retraction on something a reporter wrote that was blatantly wrong, and they refused. They have publications to sell, and controversy is better than facts.
 
I don't mind paying more for a license. I fish enough that it comes out out to less than a dollar a day for the license. What else can you do for that?
As far as how they spend the money, that could be improved...
 
phiendWMD said:
I don't mind paying more for a license. I fish enough that it comes out out to less than a dollar a day for the license. What else can you do for that?
As far as how they spend the money, that could be improved...
Click to expand...
What are your suggestions? Just remember, in the end how the money spent is all someone's opinions. The question is who has the winning opinion with the most backing.
 
jifigz said:
What are your suggestions? Just remember, in the end how the money spent is all someone's opinions. The question is who has the winning opinion with the most backing.
Click to expand...
Your right about that money has to be spent in a way the angling public approves of or the commission will never realistically go that direction.

There are also other realities the commission faces no matter what the public wants. Like the gas, feed, and infrastructure costs for these hatcheries increasing unsustainably faster than license revenue and the need to charge more for each individual license user. We are currently in a fee increase. We don’t mind small medium or even large increases in license funds depending in how its used but a lot of PAFB customers are going to tell them to take a walk with even nominal changes.

Given the unsustainability of such enormous hatchery output, the fact that stream/lake born warm water species fisheries make up a huge part of the state and that cold water ecosystems are improving and are going to get significant chunk of this 220 million clean streams fund, i would say throw some money at the access crisis.

Purple paint and posted signs are popping up in a lot of places with all the increased stream traffic in the past few years and I think alot if folks could get behind easements that double as protection against development encroaching on streams. 13 million on hatcheries cut in half is alot of money on an annual basis especially with how much cheaper flood zone property in wild places with lower ranked school systems can be. Wetlands could be restored flooding could be mitigated. They could even use those millions of dollars a year as match money for bigger grants because such access/conservation easements would get wide support from chesapeke bay folks, politicians, naturalists, and anglers. Right now we are just flushing money down the raceway.
 
I enjoyed reading his articles in the Gettysburg Times
 
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