John Arway; Director PFBC

[salmonoid]

Just caught the last five minutes of this conversation last night on the way home, but it's certainly relevant to this discussion.

Arway is on around 31:00.

http://www.witf.org/smart-talk/2018/03/psba-on-opposition-to-property-tax-elimination-billembattled-fish-and-boat-commission-direector-john.php

Nitpick: I do wish the "86,000 stream miles, second only to Alaska" fact would stop being thrown around. We aren't second. We're somewhere in the top middle of the pack (15thish).

 

[franklin]

afishinado wrote:

troutbert wrote:

Oregon_OwlII wrote:
Troutbert, he has been a thorn in the side of development interests who are politically connected, by virtue of his push for finding and identifying trout reproduction streams in the state, which causes a DEP upgrade in water quality status. He's been an advocate for fish, to the consternation of some.

I think that is the most likely reason why some legislators are trying to push him out. And why they have been trying to starve the PFBC financially.

The legislators aren't going to say publicly that this is why they are down on the PFBC and John Arway, of course. They are using the budget and hatcheries "issue" as cover. IMHO.

No doubt the above is one of the big reasons for the financial stranglehold on the FBC without a license fee increase since 2005.

But I think it's more complex than that. How does one explain why the PA Game Commission hasn't seen an increase in license fees since 1998?! The Fish Commission has been starved, while the Game Commission is emaciated!

It may be as simple as politicians wanted to exercise their power and influence over what is supposed to be set up as agencies funded from alternate sources (not tax dollars) and run independent from state government. They pander to their constituents to get votes by holding the purse strings and use them to strangle both commissions to extract favors, wield their power and stay in power. Or sumthin' like that....

Antlerless license numbers and antler size restrictions. The legislature is still punishing the Game Commission for sound biological management of the state deer population.

 

[Fredrick]

https://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2018/03/house-game-fisheries-committee-hears.html?m=1

 

[jifigz]

salmonoid wrote:
Just caught the last five minutes of this conversation last night on the way home, but it's certainly relevant to this discussion.

Arway is on around 31:00.

http://www.witf.org/smart-talk/2018/03/psba-on-opposition-to-property-tax-elimination-billembattled-fish-and-boat-commission-direector-john.php

Nitpick: I do wish the "86,000 stream miles, second only to Alaska" fact would stop being thrown around. We aren't second. We're somewhere in the top middle of the pack (15thish).

How is that fact disputable? I found two different articles on the same website that indicates that we have the highest stream density in the country. A different page on the same website also indicated that we have the greatest mileage of flowing waters in the lower 48. Is the difference in the use of "flowing waters" vs "streams?" We certainly have an extremely high stream density as anyone who lives here knows. We are a small-ish stare with a lot of streams.

And I am not nitpicking on your post but posing a serious question. It doesn't matter either way. PA is a great place to be if you fish.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

http://klabergroup.com/insights/?Considering-Water-A-state-by-state-analysis-of-our-relationship-with-waterways-2

The state with the highest stream density is Pennsylvania – with 83,260 stream miles (representing 2.3% of the country's total stream miles) and an area of 45,310 square miles (a smaller than average sized state). Its stream density is 1.8. The state with the most stream miles is Alaska (at 10% of the nation's total), followed by 16 other states with more stream miles than Pennsylvania.

 

[jifigz]

https://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/pennsylvania/our-work/rivers-and-streams.xml

http://www.delriverwatershed.org/news/2017/11/27/protecting-pennsylvanias-trout

Now read these links from the Nature Conservancy and The Coalition for the Delaware. Theyagree with what Arway said. I don't care either way, but how do you honestly know what is accurate? If you can find multiple reliable sources that say the same thing then it would seem to confirm it as correct. Here, not so much, as me only pulling up too thus far does much in my opinion.

 

[jifigz]

And I started doing some digging. Each state has a website that gives an approximation of flowing waters through the state. I started with Texas because of its sheer size and it turned up only 80,000 miles of flowing waters. Then I thought New York, it has "more than 70,000 miles." Then I figured North Carolina probably had a ton of streams flowing off the mountains, that turned up a surprisingly low 37,000 miles. I certainly haven't checked all likely states but I'm going to. I'm inclined to start believing that PA really does have the highest miles of flowing waters in the lower 48.

The Klaber Group is an energy company that most likely has ties to fracking which causes concerns over water quality. Maybe their statistics are skewed to help support their agenda.

 

[jifigz]

Maine has over 45,000. Michigan has over 36,000. Wisconsin is claiming 84,000 miles of streams.

And then I found one. Minnesota is claiming to have 92,000 miles.

So still, that is a close call. What other states could be higher? I struggled to find easy info for California. And, btw, all the above provided info was pulled from sites associated with each state's government.

 

[salmonoid]

If you can find multiple reliable sources that say the same thing then it would seem to confirm it as correct.

Except those so-called reliable sources are propagating the same incorrect information. Just posting something multiple times and having others copy it doesn't make it accurate.

Why does it matter? Because I care about accurate reporting of facts and figures. And I think agencies and individuals and non-profits should care about that too.

If agencies and individuals and non-profits mean density (stream mile/area), then they should state density. But density != miles and "second in miles" is the factoid that is regurgitated everywhere, not second in density. And I guess if enough websites regurgitate inaccurate information, it becomes accurate? I don't know where it started, but everyone seems to run with it and it is an interesting phenomenon to watch the spread of inaccurate information. Who cares about accurate facts? It sure sounds sexier to say we're only second in something behind Alaska.. That's the sound bite and info out of context culture we live in.

Even more ironic? If you calculate stream density (what this "fact" is apparently morphing into as an alternative explanation of what it is), PA is first (as others have noted), not second. Alaska is #34 (!). If you only include perennial streams in the density calculation, Alaska does better, but its only number one ranking is in the total amount of stream miles and the total amount of perennial stream miles. So now we have an inaccurately reported fact (purportedly miles, but apparently density?), and then the density isn't even calculated correctly and the state we are supposedly behind is many slots below us, not one above us! If you only include perennial stream miles in the density calculation, we fall to number ten and Alaska moves to seven, but that's also not 1 and 2.

No matter how it is sliced, PA as second, only behind Alaska, is incorrect (although I'm sure there is some obscure statistic that this holds true in). It's not an accurate ranking based on density. It's not an accurate ranking based on total stream miles. It's not an accurate ranking based on total perennial stream miles. Nevertheless, PA government agencies cite this statistic. John Arway cites this statistic. TU cites this. Other organizations cite those organizations. Or they Google for a stat and find one that sounds nice. And the idea spreads.

Don't take my word on it. Do you own verification. I believe my calculations are accurate, but am always subject to errors.


Start with this data set (admittedly, it is older, but I haven't found anything newer in one place):

https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/pdf/2000_06_28_305b_98report_appenda.pdf

Slight modification for Alaska data here (primarily an increase in overall stream miles and documentation of ephemeral stream miles):
https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/epa/alaska2013.pdf

Source for land, water and total area for states:

https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_SF1_GCTPH1.US01PR&prodType=table

For Texas, I'm not sure where you are picking up the 80,000 miles but go here:

https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/watersuccess/waterqualitysuccess

In 2016, they assessed 26,000 stream miles, which they list as 14% of the total. By doing some simple math, the calculated total stream miles is much more than 80,000; it's greater than 185,000, which is in the ballpark of the EPA data.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Someone with access to GIS and some free time could solve this mystery assuming that the existing stream layers available for each state used similar methods of identifying stream sections ie perrenial vs ephemeral etc basically is what classifies a stream in state A the same criteria for state B

 

[ryansheehan]

jifigz wrote:
Maine has over 45,000. Michigan has over 36,000. Wisconsin is claiming 84,000 miles of streams.

And then I found one. Minnesota is claiming to have 92,000 miles.

So still, that is a close call. What other states could be higher? I struggled to find easy info for California. And, btw, all the above provided info was pulled from sites associated with each state's government.

Oregon and Montana

 

[moon1284]

I have a hard time believing pa haz more miles of streams than maine.

 

[tomgamber]

Idaho has approximately 107,651 miles of river, of which 891 miles are designated as wild & scenic—less than 1% of the state's river miles.

Read em and weep.

 

[ernie]

Araway has always been focused on wild trout and done an ok job. However, supporting wild trout populations also must be coupled with the protection offered these wild trout fisheries by catch and release or delayed harvest designations. Apparently it seems he ruffled a few political folks when he mentioned reducing stocking of streams that happened to be in the districts of legislators that refused his plea for an increase in license fees. Part of the solution, to me, would be for the state legislators to allow part of the fish and game departments budget to come from the general fund.
I think only a handful of states, like Pa, get all of their funding from license sales. In addition, Pa and only one other state have two separate departments. One for fishing and another for hunting. Everyone else has one department that administers to all fishing, boating, hunting and enforcement. Wat a waste of resources.

Pennsylvania needs to change how they think and how they fund the outdoor sports. It seems very possible that yet another state hatchery will be closed because of these budget issues.

If we really want to save money consider this, our state legislature is the largest and most expensive one in the United States.

 

[RLeep2]

An editorial this morning in the (often..) sleepy Erie Times News taking the leadership of the Pa. Legislature and specifically local State Senator Dan Laughlin (insensate as opposed to simply sleepy) over the proposed term limits imposition vendetta (SB935) against John Arway.

Good to see..

Please remember that SB935 remains alive in the General Assembly and press your local state reps to oppose it as well as vote for a license fee increase.

Here's the editorial. Not real strident, but not bad for the Erie Times: http://www.goerie.com/opinion/20180419/our-view-fishing-license-dispute-impedes-key-industry

 

[MBWCC]

Once a bill comes to the PA house floor the process involves 3 readings on 3 separate days, the final day being the vote.

On 6/5/2018 SB 935 received its second reading and was returned to the table.

 

[bigjohn58]

MBWCC wrote:
Once a bill comes to the PA house floor the process involves 3 readings on 3 separate days, the final day being the vote.

On 6/5/2018 SB 935 received its second reading and was returned to the table.

Thanks for the update! I've been wondering about this!

 

[troutbert]

MBWCC wrote:
Once a bill comes to the PA house floor the process involves 3 readings on 3 separate days, the final day being the vote.

On 6/5/2018 SB 935 received its second reading and was returned to the table.

For those of us without experience in following legislation's process, does that mean it's likely to pass or not pass?

What does "was returned to the table" mean?

 

[MBWCC]

The house legislative process involves three readings on three different days. The first reading is an introduction of the bill. The second is an opportunity for discussion & amendment. The third is the vote. SB 935 has gone through 2 of the 3.

 

[JackM]

Laying on the table means the bill will not be voted on until a motion to take it from the table is made, in which case, without debate, a vote to take it from the table is held. Thereafter, if it is not again laid on the table, it will stand for a vote, and I think it could also be amended before a final vote.

Rule 59
Lay on the Table
A motion to lay on the table is debatable by the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, the maker of the motion, the maker of the amendment under consideration and the prime sponsor of the bill under consideration. It is not subject to amendment and carries with it the main question and all other pending questions which adhere to it, except when an appeal is laid on the table. The passage of a motion to lay an amendment on the table shall cause the subject bill or resolution and all other amendments to be laid on the table.

Rule 60
Motion to Take from the Table
A motion to take from the table a bill or other subject is in order under the same order of business in which the matter was laid on the table. It shall be decided without amendment and is debatable by the Majority Leader, the Minority Leader, the maker of the motion, the maker of the amendment under consideration and the prime sponsor of the bill under consideration.