Mo money mo problems
- Thread starter mute
- Start date
Bamboozle
Well-known member
The PFBC has at least two programs to generate funds specifically to secure access. The first is the one I talk about all the time that I have been donating to annually for a long time. It is the CAP Program.
You can also make a donation specifically for access acquisition through the HuntFishPA website but it is a different program from CAP that may or may not get matching funds.
For the record, I have no idea where in the state my donations are spent or if Ill ever benefit but I really don't care.
I'm sure the usual PFBC naysayers and members of HBU (Hellbender/Brookie Unlimited) will pull these programs down as well for the usual reasons. However the point I am making this MAY be where some of funds came from to secure that access and to remind or inform folks there is something in place.
It is unrelated to the PFBC but there are also several conservancies around that are doing great things in regards to securing property. The Central Pennsylvania Conservancy one I belong to comes immediately to mind.
jifigz
Well-known member
Wild
Half right. The PFBC proposal goes only to committees not the full legislature. If the committees do nothing the proposal goes into effect. To reject the proposal a committee must create It’s own proposal which ultimately is approved or rejected by the governor. Again, not the process according to our constitution. there should be no power, limited or not, that grants the power to raise revenue to the unelected/unaccountable.
did our elected officials drop the ball on increases and programs over the years……Yes they did, big time yet nobody cared enough to hold them accountable. Now we have the unaccountable to somehow hold accountable.
CRB
Well-known member
"The Erie Access Improvement Grant Program was made possible by Act 159 of 2004 which created a new Lake Erie stamp (required for anglers fishing in the Lake Erie watershed) and a Combination Lake Erie Trout/Salmon Stamp. The Act provides that the proceeds from the sale of Lake Erie permits are to be deposited into a restricted account within the Fish Fund to "be used to provide public fishing access or to protect or improve fish habitat on or at Lake Erie, Presque Isle Bay and their tributaries, including waters that flow into those tributaries. Act 56 of 2020 expanded the Erie program to include many different types of projects that benefit public fishing in the Lake Erie watershed, such as fish cleaning stations, new technology, and research projects to improve the fishery."
It took a lot of effort by a lot of people and clubs to get the PAFBC into real-estate along the Lake Erie Tributaries.
Getting the state to agree on acquiring easements was perhaps the greatest achievement, as this type real-estate was never done before within the PAFBC. With easements into perpetuity attached to properties provide miles of access on these tributaries for future fisherpersons to enjoy for as long as the State of Pennsylvania exists.
It is posable to get things done with the PAFBC when people work together civilly and orderly.
Bashing an agency or politicians will not get it done.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
chinacat
New member
I quite enjoy it - idealism is what it is - idealism. And while it can be countered with what is more "realistic," it is still true. He is generally correct with information he shows and I appreciate the constant nagging. Someone has to advocate for what is right, favorable or not.
chinacat
New member
A little late to this, but I would be willing to pay whatever it took to dismantle the hatcheries. I'm not even sure that the sales from licenses are able to offset the cost of hatchery operation. Maybe I'm way off on that because I haven't checked the numbers and doubt they're available. @Fish Sticks has been on point with this subject - the PAFBC is a sorry excuse for an entity claiming to manage fisheries. They manage aquariums. Suffice to say he's touched on all the impacts of stocking programs, but one that I haven't noticed him mention (probably has) I've been thinking about more recently - not only is it the genetic drift of stocking fish over wild populations, competition, waste, stocking non-native fish over native populations, and stocking native fish over wild, native populations, it also is the water required to raise these carnival prizes. Fishing Creek is a prime example. Numbers and size are both declining as is water quality. I'd be willing to bet my life (probably) that if they shut down that hatchery and let all of the spring dump into FC you'd see the difference the next year. The Tylersville hatchery is a mess and it will continue to degrade Fishing Creek until the stream is nothing.
Has anyone fished Fishing Creek recently? I've been stopped twice by PAFBC interns to give my input on barbless hooks, C&R, etc and the management of the narrows section. I've relayed my displeasure in regards to FC and their management as a whole. The funniest part is that they acknowledge that the numbers and size are down considerably, but are apparently oblivious to the cause(s)? So, it's either that they 1. Don't care, or 2. Are unwilling to acknowledge the impact of the Tylersville hatchery on the ecosystem.
Stocking fish is an archaic practice. I'm tired of the PAFBC following suit with the rest of PA - rape the land and the water and allow for another generation to clean it up. Just so long as some dude can sit on a five gallon bucket, sling a full stringer over his shoulder and brag to his buddies about hitting his limit. These practices do not encourage conservation, they only encourage entitled attitudes.
Has anyone fished Fishing Creek recently? I've been stopped twice by PAFBC interns to give my input on barbless hooks, C&R, etc and the management of the narrows section. I've relayed my displeasure in regards to FC and their management as a whole. The funniest part is that they acknowledge that the numbers and size are down considerably, but are apparently oblivious to the cause(s)? So, it's either that they 1. Don't care, or 2. Are unwilling to acknowledge the impact of the Tylersville hatchery on the ecosystem.
Stocking fish is an archaic practice. I'm tired of the PAFBC following suit with the rest of PA - rape the land and the water and allow for another generation to clean it up. Just so long as some dude can sit on a five gallon bucket, sling a full stringer over his shoulder and brag to his buddies about hitting his limit. These practices do not encourage conservation, they only encourage entitled attitudes.
The Tylersville hatchery surely has an impact, but the situation there is much better than in the past. The DEP cracked down on them: The number of fish they raise there was reduced. The amount of water they can take from the spring was reduced. They went from having zero effluent treatment to a settling pond and microfilters. The effluent is much cleaner now than in the past.
chinacat
New member
When did this happen and do you know how much they reduced the spring draw? I thought it originally went from 50% spring draw to 100% draw, so I'm curious where it is now. I've been fishing FC all my life and 25-30 days a season for the past seven or eight years and it continues to worsen, IMO. I forget whatever happened with the Nicholas Meats debacle - any info on that?
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
In terms of right or wrong, sometimes i think in those terms but for me its maybe more selfish. I personally like when ecosystems function, are stable(relatively, without boom and bust cycles beyond normal Variation), and maintain biodiversity. Being that we are in a sixth mass extinction crisis just the goal of keeping as many species around as we can and having better fishing as a result of license dollars spent dually on conservation/access.
I don't remember what year it was. Their license was coming up for renewal and DEP had a meeting at the Lamar Fire Hall. I was there and it was PACKED. All the chairs were taken and people were lined up along the wall. Nearly all the people there were pro-hatchery. Sportsmen club people that operate coop hatcheries came from far and wide. And they were giving the DEP a hard time.
They said at the meeting that the hatchery was sometimes taking 100% of the spring flow. Which is an outrage. How could they imagine that it's OK to do that?
The license was re-issued, and they are now allowed to take 50% of the spring flow.
The effluent is now much cleaner. Surely some other people must have witnessed the effluent before and after.
Water treatment was put in place in other PFBC hatcheries around that same time.
chinacat
New member
Fair points. I would agree.
Makes sense. Ha.
I know the hatchery was drawing 100% of the spring at one point - I was told that that started after the floods in the late 90s or early 2000s. I've heard plenty of stories of how drastic that change was. How, as fisheries biologists, they reason with drawing 100% of the spring is unknown to me. While I'm not challenging you at all, I still challenge the contention that drawing 50% of that spring is acceptable, regardless of effluent treatment. One of the major things I've noticed in recent years and is likely tied to the effluent - the mayfly density. I don't know, maybe I've just been getting 25 crappy days in peak season for eight years. Ha. I've had some stellar days on FC, but I thought I might be going crazy at one point and possibly remembering days with more fondness than they deserved. After checking my logs, I came to the conclusion that it most definitely is not an illusion.
One interesting thing that the PAFBC interns shared with me is that of all the anglers they have surveyed, almost every single angler has reported no more than 5 fish per day. They seemed relatively concerned. Now, knowing most anglers' proclivities to exaggerate (at least as I know them,) that number could actually be far lower. I'm curious as to what could be causing it. I'm not aware of any other major changes in that valley.
At the meeting a lot of the history of the hatchery was discussed. I don't remember all of it. But I do recall that originally the hatchery was much smaller. There were expansions over the years, i.e. raising far more fish, so they drew more of the spring water.
Five fish per day would translate to 5 fish per trip. The avg trip length on Pa wild trout streams is 2.84 hrs. Anglers fishing on wild trout streams the size of Fishing Ck in the narrows average 3.3 trout per trip, but when just considering brown trout fisheries the statewide avg brown trout per trip drops to 1.59. The point is that when placed in the context of average catch rates in Pa, 5 trout per day (trip) is three time the average. What is expected from a stream that sees so much pressure (avoidance learning by BT) particularly in the narrows?
As for hatchery discharges affecting the size of the fish, if one used Big Spring and Logan Branch as historical examples, an angler could attempt to argue just the opposite: that the impact on trout size was beneficial. I’m not suggesting that it’s the case, but I am suggesting that a relationship between hatchery discharges and fish SIZE are unlikely unless nutrients in discharges boost forage biomass and habitat exists that would support bigger fish associated with enhanced growth rates brought on by increased forage.
Last edited:
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
how many examples of hatcheries closing and native fish rebounding are there besides big spring? We know there brook trout disappeared because of the hatchery. BFC watershed has 4-5 hatcheries minimum in it i belive. Cedar, long, pfbc, FWS
If be curious to know because I imagine your never going to see this stuff published or in news
If be curious to know because I imagine your never going to see this stuff published or in news
Last edited:
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
The hatchery closure had an immediate impact on the brook trout population, long before the large habitat project.
It is also worth noting, habitat was degraded due to the hatchery, so there is that too.
From the article linked below >
Big Spring Creek was once a nationally renowned brook trout fishery, but is now thought to hold little or no wild fish. Big Spring is included on the state’s list of impaired streams due to siltation, low dissolved oxygen and excessive nutrients. Environmental studies conducted by the DEP and independent biologists have linked the problems to discharges from the hatchery, which contain high levels of fish excrement and uneaten food.
The Cumberland County hatchery opened at the headwaters of Big Spring Creek in 1972 and had a devastating impact on the creek’s native brook trout population, according to Ken Undercoffer, president of Pennsylvania Trout, the state Trout Unlimited council representing 11,000 members in 57 chapters.
“There is no question the fish commission was responsible,” Undercoffer said. “These fish culture stations are the equivalent of a corporate hog farm, and all the waste goes down stream.”
Pollution problems force closure of Big Spring hatchery
The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission will close its Big Spring Fish Culture Station Friday because of polluted wastewater from the facility. The closure was ordered by the state Department …
www.mcall.com
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
👆what that guy said
It's plain to see brook trout responded to the hatchery closure alone.
The 2015 survey their population exploded even more after the project. it begs to question, has it been survey since 2015? I mean it is 2023. If so, where are the results
It's plain to see brook trout responded to the hatchery closure alone.
The 2015 survey their population exploded even more after the project. it begs to question, has it been survey since 2015? I mean it is 2023. If so, where are the results
