PA Fish Commission trout fishing survey results >

[Mike]

I didn't get a survey. Wonder why?

I don’t. It was a selection of trout stamp purchasers and it’s highly likely that it was a random selection of those 3000+ . As such, it would be a low probability that any single stamp holder would be selected despite the survey having a very nice sample size.

I was not selected either and have no concerns that my opinions were not represented somewhere within such a large sample size. I’m confident that If my opinions were commonly held, then they were covered with the most typical responses. If my opinions were fringe opinions, then they were covered within responses that showed low frequencies.

As for general approvals of 68 and 62 percent, I would consider them good for these types of angler surveys. And if I recall correctly, wild trout anglers were even more satisfied than stocked trout anglers! (Assuming there’s no overlap in the confidence intervals associated with the values). My understanding is that 70% approval is about as good as it gets in such angler approval surveys and that number is hard to exceed. In essence, if a program scores 70 percent, it’s apparently on the right track (and I’m betting that the confidence interval on 68% overlaps with 70%). An important lesson to accept in serving the angling public is that you will never please everyone.

 

[krayfish2]

I have been saying for years that access is where all this hatchery money should be going. The chesapeake bay experienced 6 times the development than it did new tree plantings/expansion of riparian areas. From a fishing standpoint today we need to decide do we want to fund areas our kids can fish tomorrow or just put more invasive short lived trout in a shrinking pool of access and turn every stream into a rodeo environment as the elbows get closer and closer together. These landowner access agreements are super flimsy to start with and when the land owner dies or the farm gets developed many times so does the access.

People in 2020 we spent around $25 million of growing greener2 tax payer money on hatcheries then probably somewhere around $15-20 million of license funds went to hatcheries. Imagine what 40-45 million in one year could do for access then imagine what even 10 million a year for 50 years could do for access from a fishing standpoint and an environmental standpoint saving some of our most high value ecosystems from getting completely developed.

One huge issue with this survey is that currently PFBC is where these anglers get their education about what fisheries management is and they omit important information , lie about the effects of their hatchery fish, and hide their GIS data from the public and tell the public their doing a good job…..its not surprising some of the public thinks their doing great.

Noted was concern of stocking near “wild trout” which would obviously encompass native and invasive and also noted was stocking as a detractor of quality of fishing in some peoples opinions. It was not explicitly mentioned that I saw but I am guessing that is a shift or an increase in that sentiment.

Looming over all of this is we cannot afford to continue this type of trout “management” so no matter how happy some are with it change will be forced. Combine that with the demographic highest socially entrained to see stocking invasive species as normal and acceptable during our planets 6 mass extinction crisis starting to disappear and this exorbitant costs and increased want for better access will help this whole unsustainable post industrial revolutionary style dinosaur of a trout program collapse on it’s self in time.

I guess you don't realize that if the state acquired additional access / land, there's about a 99.9% chance that brown / rainbow trout would be stocked in those places. It's what the truck chasers want and they account for A LOT of the PFBC funds. Just saying and trying to add a pinch of reality to this idea.

 

[Fish Sticks]

You mean this?
View attachment 1641233147

Yup that’s exactly what I mean no matter how much of an appetite for extinction and extirpation some vocal sub groups of angling public has, the money is running out. License sales dropping, covid bump short lived. Let me ask you all this, do people who don’t buy a trout stamp because they don’t approve of how the finances are used and what it funds get counted in the survey…. Nope.

People are quick to label those who point out we are globally in a largely invasive species fueled mass extinction crisis and PFBC running out of money to waste on this stuff as zealots. In reality you are wearing the matching adidas track suits and holding the chalice of the magical coolaid waiting for the space ship because the objective financials and science make your uncompromising belief that nothing is dramatically wrong with PFBC a clear shared delusion.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I guess you don't realize that if the state acquired additional access / land, there's about a 99.9% chance that brown / rainbow trout would be stocked in those places. It's what the truck chasers want and they account for A LOT of the PFBC funds. Just saying and trying to add a pinch of reality to this idea.

the pinch of reality was this graph

 

[Mike]

Perhaps I misinterpreted the data and now I won't go back to re-read it because it wants to charge me money. It seemed that they broke the demographic of people in the survey down to very satisfied and somewhat satisfied. If 32% are not satisfied, isn't that still a large enough demographic that their opinion should at least be mentioned?

The media people here will probably agree that writers have limited column space. They can’t include everything and it doesn’t necessarily mean 32% are dissatisfied because, in general, surveys often include a neutral response choice as well. I don’t know if this survey did or didn’t.

 

[silverfox]

I don’t. It was a selection of trout stamp purchasers and it’s highly likely that it was a random selection of those 3000+ . As such, it would be a low probability that any single stamp holder would be selected despite the survey having a very nice sample size.

I was not selected either and have no concerns that my opinions were not represented somewhere within such a large sample size. I’m confident that If my opinions were commonly held, then they were covered with the most typical responses. If my opinions were fringe opinions, then they were covered within responses that showed low frequencies.

As for general approvals of 68 and 62 percent, I would consider them good for these types of angler surveys. And if I recall correctly, wild trout anglers were even more satisfied than stocked trout anglers! (Assuming there’s no overlap in the confidence intervals associated with the values). My understanding is that 70% approval is about as good as it gets in such angler approval surveys and that number is hard to exceed. In essence, if a program scores 70 percent, it’s apparently on the right track (and I’m betting that the confidence interval on 68% overlaps with 70%). An important lesson to accept in serving the angling public is that you will never please everyone.

I know full well my opinions are fringe opinions. Most of them aren't related to angling, so I wouldn't expect a large number of anglers to share them.

My issue, as I've stated before (Bengal tigers n such), is that I'm not sure what the masses want is necessarily good for the resources. Or certain resources anyway.

I would expect wild trout anglers to rate the state well. PA has some of the best wild brown trout fishing in the country. Knowing that most folks prefer, or focus on wild brown trout, that makes sense. I'm just not keen on fisheries being managed by a popularity contest.

Oh, and my "wonder why" comment was facetious. I didn't buy a license in 23 until sometime after the survey was sent out. So I wasn't even eligible. Also, again, I know I'm in the minority, so I don't expect my input would have changed anything at all, and is essentially useless.

 

[Mike]

the pinch of reality was this graph View attachment 1641233150

I don’t agree with the assumption of the model. First, there are things that could be done, some more drastic than others, to reduce expenses. Second, even if a hatchery was closed, additional trout could be raised elsewhere just by reducing the avg size from the present 11” to a lower value of 9.5-10” as in the past. Limits for production by a given trout hatchery are not numbers based, but biomass based. The sloped line would never go to zero because there are plenty of anglers like me who could be quite happy based on past life fishing experiences “surviving” on wild warmwater fisheries or wild trout fisheries. I started out as a channel catfish, crappie, and walleye angler. Later, I was almost exclusively a wild trout angler except for ice fishing and occasional ocean trips. Additionally, there are plenty of anglers who enjoy fishing so much that they would be willing to pay a lot more for a license.

 

[Old Town]

I think I can give the number one point we need to remember.
Stocked trout pay the bills and keep most Pa trout anglers happy.
Wild trout don't!

 

[TimMurphy]

I think I can give the number one point we need to remember.
Stocked trout pay the bills and keep most Pa trout anglers happy.
Wild trout don't!

Dear Old Town,

You do realize that there are a lot of people who don't even fish for trout in this State, right?

I realize this board has a predilection to trout, but in the overall scheme of things, how much does that really matter?

It's not a call out, just a question.

Where do we draw the line, and who gets to decide that line?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Old Town]

Yes Tim I tealize what you are stating. However I have observed Pa fish and boat comm. meetings and I can assure you that trout fishing-stocking is one of the main concerns. Unfortunatley wild trout is near the bottom of the list. Unfortunatley I can not give any names or facts but I can assure you stocking trout in Pa is a major concern. $$$$

 

[TimMurphy]

Yes Tim I tealize what you are stating. However I have observed Pa fish and boat comm. meetings and I can assure you that trout fishing-stocking is one of the main concerns. Unfortunatley wild trout is near the bottom of the list. Unfortunatley I can not give any names or facts but I can assure you stocking trout in Pa is a major concern. $$$$

Dear Old Town,

Allow me to ask a corollary question.

Does the Fish Commission drive the overall program, or does the fishing public?

There is no right or wrong answer. I'm curious though as to who actually runs the show?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[silverfox]

I don’t agree with the assumption of the model. First, there are things that could be done, some more drastic than others, to reduce expenses. Second, even if a hatchery was closed, additional trout could be raised elsewhere just by reducing the avg size from the present 11” to a lower value of 9.5-10” as in the past. Limits for production by a given trout hatchery are not numbers based, but biomass based. The sloped line would never go to zero because there are plenty of anglers like me who could be quite happy based on past life fishing experiences “surviving” on wild warmwater fisheries or wild trout fisheries. I started out as a channel catfish, crappie, and walleye angler. Later, I was almost exclusively a wild trout angler except for ice fishing and occasional ocean trips. Additionally, there are plenty of anglers who enjoy fishing so much that they would be willing to pay a lot more for a license.

I agree the trendline would never go to zero. It could reach a point where base expenses exceed revenue though. I think that was pointed out in an analysis a while ago. I suspect that’s already happening. I.e. grant money being used for infrastructure improvements (hatchery repairs).

Attitudes toward wildlife are changing. That will change how pfbc and, and to some degree the pgc operate. I don’t see the trend reversing. I think some of the survey results reinforce that. Folks said they care less about catching fish and more about being outside, solitude, and spending time with family.

That along with the overwhelming request for better access indicates the agency should focus on securing and expanding places to fish. How do you get more easements and public fishing rights when you’re spending all your money raising trout?

I’m not convinced trout production is the only way to raise money to pay for everything else. The cost of production is going to continue to increase while the market will continue to shrink. If you overlay expenditures over license sales, it will be an X. That’s not sustainable. All of that makes it even more wild that they won’t relocate stocked trout out of wild/native trout streams. There’s a biological and financial justification for it. I don’t buy the “improve habitat to make every stream class a” approach. There’s not enough time or money to do it.

 

[PennKev]

I think I can give the number one point we need to remember.
Stocked trout pay the bills and keep most Pa trout anglers happy.
Wild trout don't!

Stocked trout pay the bills that are created by raising them. That's fine when it works out that way, but the economics of it have been tenuous for a while now.

Meanwhile, wild trout are free, or nearly so and can contribute significantly to the economy when managed and promoted correctly.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

I don’t. It was a selection of trout stamp purchasers and it’s highly likely that it was a random selection of those 3000+ . As such, it would be a low probability that any single stamp holder would be selected despite the survey having a very nice sample size.

I was not selected either and have no concerns that my opinions were not represented somewhere within such a large sample size. I’m confident that If my opinions were commonly held, then they were covered with the most typical responses. If my opinions were fringe opinions, then they were covered within responses that showed low frequencies.

As for general approvals of 68 and 62 percent, I would consider them good for these types of angler surveys. And if I recall correctly, wild trout anglers were even more satisfied than stocked trout anglers! (Assuming there’s no overlap in the confidence intervals associated with the values). My understanding is that 70% approval is about as good as it gets in such angler approval surveys and that number is hard to exceed. In essence, if a program scores 70 percent, it’s apparently on the right track (and I’m betting that the confidence interval on 68% overlaps with 70%). An important lesson to accept in serving the angling public is that you will never please everyone.

agreed. In today's "me", complainer society, high 60s-low 70s is quite good. Furthermore, people tend to over weight the negatives vs positives when giving their response to surveys. PFBC can be improved, like any other agency. I don't like some things they do in regards to stocking certain streams, but they do well for the resources given to them. I think they largely are open to suggestions, but we have accept there are somethings they won't do. We may not like stocking, but most license holders do.
I remember a lot of people calling for wild trout "stamps" dedicated to habitat etc. They got it, but some then complained it wasn't spent the way they wanted it to and boycotted and talked it down. This is just the way things work- you can't always get what you want.

 

[silverfox]

agreed. In today's "me", complainer society, high 60s-low 70s is quite good. Furthermore, people tend to over weight the negatives vs positives when giving their response to surveys. PFBC can be improved, like any other agency. I don't like some things they do in regards to stocking certain streams, but they do well for the resources given to them. I think they largely are open to suggestions, but we have accept there are somethings they won't do. We may not like stocking, but most license holders do.
I remember a lot of people calling for wild trout "stamps" dedicated to habitat etc. They got it, but some then complained it wasn't spent the way they wanted it to and boycotted and talked it down. This is just the way things work- you can't always get what you want.

You mean when they used $20,000 of voluntarily donated wild trout funds to put logs in an 800ft section of stream that is almost entirely privately stocked as a pay-to-play fishery while the state knows full well the entire stream should be class a with no stocking? Absolutely zero defense of that move. Maybe harpster and beaver could have donated the $20k since they're the ones abusing the resource for profit.

 

[troutbert]

I agree the trendline would never go to zero.

Right. Obviously. There will always be people who want to fish, whether it be for bluegills or carp or whatever.

So why was the trend SHOWN as going to zero?

 

[Fish Sticks]

If you purchase a trout stamp you support the trout program. I have heard smallmouth guys and other warm water fishermen say they don’t understand why they stock so many trout and that they don’t really like that. They bought a license too but ate not in the survey. I think your right. Mike that if you poll all stake holders a 70-% satisfaction rate might be very good. However, the people polled were a biased sub group of the stakeholders who are prone to a selection bias that since they purchased a trout stamp they are more likely to approve of the trout management. It does bot capture people who opt out for conservation reasons or much more commonly the elbow to elbow insane conditions stocking creates. If you give people the objective facts on what this garbage program is costing license payers and tax payers, what it does to out aquatic ecosystems and get rid of the section bias by surveying license holders in general I think the results may change.

I don’t agree with the assumption of the model. First, there are things that could be done, some more drastic than others, to reduce expenses. Second, even if a hatchery was closed, additional trout could be raised elsewhere just by reducing the avg size from the present 11” to a lower value of 9.5-10” as in the past. Limits for production by a given trout hatchery are not numbers based, but biomass based. The sloped line would never go to zero because there are plenty of anglers like me who could be quite happy based on past life fishing experiences “surviving” on wild warmwater fisheries or wild trout fisheries. I started out as a channel catfish, crappie, and walleye angler. Later, I was almost exclusively a wild trout angler except for ice fishing and occasional ocean trips. Additionally, there are plenty of anglers who enjoy fishing so much that they would be willing to pay a lot more for a license.

But that is my point exactly that there IS enough walleye,crappie, smallmouth, wild trout anglers right now and its the demographic of people who still value stocked trout and refuse to accept the damage that are gradually moving on to the big river in the sky. The financial waste, the dwindling money, and the average Pennsylvanians understanding of our current bio diversity crisis is going to make this dinosaur go extinct as the old that won’t let go phases out. The problem with the trout program is that all it has going for it is social conditioning that its somehow beneficial, take that away and show people it comes at the cost of acquiring access and all you have is a money suck that pumps out invasive species and is most importantly running out of money. The number if people saying they want to be able to opt out of a trout stamp and use a wild trout stamp as a surrogate is growing.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Right. Obviously. There will always be people who want to fish, whether it be for bluegills or carp or whatever.

So why was the trend SHOWN as going to zero?

The trend line plots a trajectory of the data to date. The trend line is not data itself just a slope of existing data to date
Ot basically just indicates license sales falling off a cliff relative to time

 

[jifigz]

I ruptured my Achilles tendon on October 15th, 2023 and can't even participate in my favorite hunting activities this year. That is generally why I have a noticeable absence of participation on the board during the colder months.

Even though I haven't been hunting, I've been filling my time doing other things. At one quick glance of the board that seems like a smart choice. It seems like the tone and narrative have remained the same.

Catch y'all in March 2024 what the resuming of small stream fishing reports.

 

[troutbert]

The trend line plots a trajectory of the data to date. The trend line is not data itself just a slope of existing data to date
Ot basically just indicates license sales falling off a cliff relative to time

There's a book called How to Lie With Statistics. That kind of extrapolation is probably covered in there somewhere.