PA Fish Commission trout fishing survey results >

[silverfox]

I cannot find full survey results. Anyone got a link?

Articles like this are upsetting. Several times in the article it mentioned two groups but never provided data details on the two groups. How many “wild trout anglers”? How many “stocked trout anglers”? Without that info “27% of wild trout anglers…” is meaningless. Anything written about wild trout anglers is equally meaningless. What if there are 4 respondents in stocked trout anglers and 3000 in wild trout anglers groups?

An article discussing a survey but no link to the survey is provided.

There is an overview in the October Fisheries & Hatcheries committee meeting (26:50 timestamp):

 

[Fish Sticks]

Mike here is the definition of unconscionable- “not right or reasonable.”

Is it reasonable or right to give more money to a failing state run business that makes harmful or invasive species for an angler base they have failed to educate and have mislead?

 

[Mike]

Yes, because I don’t believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. As a general comment pertaining to no specific program, if a program isn’t considered to be beneficial or doesn’t make economic sense, you just don’t allow additional general funds to be used for that specific program. You’ll notice that I said that the money such as sales tax money, if ever received as a new source of funding, should be used for special high cost infrastructure projects, such as dam repairs. The dam repairs are no-brainers because the impoundments serve anglers, boaters, and many more people beyond anglers and boaters based on public comments received.

Nymphingmania, my vague recollection is that some agencies, including the PFBC, at some point suddenly had greater responsibilities than in the past thrust upon them with respect to covering portions of retirement benefits.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yes, because I don’t believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. As a general comment pertaining to no specific program, if a program isn’t considered to be beneficial or doesn’t make economic sense, you just don’t allow additional general funds to be used for that specific program. You’ll notice that I said that the money such as sales tax money, if ever received as a new source of funding, should be used for special high cost infrastructure projects, such as dam repairs. The dam repairs are no-brainers because the impoundments serve anglers, boaters, and many more people beyond anglers and boaters based on public comments received.

Nymphingmania, my vague recollection is that some agencies, including the PFBC, at some point suddenly had greater responsibilities than in the past thrust upon them with respect to covering portions of retirement benefits.

if the vast majority of what PFBC does on the fish side is just invasive aquaculture and they can’t even do it in a profitable manner, it’s destroying biodiversity, and the leader’s qualifications are “we really like to fish” ain’t no baby in that bath water. It would seems a lot more efficient to disolve the hatchery program and bring remaining staff and enforcement over to DCNR and reallocate license sales to them. Trying to figure out how to change the organizational structure and preserve the leadership with no fisheries science training seems pointless. PA fish and boat was a great agency for the roaring 20’s today its a dinosaur. Lets put it in a museum and build DCNR into what the 2020’s needs

 

[flyguyfishing]

There is an overview in the October Fisheries & Hatcheries committee meeting (26:50 timestamp):

Thanks. The presentation mentioned full results will be available later.

Here is screen shot from video.

 

[CRB]

54000 trout anglers fished for stocked trout 21 days
37000 trout anglers fished 21days fished both wild and stocked trout
8000 anglers fished for wild trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

54000 trout anglers fished for stocked trout 21 days
37000 trout anglers fished 21days fished both wild and stocked trout
8000 anglers fished for wild trout.

I saw no question asking if the fishing for stocked trout was consensual. I go fishing in the yellow breeches for fall fish, non native rock bass and wild invasive brown trout all the time, have to take the rubber trout off my line frequently. Fish Sticks would be in second category(37000) and we know how i feel About rubber trout . Those numbers speak more towards what is done on your local stream not what you would desire on your local stream.

 

[Fish Sticks]

you could a question in there that says did you fish for wild native fall fish and guarantee you not many people would say yes despite the majority of anglers catching them incidentally while trout fishing. This is opposite of the situation where people answer yes to wild and stocked trout despite many of them harvesting the stocked trout in disgust that they found it in a wild stream. You can see how the survey would not capture that. PA fish and boat is famous for over inflating the role of their stocked fish in PA. For christ sakes when I did my story on fox 43 they made the claim “fishing would not exist with out stocking” what does that tell you? No surprise they frame surveys this way. Note they also blatantly lie to public and tell them brown and rainbow trout cause no harm lol.

 

[silverfox]

you could a question in there that says did you fish for wild native fall fish and guarantee you not many people would say yes despite the majority of anglers catching them incidentally while trout fishing. This is opposite of the situation where people answer yes to wild and stocked trout despite many of them harvesting the stocked trout in disgust that they found it in a wild stream. You can see how the survey would not capture that. PA fish and boat is famous for over inflating the role of their stocked fish in PA. For christ sakes when I did my story on fox 43 they made the claim “fishing would not exist with out stocking” what does that tell you? No surprise they frame surveys this way. Note they also blatantly lie to public and tell them brown and rainbow trout cause no harm lol.

That's my issue. They could put a question in there that asks how many license buyers went and netted Chesapeake Logperch and it would get zero "yes's." So then does that mean that they should do nothing about logperch? Just let em go extinct? I'm sure next to nobody cares about them. Thank god it's codified that they have to. It's not a popularity contest. Or it shouldn't be anyway.

Look at the Marten reintroduction project with PGC. Between uninformed/misinformed hunters, and them not being of interest to most hunters, I suspect that program isn't very popular with hunters (judging by social media comments, I'm sure it isn't). Does that mean PGC should just abandon the cause?

 

[Fish Sticks]

That's my issue. They could put a question in there that asks how many license buyers went and netted Chesapeake Logperch and it would get zero "yes's." So then does that mean that they should do nothing about logperch? Just let em go extinct? I'm sure next to nobody cares about them. Thank god it's codified that they have to. It's not a popularity contest. Or it shouldn't be anyway.

Look at the Marten reintroduction project with PGC. Between uninformed/misinformed hunters, and them not being of interest to most hunters, I suspect that program isn't very popular with hunters (judging by social media comments, I'm sure it isn't). Does that mean PGC should just abandon the cause?

Yea I mean its funny how other agencies the rely on scientific input to prevent bad things from happening don’t just become a popularity contest. Its like at national park service if they were like hmmmmm the lay public as a whole who has near zero knowledge of how a forest works really doesn’t like all these roadless areas near sensitive species and habitats and certain fire regulations either……we gotta can them.