PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,299
Donny is that you?
Donny is that you?
Oregon_OwlII
Active member
New York State buys fishing access easements from landowners. The easements are located on official maps. PA should consider the same thing.
Oregon_OwlII
Active member
NY State has managed to do it (buy easements). Some rural landowners (like farmers) need the money. In PA,50 year leases may prove to be a better option for both parties, in terms of expense and flexibility. Have the program open up every 5 years, so that updating can be uniform.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Right now I believe the second largest expense is the trout hatchery program next to staff. Financial and priority wise its the fish commissions central purpose. The stocked trout generate some license sales above what there would be without stocking I am sure. In 2009 it was 12.4 million dollars and I am sure gas and dredging the oceans for fish to grind into pellets hasn’t gotten cheaper since over a decade ago.
Stocking reform that free’d up even a portion of that money could be used to do what we are talking about here on some scale. Think about the school districts/price per acre where largely forested undisturbed tracts of land containing high conssrvation value species for these dual angling/conservation easements would be. If your purchasing annually you don’t need the whole 12.4 million + increased expenditures since then. You could just have stocking reform and cut fish in strategic native brook trout streams/sub watersheds and stock some more ponds/lakes instead. The fear of license sale drop off to an extent is probably grounded however we can’t keep doing what we are doing financially or ecologically without continued license fee increases or harm respectively. And the drop off in license fees may not be as biblical as i am sure they fear. Are people going to stop taking their kids fishing for sunfish, are small mout and walleye guys gonna care, are lke largemouth anglers going to call it quits, are the growing number for catfish chasers going to abandon the sport? Even bait guys like to stalk large browns with crawlers and minnows and not all people who fished stock trout are going to uniformly stop trout fishing. Everyone forgets too that when tou stop stocking other things often fill that niche, we’ve seen it many places, so these same people are foing to realize there are opportunities for other fish in their streams if the stocking onslaught stops and want to purchase a license to catch them.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,550
“You could just have stocking reform and cut fish in strategic native brook trout streams/sub watersheds and stock some more ponds/lakes instead.”
If you are just shifting fish from one water to another you are not saving significant amounts of money. Additionally, savings generated by raising a few thousand less fish here or there, such as stocking a few less streams, would not really save amounts of money that one might think since fixed costs in producing fish at any one hatchery would not change. For example, it was once discussed here that Class B sections were stocked with a grand total of around 18,000 trout statewide. That may seem like a big number to those not used to dealing with fish on the scales that large hatchery systems do, but in Pa that would represent about six tenths of one percent of the PFBC’s annual adult trout production, ie a drop in the proverbial bucket, if stocking those streams was terminated without reallocation of those fish to other waters.
If you are just shifting fish from one water to another you are not saving significant amounts of money. Additionally, savings generated by raising a few thousand less fish here or there, such as stocking a few less streams, would not really save amounts of money that one might think since fixed costs in producing fish at any one hatchery would not change. For example, it was once discussed here that Class B sections were stocked with a grand total of around 18,000 trout statewide. That may seem like a big number to those not used to dealing with fish on the scales that large hatchery systems do, but in Pa that would represent about six tenths of one percent of the PFBC’s annual adult trout production, ie a drop in the proverbial bucket, if stocking those streams was terminated without reallocation of those fish to other waters.
Last edited:
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
The Bureau of Hatcheries is the largest expense. I agree with Mike, you can't save enough money through allocation adjustments or even minor reductions in output to fix the deficit in the long run.
Eventually, basic economics will solve the financial issues here. The recent fee increase will buy some time, but eventually, the cost of manufacturing fish will surpass a point where fee increases can bring the program back in the black. License buyers are still declining (despite the covid bump) and will likely continue to decline. At some point, you can't raise fees anymore because you'll lose more customers than the fee increase can replace.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,299
Because contrary to what some people are suggesting, there is ample access and fishing opportunity on private land. Are there conflicts on occasion? Sure. Are some prime waters posted? Yep. But there are still miles and miles of stocked and wild water that run through private lands that can be fished by anyone. The question is what can the PAFBC do to keep it that way. Purchasing easements is the no-brainer but where do you get the money?
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Yea i agree, i should have been clearer. I was not talking about just shifting fish I was actually thinking large cuts for fiscal purposes(even closing hatcheries where mudsnail outbreaks and fish ingestion risking spread will likely keep happening) in addition to relocation of other fish still produced for non fiscal conservation reasons.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Their hatchery operation as mike mentioned is an economy of scale situation. If stocking reform was carried out and the great white fleet and hatchery facilities were cut in half or even further there is probably going to be some extra money around unless license purchase drops are that biblical which I don’t really know how anyone accurate forecasts without specific surveys with very high participation. in my previous post I was saying what silver fox said about the money, increase price lose purchasers, stagnant to declining number of purchasers and increasing infrastructure costs. This thing is sick and dying financially and the question is just how much money and ecological damage is the state going to put up with before we just see the writing on the wall and move into 21st century of fisheries management. Decisions not if its when.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,550
PennKev, I’m with you on the amount of private land where owners allow public fishing. A majority of the trout stocking program occurs on this type of land. These landowners, and there are probably thousands of them, are quite generous.
Here I have done my best to recall some numbers….
While posting against fishing is an ever present danger, in SE Pa where the vast majority of stocked sections are in private ownership, over a 39 year period only 12 Sections were completely lost to fishing due to posting, and three of those, it turned out, were Class A and would have come off of the stocking program anyway. Another quickly became Class A. Additional posting occurred on some other sections, and some of those received reduced stocking allocations as a result or the sections were shortened, but not enough posting occurred to remove them from the stocking program. Likewise, other stocked sections were lengthened, increasing their allocations, and more new sections were added to program than removed during the same time period. When WCO’s, sportsmen’s clubs, AFM’s, and even the stocking helpers at times do their best to maintain good relationships with landowners, good things can happen.
Here I have done my best to recall some numbers….
While posting against fishing is an ever present danger, in SE Pa where the vast majority of stocked sections are in private ownership, over a 39 year period only 12 Sections were completely lost to fishing due to posting, and three of those, it turned out, were Class A and would have come off of the stocking program anyway. Another quickly became Class A. Additional posting occurred on some other sections, and some of those received reduced stocking allocations as a result or the sections were shortened, but not enough posting occurred to remove them from the stocking program. Likewise, other stocked sections were lengthened, increasing their allocations, and more new sections were added to program than removed during the same time period. When WCO’s, sportsmen’s clubs, AFM’s, and even the stocking helpers at times do their best to maintain good relationships with landowners, good things can happen.
Last edited:
C
CRB
Well-known member
Push for an access stamp with moneys used for easements/access. It has been done in the recent past up here in Erie County. The fisherman/clubs/associations pushed hard to get easements included in the access program as only purchases were originally included. You have to remember the PAFBC as an organization has old blood legacies that are very difficult to over turn. Especially due the fact that it is an independent commission, unlike a part of a government department with a governor appointed secretary in charge.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
It is independent in theory but as we saw with John Arway, the house and senate fish and game committee created a term limit that effectively fired him. Independent in some things but seems like a get down or lay down dynamic at work in that one unmistakable telegraphing of power over proposed stocking cuts to those not supporting a license increase.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
One only has to drive on any roadway in PA and see all the litter to realize that pigs are everywhere. One would also assume some of those pigs throwing trash out the windows of their cars are fishermen.
Remember "litter bags" hanging from the cigarette lighter in you car...
Sadly, this guy's message has become lost to a lot of folks today:
Ironically, these same ignorant, inconsiderate slobs also expect us to save the planet and its resources for their future. Don't bet on any help from me on that expectation until you clean up YOUR act!!
In the meantime, I've been promoting and donating to this program for decades:
CAP Program
www.fishandboat.com
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
The CAP program is great, but that should be a core program using fish and boat revenue to fund rather than donations + match. In my opinion. We just lost a big stretch of a popular Class A due to posting. That property would have added roughly 2,000 feet of Class A stream and extended the existing project area from 1.2 miles to 2.03 miles. The property was sold for $70,000 by an out-of-state landowner and was immediately posted.One only has to drive on any roadway in PA and see all the litter to realize that pigs are everywhere. One would also assume some of those pigs throwing trash out the windows of their cars are fishermen.
Remember "litter bags" hanging from the cigarette lighter in you car...
Sadly, this guy's message has become lost to a lot of folks today:
View attachment 1641227396
Ironically, these same ignorant, inconsiderate slobs also expect us to save the planet and its resources for their future. Don't bet on any help from me on that expectation until you clean up YOUR act!!
In the meantime, I've been promoting and donating to this program for decades:
CAP Program
I've forwarded cheap property listings with significant trout waters on them to PFBC in the past and never heard back. In one case, it sat on the market for a year, was sold, and promptly posted. That last one is on an STW that has lost so much land to posting that PFBC only stocks in 2 places now, whereas when I was a kid, it was more or less from source to mouth. Last year, about a mile of that stream was posted for the first time due to a change in ownership.
We're at a disadvantage out of the gate by having less state and federal property than roughly half the country, so acquiring PFR's should be a high priority.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
I remember watching the commercial with that Indian on TV as a kid.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
pcray1231
Well-known member
A few points. We're low in federal land, most of it being the ANF. I don't think there's a lot we can do about that now. But we have an awful lot of state forests, state game lands, etc. That's why we rank solid among our neighbors in overall public land. Western states are a different world, and NY has the huge Adirondaks. But WV, Virginia, NC, NJ, etc. are all in that 15-18% range with us, and FAR better than the midwestern states like OH, IN, IL, etc.
I don't know where other states stand on it, but on top of publicly owned land, I know we do a decent job with conservation easements, especially on our more popular waterways. This is still private land, not publicly owned, but with a stipulation that it be open to the public. Add large tracts of land owned by timber companies, which is private but left open to the public. We also have some pretty good state laws around liability insurance protections which encourage private landowners, such as farmers, to leave their land open to hunting and fishing, even without an official easement in place. So if you really want to get serious about ranking access, you aren't looking at publicly vs. privately owned, but rather posted vs. open to the public. I'm sure we still pale to the big western states, but guessing we look better than our immediate neighbors when this is all added up.
You also have to consider that, per unit area, PA has a TON of waterways, so even if a fairly high % have no access, there's plenty that do.
I don't know where other states stand on it, but on top of publicly owned land, I know we do a decent job with conservation easements, especially on our more popular waterways. This is still private land, not publicly owned, but with a stipulation that it be open to the public. Add large tracts of land owned by timber companies, which is private but left open to the public. We also have some pretty good state laws around liability insurance protections which encourage private landowners, such as farmers, to leave their land open to hunting and fishing, even without an official easement in place. So if you really want to get serious about ranking access, you aren't looking at publicly vs. privately owned, but rather posted vs. open to the public. I'm sure we still pale to the big western states, but guessing we look better than our immediate neighbors when this is all added up.
You also have to consider that, per unit area, PA has a TON of waterways, so even if a fairly high % have no access, there's plenty that do.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,550
You make good points, including the indirect mention of Act 586. Additionally, there are The Great Rivers with their vast amounts of shoreline public access, plus the Ltl J and Lehigh R. There are lots of rail trails along streams and rivers plus riparian parks in Pa, something that largely did not exist 40 yrs ago. Not all, but a a number of rail trails have enhanced access.
One reason why I mentioned SE Pa earlier was to point out that there is still plenty of stocked trout stream fishing despite the limited amount of State Park, State Forest, Fed, and SGL riparian land as well as few conservation easements that enhance fishing access.
Act 586…..
One reason why I mentioned SE Pa earlier was to point out that there is still plenty of stocked trout stream fishing despite the limited amount of State Park, State Forest, Fed, and SGL riparian land as well as few conservation easements that enhance fishing access.
Act 586…..
1965 Act 586
www.legis.state.pa.us
Last edited:
caddisflyer
Well-known member
Would be interesting if the state or federal government would just come in and claim about 20 yards on the bank of every waterway over a certain size and create a buffer zone, taking it like they do other land using eminent domain laws. Some kind of compensation for landowners of course. Considering how important our rivers and streams are for the overall health of the planet would be reason enough. Railroads and power companies effectively control hundreds of miles of river access in PA and their holdings were largely taken by eminent domain years ago.
F
foxfire
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 517
You can’t be serious?!?!? And we think “some kind of compensation” would be market-based or adequate for us land owners?!?!? If truly the goal is the “health of the planet”, land is best left in private hands rather than stolen for the pleasure of the littering, entitled public. Now if private land owners go to market with a sale of their land - like sime game lands acquisitions, well that’s a different story.
Edit: read post #17 - you’re making my point.
Last edited:
