PFBC Meeting regarding proposed fee increases - Friday June 10 2022

[Fish Sticks]

I speak to all those people plus a lot more too. Posting on here is the minority of my discussion on this subject.

Problem is the stock everything folks have whats called a “sportsman’s club” its a group located within a politicians district with a common united cause to stock everything. If you get a similar group they will listen to you too. To get a group you need people that understand this is a HUGE problem. You need to do science communication to increase the number of people who understand the issue enough to join a group. To so science communication these days you need………

The internet

This is why I agreed to record the below podcast because I wanted to share the science on the internet.

PA NFC Board Member James Suleski Talks Brook Trout with Rob Snowhite — Native Fish Coalition

Pennsylvania NFC board member Dr. James Suleski talks brook trout with Rob Snowhite on Fly Fishing Consultant podcast.…

nativefishcoalition.org

Grow the group of people who understand how FUBAR this is then take that group to the folks you mentioned in mass just like the stock everything people.

 

[silverfox]

Not to mention that fisheries management isn't supposed to be a democratic process. How the agency handles issues like stocking over brook trout shouldn't come down to who has the loudest voice or who's best at doing backroom deals.

Do you think NYDEC has C&R regs and fish barriers because a group of concerned conservationists were effective at lobbying DEC to make those changes? Do you think MD DNR did what they did because a group of brook trout fanatics manipulated them to do it? Do you think NPS is manually removing brown trout and favoring brook trout because they were pressured by an active advocacy organization to do it? Did NJ DEP make a brook trout conservation zone because some outfit got cozy with some legislators and the commissioner?

That's not how this is supposed to work.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I speak to all those people plus a lot more too. Posting on here is the minority of my discussion on this subject.

Problem is the stock everything folks have whats called a “sportsman’s club” its a group located within a politicians district with a common united cause to stock everything. If you get a similar group they will listen to you too. To get a group you need people that understand this is a HUGE problem. You need to do science communication to increase the number of people who understand the issue enough to join a group. To so science communication these days you need………

The internet

This is why I agreed to record the below podcast because I wanted to share the science on the internet.

PA NFC Board Member James Suleski Talks Brook Trout with Rob Snowhite — Native Fish Coalition

Pennsylvania NFC board member Dr. James Suleski talks brook trout with Rob Snowhite on Fly Fishing Consultant podcast.…

nativefishcoalition.org

Grow the group of people who understand how FUBAR this is then take that group to the folks you mentioned in mass just like the stock everything people

Not to mention that fisheries management isn't supposed to be a democratic process. How the agency handles issues like stocking over brook trout shouldn't come down to who has the loudest voice or who's best at doing backroom deals.

Do you think NYDEC has C&R regs and fish barriers because a group of concerned conservationists were effective at lobbying DEC to make those changes? Do you think MD DNR did what they did because a group of brook trout fanatics manipulated them to do it? Do you think NPS is manually removing brown trout and favoring brook trout because they were pressured by an active advocacy organization to do it? Did NJ DEP make a brook trout conservation zone because some outfit got cozy with some legislators and the commissioner?

That's not how this is supposed to work.

only in PA sadly

 

[Tom1980]

I speak to all those people plus a lot more too. Posting on here is the minority of my discussion on this subject.

Problem is the stock everything folks have whats called a “sportsman’s club” its a group located within a politicians district with a common united cause to stock everything. If you get a similar group they will listen to you too. To get a group you need people that understand this is a HUGE problem. You need to do science communication to increase the number of people who understand the issue enough to join a group. To so science communication these days you need………

The internet

This is why I agreed to record the below podcast because I wanted to share the science on the internet.

PA NFC Board Member James Suleski Talks Brook Trout with Rob Snowhite — Native Fish Coalition

Pennsylvania NFC board member Dr. James Suleski talks brook trout with Rob Snowhite on Fly Fishing Consultant podcast.…

nativefishcoalition.org

Grow the group of people who understand how FUBAR this is then take that group to the folks you mentioned in mass just like the stock everything people

only in PA sadly

I bet those "stock everything folks" don't agree with their collective mission then proceed to be a stumbling block to eachother and their missions too.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I bet those "stock everything folks" don't agree with their collective mission then proceed to be a stumbling block to eachother and their missions too.

Nope they operate with near perfect uniformity, a Hive Mind.

 

[silverfox]

Frankly, this whole notion that nothing changes because of some shadowy effort by well organized stocked trout fanatics is pure fantasy. It's a scapegoat. A red herring. A convenient distraction to excuse inaction without a real villan. Blame "politicians", without naming them or a shred of evidence that it's true, and some mythical organization who is more effective at lobbying to ensure we keep the white trucks rolling than anyone else without a single documented example of it being true.

All of that aside, again, I'd love for someone to point out which organization was so successful in Maryland at convincing DNR to create the upper savage river brook trout project or their statewide regs and partnering w/ USGS and others to reclaim brook trout streams in Eastern MD. Who convinced NJ to create their brook trout conservation zone? Was it TU? Why hasn't TU been effective in PA? Surely TU is the largest organization for trout conservation in the state, so who's outplayed TU for all these years? Something doesn't add up here.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea your right a lot doesn’t add up. Its really confusing to understand their motivations surrounding stocking because its not based on fisheries research or whats best for the resource it leaves a lot to the imagination as far as whats pulling the strings over there. Even from a fiscal standpoint it does not make sense. Its unsustainable financially because costs growing faster than revenues.

We know alot of these anglers and clubs just call their elected officials and commissioners complaining about how many fish they get or didn’t get effective or not who knows. As mentioned above may or may not be effective. Definitely not some kind of super sophisticated stocking illuminate, just a bunch of folks who are persistent want the same thing and are vocal and very unified in what they want, effective or ineffective when it comes to how decisions get made, hard to really say.

We heard commissioner Brock refer to stocking cuts in a stream that holds native brook trout this past winter (freeman run) as “things are moving to fast” in context of stocking reform after hussar talked about native brook trout. We are behind all our neighboring states in managing and protecting native brook trout as silver fox pointed out with many examples above. However, the tragic irony of the statement “things are moving too fast” is mind numbingly frustrating.

Don’t know if the unwillingness to manage for native brook trout in PA’s best county to do so from commissioner Brock was influenced by his local coop or an elected official who was trying to score political points with constituents or if the thought of producing less stocked trout just triggers the fear of god about reduced revenues/ job security at the agency.

I just don’t know how all that stuff is weighted. Then I wonder if there are other factors I am completely missing. Just because of the insane level of mental gymnastics to defend stocking invasive species while other states stop stocking them over brook trout/remove in select small places, the extreme aversion to using or communicating any of the science on invasive trout species, conservation genetics, or life histories of brook trout. Its just Bizarre and beyond any explanation offered on here. Its true devotion at an unprecedented level on the east coast to not helping these fish. Multiple options to conserve native brook trout that are free, available, and have good data to support them. not all even having to do with stocking. And they won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole.

 

[poopdeck]

$2.50 increase is not really an increase

 

[troutbert]

We know alot of these anglers and clubs just call their elected officials and commissioners complaining about how many fish they get or didn’t get effective or not who knows. As mentioned above may or may not be effective. Definitely not some kind of super sophisticated stocking illuminate, just a bunch of folks who are persistent want the same thing and are vocal and very unified in what they want, effective or ineffective when it comes to how decisions get made, hard to really say.

Now we're getting somewhere.

A lot of anglers and clubs call their elected officials and commissioners. They are persistent and vocal and unified.

So, is that effective? Of course it is.

It's extremely effective. This is politics at its most basic.

They are getting lots of input from people who want these streams stocked. And very little from those who want stocking ended on these streams. What are they going to do?

There's nothing complicated about it. And nothing "shadowy" or secretive about it. The sportsmens clubs are well known.

And they have every right to express their opinions to their representatives. That's the way the US system was designed.

 

[silverfox]

Now we're getting somewhere.

A lot of anglers and clubs call their elected officials and commissioners. They are persistent and vocal and unified.

So, is that effective? Of course it is.

It's extremely effective. This is politics at its most basic.

They are getting lots of input from people who want these streams stocked. And very little from those who want stocking ended on these streams. What are they going to do?

There's nothing complicated about it. And nothing "shadowy" or secretive about it. The sportsmens clubs are well known.

And they have every right to express their opinions to their representatives. That's the way the US system was designed.

There we go! The recipe for success! All one needs to do is hound their local representatives in Harrisburg to bring Mekong catfish to the Susquehanna and it will happen! Who cares about what's best for the resource, or how terrible an idea it is biologically. If some loud locals want it, and they pull the strings of government, then by God, the powers that be will make it so! We should have Bengal tigers and Pudu in PA, and all we have to do is pound the phones to make it happen!

It should be about what the people want, not what's best for the resource.

 

[silverfox]

If only the sportsman clubs in WV had taken a page out of the invincible sportsman's clubs of PA they could have prevented the disaster that is Otter Creek wilderness area. Imagine if some sportsmans clubs in Garrett County Maryland had only taken the time to reach out to the all powerful Potter County Anglers to get a master class on how to prevent the atrocity that is the Upper Savage River brook trout project. The northern New Jersey sportsmans clubs could have kept brook trout on the menu if they'd only looked at the massive success of PA anglers. The Adirondacks could be full of rainbow trout if only the anglers in the area had taken the time to study the effectiveness of PA's model to prevent the worthless preservation of heritage brook trout.

 

[tomgamber]

You know what officials in PA hate more than anything? Being told how they do it in some other state. They stop listening immediately. Pa is much larger than MD and WVA combined. Population is twice those combined. MD and WVA have even less in common with each other. WVA decisions grt made by a very small percentage of their population, isolated in one or two very small areas. That's also where all the money is. Your knowledge of fisheries, conservation and watersheds outweighs your obvious lack of knowledge on how decisions get made, and how people in general function by about 90% to 10%. We "old timers" as I was called, have watched and participated in these things for decades. I applaud your moxy and your drive. You've done your home work. But telling me about your "literature" is pointless. You and Sisyphus keep up the good fight. When you figure out what's in it for the decision makers and offer them that, you might get somewhere. But if you just offer them facts, we'll that's nice. Next?!

You can solve the all world's problems around a fire ring in one night. But nothing will change.

 

[Sylvaneous]

With the top EXPLODING out of the price of everything, I would definitely support a strong price increase AND and big bump in the trout stamp or something used to work on/ improve/acquire more access to trout and steelhead waters. Jackwagons spend 10's of thousands of $$$ each year to shoot a frikkin deer. And I know the real bifurcation of economic (and other) welfare of the population. But that's a much greater issue. WE can't solve that issue with low fishing licenses, but we can degrade our fishing resources by not paying for it. ( I NEVER can remember how to spell 'licesnse. " see?)

 

[silverfox]

You know what officials in PA hate more than anything? Being told how they do it in some other state. They stop listening immediately. Pa is much larger than MD and WVA combined. Population is twice those combined. MD and WVA have even less in common with each other. WVA decisions grt made by a very small percentage of their population, isolated in one or two very small areas. That's also where all the money is. Your knowledge of fisheries, conservation and watersheds outweighs your obvious lack of knowledge on how decisions get made, and how people in general function by about 90% to 10%. We "old timers" as I was called, have watched and participated in these things for decades. I applaud your moxy and your drive. You've done your home work. But telling me about your "literature" is pointless. You and Sisyphus keep up the good fight. When you figure out what's in it for the decision makers and offer them that, you might get somewhere. But if you just offer them facts, we'll that's nice. Next?!

You can solve the all world's problems around a fire ring in one night. But nothing will change.

Here's another explanation for why things are the way they are in PA.

I suspect staff likely has an appetite to do what I and others (TU, other individuals, other states, certain commissioners present and past, prior executive directors, and even other PA state agencies) have been saying for years.

The way this works is staff brings up a proposal and the commissioners vote on it. Our commissioner board is made up of individuals with bias. Just being blunt here. The makeup of the commissioners dictates what happens. Not what some politicians hear from their constituents. Freeman run and Cold Stream are perfect recent examples that illustrate angler want isn't driving the boat. If it was, Cold Stream and Freeman Run would still be stocked. These angling clubs that are supposed to have such unrivaled influence were unable to prevent the streams from being listed and stocking exemptions granted.

If you listened to the meetings on the stocking authorization you should have noticed that staff put a tremendous amount of work into that proposal. It's probably the most thorough proposal I've seen them bring forward. I have a feeling the reason they put so much effort into it is that I think they suspected there would be more pushback on it from the commissioners than there was because a few of the commissioners are directly involved in co-op hatchery operations and likely favor stocking over all else. There was probably little pushback because staff presented a water-tight argument for why it was necessary (disease introduction and the AFMs having no idea what's being put in the water). Including mentioning that PA is the only state in the east that doesn't have a stocking authorization (staff pointed out what other states have done and it didn't cause a riot).

Staff isn't going to put together a big proposal for something if they think it's going to fail with the commissioners. If I can read how the commissioners lean then I guarantee you staff knows too. Right now, we don't have the votes from the commissioners to do any kind of large-scale restrictive angling regulation or cessation of stocking. Hussar tried to introduce his own version (C&R on all class a's) of it and it failed to pass. So staff likely sees it as a complete waste of time to even try.

The reason I bring up what other states are doing and have been doing isn't to shame PA for not doing those things. It's to make clear that none of this is my idea, or to reinforce that what I think we should do is in line with what others are doing so that an ad hominem argument can't be made against me. It's not my idea, it's other states' idea.

 

[Fish Sticks]

If only the sportsman clubs in WV had taken a page out of the invincible sportsman's clubs of PA they could have prevented the disaster that is Otter Creek wilderness area. Imagine if some sportsmans clubs in Garrett County Maryland had only taken the time to reach out to the all powerful Potter County Anglers to get a master class on how to prevent the atrocity that is the Upper Savage River brook trout project. The northern New Jersey sportsmans clubs could have kept brook trout on the menu if they'd only looked at the massive success of PA anglers. The Adirondacks could be full of rainbow trout if only the anglers in the area had taken the time to study the effectiveness of PA's model to prevent the worthless preservation of heritage brook trout.

I will say it does seem like these other states just take the stance that “ we do whats best for the cold water ecosystem, inform the anglers, and educate them why. As both of us have said in the past none of those state fish managers were lost to angry mobs with torches and pitch forks.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Here's another explanation for why things are the way they are in PA.

I suspect staff likely has an appetite to do what I and others (TU, other individuals, other states, certain commissioners present and past, prior executive directors, and even other PA state agencies) have been saying for years.

The way this works is staff brings up a proposal and the commissioners vote on it. Our commissioner board is made up of individuals with bias. Just being blunt here. The makeup of the commissioners dictates what happens. Not what some politicians hear from their constituents. Freeman run and Cold Stream are perfect recent examples that illustrate angler want isn't driving the boat. If it was, Cold Stream and Freeman Run would still be stocked. These angling clubs that are supposed to have such unrivaled influence were unable to prevent the streams from being listed and stocking exemptions granted.

If you listened to the meetings on the stocking authorization you should have noticed that staff put a tremendous amount of work into that proposal. It's probably the most thorough proposal I've seen them bring forward. I have a feeling the reason they put so much effort into it is that I think they suspected there would be more pushback on it from the commissioners than there was because a few of the commissioners are directly involved in co-op hatchery operations and likely favor stocking over all else. There was probably little pushback because staff presented a water-tight argument for why it was necessary (disease introduction and the AFMs having no idea what's being put in the water). Including mentioning that PA is the only state in the east that doesn't have a stocking authorization (staff pointed out what other states have done and it didn't cause a riot).

Staff isn't going to put together a big proposal for something if they think it's going to fail with the commissioners. If I can read how the commissioners lean then I guarantee you staff knows too. Right now, we don't have the votes from the commissioners to do any kind of large-scale restrictive angling regulation or cessation of stocking. Hussar tried to introduce his own version (C&R on all class a's) of it and it failed to pass. So staff likely sees it as a complete waste of time to even try.

The reason I bring up what other states are doing and have been doing isn't to shame PA for not doing those things. It's to make clear that none of this is my idea, or to reinforce that what I think we should do is in line with what others are doing so that an ad hominem argument can't be made against me. It's not my idea, it's other states' idea.

Yea commissioner brock obviously has a bias i forget if he is directly involved with a coop or not. I think Don Anderson is and BJ small is?

 

[tomgamber]

Sky Lake - Sky Lake was live.| By Sky Lake | Sky Lake was live.

Sky Lake was live.

fb.watch

 

[tomgamber]

Here's another explanation for why things are the way they are in PA.

I suspect staff likely has an appetite to do what I and others (TU, other individuals, other states, certain commissioners present and past, prior executive directors, and even other PA state agencies) have been saying for years.

The way this works is staff brings up a proposal and the commissioners vote on it. Our commissioner board is made up of individuals with bias. Just being blunt here. The makeup of the commissioners dictates what happens. Not what some politicians hear from their constituents. Freeman run and Cold Stream are perfect recent examples that illustrate angler want isn't driving the boat. If it was, Cold Stream and Freeman Run would still be stocked. These angling clubs that are supposed to have such unrivaled influence were unable to prevent the streams from being listed and stocking exemptions granted.

If you listened to the meetings on the stocking authorization you should have noticed that staff put a tremendous amount of work into that proposal. It's probably the most thorough proposal I've seen them bring forward. I have a feeling the reason they put so much effort into it is that I think they suspected there would be more pushback on it from the commissioners than there was because a few of the commissioners are directly involved in co-op hatchery operations and likely favor stocking over all else. There was probably little pushback because staff presented a water-tight argument for why it was necessary (disease introduction and the AFMs having no idea what's being put in the water). Including mentioning that PA is the only state in the east that doesn't have a stocking authorization (staff pointed out what other states have done and it didn't cause a riot).

Staff isn't going to put together a big proposal for something if they think it's going to fail with the commissioners. If I can read how the commissioners lean then I guarantee you staff knows too. Right now, we don't have the votes from the commissioners to do any kind of large-scale restrictive angling regulation or cessation of stocking. Hussar tried to introduce his own version (C&R on all class a's) of it and it failed to pass. So staff likely sees it as a complete waste of time to even try.

The reason I bring up what other states are doing and have been doing isn't to shame PA for not doing those things. It's to make clear that none of this is my idea, or to reinforce that what I think we should do is in line with what others are doing so that an ad hominem argument can't be made against me. It's not my idea, it's other states' idea.

Sounds kind of paranoid to me. I like my common sense observation better.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Sounds kind of paranoid to me. I like my common sense observation better.

Well actually staff proposed to unstock class B’s I believe as mike Kauffman has pointed out before, so there is truth to that. I think mike said was shot down by commissioners.

 

[silverfox]

Sounds kind of paranoid to me. I like my common sense observation better.

Paranoid? What's more plausible? That a yet-to-be-named group of anglers has somehow been able to reach every commissioner district in Pennsylvania and convince elected representatives in every district to lean on the commissioner from that district? Meanwhile, we know for certain that TU has been trying to get stocking over wild trout stopped for years with no success? So a super organized group with boat loads of money and representatives all over the state has been unsuccessful in persuading PFBC to stop stocking over wild trout, but this mysterious group that nobody seems to be able to name has been successful at making sure we keep stocking over wild trout?

Or that we know from past attempts that not enough commissioners support the cessation of stocking (as fish sticks pointed out) that the makeup of the board isn't conducive to attempting it?

One of those does sound paranoid. If you have the name of this group that has outplayed TU I'd love to know it so I can speak with them and maybe get some pointers.