PFBC Meeting

[Maurice]

I have an idea..we have a new Governor, maybe we should share this with him? We could form a Committee of Concerned Anglers and craft a message and present it to the Governor.

He is interested in eliminating corruption within state government, lets start here.

 

[DaveS]

I'm as disappointed in the commission's action as everyone else. For everything that's already been stated. And as much as I hate to be the clam voice of reason, we simply have to get to the public comment period, and let them have it. Letters, e-mails, get your friends, fishing buddies, local organizations etc. and let your displeasure be heard.

 

[troutbert]

SBecker wrote:
As of January 5, 2015, the Commission received a total of 272 public comments. Five comments support stocking the 10 waters. Two comments support stocking all Class A waters, two comments specifically support stocking Pohopoco Creek and one comment specifically supports stocking Yellow Creek. 144 comments oppose stocking any Class A waters, and 118 comments urge the Commission to adopt defined criteria in its statement of policy if any stocking of Class A waters is to occur. Copies of all public comments have been provided to the Commissioners.

This still blows my mind.

Agreed. But, those numbers don't tell the whole story about the public input and sentiment, and therefore political realities.

Of those 10 streams, the PFBC originally proposed ending stocking on just one section on Martins Creek. And when they did that the "stuff" hit the fan. They heard from lots of anglers, and from sportsmen's clubs, and it was in the newspapers etc.

And they've been getting a lot of flack from anglers, sportsmens clubs, and mostly importantly from LEGISLATORS for years about ending and reducing stocking in wild trout streams. Many people will remember the Young Womans Creek and Cross Fork Creek battles. The legislators were very involved in that.

From the Martins Creek (a minor stream section) experience, they have some idea what the public response would be if they ended stocking on the Little Lehigh, or even the Monocacy, or the last remaining stocked section of Fishing Creek, Clinton Cty.

Legislators have threatened numerous times to eliminate the entire agency over this kind of stuff. The legislature forced them to close their Big Spring hatchery. And the legislature controls license price increases. They have a lot of leverage .So, that is the other side of the political reality. The PFBC is caught between the two sides and has to compromise between them.

Which is why it so important for our side to let voice our opinions. Because if you don't then there no longer is two sides of the story, there is just one side, the other side. The other side won't go away.
They have no hesitation about contacting the PFBC and their legislators, as individuals and through organizations. If you don't speak up, you don't exist, from the political perspective.

 

[BrookieChaser]

troutbert wrote:

BrookieChaser wrote:

troutbert wrote:

The hiker types believe in participatory democracy as envisioned by the founders. They don't just "complain to the Internet."

They contact the agency itself, and their legislators, and voice their views on issues.

Yep. That's it. A dream world where the little people have a voice

What's your version of what happened?

Why did the PGC drop their proposal, if it wasn't in response to the hiker groups and other concerned citizens voicing their opinion?

You took my quote out of context. Where is the other portion of it?

This discussion was on the PFBC decision, not the PGC. In your post I quoted you were insinuating that public comment matters and the PFBC will listen to "the public". I, and Becker, proved otherwise.

Now sidetracked onto the PGC decision, since you asked. A) commissioners are individuals (so they may have a better group of them) and b) hikers have a larger group (therefore more clout) than those of us that care about wild trout.
Face it, we are minority and, no matter how "hopey changey" you want to be, we will never have a voice in these matters.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert seems to have a sense of political reality. As a former fisheries bureau director told a starry-eyed university graduate early in his career; "you are not going to make it as a fisheries manager if you are not prepared to accept political realities." That was a very tough pill to swallow, especially since on its face it seemed like a sell-out, but it was true. It was pragmatic advice learned the hard way through that individual's vast experience. He had seen the baby thrown out with the bath water in the past.

A general observation on my part is that political forces will often tolerate only so much and when they decide that enough is enough or things have gotten too extreme, bad things sometimes happen. They say no to the final tweak that agencies or groups want and then they often retrace old steps and take back more. For example, the snail darter issue could have been the end of the Federal Endangered Species Act if the issue had not been resolved through compromise (transfer to other acceptable habitat).

 

[Acristickid]

recent trib articles of the class a


more recent article

"Leroy Young, director of the commission's bureau of fisheries, said such fears are “likely overstated,” based on a review of scientific literature."

"Commissioner Len Lichvar of Somerset County said it makes no sense to stock expensive, hard-to-raise hatchery trout over very good populations of wild ones."

"“My concern is, this proposal, to stock these 10 sections, is a departure from a long, going on 30 years, policy of this agency to not stock Class A wild trout streams, which are the best of the best,” Bachman said."

 

[BrookieChaser]

Mike wrote:
Troutbert seems to have a sense of political reality. As a former fisheries bureau director told a starry-eyed university graduate early in his career; "you are not going to make it as a fisheries manager if you are not prepared to accept political realities."

Mike, these two statements are very contradictory.

I respect Troutbert, I think his views and mine align on a lot of fisheries aspects. But I read his posts in this thread, and the original thread on public comment, as saying democracy works and the minority's voice will be heard, you just need to contact the commissioners. That was clearly false in this matter, as I pointed it out to be when public comment was solicited in the first place.

Now your statement of you wanting to change things through science early in your career and the fisheries bureau director telling you about political pressures, seems to align more with my views on the subject than that of which Troutbert is promoting.

 

[Mike]

Perhaps I should qualify my point then. I was referring to Troutbert's first five paragraphs in # 63 above and I was being complementary of those observations with respect to their general theme (that political realities exist at times) rather than the specifics of the cases that he mentioned.

 

[CRB]

well...As Mike sates, I guess it is time to start writing and dropping by to speak with my legislators.
I mentioned the early creel in DHAL waters and she said I guess we will not be going to Bradford this summer to fish/camp..no Trout in the streams why fish she stated...usually go most weekends in summer and fall. going to try Allegheny State park this year. So, I'll spend my trout stamp money on NY state fishing license this year.

 

[BrookieChaser]

CRB wrote:
It make me sick to hear of early harvest periods and bait being able to be used. So much I may not purchase a trout permit this year and travel to the storied waters of NY to fish for trout this year.
IMHO the best way to protest is to not support the PAFC financially.
Hit them in their pocket book.

This reminds me of what my mother used to tell me as a kid "you'd cut off your nose to spite your face".

250(couple) people even cared enough to comment. 144 were totally against stocking any class A stream. 144 people not buying a license are not going to make a difference in PFBC's coffers.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

SBecker wrote:
As of January 5, 2015, the Commission received a total of 272 public comments. Five comments support stocking the 10 waters. Two comments support stocking all Class A waters, two comments specifically support stocking Pohopoco Creek and one comment specifically supports stocking Yellow Creek. 144 comments oppose stocking any Class A waters, and 118 comments urge the Commission to adopt defined criteria in its statement of policy if any stocking of Class A waters is to occur. Copies of all public comments have been provided to the Commissioners.

This still blows my mind.

Agreed. But, those numbers don't tell the whole story about the public input and sentiment, and therefore political realities.

Of those 10 streams, the PFBC originally proposed ending stocking on just one section on Martins Creek. And when they did that the "stuff" hit the fan. They heard from lots of anglers, and from sportsmen's clubs, and it was in the newspapers etc.

And they've been getting a lot of flack from anglers, sportsmens clubs, and mostly importantly from LEGISLATORS for years about ending and reducing stocking in wild trout streams. Many people will remember the Young Womans Creek and Cross Fork Creek battles. The legislators were very involved in that.

From the Martins Creek (a minor stream section) experience, they have some idea what the public response would be if they ended stocking on the Little Lehigh, or even the Monocacy, or the last remaining stocked section of Fishing Creek, Clinton Cty.

Legislators have threatened numerous times to eliminate the entire agency over this kind of stuff. The legislature forced them to close their Big Spring hatchery. And the legislature controls license price increases. They have a lot of leverage .So, that is the other side of the political reality. The PFBC is caught between the two sides and has to compromise between them.

Which is why it so important for our side to let voice our opinions. Because if you don't then there no longer is two sides of the story, there is just one side, the other side. The other side won't go away.
They have no hesitation about contacting the PFBC and their legislators, as individuals and through organizations. If you don't speak up, you don't exist, from the political perspective.

^ Excellent synopsis of the reality of how things work concerning the PFBC.

Mike wrote:
Troutbert seems to have a sense of political reality. As a former fisheries bureau director told a starry-eyed university graduate early in his career; "you are not going to make it as a fisheries manager if you are not prepared to accept political realities." That was a very tough pill to swallow, especially since on its face it seemed like a sell-out, but it was true. It was pragmatic advice learned the hard way through that individual's vast experience. He had seen the baby thrown out with the bath water in the past.

A general observation on my part is that political forces will often tolerate only so much and when they decide that enough is enough or things have gotten too extreme, bad things sometimes happen. They say no to the final tweak that agencies or groups want and then they often retrace old steps and take back more. For example, the snail darter issue could have been the end of the Federal Endangered Species Act if the issue had not been resolved through compromise (transfer to other acceptable habitat).

^Mike's post is very frank and tells the inside story, in a general sense.


The e-mail responses are but a very small part of the feedback given to the commissioners. There are political realities that are factored any decision made by the Commissioners, but not mentioned here, is the reality of the opinion of the majority of anglers.

Of the half a million or so trout stamp buyers, I would guess that the vast majority would not like to see any cuts in stocking of any streams. Us trout geeks on this site are a small minority of anglers. But, as Troutbert wrote above, we must continue to voice our opinions individually as well as through organizations such as TU.

I was in favor of the original compromise Class A stocking that proposed limited stocking of the newly classified streams in high-use streams. The issue came to a boiling point, and the entire policy of not stocking any Class A's was thrown out.

Two steps backwards, but we must push on.

 

[troutbert]

Understanding the political realities of how things work does not lead to the Do Nothing position.

Understanding the political realities helps us understand what we need to do to be more effective.

Since legislators are very influential, that means we have to take our message to the legislators, in addition to PFBC staff and commissioners.

The other side does contact their legislators, and have been effective in this way.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
Understanding the political realities of how things work does not lead to the Do Nothing position.

Understanding the political realities helps us understand what we need to do to be more effective.

Since legislators are very influential, that means we have to take our message to the legislators, in addition to PFBC staff and commissioners.

The other side does contact their legislators, and have been effective in this way.

True. Just an observation. I believe the most effective way to move forward an agenda when there are many groups pushing in different directions is to take the "half a loaf" and "give and take" philosophy.

In this instance, my guess is the "fisheries" guys came up with a compromise proposal minimizing the impact of Class A stocking. While ideally, I would like to see no stocking at all; I supported the compromise (taking "half a loaf") as the best course of action, rather than the vehement stand of supporting no stocking at all.

Now we are faced with the repeal of the entire policy of no stocking, which now leaves out there the possibility of any Class A stream to be stocked...the baby with the bathwater.

While I do not think the above will happen, it leaves open that possibility with pressure from certain groups and politicians.

 

[Acristickid]

another revent articke from the Pgh Trib


"The idea of those days has raised concerns among anglers, said commissioner Rocco Ali of North Apollo. A few are worried some of the smaller streams on the stocking list might be “fished out” before opening day if hit hard by mentors and kids, he said."

 

[SBecker]

I do like opening all streams a week early for youth. I believe this will promote youth fishing better. I have already spoken to my buddies about taking my children to our favorite first day stream that week. My kids being 5 and 7 are not ready for the morning gauntlet of opening day. I would usually get them out in the afternoon or following days to my favorite stocky stream.

 

[troutbert]

The other part of the political reality is that conservation-minded anglers have influenced fisheries management in many ways in PA and the US as a whole for many years. And not just a long time ago, but in also in more recent times.

There is no question about whether or not it can work. The record shows very clearly that it often does.

 

[DaveS]

You want to get kids interested in fishing? IMHO, two words.

Blue Gill.


Shane, your kids can probably out-fish a lot of adults!

 

[Fishidiot]

I've got nothing to add to this thread...but will say that Troutbert and Afishinado have made a lot of good points.

 

[DaveKile]

Forgot about this! In 2004 the commission board voted 8-0 against changing the rules allowing bait fishing in DHALO. Found this kinda of interesting.

August 01, 2004
By Christian Berg Of The Morning Call
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission last week unanimously rejected an unpopular proposal to allow live bait on 92 miles of trout water reserved for anglers using flies and other manmade lures.

The commission voted 8-0 against the change during Tuesday's quarterly meeting. Members said overwhelming angler opposition was a major factor in the decision.

The agency received 1,167 written comments about the proposal, which would have allowed limited use of live bait on trout waters enrolled in the Delayed Harvest Artificial Lures Only (DHALO) program. Of those, only 31 comments -- or 2.7 percent -- supported the change.

"I think Delayed Harvest is one of the best programs developed by the commission," said Commission President Samuel M. Concilla of Erie County. "It offers a lot of angling opportunities. It's a wise use of the resource, and I'm pleased that the commission voted the way it did."

I think we can do better than 1,167 written comments this time. I also like the idea of letting representatives know the view you take on this situation. WE need to take action on this.

Link to original article

 

[DaveKile]

I realize we had a couple major topics come out of the recent PFBC meeting held last week. With the help of Maurice and other members on the site I have shared some thoughts about the proposed rule changes to the DHALO streams.

Here is the post.

I encourage us to keep the dialog going here in the forum, but also take action by letting the PFBC and PA State Representatives hear that we do not want these rule changes on the DHALO streams.

BTW here is a replay of the PFBC Meeting. About 46 mins is the DHALO.