We have to stock lots of trout so we can sell licenses so we can stock lots of trout.
PFBC Voluntary Permits
- Thread starter KeviR
- Start date
License sales dropping is a good thing for stocking reform because thats their justification and, decreasingly, their revenue to do all this nonsense that nocktavius was talking about.
South park underpants gnomes reference may bot be a familiar one but its the same mentality
hemlock
Active member
So you agree Nock that PFBC's stocking is "Contaminating wild populations" but in another thread you say "Any regulations on what I can put into a creek seems like an over reach on the part of the government.", "Its really common place for rural people to go to the trout farm and get a couple hundred fish and throw them in a creek for a child’s birthday party, play date, or a community gathering. I know I did it for my 40th on a nice little state forest brook where my buds and I had no competition for the fish from other anglers.", "stocked fish don’t hurt anything.", "I am a member of the slate run brown trout club", "They give all that money back to the resource in the form of stocking those trout behind their store. It is their right to put what ever they want into pine creek because they are a bussiness as you mentioned and stocking fish into pine creek is good for bussiness, not just saving the trout."..... are you just trolling or?
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
then don't. show them by stopping fishing.
Last edited:
I think he is implying that he would continue to fish, but he would do so without a license.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Hey, all I'm implying is I think it is foolhardy to believe, even without stocking that the PFBC, all of its programs & law enforcement arm would be sustainable only from the license revenue generated by absolutist trout anglers in the "never stockers" camp.
There are a ton of marginal waters that wouldn't be in anyone's crosshairs if it wasn't for stocking and subsequently no one would bother fishing them and would probably not bother fishing at all. This is especially true of fly anglers who frequent places like Section 03 of Ridley Creek or Section 05 of French Creek that will never see sustainable populations of wild trout in 100 years...
I would have to assume that "never stockers" are equally appalled at warmwater stocking which means eliminating that as well, lest you be considered a hypocrite. That would will hurt boating and boating revenues and a further reduction in licenses sales.
As for me, I only target stockers once or twice a year on a few local STW's. When I do, I don't agonize over it, stocking in general or the folks who enjoy it more than me the rest of the year.
Stocking has its place. I don’t fish for stocked trout, but there are places that they can be stocked with minimal ecological impacts.
I do feel that the trout stocking programs need trimmed back extensively. It’s a very bloated program that is very very expensive. I would prefer that no more trout were stocked than what was covered by the cost of the trout stamps.
Last edited:
Bamboozle
Well-known member
License sales fund a lot of other stuff besides stocking...
Boat launches, access, law enforcement, outreach, education, etc.
Losing PFBC license revenue is hardly something to cheer about...
Fishing licenses don’t pay for boat ramps. That comes from the boat fund.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
I totally agree, and those are the places that don't have naturally reproducing populations of trout.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I'm OK with that...
Maybe an idea with merit is TWO trout stamps...
One is a Stocked Trout Stamp that costs the same as a Trout Stamp today and 100% of that $$$ goes to stocking. It would be required on ALL STW's.
The second is a Wild Trout Stamp which is basically the Wild Trout and Enhanced Waters Permit except it ISN'T voluntary. This would be required on all non-stocked Class A, B, C & D waters AND the stocked Class A's. The money generated here goes where it goes today.
Someone like me, who occasionally fishes STW's or people who fish those stocked Class A's need two stamps which is a good thing because it generates more revenue for both types of waters.
Holier than thou types, only need the Wild Trout and Enhanced Waters Permit which would increase its snob appeal and probably the number of permits sold. 😉
Maybe the PFBC could create a hybrid permit that cosst a little less then one of each for people like me but it would have to be multi year so they get the revenue & comitment up front.
I'd be 100% on board with something like this if the PFBC had the ball$ to give it a whirl...
Last edited:
Or are in close proximity to such places.
CRB
Well-known member
State does what they want sometimes you agree sometimes you disagree.
It is part of living in Pennsylvania.
Not enough skin in the game to care either way IMHO.
It is part of living in Pennsylvania.
Not enough skin in the game to care either way IMHO.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Okay, I'm on board with this, since you included me. 🙂
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I fish Mill Creek, too! Wait, which Mill Creek are we talking about?
Anglers who are not old enough or weren’t tuned in enough to recall may not realize that when the trout stamp was created, it wasn’t created to entirely pay for the trout stocking program or enhance the program by paying for more or larger fish. A portion of the regular license receipts was still going to be used for the program and without the stamp growing expenses would likely have cut more deeply into funds for other programs.
Last edited:
Nocktavius
Well-known member
You know there are plenty of valuable gamefish in those “marginal” waters, right? I just don’t like paying money for the government to actively screw up something I enjoy.
Oh trust me, every time my trailer tire goes off the end of that broken up POS at Buckingham I curse those jackasses out good and hard for dumping so much money into mushmouths
Hey, Mike! When was the trout stamp implemented?
