Possible Hatchery Closures/ License Hike

[falcon]

Just stop stocking over wild fish populations. A duh!!!!!

 

[salmo]

On the good side, if I read the material correctly portions of Young Women's Creek will be off the stocking list.

I am out of state. I could not find anything on increasing the out of state fees. I hardly got my money's worth this year, three trips.

 

[afishinado]

No vote by House on license increase:


Editorial | State House leaves fish commission high and dry

By Todd Berkey

John Arway, executive director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, stirred the waters last week and created a maelstrom.

We’re not sure if that was his intent, but Arway certainly got the attention of the House Game and Fisheries Committee.

On Sept. 25, the director said his agency would have to make $2 million in spending cuts by closing hatcheries and reducing the number of streams and lakes where fish are stocked if the General Assembly doesn’t soon approve an increase to the cost of a fishing license.

The threat raised the hackles of state Rep. Bryan Barbin, D-Johnstown, the ranking Democrat on the House committee.

“You can’t threaten people,” Barbin said of Arway’s pronouncement. “We were working toward a resolution. This doesn’t get us moving forward.”

Barbin was particularly miffed by the timing of Arway’s actions as lawmakers are focusing most of their attention on passing a state budget, now three months late and counting.

We can understand Arway’s frustration. The commission, wrote CNHI state reporter John Finnerty, has been begging for a hike in the cost of a fishing license for more than a decade.

“The price of a general fishing license was last raised in 2005,” Arway said.

“Since then, we have continued to provide the same level of services to our customers, while seeking a price increase from the state Legislature,” the director said.

Arway laid his agency’s problems at the feet of the House.

“The Senate has acted twice and passed legislation in 2016 and 2017 to give the commission the authority to set license fees,” he said.

“But the House has failed to vote on Senate Bill 30.

“Until they do, we must cut expenses to pay our bills.”

The fish and boat commission wants to raise the price of an adult fishing license to $27.30 from $21. A trout stamp, which allows the purchaser to keep rainbow, brook, brown and golden trout, would also increase. Anglers who purchase a license and trout stamp would have to shell out $41.70 annually, a 43 percent hike over the current cost of $29. Additional hikes are planned in the future.

In 2016, Arway met with the editorial board and reporters at The Tribune-Democrat to explain why his agency believed it desperately needed an increase in the cost of a fishing license.

Most of the commission’s budget is allocated for salaries and benefits for its employees. The remaining funds go toward maintaining equipment, vehicles and fish hatcheries.

We understood Arway’s dilemma and supported his position. And we continue to back the fish and boat commission.

The agency has worked with Penn State’s business school to determine how much of a fee increase the angling community would support and how to better market fishing to residents of the commonwealth.

“We’re not going to do something that is antagonistic to our business,” Arway told us. “We want to serve Pennsylvania anglers for another 100 years.”

There is still time for our lawmakers to rescue the commission.

“The three hatcheries won’t be fully closed until late 2018 or early 2019, so there is still time remaining this year for a legislative solution,” Arway said. “It is imperative that the House of Representatives act now.”

The House has had more than a year to make a decision on the commission’s request, yet it sat on its hands. We understand that a state spending plan is essential, but so is the economic vitality of the 100-year-old fish and boat commission.

We urge the House to follow the Senate’s lead and allow the commission to increase license fees.



Link to source: http://www.tribdem.com/news/editorials/editorial-state-house-leaves-fish-commission-high-and-dry/article_f81576c0-a9fa-11e7-a80b-e3ffd6f2fee4.html

 

[ryansheehan]

“You can’t threaten people,” Barbin said of Arway’s pronouncement. “We were working toward a resolution. This doesn’t get us moving forward.”

Barbin was particularly miffed by the timing of Arway’s actions as lawmakers are focusing most of their attention on passing a state budget, now three months late and counting.

Priceless

 

[JackM]

ryansheehan wrote:

“You can’t threaten people,” Barbin said of Arway’s pronouncement. “We were working toward a resolution. This doesn’t get us moving forward.”

Barbin was particularly miffed by the timing of Arway’s actions as lawmakers are focusing most of their attention on passing a state budget, now three months late and counting.

Priceless

PennKev wrote:

I see no problem with stocking larger "marginal" *cough* warm water *cough* streams. These waters do create a significant recreational asset. No, they aren't blue ribbon streams and on locals care to fish them, but that is what they are for. Convenient, seasonal, local trout fishing over decent numbers of adult trout Unless you live with in the wild trout "T" such fishing is not that common, even if you live in a wild trout area, larger streams with larger trout could still be a fair distance away.

I do think that we should, as you said, eliminate very small waters from the program, although I think this has already gradually been happening over the years. However, more likely due to budget issues than any real effort to improve wild trout pops.

Significant recreational asset =equals= significant source of "tourist/recreational" dollars for the relevant economy. Ask an outfitter if he wants to set up on non-stocked waters only or in an area that offers both. In PA, I bet fishing dollars are spent mostly in April May and maybe June. All else pales in significance.

 

[JackM]

The structure of the fees could be changed to allocate costs of operation to the various segments of the angling population. But, so long as the commercial benefit of any particular management scheme favors the right people or groups, you can expect the allocation of costs to be skewed toward the interests of that group.

The whole "opening day" phenomenon is good for business.

 

[albud1962]

of course none of this was addressed at the wild trout summit. I think if they would have committed to a program of eliminating stocking on wild trout streams, these reductions could have been easily justified. I am sorry I ever endorsed the erie trib stamps as it is clear with money earmarked for this program, little is being used for it. Saying the steelhead are going to Ny and Ohio just isn't cutting it for me. I also find it humorous after all the stink about Martin Creek, its back on the chopping block like it should have been originally.

 

[Mike]

Stocking over wild trout was addressed concisely. See the slide show from the History of Wild Trout Management in Pa. and examine the 9th and 10th slides that fall under the heading "Modern Era (1969 to Present)." The 10th slide is better understood by first reviewing the 9th slide in that section.

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/PennsylvaniaFishes/Trout/Documents/WildTroutSummit2017/TroutSummit-historyTroutMgtKaufmann.pdf