Price Raise for PA Fishing Licenses

[afishinado]

Should the PA Fish & Boat Commission raise the license fees a modest amount to meet rising costs?

 

[troutbert]

Maybe the poll should include the actual amounts of the license increase proposed.

Rather than just saying modest increases.

 

[bigslackwater]

If it means just to stock more fish. No. If the costs are involved with studies and tweaking of special regulations based on good trout management practices. YES.

 

[Acristickid]

These are mainly to pay for legacy costs. Also, the commission can do all those things we want them to do , studies etc... but it's the politicians that dictate the outcome.

You should direct any issues or frustrations with regard to the commission to your representative.

 

[PALongbow]

Over the past several years the PGC is stocking a lot less fish. What will the increase be used for? Does anyone know for sure.

Ron

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
Maybe the poll should include the actual amounts of the license increase proposed.

Rather than just saying modest increases.

Listing price points in the poll would just confuse the issue. Each poster is able to comment in a post on what they believe "modest" or reaonable is for them.

This poll will give the PFBC people a temperture gauge as to what anglers think about a license increase.

As suspected (by me), the vast majority of anglers support a "modest" raise in fishing license fees.

giterdun

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Maybe the poll should include the actual amounts of the license increase proposed.

Rather than just saying modest increases.

Listing price points in the poll would just confuse the issue. Each poster is able to comment in a post on what they believe "modest" or reaonable is for them.

This poll will give the PFBC people a temperture gauge as to what anglers think about a license increase.

As suspected (by me), the vast majority of anglers support a "modest" raise in fishing license fees.

giterdun

There is a specific proposal on the table, which was in the previous post:

"Under a proposal authored by state Sen. Jim Brewster, D-Allegheny, the increases would apply to the 2017 license year.

The annual resident license fee would rise from $21 to $26.25 and annual senior licenses would increase from $10 to $12.50, both 25 percent hikes."

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

From the other thread:

I have to laugh, WGMiller posted a comment about this on the a news facebook page, and the comments from the "majority" of "fishermen" were, well, shall we say not so much for the increase. Pretty much saying they will just fish without a license before spending a dollar more. Obviously they care so much for the resource, and for the environment. pretty much sums up what I figured, the average fisherman in this state can give a #censor# about catch and release, about the resource, and about the future. it's all about what can I catch and kill right now! screw everyone else. oh man, the comments alone could fill a book! but the best one I read was, "you promised me larger trout" we're screwed if these comments represent even a small majority, clueless dolts, and that's the nicest thing I can call them. bottom line, as catch and release flyfishers that are trying to gather protection for wild trout and all the good things that come with that? we're pissing up a rope. because the common idiot out there not only has trouble identifying the fish, he can't even SPELL the word FISH!!!!! I'm done being tolerant to masterbaiters. bunch of F#@king ignorant F#@king hacks. may they get treble hooks buried in their fingers. Posted on: Yesterday 23:42

As suspected (by me), the vast minority of anglers support a "modest" raise in fishing license fees.

Fixed that for ya tom ;-)

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

afishinado wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Maybe the poll should include the actual amounts of the license increase proposed.

Rather than just saying modest increases.

Listing price points in the poll would just confuse the issue. Each poster is able to comment in a post on what they believe "modest" or reaonable is for them.

This poll will give the PFBC people a temperture gauge as to what anglers think about a license increase.

As suspected (by me), the vast majority of anglers support a "modest" raise in fishing license fees.

giterdun

There is a specific proposal on the table, which was in the previous post:

"Under a proposal authored by state Sen. Jim Brewster, D-Allegheny, the increases would apply to the 2017 license year.

The annual resident license fee would rise from $21 to $26.25 and annual senior licenses would increase from $10 to $12.50, both 25 percent hikes."

^ no raise in ten years makes it a 2.5% raise / year.

The proposed is a raise of $5.25 for general license and $6.00 for a trout stamp.

That's a total of $11.25 in ten years which averages $1.12 / year.

Every the cheapest guys on here leave more than $1.12 as a tip at the bar after one fishing trip.

Here are the current and proposed license fees side-by-side:

 

[CRB]

I am OK with that.
I do feel the Lake Erie Money needs to be spent, It is time they up the ante and go ball to balls over the club land. Get the WPC into to the area around gudgenville to follys it would make an excellent state park.

 

[Fredrick]

I'm not sure I am liking an almost 100% increase on the trout stamp. I'd support a minimal increase on the stamp with more effort for resource first stocking AKA no stocking over class A WT.

I'm OK with the license increase for the resident license. The out of state license price is ridiculous . Also if they do increase the license price I want to get a whole year out of my license. So whatever date I purchase my license I want it to expire on that date the following year.

PA Resident License with trout stamp would cost me $40.25 in 2017. And since the PFBC is in the hole right now I wouldn't expect to see anything beneficial to the angler with this increase.

 

[BrianMyers67]

With that kinda of increase for a trout stamp I won't bother getting it. I warm water fish and don't bother chasing trout but get the stamp every year anyway. That increase will put an end to that .

 

[streamerguy]

$65 to $83.75 for non-residents who also buy a trout/Erie permit. Dang. The PFBC will definitely lose some non-res. license buyers.

Looks like more pb & j sammiches and a few less fast food stops between streams....

 

[JackM]

The one and three day tourist prices seem a little askew.

 

[Maurice]

Fredrick wrote:
I'm not sure I am liking an almost 100% increase on the trout stamp. I'd support a minimal increase on the stamp with more effort for resource first stocking AKA no stocking over class A WT.

I'm OK with the license increase for the resident license. The out of state license price is ridiculous . Also if they do increase the license price I want to get a whole year out of my license. So whatever date I purchase my license I want it to expire on that date the following year.

PA Resident License with trout stamp would cost me $40.25 in 2017. And since the PFBC is in the hole right now I wouldn't expect to see anything beneficial to the angler with this increase.

You are paying for Mikes retirement...it should give you peace of mind that you have been burgled for their leisure time away from work while you work til you die. For that I am eternally grateful to the F'nBC.

 

[PennypackFlyer]

I guess there lowering the price last year to increase the number of licenses purchased did not work. Now we will have to pay for their mistakes.

 

[afishinado]

I don't believe it is reasonable to expect anyone or any company or organization to go ten years without a price increase to cover the increase in costs.

I hear complaints from anglers about stocking cuts (in stream without wild trout), not enough enforcement, not enough public areas leased or purchased for fishing, not enough maintenance of launches, not enough surveys, not enough stream conservation projects....blah, blah, blah.

What exactly would those that want to see no increase or a smaller after a ten year price freeze expect to do? Every year there will be less of all above.

Like I posted, the proposed increase ends up costing a resident trout angler an average of $1.12 / year for the ten year period of no increase. A DOLLAR AND TWELVE CENTS PER YEAR. Close to the cost of a pack of gum purchased at WaWa or Sheetz in a year.

 

[RLeep2]

^ Very well said, IMO...

A Pennsylvania fishing license is a major bargain at the current price and will remain a major bargain after the proposed increase.

 

[Fredrick]

afishinado wrote:
I don't believe it is reasonable to expect anyone or any company or organization to go ten years without a price increase to cover the increase in costs.

I hear complaints from anglers about stocking cuts (in stream without wild trout), not enough enforcement, not enough public areas leased or purchased for fishing, not enough maintenance of launches, not enough surveys, not enough stream conservation projects....blah, blah, blah.

What exactly would those that want to see no increase or a smaller after a ten year price freeze expect to do? Every year there will be less of all above.

Like I posted, the proposed increase ends up costing a resident trout angler an average of $1.12 / year for the ten year period of no increase. A DOLLAR AND TWELVE CENTS PER YEAR. Close to the cost of a pack of gum purchased at WaWa or Sheetz in a year.

I believe more people are concerned about the raise in the cost of the trout stamp. I don't remember if they have raised the cost of the stamp in the last ten years. But an almost 100% raise in the cost of the stamp is ridiculous, considering that we won't see a increase in any of the services from the PFBC. With the amount of the projected increases the main goal with this raise is obviously to get themselves out of the red, not to increase services .

 

[afishinado]

Fredrick wrote:

afishinado wrote:
I don't believe it is reasonable to expect anyone or any company or organization to go ten years without a price increase to cover the increase in costs.

I hear complaints from anglers about stocking cuts (in stream without wild trout), not enough enforcement, not enough public areas leased or purchased for fishing, not enough maintenance of launches, not enough surveys, not enough stream conservation projects....blah, blah, blah.

What exactly would those that want to see no increase or a smaller after a ten year price freeze expect to do? Every year there will be less of all above.

Like I posted, the proposed increase ends up costing a resident trout angler an average of $1.12 / year for the ten year period of no increase. A DOLLAR AND TWELVE CENTS PER YEAR. Close to the cost of a pack of gum purchased at WaWa or Sheetz in a year.

I believe more people are concerned about the raise in the cost of the trout stamp. I don't remember if they have raised the cost of the stamp in the last ten years. But an almost 100% raise in the cost of the stamp is ridiculous, considering that we won't see a increase in any of the services from the PFBC. With the amount of the projected increases the main goal with this raise is obviously to get themselves out of the red, not to increase services .

You have to get "out of the red" (pay your bills) before you can increase services. And the reason they are in the red, is costs increased without a revenue increase (trout stamp cost) for ten years.

Hey, I'm all for less money spent on stocking trout in this state. But the stark reality is many anglers buy licenses to fish for stocked trout. Also, the expenditures of the Commish should in some way reflect the desires of those that fund the programs...the anglers that buy the licenses. We (the fly guys) are a small minority.

Remember, the revenue generated by the trout stamp doesn't even come close to covering all the stocking costs and expenses. A higher trout stamp fee will make the share paid by non-trout anglers a little less and little more fair for those anglers.

Hey Freddie...just buy one less whopper and fries at BK during the year....and you're even!!