TimB
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 170
I'm pretty sure the revenue from trout stamp doesn't even come close to covering the cost of the hatchery program. I'm suggesting raising the trout stamp fee to a level that does.
B
byron
New member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2018
- Messages
- 3
Yea, but if you raise the cost of the trout stamp to cover the cost of the stocking program, which I'm in favor of, would it also be fair to have a wild trout stamp?
I mean, it really wouldn't be fair for 99% of trout fishermen, who fish for stocked trout, to pay for the work the PFBC puts into wild trout that only a handful of anglers enjoy. No?
Oh, and by the way, Hello.
I mean, it really wouldn't be fair for 99% of trout fishermen, who fish for stocked trout, to pay for the work the PFBC puts into wild trout that only a handful of anglers enjoy. No?
Oh, and by the way, Hello.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Where do you think the money comes from to do wild stream surveys that get protection for many of our streams?
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
The whole idea of paying only for the fish or type fishing you do doesn't hold water, so to speak....
The opposite argument from yours, Tim is > Okay, if I only fish for trout, I have to purchase a trout stamp as well as a general fishing license. The general fishing license is used to fund stocking warm-water fish I never fish for, building and maintaining boat ramps and docks I don't use, doing river and lake survey for bass and other fish, and bunch of other things that aren't related to my trout fishing......what gives?
The trout fishermen pays the exact same amount as the warmwater guys for warm water fishing they never do, and have to pay more on top of that to fish for trout.
bass stamps....pike stamps...ww lake stamps...panfish stamps :roll:
TimB
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 170
The single biggest expense the PFBC has is the hatchery program. If that major expense was financially supported by those that utilize the program (through trout stamp revenues that cover those costs), there'd then be more money from general license sales to support other PFBC programs such as access, stream surveys, etc.
In short, those that fish for stocked trout, aren't contributing enough to support the stocking program. If you are going to have a trout stamp at all, make sure the money it generates covers the cost of the program
I have no objection to a wild trout stamp, but in that case why not just raise the general license fee?
In short, those that fish for stocked trout, aren't contributing enough to support the stocking program. If you are going to have a trout stamp at all, make sure the money it generates covers the cost of the program
I have no objection to a wild trout stamp, but in that case why not just raise the general license fee?
NewSal
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2016
- Messages
- 898
I only fish for wild trout, one time a year for stealhead, and occasionally stocked trout with my son, with that said I dont mind my monies going towards stocking of warm water fish. I dont mind supporting any good outdoor activity, a few bucks for a license is not a big deal to me, especially sense its obvious the commission is hurting for money.
The attitude of "I only fish for this, so screw everyone else, I only want to pay for something that I do" is a crappy attitude, and its not realistic on how things are managed.
Curmudgeons will be curmudgeons and complain about the extra few bucks for a license, the rest of us will support Pennsylvania fishing and not get worked up over something so minimal that could potentially have a large impact.
Lets face it, an increase of less than 10 bucks is'nt putting anyone in a cheese line. If that kind of money hurts you that bad, then maybe you shouldn't be spending any money at all on fishing.
The attitude of "I only fish for this, so screw everyone else, I only want to pay for something that I do" is a crappy attitude, and its not realistic on how things are managed.
Curmudgeons will be curmudgeons and complain about the extra few bucks for a license, the rest of us will support Pennsylvania fishing and not get worked up over something so minimal that could potentially have a large impact.
Lets face it, an increase of less than 10 bucks is'nt putting anyone in a cheese line. If that kind of money hurts you that bad, then maybe you shouldn't be spending any money at all on fishing.
TimB
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 170
Yeesh, and you guys wonder why the PFBC is struggling with its budget. I regularly fish (and buy licenses)in several states and internationally. I've never seen a more dysfunctional setup than here in PA. There's an addiction to trout stocking unlike anything I've seen elsewhere. Yet the PFBC can't afford to keep doing it at it's current level.
And the consensus here seems to be to raise the license fees to support the hatcheries. Okay, if that's what a large group of anglers want, fine. But you're going about it the wrong way. The people who are clamoring for those stocked trout aren't contributing enough to keep it going at its current level. Thus the discussion of PFBC budget shortfalls and closing hatcheries.
Okay by me if they close. If you really want to keep them open, then raise the money by increasing the cost of the trout stamp.
If stocking was specifically targeted at restoring native species, then I'd buy several trout stamps, just to support that.
And the consensus here seems to be to raise the license fees to support the hatcheries. Okay, if that's what a large group of anglers want, fine. But you're going about it the wrong way. The people who are clamoring for those stocked trout aren't contributing enough to keep it going at its current level. Thus the discussion of PFBC budget shortfalls and closing hatcheries.
Okay by me if they close. If you really want to keep them open, then raise the money by increasing the cost of the trout stamp.
If stocking was specifically targeted at restoring native species, then I'd buy several trout stamps, just to support that.
geebee
Active member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,512
i signed it.
i also think that they should raise the non-resident fees.
i also think that they should raise the non-resident fees.
MD_Gene
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 671
Haven't read the petition but I agree that pressing our representatives to make fishing in PA a fiscal priority might be a better (or parallel) path to just raising the license fee.
On the flip side, I used to golf. Even at $100 for a PA license that's equivalent to 2 days of golf outings on weekends. The license gives me 365 day of fishing.
I caught three of the most beautiful Codorus Creek Wild Browns this week. One was 18 inches.
Just some thoughts.
On the flip side, I used to golf. Even at $100 for a PA license that's equivalent to 2 days of golf outings on weekends. The license gives me 365 day of fishing.
I caught three of the most beautiful Codorus Creek Wild Browns this week. One was 18 inches.
Just some thoughts.
C
CRB
Well-known member
I will not sign.
"I only fish for trout, I have to purchase a trout stamp as well as a general fishing license. The general fishing license is used to fund stocking warm-water fish I never fish for, building and maintaining boat ramps and docks I don't use, doing river and lake survey for bass and other fish, and bunch of other things that aren't related to my trout fishing."
That is me.
"I only fish for trout, I have to purchase a trout stamp as well as a general fishing license. The general fishing license is used to fund stocking warm-water fish I never fish for, building and maintaining boat ramps and docks I don't use, doing river and lake survey for bass and other fish, and bunch of other things that aren't related to my trout fishing."
That is me.
allan_s
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 444
^^^^^
This guy has zero idea on what his license dollars actually do
This guy has zero idea on what his license dollars actually do
salmonoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,721
From the politicians I've talked to, your approach gets their attention. Mass produced form emails (like TU sends out and asks you to send to your legislators) and online petitions do not get their attention.
Maurice
Administrator
Staff member
How about the guys who knowingly or unknowingly fish stocked trout streams that are supplemented with Coop fish that don’t support the nurseries that’s raise them. Freeloaders all of em.
25% of the stocked trout in PA are raised on volunteer hours and donated funds. The cheapskates will make excuses for why they don’t pay to play but the fact of the matter is they or you are recreating on the backs of others. Likely 25% of the time or more.
Freeloaders need to be reminded.
25% of the stocked trout in PA are raised on volunteer hours and donated funds. The cheapskates will make excuses for why they don’t pay to play but the fact of the matter is they or you are recreating on the backs of others. Likely 25% of the time or more.
Freeloaders need to be reminded.
P
poopdeck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,420
Why does a bureaucracy like the fish commission need a 51 million dollar reserve. They should have no reserve. I'm not paying for my license and my trout stamps so they can put money in the bank and not spend it on what they are suppose to be spending it on.
Why does any bureaucracy need a reserve bank account. This is simply wrong and as a populace we have grown to accept this and believe it's normal. Well it ain't. They should spend the revenue they generate on the resources they are mandated to protect and enhance. Banking it does nothing to protect and enhance the fishery they are mandated to protect and enhance.
Now knowing they have 51 million in reserve I am 100% undeniably against any price increase. What makes them think they can strongarm actual elected officials because they are afraid the reserve will be gone in five years. It shouldn't be there in the first place. It needs to be spent and spent every year. They are negligent in their mandate by not spending it. That's why we pay for licenses and registrations and stamps and permits in the first place. It's not to stockpile.
This may be the first time the actual elected officials are correct in wanting the money to be spent accordingly. I really don't understand how some people think.
Why does any bureaucracy need a reserve bank account. This is simply wrong and as a populace we have grown to accept this and believe it's normal. Well it ain't. They should spend the revenue they generate on the resources they are mandated to protect and enhance. Banking it does nothing to protect and enhance the fishery they are mandated to protect and enhance.
Now knowing they have 51 million in reserve I am 100% undeniably against any price increase. What makes them think they can strongarm actual elected officials because they are afraid the reserve will be gone in five years. It shouldn't be there in the first place. It needs to be spent and spent every year. They are negligent in their mandate by not spending it. That's why we pay for licenses and registrations and stamps and permits in the first place. It's not to stockpile.
This may be the first time the actual elected officials are correct in wanting the money to be spent accordingly. I really don't understand how some people think.
L
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,359
Just because the agency saved money over the course of decades does not mean that said funds are not used on what they are supposed to. I can't speak for the commission but some news releases discuss that funds were saved up knowing that a similar situation to now would come. Also the commission manages many lakes and dams, there was a news article that discussed emergency repairs of several million dollars would occur this summer. This was not a planned project, in a quick Google search I was unable to find the news release but I do remember reading it in several articles in the last few months.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Actually, the PFBC uses the "Poopdeck" finance philosophy > They don't spend every dollar they receive and keep a reserve fund in order to handle future disbursement commitments, capital expenditures for maintenance and improvement, and dollar, etc.
As of January 26, 2017, the PFBC‘s total uncommitted reserve fund balance was $58.7 million. The total reserve fund balance of $97.4 million also contains other funds committed for future contractual
obligations, restricted due to legal settlements or legislative mandates, or held to ensure the PFBC has sufficient cash on hand to meet annual cash flow needs when revenues do not cover expenditures.
Uncommitted reserves are the rainy day funds saved as the result of the accumulation of excess revenues over operating needs. The PFBC has intentionally grown an uncommitted reserve balance of
this level to deal with unforeseen emergency infrastructure needs (e.g., dam failure; major hatchery issue), and to cover pending health care and pension obligations while maintaining operations and
services in the absence of a revenue increase.
Full accounting of Reserve Fund
jifigz
Well-known member
I have no problem with the PFBC stockpiling some money for hard times. As someone pointed out just a single damn repair to a reservoir could easily cost more than that.
And I also think that the license buying setup here is extremely simple. I have no problem with having the trout stamp. If you fish trout water, buy a stamp, as simple as that. I really don't think that we want to complicate things adding a wild trout stamp etc.
To everyone that complains that they shouldn't have to buy a regular license because they don't fish for the species that those dollars helps to fund or they don't use the boat ramps etc. You folks are really missing out. Trout have a certain appeal to them and fly fishing for then obviously go hand in hand. They often can be found in beautiful places and delicate presentations can be fun. I've never had a trout who left me as excited as a 20" smallmouth. Or throwing streamers and night and whacking a big catfish can sure be a lot of fun. Point is, maybe you folks should enjoy more of the wonderful angling opportunities around.
And I also think that the license buying setup here is extremely simple. I have no problem with having the trout stamp. If you fish trout water, buy a stamp, as simple as that. I really don't think that we want to complicate things adding a wild trout stamp etc.
To everyone that complains that they shouldn't have to buy a regular license because they don't fish for the species that those dollars helps to fund or they don't use the boat ramps etc. You folks are really missing out. Trout have a certain appeal to them and fly fishing for then obviously go hand in hand. They often can be found in beautiful places and delicate presentations can be fun. I've never had a trout who left me as excited as a 20" smallmouth. Or throwing streamers and night and whacking a big catfish can sure be a lot of fun. Point is, maybe you folks should enjoy more of the wonderful angling opportunities around.
TimB
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 170
You folks crack me up: "What about wild trout? What about co-op fish? What about bass, pike, boat ramps, stream surveys....
Just a few points for clarification:
Boat launches and access are funded by the PFBC boat fund from revenues generated by boat registrations and launch permits not fishing license revenue.
Based on the link Afish posted a while back, here are some excerpts from the PFBC audit for 2014-15:
Total Fish Fund Expenditures: 36,815,693
Bureau of Hatcheries: 13,463,265
Bureau of Fisheries: 6,528,841
Law enforcement: 6,743,786
Revenues from license fees:
Total license revenue (including specialty permits) 25,869,679
Trout permit: 3,949,216
Combo permit: 1,185,114
The accounting is far more detailed than that, but these are some numbers relative to this discussion.
So my original point was to raise the trout stamp to cover the cost of the hatcheries (or at least enough to cover the cost of rearing and stocking trout) Based on the numbers here, bumping the trout stamp up to $20-25 would do it. Seems more than reasonable to me.
But that's just me. Feel free to miss the entire point, argue unrelated minutia, or stick your heads in the sand. If the hatchery system implodes because of inadequate funding, so be it.
And for those that complain that the PFBC (wisely) built a reserve fund, you might want to take a look at the current and projected deficits in the audit. If nothing changes, they would burn through that reserve pretty quick. They either need to reduce services or increase revenues.
Just a few points for clarification:
Boat launches and access are funded by the PFBC boat fund from revenues generated by boat registrations and launch permits not fishing license revenue.
Based on the link Afish posted a while back, here are some excerpts from the PFBC audit for 2014-15:
Total Fish Fund Expenditures: 36,815,693
Bureau of Hatcheries: 13,463,265
Bureau of Fisheries: 6,528,841
Law enforcement: 6,743,786
Revenues from license fees:
Total license revenue (including specialty permits) 25,869,679
Trout permit: 3,949,216
Combo permit: 1,185,114
The accounting is far more detailed than that, but these are some numbers relative to this discussion.
So my original point was to raise the trout stamp to cover the cost of the hatcheries (or at least enough to cover the cost of rearing and stocking trout) Based on the numbers here, bumping the trout stamp up to $20-25 would do it. Seems more than reasonable to me.
But that's just me. Feel free to miss the entire point, argue unrelated minutia, or stick your heads in the sand. If the hatchery system implodes because of inadequate funding, so be it.
And for those that complain that the PFBC (wisely) built a reserve fund, you might want to take a look at the current and projected deficits in the audit. If nothing changes, they would burn through that reserve pretty quick. They either need to reduce services or increase revenues.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Hey Tim,
The whole argument is like paying taxes but insisting they only be used for what you believe in, or consume....it's not possible or practical.
If trout fishermen buy a trout stamp that pays for all the costs associated with trout, why should they then also have to buy a general license that pays for fishing they never do? > warm-water fishing.
It's all a silly argument. It's really up to all of us to make sure the FBC spends the dollars wisely and allocates the dollars equitably based on the wants and desires of the anglers that buy license to fish, without ever losing sight of the need to conserve the resources in our state.
Hey, I would like to see less spent on stocked trout and more spent for wild trout as well as warm-water fish, but creating funds and buying stamps based on the type of fishing we do is just not practical.
The whole argument is like paying taxes but insisting they only be used for what you believe in, or consume....it's not possible or practical.
If trout fishermen buy a trout stamp that pays for all the costs associated with trout, why should they then also have to buy a general license that pays for fishing they never do? > warm-water fishing.
It's all a silly argument. It's really up to all of us to make sure the FBC spends the dollars wisely and allocates the dollars equitably based on the wants and desires of the anglers that buy license to fish, without ever losing sight of the need to conserve the resources in our state.
Hey, I would like to see less spent on stocked trout and more spent for wild trout as well as warm-water fish, but creating funds and buying stamps based on the type of fishing we do is just not practical.
