Survery:: Help With PFBC CAP PRogram

[littlejuniata]

Please go the PFBC website and see if you think the donation process for the CAP program is user friendly.. THANKS

 

[Bamboozle]

littlejuniata:

I'm almost positive that if you click through the CAP web-page via the link provided; you end up at the Outdoor Shop where a donation can be made but I don't believe it's CAP specific.

I wasn't sure myself so I made a donation by printing out the CAP donation form and mailing it in.

The entire PFBC website leaves a lot to be desired when it comes to purchasing stuff on-line.

 

[Wulff-Man]

There is a problem from the start in that you can't locate any information about CAP by using the directory menu. It isn't under Grants, or Conservation Programs (in Partners & Links), or any other link, as far as I can tell. The only way you can find it is by doing a search. This makes it unlikely that anyone who doesn't already know about it will find out about it while visiting the web site.

The use of the donation form to mail in a donation looks easy enough, but as Bamboozle said, it looks like you can make an on-line donation though the Outdoor Shop (which would be a lot easier and more likely to get donations), but when you click on donations it looks like it's just a general donation and not for the CAP. So people intending to donate to the CAP may be just unintentionally donating to the general fund.

 

[littlejuniata]

Should be pretty easy to fix, have a CAP icon on the main web page, then a direct link on the CAP page to the donation link, with a note that the donation will go to the CAP program.

 

[JackM]

Someone should e-mail the webmaster at PFBC and call these issues to his/her attention. Copy Director Austen with your e-mail.

 

[littlejuniata]

Jack: I did that on 2/01, also mentioning that there were lively discussions on several fishing web sites about the CAP program.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:
Someone should e-mail the webmaster at PFBC and call these issues to his/her attention. Copy Director Austen with your e-mail.

That couldn't hurt, in fact Id bypass the webmaster altogether. There is a reason it ain't handy, I don't know what it is but I have a feeling it has to so with the slippery slope.

I watched the annual budget hearing of the F&BC to the House F&G committee last night. I think I caught the vast majority of it. Dr Austin handled it very well. Regarding access, he obviously blew the Erie Access program horn pretty hard. Mentioned how the program is growing but said it only generates about $600K per year from the stamps. There was more discussion about access outside Erie with the mention of statistics
83% of ATW are on Private Land
63 or 73% (cannot remember)of wildernous trout streams are on Private Property
nearly 50% of Class A streams are on Private Property.
With these compelling numbers, I thought this was going to travel in the CAP direction but seemed to get stuck in the mud through one house member who couldn't get it through his head that the F&BC does NOT stock private property unless access is granted. He kept saying, why are we stocking these places if people can't fish there? I wanted to reach in the television and sock him one.

Dr.A explained they don't stock posted water with no access but I still don't think he got it. Young guy too...whatever.

This would have been a perfect time to bring up the CAP program but it didn't come up...He did mention "veiled" programs being considered to make access more available to anglers on private property. Similar to the Erie program which creates public fishing property through the purchase of land, or through perpetuity leases, the access (via pathways) to the stream side for fishing.

So my assumption is that this is "not ready for prime time" yet. You have to remember this is a very slippery slope. Once the genie is out of the bottle there is no putting it back. Which streams do you pick first? which landowners? Where is my compensation if the guy on Public Run is getting his? Therefor I post my land.

Just a hunch...I think they are going to go about this through legislation to create some sort of tax benefit or "global" program so the fall out is not devastating. But this could take too long...in the meantime, I think opening to donation with more overt publicity couldn't hurt...sort of a "nest egg builder" for access. when the final program is developed they will be able to begin right away.


Other Hot button issues for legislation were:
- Youth license $5 (with a $3.50 match form the USF&WS)
- Expanded youth programs (hinged on the license)
- COLA license fee increases rather than 5 yr hikes.
- proposed Legislation for more funding from the general fund for non-game species and other programs provided by the F&BC that do not directly benefit the license buyer, or rather directly benefit non-license buyers. (ie; the general public)

Hatcheries-
- Applause for the co-ops who raise over 1MM fish/yr. through volunteer support and donations.
- Appropriations of over $24MM of the $27mm (guessing on the amounts) to hatchery upgrades from Growing Greener monies
- More than $89 million necessary to do all the upgrades.
- The distinction that They DO see general state funding not just license dollars by using GG funds.
-Interest in getting more funding through the PA general fund.
- Improvements at Tylersville that increased the Benthic pops below the hatchery in BFC.
- The correlation between meeting the NPDES permit from DEP at the state hatcheries and the subsequent resulting potential to increase the number of fish raised. ( this was more the focus of a senator than Dr A.) He didn't indicate in any way that this was the focus of their goals. THe goals were to meet the effluent standards and form there go on to see what the next steps were.
- Reductions in available water sources for State Hatcheries. (ie; State College area ground water reductions) No mention was mad to curb the growth but rather to use recirculation technology to reduce the need.
- Purchase of fish from NC...and transport of fish from other states fish agencies through trade for easier propegated species.
- The correlation between pounds of fish raised and the numbers reduction through the angler desires.
- New regional opening days.

(wait till the Average PA Angler gets a load of the rammifications of those last two.) In the words of Quint from JAWS "...he's gonna have a haut attack when he sees what I brung 'im"

I am sure there was more that I missed but as you can see...it revolved around the hatcheries...not access.

In Summary, the thing that surprised me the most was how little the senaotrs on the committee knew about the issues...I know most are new from the public fleecing that occurred in November but come on... And most of what they heard about was hatcheries and big money needed to feed the machine.

This is an excellent opportunity to push the wild trout and access buttons with your congressmen. Especially if they are on the committee.

Maurice

 

[littlejuniata]

Very well put Maurice, lets get the donations started by improving the web page, then select the streams with the higher quality streams first, especially those close major population areas.

 

[JackM]

Perhaps we could help out by making the CAP Program donation form available here on PAFF.

TOUCH THIS LINK TO OPEN PDF FORM FOR CAP DONATION

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Board,

I'm all for an access program that is funded by donations but I'd really like to know more about the actual program before I donate.

I'm a bit more sceptical of basic human nature than some people and I don't want to see the scenario develop that Maurice described, ie "Pay me, or else I close my land."

If the program was aggressively modeled after New York State's fishing easements I could go for it. They make a one and done payment and the easement is in perpetuity. Even if the land is sold the easement conveys in the deed and cannot be revoked.

With a fishing easement the public is granted a 33 foot wide right of way along the bank of a landowner's property, one or both sides of the stream depending on how the deal was structured. Parking is provided in most cases and a cleanly defined access path to the stream is part of the deal as well.

Like I said, I'm willing to pay to play. But I don't want to pay for access to a property that lacks parking and some kind of organized plan as to how you can access the water.

Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂