Trout stamp

[dudemanspecial]

43 bucks for a license + trout stamp.

2x 15 packs of my favorite beer cost more than that.

Thats about a 3/4 tank of gas in my car (my car requires 91 octane)

Less than dinner for 2 at a decent restaurant.

 

[Nocktavius]

43 bucks for a license + trout stamp.

2x 15 packs of my favorite beer cost more than that.

Thats about a 3/4 tank of gas in my car (my car requires 91 octane)

Less than dinner for 2 at a decent restaurant.

I think for some there's a fundamental objection to the stocking program (or at least the current state of it-particularly surrounding dumping rubber trout on top of natural repro populations) so it's not the financial burden that we're talking about here.

I had actually tossed around the idea of buying the optional "wild trout" sticker that PFBC started selling as an add-on and forgoing the tramp stamp altogether but realized my act of "civil disobedience" would likely just result in a citation from the brown shirts- and to be perfectly fair to them it's not anything under their control. C'est la vie.

 

[Bamboozle]

You can always just say "no, I am not fishing for trout." We could do that in a wild trout stream that is unstocked. What are they going to do? Tell you "yes, I can tell you're fishing for trout."

I could be fishing a brook trout stream and say I am fishing for dace. Or fishing a brown trout stream and say I am fishing for chubs or suckers or SMB.

I am pretty sure that would be a tough sell to a judge if your tackle and techniques screamed "trout fishing."

 

[Cznymph]

43 bucks for a license + trout stamp.

2x 15 packs of my favorite beer cost more than that.

Thats about a 3/4 tank of gas in my car (my car requires 91 octane)

Less than dinner for 2 at a decent restaurant.

Il not legally required to buy beer, gas or dine out.

If I’m not happy with the service at a restaurant, the taste of the case of beer, of the performance of my car with a specific brand of gas, I can spend my money on other brands. Not so with a fishing license.

If my siblings come visit, they are legally required to buy a fishing license to fish my farm pond that the PFBC has not invested one single cent into. Yet they still reap the benefits of the license sale.

 

[Bamboozle]

The non fly fishing crowd doesn't bother with FFO waters, folks that don't fish lures skip the artificials only sections and warmwater purists don't trout fish...

I wonder, should these folks also whine for a lower cost general license which more accurately reflects their obsessions & preferences??

 

[The Rodfather]

Yes. Also, my understanding is the trout stamp revenue alone does not cover the cost of the stocking program and revenue for the general license sales is also used for stocked trout.

As well as tax dollars to the tune of $100 million over 6 years.

 

[jifigz]

I am pretty sure that would be a tough sell to a judge if your tackle and techniques screamed "trout fishing."

Really? How is trout tackle different than dace tackle or chub tackle or fallfish tackle or sucker tackle?

Let's be real. I buy the permit, and if I didn't have one and a WCO didn't believe my story, I'd rectify the situation by paying the fine before it ever went as far as seeing a judge.

 

[jifigz]

Il not legally required to buy beer, gas or dine out.

If I’m not happy with the service at a restaurant, the taste of the case of beer, of the performance of my car with a specific brand of gas, I can spend my money on other brands. Not so with a fishing license.

If my siblings come visit, they are legally required to buy a fishing license to fish my farm pond that the PFBC has not invested one single cent into. Yet they still reap the benefits of the license sale.

Legally, yes, those people who do not "live on that land year round" need a license. Realistically, you know that any and all who you allow on your land to fish your own private pond would never get in trouble or be cited for not having a license.

 

[Cznymph]

View attachment 1641241436
Legally, yes, those people who do not "live on that land year round" need a license. Realistically, you know that any and all who you allow on your land to fish your own private pond would never get in trouble or be cited for not having a license.

Realistically I do not know that. I abide by the law and while the majority of my property is not visible from any public road, I do know of instances where a WCO has stopped and checked licenses and life jackets in a private farm pond.

Furthermore, given the immense amount of leeway the PFBC has in regards to entering private property, and a history of abuse of that legal privilege (a potter county WCO charged with trespassing and shooting at a dog after being denied permission to fish private property and a current lawsuit regarding frequent harassment and repeated entrance of private property by a WCO in Susquehanna County) I wouldn’t be surprised to be checked while fishing my own pond.

 

[wildtrout2]

Really? How is trout tackle different than dace tackle or chub tackle or fallfish tackle or sucker tackle?

Let's be real. I buy the permit, and if I didn't have one and a WCO didn't believe my story, I'd rectify the situation by paying the fine before it ever went as far as seeing a judge.

Wouldn't a Trout Stamp be cheaper than whatever fine would be imposed? Just a thought.

 

[Bamboozle]

Really? How is trout tackle different than dace tackle or chub tackle or fallfish tackle or sucker tackle?

Let's be real. I buy the permit, and if I didn't have one and a WCO didn't believe my story, I'd rectify the situation by paying the fine before it ever went as far as seeing a judge.

LEO's and more specifically WCO's aren't the morons many make them out to be...

First, I would venture to guess most people specifically targeting dace, chub, sucker & fallfish (I happen to be one of them) do so from the bank with the most effective tackle which most often is not fly gear and we/I most often use bait.

Second, I doubt any self respecting, PFBC loathing, stocked trout hating, wild trout snob would ever lower themselves to using bait or those tactics while fishing for "gemmies" just to attempt to circumvent the "trout stamp" requirement...

Nope! Nada! No! Never, ever, ever....!!!

So in the real world...

A WCO comes up on an angler using a fly rod. This angler is fishing with flies and wearing fancy breathable waders (that probably leak because they are Simms). He is festooned with the latest tactical sling pack casting a fly rod, reel & line that cost 6 times more than the outfit the real sucker fisherman downstream is using...

And even for a millisecond, this WCO believes this angler is fishing for dace, chub, sucker & fallfish and NOT trout...

Nope! Nada! No! Never, ever, ever....!!! 🙂

 

[dudemanspecial]

I think for some there's a fundamental objection to the stocking program (or at least the current state of it-particularly surrounding dumping rubber trout on top of natural repro populations) so it's not the financial burden that we're talking about here.

I had actually tossed around the idea of buying the optional "wild trout" sticker that PFBC started selling as an add-on and forgoing the tramp stamp altogether but realized my act of "civil disobedience" would likely just result in a citation from the brown shirts- and to be perfectly fair to them it's not anything under their control. C'est la vie.

You never fish anywhere that has stocked trout in the water?

 

[jifigz]

LEO's and more specifically WCO's aren't the morons many make them out to be...

First, I would venture to guess most people specifically targeting dace, chub, sucker & fallfish (I happen to be one of them) do so from the bank with the most effective tackle which most often is not fly gear and we/I most often fish bait.

Second, I doubt any self respecting, PFBC loathing, stocked trout hating, wild trout snob would ever lower themselves to using bait or those tactics while fishing for "gemmies" just to attempt to circumvent the "trout stamp" requirement...

Nope! Nada! No! Never, ever, ever....!!!

So in the real world...

A WCO comes up on an angler using a fly rod. This angler is fishing with flies and wearing fancy breathable waders (that probably leak becuse they are Simms). He is festooned with the latest tactical sling pack casting a fly rod, reel & line that cost 6 times more than the outfit the real sucker fisherman downstream is using...

And even for a millisecond, this WCO believes this angler is fishing for dace, chub, sucker & fallfish and NOT trout...

Nope! Nada! No! Never, ever, ever....!!! 🙂

Right. And I am not disagreeing with you. What I am saying is that regardless of what one's speculation and intuition says, it is impossible to tell someone what they are fishing for and to actually prove it. I am not saying you won't get in trouble, but I am saying that I don't think they would have a legal leg to stand on. If the law was written that a person cannot fish in a stream that contains any form of trout, wild or stocked, without a permit, you're busted. But assuming what someone is fishing for in an otherwise open and unrestricted water is an impossibility.

Okay. That's enough typing on that subject. Once again, I don't disagree with you guys, and I buy all the proper permits and everything. Heck, I even buy the wild trout and the bass voluntary permits usually, too. But I don't think "proving someone is trout fishing" without physically seeing them with a dead trout is as easy as you are painting it out to be under our current regs, and I think you could fight it successfully!

But, as WT2 points out, it is just cheaper to buy the permit.

 

[Nocktavius]

You never fish anywhere that has stocked trout in the water?

I certainly try not to. And depending on how I’m feeling the ones I catch might find themselves contributing nitrogen to the riparian zone that day.

 

[Bamboozle]

...But I don't think "proving someone is trout fishing" without physically seeing them with a dead trout is as easy as you are painting it out to be under our current regs, and I think you could fight it successfully!!

The fishing regulations wording in many places is intentionally ambiguous for that very reason...

Just remember, the trout doesn't have to be harvested to be in violation of the trout stamp requirement. If you "take or possesses a trout" without having a trout stamp you are technically in violation...

 

[Bamboozle]

I certainly try not to. And depending on how I’m feeling the ones I catch might find themselves contributing nitrogen to the riparian zone that day.

You need a trout stamp for that... 😉

 

[Mikey2006]

Right. And I am not disagreeing with you. What I am saying is that regardless of what one's speculation and intuition says, it is impossible to tell someone what they are fishing for and to actually prove it. I am not saying you won't get in trouble, but I am saying that I don't think they would have a legal leg to stand on. If the law was written that a person cannot fish in a stream that contains any form of trout, wild or stocked, without a permit, you're busted. But assuming what someone is fishing for in an otherwise open and unrestricted water is an impossibility.

Okay. That's enough typing on that subject. Once again, I don't disagree with you guys, and I buy all the proper permits and everything. Heck, I even buy the wild trout and the bass voluntary permits usually, too. But I don't think "proving someone is trout fishing" without physically seeing them with a dead trout is as easy as you are painting it out to be under our current regs, and I think you could fight it successfully!

But, as WT2 points out, it is just cheaper to buy the permit.

Thats what I was getting at earlier, I do realize that my original comment could be interpreted as encouraging people to break the law. I was just pointing out that the definition of "fishing for trout" creates a bunch of loopholes. So it would be easier if they just required a trout stamp only for stream sections stocked with trout, or only required one if an angler keeps a trout. Or just say outright that it's required for all natural reproduction streams as well.

It's not a big issue though. Just get the trout stamp.

 

[Nocktavius]

You need a trout stamp for that... 😉

what if I just have really bad aim for the release

 

[Cznymph]

The fishing regulations wording in many places is intentionally ambiguous for that very reason...

Just remember, the trout doesn't have to be harvested to be in violation of the trout stamp requirement. If you "take or possesses a trout" without having a trout stamp you are technically in violation...

You’re not required to have a pheasant stamp to hunt rabbits in a field where pheasants are stocked.

Why shouldn’t the same logic apply here?

 

[wildtrout2]

I certainly try not to. And depending on how I’m feeling the ones I catch might find themselves contributing nitrogen to the riparian zone that day.

The odds are almost zero of me catching a stocked trout, but if I did, that's probably how it would end up.