Vountary Permit Poll 2019

[steve98]

What is a wild trout permit?
What does it do?
How may I get one?

Steve98

 

[just_jon]

1. A way to voluntarily fund the fish and boat commission. Funding raised is to be dedicated to wild trout programs.

2. Funds wild trout programs presumably until a license increase is approved by the legislator.

3.https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/FishingLicense/Pages/BuyAFishingLicense.aspx

 

[Dave_W]

steve98 wrote:
What is a wild trout permit?
What does it do?
How may I get one?

Steve98

There's been substantial discussion in previous threads about the voluntary Wild Trout Permit and other voluntary permits here.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

There was good discussion on the other thread. I did not read every comment so I apologize if the following is a repeat thought.

1 year permit prices:
Voluntary Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters -$26.90
Voluntary Bass - $11.90
Voluntary Musky - $11.90

In my mind, there are 2 realistic reasons why the BAFBC would charge 2.26x as much for the Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters permit v. the other 2.

1. The initiatives cost over twice as much to implement.
2. They think wild trout anglers can/will pay that much more than the other 2 cohorts.

I tend to lean towards the 1st reason.

I am curious to hear thoughts on what those higher costs are.

 

[afishinado]

Fly-Swatter wrote:
There was good discussion on the other thread. I did not read every comment so I apologize if the following is a repeat thought.

1 year permit prices:
Voluntary Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters -$26.90
Voluntary Bass - $11.90
Voluntary Musky - $11.90

In my mind, there are 2 realistic reasons why the BAFBC would charge 2.26x as much for the Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters permit v. the other 2.

1. The initiatives cost over twice as much to implement.
2. They think wild trout anglers can/will pay that much more than the other 2 cohorts.

I tend to lean towards the 1st reason.

I am curious to hear thoughts on what those higher costs are.

Just as an FYI with regard to the cost of stream projects for wild trout, here is an announcement I posted a while back detailing $500K+ grants from a fund used for wild trout streams.

It is costly to fund such stream projects as opposed to perhaps stocking muskie or bass using the other funds.

 

[jifigz]

afishinado wrote:

Fly-Swatter wrote:
There was good discussion on the other thread. I did not read every comment so I apologize if the following is a repeat thought.

1 year permit prices:
Voluntary Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters -$26.90
Voluntary Bass - $11.90
Voluntary Musky - $11.90

In my mind, there are 2 realistic reasons why the BAFBC would charge 2.26x as much for the Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters permit v. the other 2.

1. The initiatives cost over twice as much to implement.
2. They think wild trout anglers can/will pay that much more than the other 2 cohorts.

I tend to lean towards the 1st reason.

I am curious to hear thoughts on what those higher costs are.

Just as an FYI with regard to the cost of stream projects for wild trout, here is an announcement I posted a while back detailing $500K+ grants from a fund used for wild trout streams.

It is costly to fund such stream projects as opposed to perhaps stocking muskie or bass using the other funds.

Does that imply that wild trout waters are in that much worse of shape than are many bass waters? That also implies that wild trout waters NEED the stream restoration more than many bass waters. I think that there are many flowing warm water streams that harbor redbreasts, Rockies, smallies, etc that need just as much work to restore them to an optimal habitat as trout streams. Siltation is often far worse in those lower gradient warm water streams and I rarely see any projects taken to correct them. Why is that? I'm sure that SE PA has many WW streams that are in dire need of some repair. Sure, they may have bass and sunnies now but they could absolutely benefit from some work.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

not disputing your opinion/claim that WW needs improvement, I agree. But practically, when you consider the many miles on WW river versus the yards on individual wild trout streams... The scopes and the projects and the potential impact of the money raised argues for WT

 

[tomgamber]

jifigz wrote:

afishinado wrote:

Fly-Swatter wrote:
There was good discussion on the other thread. I did not read every comment so I apologize if the following is a repeat thought.

1 year permit prices:
Voluntary Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters -$26.90
Voluntary Bass - $11.90
Voluntary Musky - $11.90

In my mind, there are 2 realistic reasons why the BAFBC would charge 2.26x as much for the Wild Trout & Enhanced Waters permit v. the other 2.

1. The initiatives cost over twice as much to implement.
2. They think wild trout anglers can/will pay that much more than the other 2 cohorts.

I tend to lean towards the 1st reason.

I am curious to hear thoughts on what those higher costs are.

Just as an FYI with regard to the cost of stream projects for wild trout, here is an announcement I posted a while back detailing $500K+ grants from a fund used for wild trout streams.

It is costly to fund such stream projects as opposed to perhaps stocking muskie or bass using the other funds.

Does that imply that wild trout waters are in that much worse of shape than are many bass waters? That also implies that wild trout waters NEED the stream restoration more than many bass waters. I think that there are many flowing warm water streams that harbor redbreasts, Rockies, smallies, etc that need just as much work to restore them to an optimal habitat as trout streams. Siltation is often far worse in those lower gradient warm water streams and I rarely see any projects taken to correct them. Why is that? I'm sure that SE PA has many WW streams that are in dire need of some repair. Sure, they may have bass and sunnies now but they could absolutely benefit from some work.

what implication are you referring to?

 

[jifigz]

tomgamber wrote:

what implication are you referring to?

Didn't my first two sentences make clear what my implications were?

 

[jifigz]

nymphingmaniac wrote:
not disputing your opinion/claim that WW needs improvement, I agree. But practically, when you consider the many miles on WW river versus the yards on individual wild trout streams... The scopes and the projects and the potential impact of the money raised argues for WT

Does it? If you're in Centre County you are in the same scenario as I am in Mifflin County. Our flowing WW streams are far, far fewer here than our trout waters. And, luckily, our trout waters here in central PA are overall in pretty good shape. In Mifflin County I have one major WW body of water (Juniata) and a very small portion of the Aughwick and that is it. So, if other parts of the state offer more WW flowing waters than here and that is the primary angling opportunity in those areas then why not raise and spend more money to repair/enhance those waterways? Is it because angler interest in those types of waters is lower and people want to fish for trout?

 

[tomgamber]

jifigz wrote:

tomgamber wrote:

what implication are you referring to?

Didn't my first two sentences make clear what my implications were?

You implied nothing. You accused him of implying that WTW are worse.. I'm asking what he said to imply that.