The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
It would be great if it stays open, but I highly doubt it will. If the money's not there, it's not there. They usually have the nicest fish too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,963 Posts
The money is in there. In the not too distant past, the PFBC put almost $3,000,000 in repairs to it. How cost effective is closing it now??? Honestly, I would prefer to see Oswayo be the one to stay open.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
342 Posts
Every single trout fisherman I ask, says they would be willing to pay more for a trout stamp if they actually do what they say they're gonna do when it was first created. Every year we are getting less fish, less in season stocking, and smaller fish. Also they're throwing money out, stocking waters that should never be stocked with trout.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,072 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
There are big reasons for the loss of 350,000 license sales. I feel there are two main culprits:

1) loss of fishing access- most of this is caused by litter and mis use of private land

2) not catching fish- this is caused by overharvest by anglers.

These 2 create a big ripple effect for everyone. A few bad apples if you will, can ruin it for everyone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,632 Posts
bowmike said:
There are big reasons for the loss of 350,000 license sales. I feel there are two main culprits:

1) loss of fishing access- most of this is caused by litter and mis use of private land

2) not catching fish- this is caused by overharvest by anglers.
The vast majority of the trout stocking efforts by the commish are for put and take. How can over harvest of put and take fish even count? How about the commish is putting less and less fish into the water and that is the reason some are not catching as many fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,963 Posts
Mike M. said:
I would also. But thereare many that will not.
Exactly right. Most on this forum are dedicated trout fishermen and women. Most likely, we would all pay alot more for a trout stamp and still feel like it was well worht it. The simple fact is that the majority of trout stamps sold are for "opening weekend wonders" only. That is their enitre trout season-opening weekend. And I am not knocking those folks. They are VERY important to the equation. It is those folks who will be lost as fisherpersons if the license or stamp fees get increased. Every single time there is an increase, a percentage of those people fall off the end of the rope. That is the issue with the license increase and why the PFBC did not want to do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,031 Posts
With the on line license why not create a two tier trout stamp "novice" for a lowered price and "dedicated" for a higher price. This would recognize those who are willing to give more to keep the trout stocking program in tact and to see how many are willing to put up the additional $.

My personal preference for trout regulations would to have additonal streams regulated for a catch in release period; say allow catch and release up to around May 1st and then open it up to all tackle and possesion of trout from May 1st on to utilize the resources of put and take.

Personaly, I would like to see the trout available to be caught several times and then the opportunity to utilize before the warmer water starts to take a big toll on the put and take trout.

Only probelm is that, there are too many out there that would violate the regulations, as I have seen signs of this on some of the nearby catch and release streams near me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,357 Posts
bowmike said:
There are big reasons for the loss of 350,000 license sales. I feel there are two main culprits:

1) loss of fishing access- most of this is caused by litter and mis use of private land

2) not catching fish- this is caused by overharvest by anglers.

These 2 create a big ripple effect for everyone. A few bad apples if you will, can ruin it for everyone.
Exactly!
I"ll add 3)poaching by people prior to the season ever opening. when there are a LOT less fish, the poaching makes a larger dent in the numbers.
4)predation, with all the otters/mink/birds of prey, trout in many areas don't stand a chance in the small numbers in which they exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
943 Posts
I purchase a trout stamp every year. I am not a "trout guy," but I do enjoy returning to my home town once in a while (not even yearly) to fish for wild trout.

I primarily target other fisheries in PA that exist primarily due to the efforts (not just stocking, but reseach, protection etc.) of the PFBC. None of these fisheries require a stamp. Perhaps it is time for some of these programs that require monies to support to require stamps too? Most fisherman would not quit fishing for their favorite species over a reasonably priced stamp (similar to the price of trout now). However, I suspect raising the trout stamp would discourage the people who fish little if at all for trout from purchasing one just to help out. Let's face it, it is nice to say we will all pitch in more but in tough times most people prioritize.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,065 Posts
I think that the PFBC should look more at a put + grow system. Stocking fingerlings(4-6") in the fall and allow them to grow "naturally" in the streams. I realize this won't work in many waterways but even if it only works in 1/8 of the state that is still a huge savings.

As for "stamps" for other fish I would oppose that plan because you would lose even more anglers than with a straight up increase. The PFBC has done nothing for warmwater anglers since the mid 80's quite the opposite in fact... there was no increase in goods or services after the T/S went into effect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,072 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
I bet more Co-Op nurseries will be put up. We add 7500 fish a year to the streams in my county that will not really get stocked with out. It is nice to put in a great number of healthy fish, in non - wild trout populated streams.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
943 Posts
icemole said:
I think that the PFBC should look more at a put + grow system. Stocking fingerlings(4-6") in the fall and allow them to grow "naturally" in the streams. I realize this won't work in many waterways but even if it only works in 1/8 of the state that is still a huge savings.

As for "stamps" for other fish I would oppose that plan because you would lose even more anglers than with a straight up increase. The PFBC has done nothing for warmwater anglers since the mid 80's quite the opposite in fact... there was no increase in goods or services after the T/S went into effect.
Perhaps we fish for different warmwater species icemole. I see fry and fingerlings (catfish, walleye, stiped bass, hybrid striped bass, muskies etc.) being stocked in many waterways across the state to improve fisheries. Some waters that are now supported solely by natural reproduction wouldn't be what they are had they not previously been stocked and spawning habitats identified, protected and improved. I also see biologist reports available online, which are used to manage warmwater fisheries as well as supply interested warmwater anglers with data to find the best fisheries available to them. Sometimes stocked waters are changed due to lack of interest or success, or to study natural reproduction, and people may interpret that as negative, but sometimes it is best. I also have access to a lot of public boat launches on warmwater fisheries. All of these things cost money.

I won't argue with you that perhaps stamps are not the way to go due the increased loss of anglers though. I can only speak for me on that.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top