The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,707 Posts
Wow. That really stinks. I know all of the guys at Oswayo and they are all great guys. They usually produce the nicest fish of any hatchery that I help stock from. Pobably going to mean more cuts to the stockings...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,493 Posts
Another victim of Obamacare!
A shame to see them go but I predict that this is only the beginning of a long line of cuts in the trout program as we know it. They're already taking a lot of fall stockings out of the mix, which is a real shame. It's all downhill from here boys!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
223 Posts
What ever happened to the proposal to combine the fish and game commissions? I thought that seemed like a sensible proposal, to streamline these organizations and to reduce overall costs.

Do the PFBC employees receive lucrative health and retirement benefits?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,072 Posts
MT pa is stuck in the 18th century. Things are just the way they are.....

I did not read what hatcheries are going to be shut down. My familys trout club held meetings to keep Reynoldsdale open when they had thought this last time. I got to talk to a state rep at the rip old age of like 16
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,072 Posts
putting it towards erie is my guess. Or license sales and trout permit sales have dropped a lot. I think they lost about 400k in sales since late 90's.

I might fall into the catagory of special regs deterring people from purchasing a trout license.....

might....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,493 Posts
bowmike said:
I might fall into the catagory of special regs deterring people from purchasing a trout license.....

might....
So what you're saying is that having sections of streams where they can actually catch fish, when the rest of the stream has been pretty much been cleaned out, is deterring people from buying a trout stamp?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
We had a representative at our Co-Op trout meeting the other night, I wasnt really paying attention to what he was saying but I remember him saying that basically in 5 years they will be broke and out of money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
869 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
How does wv do their trout program so effectively? They start stocking in January which to date is around 50 bodies of water, which increases dramatically in the following months. Their conservation officer presence is much greater as well. Just wondering how they don't have a financial issue when their program is more extensive and enforcement is greater.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
potter county trout will now be in a truck for 2 hrs minimum before getting stocked , will prob be trucked in from erie or state college and this is cost effective??????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,072 Posts
Well I don't think you can make everyone happy anymore. Ill look at this from two sides of the issue.

The state has lost more than 400k in total license sales since the late 90's.

I feel there are a few reasons to key one where there is blame on both sides of the trout fishing world. I not particualr order this is my belif on these lost sales. Not going to debate on special regs or baitfishing practices. Just throwing out my thoughts on where these loss in sales came from.

Increased special regs causing people to feel segregated and thus causing them to not purchase a license or trout stamp. (I know it is only 2% and a lot of the waters could have been closed totaly; wont argue with this)

People are way overharvesting on ATW. They are depleating/wasting a great resource. This makes people frustrated at not catching more than a limit after the first month or two. This aspect is what upsets me the most. Too many people harvesting trout only to let them rot in their freezer. I am all for put and take, but highly against take and waste.

Loss of access. Many landowners are fed up with litter and the other actions of anglers abusing their land, and posting it. I don't blame them on this at all. Slobs and litterbugs drive me insane.

Increased prices in things other than a license. IMO the license should be increased. Divide the cost of license by how many days you get to use it and come up with less than 10 cents a day. The fuel and gear costs alone have went up thus causing people to not get out as much, thus causing them to look at not purchasing a license.

IF you do the math and you loose 400k at roughly 33.00 per person thats 13,200,000 in sales lost. If you look at the profit and such on this is it roughly what they are closing the hatcheries to ease up on the budget. I say if we increase the license at 8.00 to 10 dollars or even 15.00 on the remaining 650,000 instead you can get 9,750,000 back and put that towards hatcheries. And keep the cost of a license down to 13 cents per day. Even if you only get out 10 times a year thats only $4.80 a day.

But if you talk about raising the price people go bananas, if you talk about removing specail regs, people go bananas. If you tell people to practice more C&R they feel you are cheating them out of their money.

It is a lose lose all the round for everyone. I am not happy to see the hatcheries go, and even more sad to see people loose their jobs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,072 Posts
eyefromthesky said:
bowmike said:
I might fall into the catagory of special regs deterring people from purchasing a trout license.....

might....
So what you're saying is that having sections of streams where they can actually catch fish, when the rest of the stream has been pretty much been cleaned out, is deterring people from buying a trout stamp?
What i mean by this is that the bait fisherman who comprise the largest part of the license sales are being cut out of certain areas and can cause them not to buy a license.

Not going to argue on the 2% in total streams under special reg or the fact that All Tackle Waters get over harvested. Dead horse IMO just giving reasons for loss in sales.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,700 Posts
MT_flyfisher said:
What ever happened to the proposal to combine the fish and game commissions? I thought that seemed like a sensible proposal, to streamline these organizations and to reduce overall costs...
Taking two underfunded departments and joining into one never works. Supposed to cut costs and reduce overhead but whats "supposed" to happen never does! Interdepartmental friction and too many chiefs and not enough indians will still be the case
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
20,155 Posts
You know what. It's total and complete crap that they state hasn't allowed either department to increase license costs. Does anyone know why this is????? I fishing license is a complete joke to by. They may as well give the dang thing away to be honest. It's 2013 for Pete sakes. Everything costs more but the legislature feels the PGC and PFBC dont need more to make ends meet???? Both should cost about $100 for the year all in. I'd pay it and I think most would pay it as well. It would still be a complete bargian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,357 Posts
Trout 2003 said:
You know what. It's total and complete crap that they state hasn't allowed either department to increase license costs. Does anyone know why this is????? I fishing license is a complete joke to by. They may as well give the dang thing away to be honest. It's 2013 for Pete sakes. Everything costs more but the legislature feels the PGC and PFBC dont need more to make ends meet???? Both should cost about $100 for the year all in. I'd pay it and I think most would pay it as well. It would still be a complete bargian.
couldn't have said it better myself. $100 total, includes all stamps. that is a BARGAIN for a true fisherman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
Trout 2003 said:
You know what. It's total and complete crap that they state hasn't allowed either department to increase license costs. Does anyone know why this is????? I fishing license is a complete joke to by. They may as well give the dang thing away to be honest. It's 2013 for Pete sakes. Everything costs more but the legislature feels the PGC and PFBC dont need more to make ends meet???? Both should cost about $100 for the year all in. I'd pay it and I think most would pay it as well. It would still be a complete bargian.
Although I would be more than content with paying $100 for a fishing license, I know quite a bit of my friends and co-workers who only fish a handful of times during the year that would probably pass on the license. The PFBC published a decent stat about a year ago in the PA Angler and Boater magazine. It showed that the years following license price increases, the number of units sold dropped drastically. Sure there is a steady decline in lost unit sales, but the decreases were drastic and the new price increases didn't cover the lost units (i.e. it didn't help the agency increase revenues).

As costs are going to continue to increase in the future, I'm more in favor of the PFBC rolling back the numbers stocked in the current streams, reduced creel limits, and reducing (and possibly eliminating) the stocking of streams with decent trout populations. Now one issue to my third point as noted by a PFBC biologist, is that some landowners only leave their property unposted because the PFBC stocks the stream on their property. As such, the PFBC does a pre-season stocking of a few hundred fish and is done with it for the year. In cases like that, I'm okay with the PFBC possibly stocking a decent wild trout stream to secure public access. Maybe I'm selfish in my thinking...

A crazy thought I have had for some time is to offer 2 types of licenses. A C&R license and trout stamp that is priced at the current rates and a harvest license and trout stamp that is almost 2X to 3X more expensive than the current rates. This way, people who purchase the harvest license will truly want to eat the stocked trout they keep and not let them get frostbitten in the freezer only to be thrown out in a few months. In a way, the harvest license sales would defray some of the stocking costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,970 Posts
No matter what a license increase is needed,if it does not happen the PFBC will be unable to meet even the basicneeds of fishermen & I do not mean stocking trout.Law enforcement, will be reduced,all species of fish will suffer. Finacial help is needed to operate the agency.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top