January 1, 2015 at 1:29 pm #293
I’ve read some thoughts about having a stamp (may be 1.00) required to fish on wild trout or special reg streams. The idea is that it can be directly applied to: stream improvements or easement programs.
What say you?January 1, 2015 at 3:50 pm #295
I am totally in favor of this. In fact, I think the cost of this type of stamp ought to be higher so that improvements can be made or easements gotten quickly when opportunities present themselves.January 2, 2015 at 1:23 am #296
I like this concept…i.e. paying a fee for wild trout habitat improvement and/or public fishing easements. Maybe the best approach would be to simply broaden and increase the fee for the steelhead stamp. I will present this idea to the PATU Trout Management Committee at our next meeting. I am a member of this committee the purpose of which is to make recommendations to PFBC for trout management.
BillFebruary 5, 2015 at 6:18 pm #358
I would respectfully disagree with a wild trout stamp as long as the PAFBC continues to stock over wild trout. We have recently seen how the commission will cave under public pressure to continue the practice of stocking class a waters near urban centers. An additional dollar stamp would not change their current practices or do much to improve overall trout habitat in Pennsylvania. These funds never stay with their intended purposes in government bureaucracies.
For example, the steelhead stamp was enacted to improve the Erie steelhead run and promote access and yet it is my understanding monies used from this fee are now being applied to the general operation fund. Anyone who has fished Erie in the last 10 years will tell you the steelhead fishing isn’t as what it once was. The stamp while initially used to gain access rights is doing little in access procurement these days. Overall stocking of steelhead is down and the healthy number of walleyes and bass are taking their toll on what is being stocked.
I think there needs to be a fundamental shift in the way trout anglers view trout and trout fishing. As long as harvest based angling is promoted in PA, wild trout will continue to suffer. Its just too easy to stock your way out when habitat becomes degraded from development. If anglers would actually see trout numbers depleted because of habitat degradation , they might be more inclined to step up and do something about it (i.e. Young Woman’s Creek, which received stocking once wild trout numbers started to decline instead of addressing the causes of the decline).
Its only through active organizations such as LJRA that things happen! Don’t depend on the government for anything!February 6, 2015 at 4:02 pm #362
While I agree that there should be more emphasis on fish habitat improvement and less on stocking hatchery fish, I will also defend the PFBC in their efforts to improve fishing and Public Fishing Access to our best trout waters. It was the PFBC that responded when LJRA pointed out the need for PFA on the “j”. They helped us find the first $100,000 of the $200,000 we have paid to “j” stream bank owners for PFA. PFBC also stepped forward when Sandy Run wetlands needed protection. And, I can not say enough about their habitat management group. They have worked closely with LJRA on most of our stream bank erosion remediation projects. remember that our PFB Commissioners are unpaid volunteers, just like those of us at LJRA…they deserve our support and our helpful criticism.
Come to our Feb. 11th meeting. Our PFB Commissioner, Lenny Lichvar will be their to answer your questions.
BillFebruary 7, 2015 at 10:47 pm #363
I agree that stocking over wild trout is an ill advised practice. However, I agree with Bill. PFBC does much good and their cooperation has been essential to the successes of the LJRA.
PFBC has to appeal to many constituents, not just wild trout fisherman/women. I believe that people wanting to fish for stocked trout outnumber people who think like us. I don’t like it, but you can’t expect them to favor a minority. If you talk to put and take anglers, they’d swear PFBC is only serving people like us.
Hooksky, I do appreciate your willingness to share your opinions. Members of this forum and organization can and do agree to disagree on some points. I do not want to appear hostile to your point of view. keep the conversation going.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.