URGENT! Phil Scott Proposal to temporally halt trout stocking Petition Added! p5

[stitch]

Dont worry guys if uncle bernie gets elected EVERYTHING will be free!!!!

[keithm87]

I was going to ask the same question.

I have purchased the stamp for each of the last two years.  Overall, I am disappointed that the annual revenue generated is less than $150k.  I'm not confident F&W can do anything meaningful with that modest revenue -- even with federal match.  But, I'll continue purchasing the stamp.

I'm primarily a waterfowl hunter and would like to see more wetlands conserved.  And, I'd really like to see management areas like Mud Creek improved to facilitate access and participation. 

As for trout fishing, I'd much rather see dollars invested in habitat restoration than stocking -- I have no interest in put-and-take fisheries.  The rant against TU (note that I am NOT a member) is absurd.  Look at the (habitat) work TU and VT F&W have done in the Nullhegan Basin over the last few years.  I wonder what benefits we'd see if we could leverage Habitat Stamp funds, federal match, and TU sponsorship in various watersheds?

From an economic standpoint, many of the responses above don't make sense.  While the rate of decline has stabilized, fishing license sales are still falling.  Raising prices while demand falls will make the problem worse.

Fishing license sales in 2005 were almost identical to what they were in 2017. Fishing license sales have stayed surprisingly stable given the extra rules with bait laws. Many people 18-35 are coming to the sport. Attend some of the events around the state, you will see it. As for stocking vs fixing habitat... without stocking the habitat is useless. Take 130,000 fishermen and take away 3/4 of the fish they catch, and then tell me how long the other 1/4 last. This proposal puts native species at risk as the stickies become less abundant and pressure shifts to lesser waterbodies. I fish mainly Champlain and some local trout lakes. They are by definition put and take, but hold old fish and some young ones. If those fisheries are exhausted, my first move will be to fish places with native brookie populations, I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

Remember that our native fish stocks were wiped out when technology was way worse and less people lived in the state. Wouldn’t take long if all the people who chase rainbows, browns, and lakers all the sudden chased brookies to have no brookies.

[Quantoson]

Fishing license sales in 2005 were almost identical to what they were in 2017. Fishing license sales have stayed surprisingly stable given the extra rules with bait laws. Many people 18-35 are coming to the sport. Attend some of the events around the state, you will see it. As for stocking vs fixing habitat... without stocking the habitat is useless. Take 130,000 fishermen and take away 3/4 of the fish they catch, and then tell me how long the other 1/4 last. This proposal puts native species at risk as the stickies become less abundant and pressure shifts to lesser waterbodies. I fish mainly Champlain and some local trout lakes. They are by definition put and take, but hold old fish and some young ones. If those fisheries are exhausted, my first move will be to fish places with native brookie populations, I’m sure I’m not alone in that.

Remember that our native fish stocks were wiped out when technology was way worse and less people lived in the state. Wouldn’t take long if all the people who chase rainbows, browns, and lakers all the sudden chased brookies to have no brookies.

keithm87, you are nut on with all except that not all will be chasing brookies unless they are lucky enough to draw a special permit to fish for one brookie per year.  We have that here in Montana.  Special bull trout stamp for only one lake in the State of Montana.  They have tried to close rivers and access to streams and lakes here in Montana, except open to guides only.

Article kinda related https://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/article_ae1e9361-6e12-52b7-8130-e1da64cb8c73.html

[Ice-n-Snow]

Take a look at the text of the Governor's response: "While it would have been possible to cover the shortfall through increases in hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, I am concerned about the impact of growing prices on the ability of Vermonters to continue to live in our state."   

As I said previously, the goal of the threat to close the Salisbury hatchery is to make a sporting license fee increases easier to swallow, so that Phil doesn't appear to be backsliding on his "no fee increase" pledge.  I guess Phil thinks Vermonters should have cheap fishing licenses and nothing to fish for.   

I predict that there will be some "compromise" from Phil with the hatchery remaining open and fishing license fees increasing over a period of years.  I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to that happening.  It certainly would be better than losing the trout and salmon fisheries in Champlain (both supported extensively by stocking) and other waters around state.  As I also said previously, don't count on TU to fight this.  In general, they typically aren't hatchery supporters.   

Our family sent a letter to the Governor today, signed by me, my wife and three kids.  I included pictures of each of us holding fish that probably started life at the Salisbury hatchery. 

     

[keithm87]

If the only way to save the hatchery is to increase license fees I’m willing to pitch in. I can’t imagine anyone in the state giving up fishing if the fee went to $30. I’m always amazed by the people who complain that licenses are “so expensive” i fish about 80 days a year... that’s well under .50 a day for the privilege to do the activity I enjoy most in life. I spend $30 at a bar and don’t even think about it, and that’s 1-3 hours of fun, vs 6-800 hours. Heck we aren’t even half through February and I’ve already spent almost 200 hours on the ice... barely a penny an hour of fun.

[mdougla1]

Twitter buddy, I find  you using the term Natural resource when talking about a predominantly non native species (browns and bows)  silly

That's why I fish the king!


quote author=peteinvermont link=topic=367607.msg3955119#msg3955119 date=1549546713]
Although I can see a million less impact ways for our government to save that amount of money, I can see his point in that response. 

From my perspective, since our F&W funding comes primarily from license sales, and licenses sales are down, it puts more pressure on those of us still using the natural resources.  So just out of curiosity, how many people on here, especially anyone that is extremely opposed to the closing, buy the habitat stamp every year?
[/quote]

[mdougla1]

Some solid points in here

I don't understand Americas fascination with non native trout

But I see the appeal in chasing trout after a morning of chasing gobblers

That's a solid day!


Re: the point about kayak users needing to pay to utilize public Access points ----that's alarming line of thought. "I paid for this because I registered a boat!"




 I think all public land users should pay something (looking at you hikers) but having a pissing match over who paid the most is not what the American wildlife model is based on (or we'd all get priced out quickly)

[peteinvermont]

Twitter buddy, I find  you using the term Natural resource when talking about a predominantly non native species (browns and bows)  silly

That's why I fish the king!


quote author=peteinvermont link=topic=367607.msg3955119#msg3955119 date=1549546713]
Although I can see a million less impact ways for our government to save that amount of money, I can see his point in that response. 

From my perspective, since our F&W funding comes primarily from license sales, and licenses sales are down, it puts more pressure on those of us still using the natural resources.  So just out of curiosity, how many people on here, especially anyone that is extremely opposed to the closing, buy the habitat stamp every year?

Awesome, I figured I'd bump into you here at some point...nice work.

Good catch, although when I said "natural resources" I was thinking more about the combination of hunting and fishing licenses in decline, not specifically trout.  I just meant the cost of F&W is the same, regardless if we split that cost between 100,000 fisherman/hunters, or 25 fishermen/hunters.  We either have to cut costs or increase revenue.  Personally I think closing the hatchery is like peeing in the ocean to see if it rises, but I feel better complaining being someone that pays for the habitat stamp.  (I'll turn around now, so everyone can pat me on the back)

[lowaccord66]

CT did the same exact thing.  It was a great smoke show for what came next.  A trout stamp.  Worse than that the State has a history of sliding that money into the general fund where it vanishes forever.  With these taxes the government always tries to lay out a cause and effect.  To me tax is tax and they can keep the tank scrubbers.  I dont fish VT from out of state for those...I buy my yearly regardless. 

[thefishingweatherman]

While it would have been possible to cover the shortfall through increases in hunting, fishing and trapping licenses, I am concerned about the impact of growing prices on the ability of Vermonters to continue to live in our state.

Second, the facility is in need of significant infrastructure upgrades – preliminary estimates total upwards of $12 million – to meet modern discharge requirements under the Vermont Water Quality Standards and the federal Clean Water Act if it is to continue operating in future years, a problem made more significant by a change in how far downstream the effluent from the hatchery is measured.

There are a number of ways the state could approach this issue, but what is clear here is that that Phil Scott doesn't want to raise taxes or fees as a solution. Better to just close a hatchery, leave the creel limits as-is, watch many waters get fished-out, and watch our fishing tourism dollars disappear... Everyone's in favor of lower taxes and fees, until it hits a program they care about. At that point, the programs that get saved from the chopping block are the ones people make the most noise about. So let's all make some noise with the governor on this one! There's got to be a solution that's least offensive to everyone, and this forum is a good place to test ideas out, so while it's raucous in here at times, I see these debates as a good thing.

Personally, I am open to higher fees, and/or lower creel limits on trout and salmon if it means I can fish waterways that aren't devoid trout and salmon.

[Sacospinner]

Maybe I'm taking this discussion in an opposite direction but does anyone know what federal grants are available to aid in the necessary repairs that need to be made to the hatchery?  It seems to me the EPA and National Fish and Wildlife service would have a vested interest in this sort of project. There has been little discussion about what efforts have been made to procure the necessary funds.

[Champlain Islander]

It appears, to me at least, that Scott doesn't hold the outdoor sporting community in high regard. Plenty of money going out for the ski tourism and then there is that 10K to get people to move here and telecommute for their jobs. Sell out for the gun control and now wanting to close a hatchery to keep his mantra of not raising taxes. I think he understands that a license fee increase will shoot him in the foot since sales are declining at the current cost. Closing the hatchery will provide a bandaid to the budget shortfall and if he decides to not run in 2 years then it will be somebody else's problem.

[EyERipLip]

I dont want my license fees to go up. As it is the state pump billions of gallons of untreated sewage into our lakes and streams because they can’t  afford to maintain there facilities, despite us paying our bill everytime they arrive in the mail!! My “boat launches” are more like mudslides where we are forced to drive 2 vehicles just to pull the one launching the boat out when your buried. This state does not care about its anglers or sportman. Theyd rather find something to fine you for then see you enjoy the natural resources we have. Most boat launches are used as a dumping site than a place to go fishing. When you ask who to contact about these issues they run you around in circles from this department to that officer until your frustrated enough you just deal with it yourself. I already spend over 100$ a year and the hunting and fishing just keeps getting  worse with more stupid regulation and less management. Maybe they should stop paying out of staters $10,000 dollars to move here and start putting it into what makes vermont great... its natural resources!!

[Champlain Islander]

I remember the first and only top tier B.A.S.S. tournament held in Mallets Bay many years ago. I think Roland Martin won it and all the pro's and Bassmasters raved about the Lake Champlain fishery and vowed to regularly hold tournaments here. They wanted the State of Vermont to pony up 50K as seed money to get them back and the state declined the offer. The city of Plattsburgh and NY State jumped at the chance and all the B.A.S.S. tournaments plus the FLW series have been held on the NY side ever since. I wonder how many millions in tourism dollars that 50K cost the State of Vermont?

[mudchuck]

IDK if this is a solution or not, but perhaps the state fisheries guys can chime in...
Is is possible to close Salisbury and consolidate the brood hatch work at the other locations instead?

Onto other topics I've read here so far, it is entirely possible this will lead to trout stamps, as many other states have had them in place for a very long time.
Not sure how that will impact the salmon/lake trout fishing though...

TU might thumb their noses at all this because of the purist aspects of fly fishing, however they should reconsider. Orvis, Dick's and other manufacturers, retailers, guide services etc., they might want to also consider helping the state with figuring out the trout fishery issues since they're IMO, stakeholders due to the fact they sell product related to the fly fishing sport that usually gravitates towards trout fishing streams & rivers...just my 2c worth...

IMO the state dragged it's feet (and A$$) in doing what needed to be done with water quality and lake Champlain pollution, not this is one of the unintended consequences of the inaction piling up to the point of the EPA is forcing them into a corner with the issue...now the state doesn't have the funds to deal with this and the WWTP's overflowing because they spent the monies on other stuff.

I've personally seen the state put out RFQ's for boat access launches to be repaired/upgraded and not a single contractor submit a bid, and this also happened with the hatchery to where it was put back out for rebid and they finally got someone onboard.
Unclear if the regulatory aspects of these bids are just too cumbersome, or if the contractors are just too busy at the time those bids were around.

I strongly believe that those using non-fishing unpowered watercraft should have to pay for the privilege to launch at public accesses that are paiud for by those of us with fishing licenses and powered boat/watercraft registration fees. It time to stop the free milk from that teet.

Increases in hunting/fishing licenses fees are inevitable, so we all might as well get used to it...however, we should all also expect to receive something tangible in return for rising cost fees.

[KillerFish]

Reading the text of the article pretty clearly indicates they plan on dispersing the broodstock to other hatcheries -  no where does it say they will stop trout stocking....

It does say that fewer trout would be available (obviously), but the title of this post seems misleading...

Also, it appears all salmon broodstock are at a different hatchery and wouldn’t necessarily be affected by Salisbury closure.

Just pointing these things out...I am very against closure for the record...

[koissu]

I strongly believe that those using non-fishing unpowered watercraft should have to pay for the privilege to launch at public accesses that are paiud for by those of us with fishing licenses and powered boat/watercraft registration fees. It time to stop the free milk from that teet.

I hardly think using our state lands and waters is 'free milk from the teet'. I can't wait for the fee allowing me to go for my daily run

[keithm87]

For all those complaining about license fees here is a question for you:

When you go out to dinner how much do you spend?

If the answer was more than $26 (which it was) then you are willing to give more money for a 1.5 hour meal, than you are for something that you can do literally HUNDREDS of hours a year. I did the math, I am over 180 hours on the ice this year, thats in 38 days. I am well on pace to put in 500+ hours fishing this year. Name me another activity that brings that much joy for such a low entry fee? (I understand that many of us myself included spend THOUSANDS on gear) but really a person with the will could go to walmart, grab a $10 jig rod, and a pack of jigs, and some gulp maggots, $20 out the door, and fishing. In the spring they can do the same, $14 combo, and a couple kastmasters...

As harbor freight does:

Compare at $50 a day for skiing, on public land that is leased to a for profit entity that takes your money
Compare at $15 per person per movie at a theater
Compare at $900 minimum for a junk snowmobile +100 for reg and VAST and Ins + 20+ for gas and oil per day
Compare at $15 to enter thunder road
Compare at $30 for 4 drinks at the bar while watching the game.

Fishing license fees when you consider the amount of time that they are good for are VERY cheap, for many of us who put in 8 hours a day on the water when we fish, and fish at least 1 time per week, that cost is LESS THAN .01 per hour.




As for the comment above about tank suckers, I would say that is inaccurate. Look at lake champlain lakers, all of those 10+lb fish were hatchery fish, but they have been in the lake 10 years now. Every walleye in the lake is a stocked fish for the most part, the same for salmon, browns, and steelies. I bet if someone said I can guarantee you will catch a 10lb landlock if you come out fishing, you would go in a heartbeat. Stocked or not they fight the same, and thats why we all fish.

[mudchuck]

I hardly think using our state lands and waters is 'free milk from the teet'. I can't wait for the fee allowing me to go for my daily run

Using a public boat launch access should require ALL those using the ramps with non powered watercraft that do not possess a fishing license to pay for the use of the access.
It is free milk from the teet when those in yaks/canoes/sailboards etc. and not fishing from their craft use the the boat launch access areas...

[koissu]

Using a public boat launch access should require ALL those using the ramps with non powered watercraft that do not possess a fishing license to pay for the use of the access.
It is free milk from the teet when those in yaks/canoes/sailboards etc. and not fishing from their craft use the the boat launch access areas...

I don't want to keep hijacking this thread, but YOU are not the only one paying for it. You are paying to fish, and to use a motorized vehicle, which has much more wear and tear. Taxes (state and federal) pay for the non motorized boats to have access.

[koissu]

I completely agree Keith. Dollar for dollar, I get much more back from my fishing license than most anything I do, and I'd happily pay more if it came to that, including canoe or kayak registration if need be. We are paying for the privilege to harvest fish or animals from the land. And additionally for some, the privilege of doing so via a motorized vehicle, which has a lot more wear and tear than any pedestrian could. My point is there is a misconception that the fee is for accessing the land/water, which it is not (or else kayaks, canoes, hikers, bicyclists would all be charged). It is to use a motorized vehicle / harvest animals/fish from it. I'm just trying to make it clear that fisherman and people with motorboats don't pay for access to our waters, that's just part of living here and paying taxes. 

If only we weren't dedicating $125k to paying out of staters to move here, then $250 next year, then $125k in 2021. As others have said, there are systemic issues in our watersheds that go far beyond stocking that will need to be addressed as well.

[mudchuck]

I don't want to keep hijacking this thread, but YOU are not the only one paying for it. You are paying to fish, and to use a motorized vehicle, which has much more wear and tear. Taxes (state and federal) pay for the non motorized boats to have access.

You sir are incorrect, as the law states those launches are bought-paid for and maintained with monies from hunting/fishing licenses, and powered water craft registration fees, along with additional portion of sales taxes on fishing gear.
Don't believe me, do the research, or go one step further and ask any warden or state trooper that police the waterways.

I have researched it:
Funding for the access areas comes from both state and federal sources in a user-pay system. Fishing license revenues and motorboat registration fees are used to leverage federal money from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
The federal funds are generated through an excise tax on fishing tackle or a motorboat fuel tax. The US Fish and Wildlife Service will pay for up to 75 percent of eligible boat access expenditures.
Access area expenditures are outlined in the department’s annual legislative reports.

DIG DEEPER, the federal & state funding sources mentioned as the user-pay system are in fact the power water craft registration fees, fishing licenses and excise tax on tackle and boat fuels:
 "U.S. Fish and Wildlife's Boating Infrastructure Grant"

Boating Access - Overview
About
The Boating Access (BA) Program provides grant funds to the states, the District of Columbia and insular areas fish and wildlife agencies for projects that provide access to America's waterways by developing new access facilities or renovation and/or improvement of existing facilities.

Today more than 16.8 million boats use U.S. waterways. A large percentage of these are operated by anglers and recreational boaters.

The Boating Access Program is part of the Sport Fish Restoration Program. Spending for the BA is authorized in the Sport Fish Restoration Act.

Learn more about Boating Access Program accomplishments.
Related grant programs are the Boating Infrastructure Grant Program and the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program.
Source of Funds
The Sport Fish Restoration Act mandates each state, the District of Columbia and insular area to allocate at least 15 percent of their annual Sport Fish Restoration apportionment to boating access projects. The allocation is averaged over a five year period for each U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regio
The funds apportioned annually are derived from excise taxes on fishing equipment, motorboat and small engine fuels, import duties, and interest collected in the Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Trust Fund. These funds are apportioned to the states, the District of Columbia and insular areas based on a formula which includes land area, number of paid license holders, minimums and maximums.
Grants
States, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Insular Areas fish & wildlife agencies may apply for grants by contacting the specific WSFR Office or apply online at grants.gov.
Grant funds are disbursed to states for approved grants up to 75% of the project costs and insular areas up to 100% of the project costs.

NOWHERE is there any indication that those non-powered craft or those without a fishing license/tackle purchases etc. pay for these accesses.

I Stand by my statement that those using non-powered watercraft (aka unregistered) that use the access launches are freeloaders!

[bootstrap]

as long as you are using the craft for the purpose for hunting or fishing it is ok. what gets me are the people that want to use it as a park and ride for bicycling etc. or their personal dog park. if everyone used it as they wished there would potentially be no room for its intended use. i am glad the state didnt take the 50k for tournaments. these areas sholdnt be sold out. imagine trying to recreationally fish out of the launches around here while it was going on.

[pmaloney86]

CT did the same exact thing.  It was a great smoke show for what came next.  A trout stamp.  Worse than that the State has a history of sliding that money into the general fund where it vanishes forever.  With these taxes the government always tries to lay out a cause and effect.  To me tax is tax and they can keep the tank scrubbers.  I dont fish VT from out of state for those...I buy my yearly regardless.

Personally, I'm fine with the trout stamp and I don't even harvest freshwater fish.  But to your point, only as long as that money is spent to support the right causes.  In MA it prob ends up in the EPO overtime fund, right along with the state police overtime fund which they don't even need to work for to get paid from.

[Champlain Islander]

as long as you are using the craft for the purpose for hunting or fishing it is ok. what gets me are the people that want to use it as a park and ride for bicycling etc. or their personal dog park. if everyone used it as they wished there would potentially be no room for its intended use. i am glad the state didnt take the 50k for tournaments. these areas sholdnt be sold out. imagine trying to recreationally fish out of the launches around here while it was going on.

I think you misunderstood my post. The 50K was asked for by BASS from the state as seed money to bring the tournament and thus promote tourism. The state wouldn't spend the money so BASS went elsewhere and for a year or two the Bassmasters tournament was held at Mooney Bay Marina in NY then moved to Plattsburgh. When the FLW got bigger they too held the tournaments at Plattsburgh boat basin. The tournaments launch at Plattsburgh so only one access is taken up on the tournaments. Practice periods the boats launch all over including Vt. With the tournaments held in Plattsburgh many participants rent motel rooms for up to 2 weeks to cover the practice period and gas up at all the gas stations in and around Plattsburgh. They go out to eat and buy groceries along with tackle locally. The tournaments are a huge financial boost to the local economy wherever they are held. I guess the only point I was trying to make is it appears the state doesn't have any problem spending money to promote ski tourism but treats hunting and fishing as secondary tourism attractants. Ironically, all the financial benefits from these pro tournaments go to New York while most of the fish get caught in Vermont waters.

[koissu]

Great info Mudchuck. I dug somewhat but not enough. I stand corrected! But I still don't have a problem with them using the launches   

[Ice-n-Snow]

The state wouldn't spend the money so BASS went elsewhere and for a year or two the Bassmasters tournament was held at Mooney Bay Marina in NY then moved to Plattsburgh....I guess the only point I was trying to make is it appears the state doesn't have any problem spending money to promote ski tourism but treats hunting and fishing as secondary tourism attractants.

Yup. Vermont generally looks down its collective nose at bass fishermen, especially the tournament guys.  Some of it comes from the same "wild trout" elitism that gives the Governor traction to threaten to close a hatchery.  Ice fishing is probably viewed by some in the same way: a fringe sport that doesn't fit the "Vermont image."     

Look, we may all have different perspectives on things, but we all have a love of fishing in common.  Right now we need to put these little differences aside and contact our Governor and reps.  If we don't, fishing in Vermont simply ain't going to be what it used to be.   

     

[bootstrap]

i should have used the phrase buy-in instead of sell out. but i believe the buy-in would of been a sell out. that is why they did not do it. good choice.

[EyERipLip]

Wow this is out of control Hahaha

[Champlain Islander]

No I think it is all related. The issue remains that the current administration has proposed closing one of our few operating fish hatcheries in order to meet their budget. I guess the Department doesn't have enough revenue from the sale of licenses, to offset expenses. Their remedy is a loss for sportsmen whether it is to close the hatchery, raise license rates or both. Perhaps it is time for the State to treat the F&W Department like other entities in then state and give general funds which were already paid for by tax payers, to offset budget shortfalls. Once that hatchery is closed it will be both difficult and expensive to re-open it. My only comment about the bass tournaments was to show that the fishing industry doesn't appear to be something that is a high priority for the state.