Please welcome Eyoyo Underwater Fishing Cameras.https://amzn.to/3siEgXn
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.
Twitter buddy, I find you using the term Natural resource when talking about a predominantly non native species (browns and bows) sillyThat'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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.