IceShanty.com's Ice Fishing Community
Vermont => Ice Fishing Vermont => Topic started by: keithm87 on Feb 05, 2019, 06:32 PM
-
For those who haven’t seen it, ol Flip Flop is back at it again. Him and Louis Porter have come up with a hair brain idea to close down the Salisbury fish hatchery. The hatchery supplies the vast majority of our states trout eggs from the broodstock at the hatchery. Closing it would mean the state would halt stocking of trout species for 2-7 years depending on species. This is to save a mere 250k a year, while hatcheries have a 9:1 return rate, meaning for every dollar we spend on them, $9 is returned in the state in economic activity.
This decision despite what porter and Scott say will lead to a total collapse of trout fishing state wide. As that collapse occurs fishermen will shift focus, and negatively impact other species.
I urge you all to contact the governor, your local reps, and Mr porter.
Sign the petition to save the hatchery:
https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-save-the-salisbury-fish-hatchery-and-trout-fishing-in-vermont?recruiter=481857506&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition
-
This state is becoming such a joke. I am so sick of watching everything we love about our great state slowly be taken from us.
-
Vote them all out.
-
Where is this proposal? Would like to see something more than just hearsay. Links please.
-
https://vtdigger.org/2019/02/04/searching-savings-scott-angles-close-trout-hatchery/?utm_source=VTDigger+Subscribers+and+Donors&utm_campaign=493aca939a-Weekly+Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc3c5486db-493aca939a-405564869
-
phil will probably turn the site into a parking lot for people that received the $10K to move here from the citys a place to park their prius while they are out riding bikes in the middle of the roads.
-
phil will probably turn the site into a parking lot for people that received the $10K to move here from the citys a place to park their prius while they are out riding bikes in the middle of the roads.
Yup these same meatheads are the same people who suck up the parking at our boat launches for their kayaks.
-
Hopefully with no veto power Flip Flop Phil will decide the job isn't to his liking and not run again. Too bad a viable candidate wasn't running against him last year. His sell out on the gun control and pot legalization means at least to me he is a classic case of RINO. Those people who are concerned about last years change of campaign promises better be prepared for the next step.
-
This “issue” has been a long known one for the state. They put the hatchery upgrades out to bid in 2012, with and in the document say the SAME things that Porter and Scott are saying now about water quality. So that means the last 7 years they have sat on this issue, not attempting to make gradual improvements.
http://www.bgs.state.vt.us/pca/bids/pdf/RFP%20-%20Feasibility%20Study%20Salisbury%20Fish%20Culture%20Station.pdf
-
Yup these same meatheads are the same people who suck up the parking at our boat launches for their kayaks.
Pretty sure a kayak counts as a boat...
-
Pretty sure a kayak counts as a boat...
Boat registrations pay for boat launches and upkeep,kayaks aren't registered.
-
Boat registrations pay for boat launches and upkeep,kayaks aren't registered.
And? it's not like you can launch motorboats at all state launches. Also, if you're saying you should ONLY be allowed to park at a state launch IF you're launching a motorboat, I'll remind you that this is an ice fishing forum...
-
https://vtdigger.org/2019/02/04/searching-savings-scott-angles-close-trout-hatchery/?utm_source=VTDigger+Subscribers+and+Donors&utm_campaign=493aca939a-Weekly+Update&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_dc3c5486db-493aca939a-405564869
Pretty messed up... As the article says, a much more sensible thing to do would be to raise fees on hunting/fishing licenses, but we know Phil and taxes/fees are like oil and water. Wouldn't want to break that campaign promise, even if this action makes negative sense. Sad part is we wouldn't realize the lost revenue in license sales from this idea till well after he's out of office... Time to call your representatives.
-
The sportsman in your state need to organize and band together,and stop the them from closing the hatchery .take it from someone in taxachusetts youll never get it back.
-
Boat registrations pay for boat launches and upkeep,kayaks aren't registered.
Exactly.
-
Seems like a very short sighted approach. Money now, repercussions later...as usual.
-
This was discussed at length at the TU meeting last night in Burlington. This is a time when anyone that loves fishing needs to band together and be very vocal about how we feel about this and the impact it will have on our sport. One option that was discussed was a form letter that each of us could sign and send to the governor directly. Kind of like a petition however individual letters sent to the governor will probably have more of an impact if enough of them are sent. We can't sit idle or the trout fishing in this state will be damaged for the next 10 to 20 years. Be vocal, contact your state reps and maybe we can stop this before it is too late.
-
Montpelier politics at its finest. If Phil and Louis had simply and honestly proposed an increase in license fees to offset declining revenues and future expenses, Phil would look like he was retreating, yet again, from his campaign promise of no new fee increases.
Instead, they hold us hostage by threatening to close a fish hatchery, which would have negative consequences for both fisheries and the state's economy. With this, they make a significant license fee increases more palatable. Would you rather pay more for a fishing license or have nothing to fish for?
I am certainly not happy with the Governor, but I also have to wonder about the motives and intentions of the Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife. Who or what is this guy really looking out for? Fish? Wildlife? Anglers? Hunters? Or his political cronies?
-
Is there a way to get a drafted letter on behalf of the TU outta Burlington? Seems this group will have the most pull with the State; if something is added here that I can cut and paste, and then print I will most definitely send it to the Govonor's office direct (I feel like receiving the same letter a few hundred times will make the point). I will also pay for extra stamps so others I personally know will send them (at least a book of stamps...lol) I can even screenshot this thread and insert it with the letter!
I wish our State would get their Sh!t together...
They all need to be replaced. Apparently constituents do not matter nor do their opinions.
-
Agree -- I think getting the VT TU Chapter involved is an excellent way to go...!!
-
I think the solution is to make kayaks register which will more than fund any shortcomings of funds for hatcheries and air boats....$$$
-
I actually do not like the thought of registering the kayaks because there are many places to launch that are not public access outside of boat launches. I'd rather see a "Launch Pass" or decal that can be purchased for approved usage of public boat launches +$5 for every person wanting to use the public launches (yes this would be in addition to registration of a motor boat but would also incorporate kayaks using the launches) and make pedal bikes register as a vehicle seeing how they take up road space and have bike-lanes that are maintained by DOT. Add the proceeds from that to the general fund and add 2% of the GF to Fish and Wildlife to supplement. why do they make it seem so difficult? Are they still using DOT signs to advertise the Exit 7 gas station on 89? Seems to me that those LED signs should fall within the billboard restrictions set by ACT250, as other businesses cannot use them... Flip Flop must make money off that store somehow.
-
I actually do not like the thought of registering the kayaks because there are many places to launch that are not public access outside of boat launches. I'd rather see a "Launch Pass" or decal that can be purchased for approved usage of public boat launches +$5 for every person wanting to use the public launches (yes this would be in addition to registration of a motor boat but would also incorporate kayaks using the launches) and make pedal bikes register as a vehicle seeing how they take up road space and have bike-lanes that are maintained by DOT. Add the proceeds from that to the general fund and add 2% of the GF to Fish and Wildlife to supplement. why do they make it seem so difficult? Are they still using DOT signs to advertise the Exit 7 gas station on 89? Seems to me that those LED signs should fall within the billboard restrictions set by ACT250, as other businesses cannot use them... Flip Flop must make money off that store somehow.
And fines imposed for not following the rules would also generate more funds.
-
I think the solution is to make kayaks register which will more than fund any shortcomings of funds for hatcheries and air boats....$$$
Good luck with that. I would love to see how people would react to that proposal, even on here.
-
I agree with registering bicycles if the are to be used on the road. I also agree with something being done with kayaks, what a good solution is....IDK. Kayaks can be launched just about anywhere, pretty easily. And while boat registrations help fund the launches, they make for an easy spot to put your kayak in, albeit most of them are just in everyone who pays way usually. Something simple like a small fee to use the state launches for the year seems reasonable. As for the hatchery issue, some good ideas have been proposed to try to fight that, and whatever the consensus is to do so, I'm on board and will do my part to help.
-
Agree -- I think getting the VT TU Chapter involved is an excellent way to go...!!
I don't know that I would rely on TU to carry the ball. Some TU members might think that closing a hatchery is actually a good thing.
-
This is an easy proposal to defeat. All we have to do is each take responsibility for getting the word out, and contacting our local reps. Post on your social media, call for your friends and family to unite and reach out to their reps. There is no anti hatchery lobby, or high school kids talking about the harms of fish hatcheries. There are 2 people advocating this, and as long as we can convince the other 150 in montpelier that its a bad idea we can win. Write to your legislator. Point out that fishing creates 2400 jobs in vermont. Point out that statewide 147 million dollars are spent each year directly attributable to fishing activity, and 21% of that can be tied directly to our hatcheries. Point out that statewide 16 million is brought in in tax revenue from our fisheries, and that since the hatcheries on a whole (all of them) cost 3.5 million, half of which is federal funds, that the 21% of that 16 million in tax money is far more than the hatcheries cost. The hatcheries directly contribute to 3.3 million in state and local tax revenue, and cost 1.75 in stater revenue to run. Also be sure to point out that for the last 15 years fishing licenses while fluctuating a little annually have otherwise been flat. The decline the flippy phil mentions in his canned reply is 100% on the hunting side of things, and can be tied to older hunters stopping, and young hunters not having a place to hunt as we let more people post land. Point out the local shop that will struggle if trout fishing goes away, the Fly Shop in stowe, Old fishing hole in morrisville, datillios in shelburne, all of your local bait shops.
One last thing make sure to mention how all of our significant others will not be able to put up with us if we can't fish, Flip Flop Phil is trying to break up families!!!
-
https://governor.vermont.gov/contact-us/message
https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/
-
Boat registrations pay for boat launches and upkeep,kayaks aren't registered.
So I take it you don’t park at boatramps to go ice fishing? No fees paid for upkeep from ice fishermen...
-
Good luck with that. I would love to see how people would react to that proposal, even on here.
Agreed. If you want to go to smaller bodies or carry your boat in so bad, go buy one and do it. It shouldn't preclude us from using state boat launches at larger bodies.
-
The sportsman in your state need to organize and band together,and stop the them from closing the hatchery .take it from someone in taxachusetts youll never get it back.
Bob you got that right. They stock trout and only trout in MA with a put and take approach. There are many rivers that if managed right could hold survivor strain trout. Just look at the Deerfield River. They have evidence that there are reproducing browns and brookies in the river yet those who control the dam flows continue to reduce the flows so low that most of the eggs end up high and dry. yet our license fees continue to increase with less and less stocking each year.
-
Even a $10 per year registration for non motorized vessels would bring a huge revenue per year to help with fish hatcheries and other programs.
I have a kayak and I'm all for it.
As far as using a boat launch for ice fishing why not? You PAID for a fishing license??????
-
Even a $10 per year registration for non motorized vessels would bring a huge revenue per year to help with fish hatcheries and other programs.
I have a kayak and I'm all for it.
As far as using a boat launch for ice fishing why not? You PAID for a fishing license??????
Paying for my fishing license also gives me access via canoe or kayak. The launches are half federally funded anyways. If it saved the hatcheries and programs, I would gladly pay a fee. I just don't think it's great to say no kayaks or canoes should have access, it's what the launches are for. It's the people swimming and hanging out picnicking that are the issue.
-
So if i buy my fishing license I don't have to register my boat? That's a good idea.
-
So if i buy my fishing license I don't have to register my boat? That's a good idea.
Not sure how you got that from what I said. Part of our fishing license fee goes toward the launches, as well as part of the the motorboat registration fee. I'm saying my license fee gives me access to the launch via canoe or kayak. And even those who don't, have access via canoe or kayak. You can't all act like 100% of launch funding is from your boat registration. It's from state taxes, federal funding, and parts of fees.
-
Yes sir, that is correct.
-
Yes sir, that is correct.
Ah, I get it now!
-
While I do think kayaks and canoes and bicycles should be registered if they use the public land, I don’t think that is the argument to have right now, as that is not the question. The stakes are high people! Contact your reps!
-
I sent a message via the website earlier, I'll contact my rep as well. Good call.
-
While I do think kayaks and canoes and bicycles should be registered if they use the public land, I don’t think that is the argument to have right now, as that is not the question. The stakes are high people! Contact your reps!
Does VT have the hiking safety card like NH? In MA we can't hunt on Sunday so "hikers" can have their day in the woods. Yet they don't buy any type of license or anything along those lines to help with the purchase of public land like fishermen and hunters do. I think if they required people hiking on public land to pay a $20 license it could make up a lot of the gaps in the budget.
-
Yup this one got off track.
My bad.
I emailed the gov, mire people that do i would think will help.
Thanks for posting link.
-
Legal to use any State of Vt fishing access to launch a wheeler or snow machine used for fishing. IMO adding additional usage fees isn't a great idea.
-
Yup this one got off track.
My bad.
I emailed the gov, mire people that do i would think will help.
Thanks for posting link.
The positive is that every post brings it to the top of the forum and brings eyes in.
-
Senator Pollina of Washington county has said he will oppose the proposal!
-
Legal to use any State of Vt fishing access to launch a wheeler or snow machine used for fishing. IMO adding additional usage fees isn't a great idea.
i agree the the areas were secured by out forefathers for the purpose of hunting and fishing period. having to supplement them is just poor management.
-
Adding more fees for licenses, kayak fees, etc. is just going to drive more people away from fishing. I personally know of quite a few people who stopped ice fishing after the bait law (which was supposed to be repealed after a couple of years) was implemented. This could be a result of some of the “old school” biologists that want only native trout. They stopped stocking Lakers in the NEK for a couple years now citing most of the ones they shock up are naturally reproducing fish. The browns and rainbows (except for steelhead) they stock are sterile and can’t reproduce. I’ve noticed a precipitous drop in trout numbers in smaller lakes like Echo, Island Pond, etc. I’ve heard from some younger biologists who absolutely disagree with the “old guard”. I don’t know if this part of the reason they want to shut it down but I find it hard to believe they couldn’t figure out the financial aspect. Our trout fishery is in serious trouble...typical VT unfortunately
-
So if i buy my fishing license I don't have to register my boat? That's a good idea.
To use the fishing access? Yes that's a great idea. But motorized vessels need to be registered on navigable waterways, and trailers need to be registered for roadways so back to the original topic?
-
phil will probably turn the site into a parking lot for people that received the $10K to move here from the citys a place to park their prius while they are out riding bikes in the middle of the roads.
Yup, spot on. VT boasts itself as welcoming to hunting & fishing which is a joke compared to other states in the region. The price keeps going up and you’re getting less and less. It’s unfortunate they want to close the hatchery. It’s also quite possible Phil needs to get his diaper changed. ???
-
Adding more fees for licenses, kayak fees, etc. is just going to drive more people away from fishing. I personally know of quite a few people who stopped ice fishing after the bait law (which was supposed to be repealed after a couple of years) was implemented. This could be a result of some of the “old school” biologists that want only native trout. They stopped stocking Lakers in the NEK for a couple years now citing most of the ones they shock up are naturally reproducing fish. The browns and rainbows (except for steelhead) they stock are sterile and can’t reproduce. I’ve noticed a precipitous drop in trout numbers in smaller lakes like Echo, Island Pond, etc. I’ve heard from some younger biologists who absolutely disagree with the “old guard”. I don’t know if this part of the reason they want to shut it down but I find it hard to believe they couldn’t figure out the financial aspect. Our trout fishery is in serious trouble...typical VT unfortunately
I believe the bait law was implemented mainly to prevent unwanted invasive species from getting into the lake in addition to preventing disease not native to the lake from getting here. I understand heterosporis a parasitic perch disease can be spread from infected fathead minnows. I believe the main disease they are hoping to keep away is VHS (Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia). Probably only a matter of time though since it is in some of the Great Lakes.
-
Yup, spot on. VT boasts itself as welcoming to hunting & fishing which is a joke compared to other states in the region. The price keeps going up and you’re getting less and less. It’s unfortunate they want to close the hatchery. It’s also quite possible Phil needs to get his diaper changed. ???
The price hikes will continue as less and less people buy the licenses. The state pumps millions into the ski industry tourism but doesn't seem to care for the fishing and hunting contributions. The Department is internally funded so with less money coming in for license sales either overhead has to be cut back or rates rise. It is a catch 22 with the sportsmen getting the shaft.
-
From talking to a local warden the old guard biologists are almost all retired or are very close. The young ones are putting in good work, see new bait laws for next year... I think in time we will see a shift to stocking for survival not just stocking to stock... I would like to see the state analyze whether a trout centric stocking system is the best approach. I feel lakes like places like marshfield reservoir would be better suited as walleye fisheries than as put and take no hold over trout ponds.
-
Also fishing license sales are dead flat for the last 15 years... same today as they were in 04. Look at the graphs. There is no loss in fishermen, it’s hunters that are dropping like flies.
-
I haven't seen those graphs. Thanks for the info. Perhaps the fishing numbers remaining stable are attributed to the popularity of summer bass tournaments. Every weekend all summer there are tournaments on Champlain with many out of state participants who all need to buy both NY and Vt fishing licenses. Both the larger BASS and FLW tournaments often have 150 to 200 pros and back seaters most of which come from out of the area. It does seem at least from the ice fishing standpoint there are less people out there. Either way with the hunters aging out less money is coming into the Department.
-
Honestly (and I hate to say it) I will not fish VT. I have been to every other New England state and even hold licenses in a couple of them. The bait laws and fishing in general laws in this state are ridiculous. i does not seem like VT is very sportsman friendly. They sure make it tough.
-
Honestly (and I hate to say it) I will not fish VT. I have been to every other New England state and even hold licenses in a couple of them. The bait laws and fishing in general laws in this state are ridiculous. i does not seem like VT is very sportsman friendly. They sure make it tough.
What are you talking about? Vermont has the most diverse freshwater fishing in New England, and some of the most generous creel limits out there. Where else can you catch (and keep) a dozen brook trout daily, land monster steelhead, Salmon, browns, lakers, pike, muskee, gar, bowfin, drum, carp, whitefish, bass, and legally keep more white perch than you can physically pull off the ice? Where else are you legally allowed SHOOT some species of fish with a GUN? No where else in New England, that's for sure. Vermont is very sportsman friendly, relatively speaking, and that's one reason we are ranked 10th in the nation for the percentage of the population of active hunters, at 11.5%, second only to Maine for New England states. Vermont has the highest number of bucks harvested per square mile in New England as well. So, what is your basis for comparison?
As for bait laws, those are stringent to prevent our fisheries from being overrun with foreign invaders that could devastate our quality waters. Realistically, all they can do is slow things down though. States without as strict rules will only get overrun faster. Thank god we don't have the Eurasian Carp here (yet).
Outside of the Great Lakes, I would say you're not going to find better fishing around here than right here in Vermont.
-
Here is the response I got after sending a message yesterday.
Dear Adam:
Thank you for reaching out regarding Vermont’s fish hatcheries.
Due to continued structural cost pressures in state government, we began the budget-making process for state government with a $40 million deficit. Similarly, as is reflected in my FY20 budget proposal, the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s fiscal position continues to be challenging. Increased costs from staff benefits, internal service charges, and revenue shortfalls meant the Department was faced with an estimated $450,000 gap by the time the budget was due to be completed.
The Department continues to see a decrease in the number of annual hunting and fishing licenses sold. The number of resident fishing, hunting and combination licenses sold decreased by 3.3% from 2017 to 2018 and was down 7.6% in 2018 compared to the previous three-year average. These licenses generate over a third of all hunting and angling license and permit revenue. Net revenues for just these three licenses produced a loss of $85,149 between 2017 and 2018. Based on the 2018 license year, projections for license sales in future years have been downgraded. 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.
The Department leadership worked with Secretary Moore to evaluate a range of possible strategies for addressing the shortfall. This was difficult work and there were no easy choices; the budget reflects the most responsible approach given the short-term and long-term position of the Department. The proposed budget addresses the shortfall through a mix of increased General Fund allocation and budget reductions. Most notably, the budget includes a 4.9% increase in the Department’s General Fund allocation and the decommissioning of the Salisbury Fish Culture Station.
The reasons for proposing the decommissioning the Salisbury Fish Culture Station (SAFCS) as opposed to another fish hatchery are two-fold. First, SAFCS is the Department’s most expensive in terms of dollars per-pound of the fish produced. 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.
While my Administration remains committed to efforts to grow revenue streams related to hunting and fishing licenses, the non-game fund, conservation license plates, and the habitat stamp, the proposed budget begins the hard work needed to better match our operations to current revenues.
Put simply, the significant capital expenditures required for the SAFCS to meet water quality standards coupled with ongoing operating expenses of the facility are overwhelming.
To be clear, my Administration remains committed to continuing to invest in our fish hatcheries. These hatcheries foster both economic and recreational opportunities across Vermont. In October of 2018, we began reconstruction of the Roxbury Fish Hatchery severely damaged by Tropical Storm Irene. Similarly, in 2017, Department staff lead efforts to increase the energy efficiency, environmental impact, and cost savings of fish culture stations across the state. I’m proud of these efforts we’ve undertaken to improve our fish hatcheries throughout the state.
If you have any further questions regarding the SAFCS, please don’t hesitate to contact the Department directly (802-828-1000) or my office (802-828-3333).
Again, thank you for reaching out.
Sincerely,
Philip B. Scott
Governor
-
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?
-
Trout Unlimited is not your friend in this issue. They are the organization that wanted that hatchery closed. Just so no one states that I am taking it out of context, here is the paragraph in whole.
VII. Management of Cultured Trout (link to entire 117 page doc https://www.vttucouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Trout-Plan-2018-final.pdf)
Artificially reared, i.e. “cultured” trout provide an effective management tool for maintaining
recreational fisheries where adequate wild populations cannot be sustained due to physical or
environmental habitat limitations, particularly when these populations are subject to high fishing
pressure. In Vermont, many popular trout fisheries in ponds, lakes and large rivers are dependent
on the stocking of cultured trout. While an important component of many state fisheries agencies,
the large expense of cultured trout programs has raised questions of their economic, social and
ecological cost/benefit (Johnson et al. 1995, White et al. 1995, Loomis and Fix 1997, Ham and
Pearsons 2001). As fish culture comprises the majority of the fisheries management budget in
Vermont, this program must be managed effectively to meet fisheries management objectives and
ensure the greatest benefit to the angling community while avoiding or minimizing impacts to wild
trout and other aquatic populations. The use of cultured trout should not be considered an
alternative to the protection or restoration of suitable trout habitat. As with wild trout populations,
only when optimal habitat conditions are available for cultured trout, will their benefits be fully
realized.
Vermont fishermen need to read the entire report. They already banned bait, reduced catch limits and before you even realize they will ban everything but fly fishing and only a native trout species, brook, will be allowed in waters of Vermont. They want every dam removed, all land brought back to it's original habit as it was before Europeans settle America.
Trout Unlimited is extreme liberal environmental group set on destroying anything and everything not natural which is why TU are in a blitz here in Montana and Washington State.
More info on TU https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/trout-unlimited/
Tu site with more docs https://www.vttucouncil.org/?page_id=18
The plan to reduce catch limits by TU http://www.vpr.org/post/call-reduce-catch-limits-vermonts-native-trout
-
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?
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.
-
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.
You called it a rant when I posted TU actual documents? ::)
-
Dont worry guys if uncle bernie gets elected EVERYTHING will be free!!!!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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]
-
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)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Wow this is out of control Hahaha
-
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.
-
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 :)
I have no problem with them using launches too, I just feel they should have to help pay into the usage program.
Not sure how registration would work, or if there's another method to be had to make them help pay for access useage...but it needs to happen...and I know this opens up a can of worms on how bicycles use the roads, hikers use footpaths etc, but the point is the burden of paying for the access areas is falling on only a portion of those that actually use them which really isn't fair.
And just to clarify, I'm not one of those share the wealth, socialist mindset people.
Freeloaders do need to pay in & stop the free milk from the teet...
-
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.
You hit the nail squarely on the head!
-
And just to clarify, I'm not one of those share the wealth, socialist mindset people.
Freeloaders do need to pay in & stop the free milk from the teet...
I agree but as time goes on Vermont is going so far left that the center of the road isn't even within sight. Bernie and his socialist agenda seems to be the most popular lifestyle for a vast majority of the people who now call VT home. I am not a Phil Scott fan after his flip flopping on gun control but can see that his time as the top dawg in the state is numbered. Losing his veto power kind of makes this term an embarrassment. He can only accomplish what the liberal Legislature allows. I shudder to think how our second amendment rights will degrade. Buy em while you can.
-
I agree but as time goes on Vermont is going so far left that the center of the road isn't even within sight. Bernie and his socialist agenda seems to be the most popular lifestyle for a vast majority of the people who now call VT home. I am not a Phil Scott fan after his flip flopping on gun control but can see that his time as the top dawg in the state is numbered. Losing his veto power kind of makes this term an embarrassment. He can only accomplish what the liberal Legislature allows. I shudder to think how our second amendment rights will degrade. Buy em while you can.
Here we go again people attacking political views with nothing to back it. This is our issue!!!! I’m one of those far left people, but I was standing by your side at the gun marches. There are many liberals who are avid outdoorsman and want to protect our traditions. And a reminder that prior to Phil opening the door there was NEVER a chance even under democratic control for gun legislation.
The point of this post was to let fishermen and women know about this proposal and call for everyone to do their part by contacting their representatives. The proposal is from a republican governor so making it about the “Liberal agenda” is invalid. Let’s unite to stop this, not divide ourselves for now reason as that is how these things end up passing.
-
You are right back to the issue at hand of keeping the hatchery.
-
Let’s unite to stop this, not divide ourselves for now reason as that is how these things end up passing.
X2. The circular firing line has to stand down or the Salisbury hatchery is going to close. Tell the Governor and your reps that you want the hatchery open.
-
Fish and Wildlife ought to require a permit for non-motorized vessels that use the launches. This permit could be included in fishing licenses.
-
I'll be sending an email to my 2 reps and senator Mazza urging them to not close the hatchery later today.
-
https://governor.vermont.gov/contact-us/message
https://legislature.vermont.gov/people/
Done for Mazza, Mitzi and Morgan which represent me..
-
It needs to be pointed out that the Vermont Trout Management Plan is not a TU document. That report was written by several, but not all, Vermont state fisheries biologists. This plan can't used to determine if TU is a "friend" on the hatchery issue! They merely have a link to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife report on their website.
Trout Unlimited is not your friend in this issue. They are the organization that wanted that hatchery closed. Just so no one states that I am taking it out of context, here is the paragraph in whole.
VII. Management of Cultured Trout (link to entire 117 page doc https://www.vttucouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Trout-Plan-2018-final.pdf)
Artificially reared, i.e. “cultured” trout provide an effective management tool for maintaining
recreational fisheries where adequate wild populations cannot be sustained due to physical or
environmental habitat limitations, particularly when these populations are subject to high fishing
pressure. In Vermont, many popular trout fisheries in ponds, lakes and large rivers are dependent
on the stocking of cultured trout. While an important component of many state fisheries agencies,
the large expense of cultured trout programs has raised questions of their economic, social and
ecological cost/benefit (Johnson et al. 1995, White et al. 1995, Loomis and Fix 1997, Ham and
Pearsons 2001). As fish culture comprises the majority of the fisheries management budget in
Vermont, this program must be managed effectively to meet fisheries management objectives and
ensure the greatest benefit to the angling community while avoiding or minimizing impacts to wild
trout and other aquatic populations. The use of cultured trout should not be considered an
alternative to the protection or restoration of suitable trout habitat. As with wild trout populations,
only when optimal habitat conditions are available for cultured trout, will their benefits be fully
realized.
Vermont fishermen need to read the entire report. They already banned bait, reduced catch limits and before you even realize they will ban everything but fly fishing and only a native trout species, brook, will be allowed in waters of Vermont. They want every dam removed, all land brought back to it's original habit as it was before Europeans settle America.
Trout Unlimited is extreme liberal environmental group set on destroying anything and everything not natural which is why TU are in a blitz here in Montana and Washington State.
More info on TU https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/trout-unlimited/
Tu site with more docs https://www.vttucouncil.org/?page_id=18
The plan to reduce catch limits by TU http://www.vpr.org/post/call-reduce-catch-limits-vermonts-native-trout
-
It needs to be pointed out that the Vermont Trout Management Plan is not a TU document. That report was written by several, but not all, Vermont state fisheries biologists. This plan can't used to determine if TU is a "friend" on the hatchery issue! They merely have a link to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife report on their website.
Say what you feel but they used the same type of report here in Montana with the same quoted studies with the species name changed. This is their (TU) platform. TU is behind these wild trout only initiatives. Loomis, Johnson, White, Fix, Pearson quoted studies were all used in the cause for netting and killing thousands of Lake trout here in Montana from 2 extremely large lakes. Flathead Lake and Swan. The most important thing to remember is none of these studies were peer reviewed nor will they submit these studies for peer review. No one ever questions these studies for fear of being shut out.
-
The report is also on the Vermont Fish and Wildlife website. TU did not have a hand in writing it. Vermont TU may be helpful in keeping the hatchery open, it likely depends on local opinions. Some TU chapter have programs helping to stock trout. I cut and pasted the credits below.
Brook, Brown and Rainbow Trout
Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department
January
2018
Prepared by:
Rich Kirn, Fisheries Program Manager
Reviewed by:
Brian Chipman, Will Eldridge
, Jud Kratzer, Bret Ladago, Chet MacKenzie,
Adam Miller, Pete McHugh
, Lee Simard, Monty Walker, Lael Will
-
Look at Lee Simard, spawning behavior of invasive lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, Yellowstone National Park. still removing 400,000 lake trout a year from Yellowstone Lake.
Look at Pete McHugh He has worked professionally on issues ranging from non-native fish impacts in the Intermountain West and New Zealand to Chinook salmon fishery and stock assessments in the Pacific Northwest.
I won't list special deeds of everyone of them. Just to give you a clue of what your Meet the Staff assembly may be up to. https://vtfishandwildlife.com/about-us/department-divisions/meet-the-staff
Do your own background on them and find out the close ties and interest with TU. Then get a roster of TU in Vermont and see how many of the staff are members. Notices that a few of the ones you listed aren't on staff?
-
By the way, a peer review would not be done by staff, it is be reviewed by this organization https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ or https://www.nairo.org/
-
Look at Lee Simard, spawning behavior of invasive lake trout in Yellowstone Lake, Yellowstone National Park. still removing 400,000 lake trout a year from Yellowstone Lake.
Look at Pete McHugh He has worked professionally on issues ranging from non-native fish impacts in the Intermountain West and New Zealand to Chinook salmon fishery and stock assessments in the Pacific Northwest.
I won't list special deeds of everyone of them. Just to give you a clue of what your Meet the Staff assembly may be up to. https://vtfishandwildlife.com/about-us/department-divisions/meet-the-staff
Do your own background on them and find out the close ties and interest with TU. Then get a roster of TU in Vermont and see how many of the staff are members. Notices that a few of the ones you listed aren't on staff?
Dude, not really sure what point you're trying to make, other than Trout Unlimited = Bad, but I think you should stick to your local Montana gripes about them, and let us Vermonters handle things in our own backyard. Pretty sure if there was some TU connected cabal bent on ruining all things YOU cherish, we'd know about it...
-
Here, read this stuff.
https://www.tu.org/sites/default/files/offline/science/Eastern%20Brook%20Trout%20Conservation%20Portfolio,%20Range-wide,%20and%20Focal%20Area%20Assessment%20v1_0.pdf
-
Here, read this stuff.
https://www.tu.org/sites/default/files/offline/science/Eastern%20Brook%20Trout%20Conservation%20Portfolio,%20Range-wide,%20and%20Focal%20Area%20Assessment%20v1_0.pdf
Okay, TU wants to conserve brook trout habitat, here in their native range nonetheless... Sure sounds menacing to me...
-
In Vermont they want pure Brook Trout, no other trout species. They work their way there. Little by little. First make bait illegal, then reduce catch limits, then close hatcheries that bred other than Brook.
We didn't see it coming here in Montana. We all thought they were here to help. Surprise. Now, Vermont has roughly 60,000 fishermen, TU has 300,000 and more since every State employs them without the fishermen knowing. All your fishermen could stand and object which would matter none.
It happened here, the consensus and majority of the forum were against removal of Lake Trout. We were heard. They did it anyway.
I bid you fellows well. Thank You for your time and I won't take anymore of it.
-
In Vermont they want pure Brook Trout, no other trout species. They work their way there. Little by little. First make bait illegal, then reduce catch limits, then close hatcheries that bred other than Brook.
We didn't see it coming here in Montana. We all thought they were here to help. Surprise. Now, Vermont has roughly 60,000 fishermen, TU has 300,000 and more since every State employs them without the fishermen knowing. All your fishermen could stand and object which would matter none.
It happened here, the consensus and majority of the forum were against removal of Lake Trout. We were heard. They did it anyway.
I bid you fellows well. Thank You for your time and I won't take anymore of it.
Whatever man. We keep a pretty close leash on our state government over here, if this thread hasn't already been indicative of that to you... I personally know many of the state fisheries biologists well, and can tell you that TU is NOT in control of our waterways, and if even if they were, we'd know about it, even if they had a hidden agenda. Many of the folks on here are members of TU, adding further layers of transparency. You carry a pretty heavy burden of proof on your shoulders there bud, when you make your incoherent accusations against Trout Unlimited.
-
Whatever man. We keep a pretty close leash on our state government over here, if this thread hasn't already been indicative of that to you... I personally know many of the state fisheries biologists well, and can tell you that TU is NOT in control of our waterways, and if even if they were, we'd know about it, even if they had a hidden agenda. Many of the folks on here are members of TU, adding further layers of transparency. You carry a pretty heavy burden of proof on your shoulders there bud, when you make your incoherent accusations against Trout Unlimited.
Accusations are made via documents. Don't know what else I could provide. I certainly do not have voice or vid recordings. So most of the members on the Vermont threads are TU. That's Ok. You know some of the employees personally. That's OK. You keep a tight leash on the Government. OK.
With all that power you wield, they are still shutting it down. Way to control the tight leash there friend.
-
Accusations are made via documents. Don't know what else I could provide. I certainly do not have voice or vid recordings. So most of the members on the Vermont threads are TU. That's Ok. You know some of the employees personally. That's OK. You keep a tight leash on the Government. OK.
With all that power you wield, they are still shutting it down. Way to control the tight leash there friend.
Um, no. It's the GOVERNOR who is PROPOSING a shutdown of ONE hatchery, ostensibly for budget reasons... How you infer Trout Unlimited is behind this is beyond me.
-
It is stated in the report as the proposal. You have not read any of them apparently.
-
This is typical. Immediately start by trying to insult the messenger. TU tactics.
-
This is typical. Immediately start by trying to insult the messenger. TU tactics.
"TU tactics" - haha, you're too much man.
-
Thank You. ;D
-
Dude, not really sure what point you're trying to make, other than Trout Unlimited = Bad, but I think you should stick to your local Montana gripes about them, and let us Vermonters handle things in our own backyard. Pretty sure if there was some TU connected cabal bent on ruining all things YOU cherish, we'd know about it...
YET....not one person on here that I can see has mentioned TU’s desire to have the creel limit on brook trout reduced from 12 to 6. MAYBE this guy from Montana is just trying to open our eyes to the fact that TU may not always have traditional core values of Vermonters in mind. Example being there is no scientific data showing the need to reduce brook trout creel limits and that biologists in Vermont do not recommend the change...yet they charge along...just an issue we’ll be facing soon enough.
-
YET....not one person on here that I can see has mentioned TU’s desire to have the creel limit on brook trout reduced from 12 to 6. MAYBE this guy from Montana is just trying to open our eyes to the fact that TU may not always have traditional core values of Vermonters in mind. Example being there is no scientific data showing the need to reduce brook trout creel limits and that biologists in Vermont do not recommend the change...yet they charge along...just an issue we’ll be facing soon enough.
Or, maybe he's just stating something more absurd, which is that TU is some sort of puppet master over our state biologists and government. Hard to tell, because his arguments are incoherent, but that seems to be the implication from what I can gather. Who cares what TU states they would like to see? They are not in control of the Fish and Wildlife department. They can partner with F&W, and make suggestions, but at the end of the day, they aren't the ones writing the laws.
-
I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday. He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly. It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery. Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery. It is going to happen. The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient. Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program. Let's hope this is the case.
-
I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday. He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly. It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery. Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery. It is going to happen. The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient. Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program. Let's hope this is the case.
Thanks for the update, particularly on the last part. Hopefully there's little change in the stocking program, should the closure happen.
-
and what becomes of the site?
-
YET....not one person on here that I can see has mentioned TU’s desire to have the creel limit on brook trout reduced from 12 to 6. MAYBE this guy from Montana is just trying to open our eyes to the fact that TU may not always have traditional core values of Vermonters in mind. Example being there is no scientific data showing the need to reduce brook trout creel limits and that biologists in Vermont do not recommend the change...yet they charge along...just an issue we’ll be facing soon enough.
I attended a couple of the baitfish meetings and there was mention of brook trout creel limits, but i think this was specifically related to a certain area and waterbody.
-
So let me get this straight. The biologists, who are really “TU,” are arguing against the brook trout creel reduction? But TU is for the brook trout creek reduction?
-
Woah - this thread is atom-bomb mushrooming out of control - full meltdown - defcon 1 -
Anyone catching anything lately? Lol
-
I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday. He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly. It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery. Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery. It is going to happen. The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient. Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program. Let's hope this is the case.
I appreciate wild trout and honestly, I'd much rather catch a wild fish than a stocked one. The wild trout that I caught as a kid in Vermont - and that I and my kids still catch today - have value beyond measure. I sincerely hope that my grandchildren and their grandchildren will have a chance to catch wild six-inch brookies in a little mountain stream that runs by their house. Such fish started me on a lifetime journey that I have enjoyed beyond measure.
But just twenty years from now there will be another billion and a half people on the planet and global temperatures will be continuing to rise. At that point, when populations of wild Vermont trout are falling because of habitat degradation and warming waters, it will probably cost tens of millions of dollars to build a new hatchery just to maintain Vermont's trout populations. We'll look back then and kick ourselves because we were talked into letting the Salisbury hatchery close because it cost just $7.5 million to upgrade and $250,000 a year to run.
-
I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday. He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly. It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery. Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery. It is going to happen. The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient. Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program. Let's hope this is the case.
I got an email back from him stating the same. LOOKS LIKE THE HATCHERY WILL BE CLOSING.
-
Condolences. :(
-
First, TU does not want this hatchery to close. I attended the meeting last week in Burlington and a lot of people were angry. The way I see it TU does more good than harm for all of us and that’s why I’m a member.
Second, this isn’t a dems vs rebublican game. Part of the reason this country is crumbling now is because of that mentality and the division of people. Now is the time to band together and ensure we have trout fishing far into the future.
$250,000 is chump change in the grand scheme of things. $12 million to repair the hatchery to current standards is the issue. Let’s turn this forum into something useful.
Does anyone have experience with filtration systems for for fairly large discharge facilities like hatcheries? What grants are available to modernize facilities such as this hatchery?
We have a lot of really smart and great fisherman that post on this forum. There’s no time for arguing, let’s be politically active and come up with a feasible solution to the problem at hand. Otherwise our fishing will be crap for the next 10-20 years.
-
If you have 60,000 fishermen who are willing to anti up $650 each, then you can make it happen. You will need a budget of approximately $3.3 for purchase of site, design, DEQ, EPA, Permits, and I don't know how much for the powers that will control and oversee the project inspections. There will be a lot of retaliation from powers in disguise. Another $1.5 mil set aside to cover the law suits.
The business structure will have to be determine by a revolving board, with no one person having actual ownership. The amount collected (if you have 60,000 fishermen) will allow the plant hatchery to be built to match or exceed discharge regulations now and in the future. There will be enough to operate for a period of 20 years, if $ 17,000,000 is use for design, draft and completion, then $17,200,000 is used for operation and upgrades of the facility. There are hundreds of costs obviously not explained here but none the less are direct costs.
Continued funding after the period of 20 years would be reliant on the efforts of the board to stage fund raisers, donations, etc.
I do piping CAD. Willing to donate time after a design is approved.
-
mighty expensive bird food. i think the state has figured out they can feed the cormorants much cheaper with pan fish.
-
I spoke with my representative Leland Morgan on Friday. He informed me that It would cost $7M for a filtering system that is required to keep the hatchery open after its permit expires shortly. It currently cost $250,000 a year to run the hatchery. Between those two things it has been decided to close the hatchery. It is going to happen. The plan is to distribute what was being raised in Salsbury to other hatcheries by making the other hatcheries more efficient. Leland said we should not see much of a change across the state with our current stocking program. Let's hope this is the case.
Well this Leland guy is wrong and towing the Scott admin line. Look at the proposal. They want you to believe that not stocking any trout in statewide will have no impact. That is false. Don’t bend over and take it. Look at the Champlain salmon fishery, 2 years where the fish stocked didn’t take well, and the ENTIRE fishery basically collapsed, and that was with stocking, just low survival.
The lifespan of a rainbow or brown trout is give or take 4-5 years. That means that a 1 year old fish stocked, has 3-4 lake years in it, that’s assuming 100% survival.
The reality is the vast majority of our stocked fish are caught in the first year.
The state plan is to halt fish stocking for browns and rainbows for 2022, 2023, and 2024. If that happens tell me how many fish from the 2021 and 2020 stocking classes will be left to catch. For lakes with browns and bows, we will not see a return of “normal” until 2027-28 in all likelihood. For lakers it’s much worse.no stocking from 2022 until 2028, because of longer lives the laker fishing will seem ok for a longer time, as the bows and browns disappear more will target lakers, but those 10-12 and 15 lb 30-35 inch lakers take 10-15 years to reach that size. So as stocks in lakes drop off we will be left in 2028 with a bunch of 11 inch lakers, that will take until the mid 2030’s to reach maturity. Call me crazy but an impact felt for over a decade is quite the impact.
-
Well this Leland guy is wrong and towing the Scott admin line. Look at the proposal. They want you to believe that not stocking any trout in statewide will have no impact. That is false. Don’t bend over and take it. Look at the Champlain salmon fishery, 2 years where the fish stocked didn’t take well, and the ENTIRE fishery basically collapsed, and that was with stocking, just low survival.
The lifespan of a rainbow or brown trout is give or take 4-5 years. That means that a 1 year old fish stocked, has 3-4 lake years in it, that’s assuming 100% survival.
The reality is the vast majority of our stocked fish are caught in the first year.
The state plan is to halt fish stocking for browns and rainbows for 2022, 2023, and 2024. If that happens tell me how many fish from the 2021 and 2020 stocking classes will be left to catch. For lakes with browns and bows, we will not see a return of “normal” until 2027-28 in all likelihood. For lakers it’s much worse.no stocking from 2022 until 2028, because of longer lives the laker fishing will seem ok for a longer time, as the bows and browns disappear more will target lakers, but those 10-12 and 15 lb 30-35 inch lakers take 10-15 years to reach that size. So as stocks in lakes drop off we will be left in 2028 with a bunch of 11 inch lakers, that will take until the mid 2030’s to reach maturity. Call me crazy but an impact felt for over a decade is quite the impact.
Where do you see that the state plans to stop stocking? This doesn’t appear anywhere that I’ve seen...
-
In the analysis that FW provided as part of the proposal. Can’t find it on their site, likely not a public doc, but was shared out on a different site.
https://doc-0g-54-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/d2m8gr4v9phgi0jhd3c0cgpcnc6h5f9g/1549879200000/09661348033359379843/*/1D97T0jUvaMGdiIHgIJbubMNCHAllWOA5?e=
-
In the analysis that FW provided as part of the proposal. Can’t find it on their site, likely not a public doc, but was shared out on a different site.
https://doc-0g-54-docs.googleusercontent.com/docs/securesc/ha0ro937gcuc7l7deffksulhg5h7mbp1/d2m8gr4v9phgi0jhd3c0cgpcnc6h5f9g/1549879200000/09661348033359379843/*/1D97T0jUvaMGdiIHgIJbubMNCHAllWOA5?e=download
Page is restricted and will not load
-
copy the full url instead of trying to click the hyperlink... it cut the link off halfway down the address.
-
Here is the important part:
The need to move broodstock to other state fish culture facilities to provide eggs for the VT
fish culture program - Given the fact that Salisbury Fish Culture Station has a prevalence of
having the fish disease furunculosis, the only way that a full swap of broodstock could occur
would be with the distribution of eggs to be grown out for broodstock for other hatcheries. This
would result in one of two scenarios:
o VTFWD would need to forgo stocking fish statewide until the new broodstock grow to
the point that they reach sexual maturity and can produce eggs for statewide stocking.
Gaps between stocking would be as follows.
▪ Brook trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 and 2023 seasons.
▪ Brown and rainbow trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 – 2024
seasons.
▪ Steelhead – no yearling steelhead stockings for 2022 - 2025 seasons.
▪ Lake trout – no yearling lake trout stockings for 2022 – 2027 seasons.
-
Just read it.
So this culture station has an issue with clean water discharge, the spawn get skin boils (furnunculosis) and currently the state has no means of spawning VT specific cultures from the other statewide hatcheries.
The dilemma is either close the place down because the clean water act compliance costs too much, or find the money (which the state doesn't have) to rebuild and bring into compliance.
As for broodstocks, the other dilemma is to close the place down and stop the spawning of broodstock that sends the product to the statewide hatcheries, or purchase from out of state which has the issue of not having VT strains.
Kicked the can down the road with CWA compliance for so long it's hit the curb and bounced back up to hit our collective faces...
Seems like every administration has deferred/deflected/sidestepped the clean water act issue for quite some time (at least 20 years, since Dean/Douglas) on dealing with the water discharge issues at this fish culture station and the hatcheries.
Not sure there's any way to fix this. Perhaps the VT strains could be made possible out of state, but I'm sure there are unintended consequences for doing this option if it's even feasible.
Fixing & upgrading would be very expensive, and the way our state legislature is leaning, IDK if they'd even raise an eyebrow towards this as they seem bent on more frontline social issues and this means the monies needed to handled any of this is going elsewhere.
Upgrading the hatcheries to accommodate broodstock cultures has bigtime issues with staff/finding space/discharge permits etc.
Bottom line IMO is the state, regardless of who/which administration/political party is in power, they need to stop kicking the clean water act and EPA issues down the road and seriously come up with a way to deal with compliance while not raising taxes on all of us or raising license/registration fees (taxes) because they won't do their jobs!
Regardless of party affiliation or liberal/conservative leanings, our state elected officials need to do their job and stop funding BS studies/fringe social issues etc. and deal with managing what is tangible: our state waterways/secondary tourism (fishing).
To lose this station is a blow that they admit in the write up that will impact us all financially as a state.
Decommissioning of the Salisbury Fish Culture Station in FY20 would have the following programmatic
impacts:
• The need to move broodstock to other state fish culture facilities to provide eggs for the VT
fish culture program - Given the fact that Salisbury Fish Culture Station has a prevalence of
having the fish disease furunculosis, the only way that a full swap of broodstock could occur
would be with the distribution of eggs to be grown out for broodstock for other hatcheries. This
would result in one of two scenarios:
o VTFWD would need to forgo stocking fish statewide until the new broodstock grow to
the point that they reach sexual maturity and can produce eggs for statewide stocking.
Gaps between stocking would be as follows.
▪ Brook trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 and 2023 seasons.
▪ Brown and rainbow trout – no catchable sized trout stocking for 2022 – 2024
seasons.
▪ Steelhead – no yearling steelhead stockings for 2022 - 2025 seasons.
▪ Lake trout – no yearling lake trout stockings for 2022 – 2027 seasons.
o Eggs would need to be purchased or secured from out of state sources.
▪ Brook trout, brown trout, rainbow trout, and steelhead – most likely purchased
from a private corporation (i.e. Troutlodge); however eggs would not be of the
right genetic strain and would have the potential to significantly impact the wild
trout population in VT. This would be an environmentally risky and financially
costly endeavor and result in the discontinuation of “strain critical” stockings (i.e.
the Willougby River steelhead program), as well as other concerns with
availability, biosecurity, etc.
▪ Lake trout - would need to be secured from the White River National Fish
Hatchery pending availability.
-
Lol - what a joke! I’m from Massachusetts. Won’t be buying a VT license next year, or the year after, or the year after...
New Hampshire here I come!
-
https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-save-the-salisbury-fish-hatchery-and-trout-fishing-in-vermont?recruiter=481857506&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition
Please sign this petition we have almost 800 signatures so far, I think if we can get a bunch more we can put the pressure on, and get a solution that works for everyone!
-
https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-save-the-salisbury-fish-hatchery-and-trout-fishing-in-vermont?recruiter=481857506&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition
Please sign this petition we have almost 800 signatures so far, I think if we can get a bunch more we can put the pressure on, and get a solution that works for everyone!
signed
-
i signed it. looks like there will be 1000 signatures before lunch.
-
https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-save-the-salisbury-fish-hatchery-and-trout-fishing-in-vermont?recruiter=481857506&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition
Please sign this petition we have almost 800 signatures so far, I think if we can get a bunch more we can put the pressure on, and get a solution that works for everyone!
Signed
-
Signed.
-
We have crossed 1000 signatures in just over a day. there are over 100k fisherpeople in the state, hopefully the signatures keep coming in, and we can present it with hundreds of comments on the importance of the hatchery to the governor and Louis Porter.
-
Very Nice Job!
-
Over 2000 signatures! Keep them coming! I will be working on getting the petition to the governors office some time next week.
-
Signed today 2/14/19
-
good editorial in addison paper
http://www.addisonindependent.com/201902editorial-closing-hatchery-worse-just-lousy-math-its-poor-policy
-
That was a good read and certainly presents another side of the issue.
-
good editorial in addison paper
http://www.addisonindependent.com/201902editorial-closing-hatchery-worse-just-lousy-math-its-poor-policy
GREAT READ, TO THE POINT!
I also brought this up and take issue with where they measure the pollutants in the water stream...
Me thinks DEC/ANR is not playing fair because the statement in the articles says the only location that changed where they measure is Salisbury...seems odd that suddenly the hatchery is out of compliance, not to mention the amount of poop water Rutland/Burlington and other city's let overflow into Champlain.
"One caveat is that the Salisbury hatchery does not currently pass federal water quality standards by virtue of a change in where the effluent point of compliance is measured. Currently the effluent, which contains phosphorus, is measured immediately outside the hatchery. A decade ago, the Vt. Department of Environmental Conservation (part of the Agency of Natural Resources) measured the effluent at the point before it entered Halmon Brook, a half mile downstream, and the hatchery was easily in compliance. Since then the DEC changed the rules. It turns out, however, the Salisbury hatchery is the only one at which the effluent is measured immediately outside the facility, while the others are measured after the effluent is diluted into nearby streams. The cost to bring the Salisbury hatchery into compliance is estimated at $12 million, but two options are obvious: the DEC or ANR could reassess its effluent point of compliance and revert to its historic point (as it was a decade ago), or the state could spend the $12 million as a capital improvement to the hatchery (financed over many years and therefore not present a budgetary concern.)
But let’s be real: Should the ANR be a stickler over this tiny bit of effluent from a single hatchery when it consistently turns a blind eye to the millions of gallons of wastewater dumped into Lake Champlain annually by sewage treatment plants throughout the Champlain basin? That is absurd. With the stroke of a pen, this could be reverted to its historic monitoring point, thus eliminating this self-imposed $12 million threat."
-
Fantastic article. Thanks for posting! I signed the petition and urged others to do so as well.
-
just like most "studies" you can bend one variable to get the outcome you want.
-
Here is a link to a Dave Graham interview with Louis on 2/14 on WDEV. It doesn't start until the 2nd hour of the show however you can fast forward to it. https://wdevradio.com/statehouse-tranquility-heart-health-hatchery-might-close/
-
BUMP
-
Signed, will pass the word..
-
STOCK
-
Hopefully with no veto power Flip Flop Phil will decide the job isn't to his liking and not run again. Too bad a viable candidate wasn't running against him last year. His sell out on the gun control and pot legalization means at least to me he is a classic case of RINO. Those people who are concerned about last years change of campaign promises better be prepared for the next step.
Vt is a bastion of liberal idealogy with a Republican Gov in name only.
-
Perhaps there is some good news on the Salisbury hatchery situation. A letter received from the Governor today says:
"...However, after calling a meeting with over a dozen stakeholders, we are now collectively working on a temporary financial fix in order to continue operations at the SAFCS as we transition to a long term solution. This will include addressing concerns over the production of broodstock trout. My Administration is currently examining ways we can expand capacity at other hatcheries and spread out the production of broodstock trout to existing locations to we don't rely on one facility to perform this important function.
"I want to be clear: I fully recognize the vital importance our fish hatcheries play in our outdoor recreation economy. That's why my Administration is fully committed to not only continuing the hard work at many of our fish hatcheries, but building on and expanding this work. It's critically important we increase the capacity of the other fish hatcheries around Vermont so all the eggs aren't in one basket so to speak...."
Has anyone heard about this "stakeholder meeting" that the Governor is referring to?
-
I got this at last Friday from a local rep. Seems like positive news as well:
115 STATE STREET MONTPELIER, VT 05633-5201
PHONE: (802) 828-2228 FAX: (802) 828-2424
Rep. Janet Ancel
Chair, House Committee on
Ways and Means
Vermont House of Representatives
Dear Chair Ancel:
STATE OF VERMONT
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 14, 2019
We are writing to you on behalf of all members of the Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife to recommend that the fees on the hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses issued by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) be increased to offset budget shortfalls at DFW caused by increased personal services costs and decreased revenues from license sales.
Vermont maintains a long and valued tradition of hunting, fishing, and trapping reflected most notably in the right under the Vermont Constitution for State citizens to hunt and fowl. However, as the average age of State citizens increases, the number of residents obtaining hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses decreases. As a result, the annual revenues from the sale of hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses have declined steadily since 1990.
These revenue decreases are reflected in DFW’s proposed FY 2020 budget. From 2017 to 2018, the number of resident fishing, hunting, and combination licenses sold decreased by 3.3% and decreased 7.6% in 2018 compared to the previous 3-year average. Consequently, DFW is facing approximately $474,809.00 in lost fee revenue in FY 2020.
To offset its budget shortfall, DFW is proposing to defund programs important to the support and protection of the State’s fish and wildlife. Specifically, DFW proposes to decommission the Salisbury Fish Culture Station, which provides 20% to 25% of the fish stocked in Vermont Waters. DFW also proposes eliminating in its entirety the grant to the University of Vermont’s Cooperative Research Unit that focuses on fish and wildlife research. DFW also proposes reducing a fishing promotion sub-grant by half. The Committee also is concerned that budget shortfalls will reduce the amount of DFW staff time available during the Act 250 process for review of potential impacts on critical wildlife habitat or ecologically sensitive areas.
The Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife strongly recommends that the General Assembly reject DFW’s proposal to defund these important programs. Instead, the Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife recommends a modest
VT LEG #338882 v.1
4% fee increase for resident hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses and an 8% increase on all nonresident licenses. The Joint Fiscal Office has developed a spreadsheet with the recommended dollar amount of increase for each license type.
These proposed fee increases are overdue. DFW has not proposed extensive fee increases for over eight years, instead recommending individual or piecemeal increases annually. In addition, because license fees in neighboring states are comparable or higher than the proposed fees, the proposed fee increases would not put Vermont at a competitive disadvantage regionally in attracting hunters, anglers, and trappers.
Funding of fish and wildlife departments is a national problem as license revenues decrease in almost every state in the country. Cutting, defunding, or decommissioning important programs that support the fish and wildlife of the State is not the answer to revenue losses from decreased license sales. The State should instead look to address the problem comprehensively by identifying new funding sources for DFW programs.
The Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife plans to review alternatives for DFW funding. During this review, the State should not establish a precedent of offsetting DFW license revenue shortfalls by cutting important programs. Instead, the Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife asks that the modest proposed increases to license fees be included in the fee bill to fully fund all of DFW’s important programs.
If you need additional information or would like a member of the Committee on Natural Resources, Fish, and Wildlife to testify before your committee, please contact Laura Bozarth at (802) 828-2266.
Sincerely,
Rep. Amy Sheldon
Chair, Committee on Natural
Resources, Fish, and Wildlife
Rep. Paul Lefebvre
Vice Chair, Committee on Natural
Resources, Fish, and Wildlife
VT LEG #338882 v.1
-
Positive news, indeed.
-
Probably wouldn’t have taken this turn without the public outcry. Good job everyone. :tipup:
-
I really don’t care either way. if they stocked it with fish to reproduce in the wild it would be one thing but they’re just put in to be caught. plus they taste horrible so I could go either way
-
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.
And here it is.....https://www.wcax.com/content/news/Higher-fee-for-fishing-hunting-licenses-save-hatchery-507739551.html
Thank you to Kieth87 for bringing this to our attention and spurring fishermen to action. Thanks also to everyone who signed his electronic petition, talked to their reps, and wrote letters to the governor. Well done.
-
Good work Keith and all those who petitioned. :clap: :thumbsup:
-
Nice work Keith! $2 I am happy to spend.
-
Great to see all the fisherman pull together and bring our voice to the forefront. It would be a terrible loss to stream fishing for all the kids, visitors that come from out of state, people who are handicap & elderly people that can't travel far from the road to lose the current inland water stocking system. Thanks to everyone that spoke up!
-
While this is a victory in the short term, if this has showed me anything it is that we need to NOT be so reliant on the hatcheries. We need to get the useless dam's removed, we need to reclaim rivers, and spawning habitat. We need to address ag based nutrient pollution. We need to address cities and towns combines sewage overflows. We need to tell vTrans not to dump 280000000LB of salt on the roads (Yeah that is JUST state roads so far this year, not including town roads, and private roads). We need to make sure that those who log are using best practices when logging areas in headwaters. For too long we have destroyed nature for our own comfort, and that puts us in this spot where one hatchery controls whether or not there is trout fishing in the state.
-
Personally I could go either way about halting the stocking of trout. If they stocked them to breed in the wild I’m for it but putting them in just to be caught and no chance of them reproducing seems like a waste of time and money
-
i wonder what happens to the 2$ after the 4 years are up. they want 2 more dollars? they reduce the cost? also what became of the water test distance issue resulting in the huge cost for the filtration. like i said this is the results of poor management.