Willi wrote in message ...
What change(s) would you like to see in how your State manages its
fisheries?

I'd say manage more waters for native trout.

(What I'd REALLY like are stream access laws like they have in Montana
but that's not a management issue)

My biggest complaint that could be addressed specifically by the PA
Fish & Boat Commission is the 'visible license' clause. I hate that
damned license holder--it's always in the way, whether pinned to hat
or vest, front, back or side. I'd just as well keep it in my wallet
and be required to produce it on demand. Sounds small, but it's one
of those 'quality of life' issues to me.

I won't even start with the strange distinction between the PA Dept.
of Transportation, PA Fish & Boat Commission and PA Game Commission.
Why DOT doesn't have *all* modes of mechanized transportation under
it's purview is beyond me. They are actually considering a new 'Fish
& Game' commission/dept., but in typical gov't. fashion the entrenched
bureaucrats will do everything short of armed rebellion to fight it.
Now that I think about it, armed rebellion is a distinct
possibility...

IMO, the state doesn't manage anything other than their own revenues.
They sell licenses, stock fish and issue citations. They try to sell
as many licenses as possible (ditto issuing citations) and stock as
many fish as cheaply as they can. PA is now buying trout from private
hatcheries in North Carolina for direct stocking into PA streams &
rivers. How this can be good for anyone outside of NC is (again)
beyond me.

I'd prefer an increased focus on habitat reclamation & improvements
like fish ladders over (or the elimination of) Susquehanna River dams
and a campaign to reclaim old coal mining sites in order to reduce
acid runoff. The Fish Commission is (to their credit) working on the
Susquehanna situation but wouldn't even consider the acid/coal mine
problem. They'd probably refer any complaints to DEP or Forestry. I
want Shad runs and Sturgeon fishing--not lower speed limits on popular
recreational boating waters.

PA is hard on 'point source' polluters but mostly ignores 'non-point
source' polluters. For example, the (private) hatchery on Elk Creek
(near Coburn) suffers almost every winter from 'non-point source'
pollution from the dairy farm uphill from his spring. The farmer
spreads manure all over frozen fields and every time it rains or thaws
dramatically he has dead fish. By spreading the manure the farmer
creates a 'non-point source' of pollution. OTOH, if the farmer put
that manure into a holding tank and it leaked into the creek DEP would
be all over it--fines, cleanup, etc. The blind eye toward the (much
more common) non-point source pollution is a perfect example of the
farm lobby's disproportionate influence in PA politics.

The tip of the iceberg,
Tom G