|
Post by dennyf on Feb 17, 2013 9:00:47 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Feb 17, 2013 15:05:19 GMT -5
Well, I think that everyone needs to start being "proactive" rather than "reactive"
The agencies both need to better learn to communicate with the legislature. That said; the legislature needs to better communicate with our resource agencies.
Alloway won't even talk to Carl. I was in the office when he tried. NOPE. But Alloway is mad at him for something he did. OK. We get that. What the hell was it? How is Carl supposed to know if Alloway won't even talk to him?
Its childish.
Perhaps Arway told Alloway; but Alloway didn't have the courtesy to tell Corman.
Someone somewhere needs to figure out a chain of command as in who is allowed to talk to who; and a key with "If" then "what" kind of things.
For example, something happens in Scarnatt's district. Someone from the agency needs to not only tell the Chairman of the Committee (Alloway); but then WHO tells Scarnatti? Why HAVE a Committee chairman if he isn't going to fill in the Senator whose district is involved?
I was in operations and logistics at MALS-13.
I kept status reports for all of the units equipement. Lets say we had 10 Harriers down for maintenance. It was MY responsibility to let the Commanding officer know that. It was HIS responsibility to let HIS higher ups know that.
Power plants told me, I told the CO- who told Washington.
It wasn't powerplants job to call Washington. It wasn't MY job to call them, it was my commanding officers job. Seems to me that "ability" to share the information is lacking.
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Feb 17, 2013 19:24:22 GMT -5
I don't know how to tell them this, but with the direction they're taking the trout program they're going to lose anglers anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Feb 17, 2013 19:57:05 GMT -5
I don't pay attention to fish issues, so, what do you mean about the direction of the trout program?
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Feb 17, 2013 20:05:06 GMT -5
There will be fewer trout stocked, and streams are coming off of the stocking list. That is the direction the program is headed. They are going to lose anglers I can practically guarantee it. They just spent over 3 million on a hatchery that they're closing down. Some of the moves they make are baffling to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Feb 17, 2013 20:07:40 GMT -5
But if you have fewer anglers, why stock the same numbers of trout, in the same numbers of streams.
I will say this, having a camp on Pine Creek in Tioga County since 1968, trout season has become nonexistent, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Feb 17, 2013 20:19:33 GMT -5
But if you have fewer anglers, why stock the same numbers of trout, in the same numbers of streams. Agreed but they stated they don't want to lose anglers from where they're at right now. That is going to happen even more so with the changes coming. I realize that if there is no money there's no money to keep it at the current status quo. The whole trout program needs an overhaul anyway if you ask me. lol
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Feb 17, 2013 20:44:00 GMT -5
Well, I don't think I asked you. ;D
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Feb 17, 2013 22:41:23 GMT -5
The agencies needed regular and reasonable fee increases for years now- BOTH of them. The legislature is using Game's resources from natural gas as a reason to not give them a fee increase, but they also know (because I TOLD them and SHOWED them) that 50 CFR 80 won't allow them to spend that revenue but in a few places.
What happens when the wells go dry so to speak? HUGE increases in fees and LOTS will leave all at once.
Had they allowed $1 increases (let the agency set the pace) every year, or every other; then we wouldn't have this problem.
I swear to God, some of our legislature cares more about the vote than doing whats right. They need whipping boys and its traditionally been game and fish.
|
|