Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Inland Fisheries 2018 Regulation Update

  1. #11
    12 Point AGust82's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Plainville
    Posts
    564
    Quote Originally Posted by ctrider View Post
    Iíve never understood stocking fish - same with pheasants. Unless youíre trying to boost a native population, why do we spend money as a state and then as anglers to go catch these fish somebody dumped in after being raised at a farm on fish food. Donít get me wrong, it was pretty cool to pull up a salon ice fishing- just seems money spent on enhancing the local ecosystem would be the best overall, even if it meant lower bag limits.
    I agree entirely. It's tough to get excited about pool raised trout that eat dog food. And although fun hunting, I think it should be obvious by now that pheasants are a silly endeavor. A non-native species with no chance of survival. May as well be stocking iguanas. I'd like to see money/effort go towards improving more sustainable species.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by AGust82 View Post
    I agree entirely. It's tough to get excited about pool raised trout that eat dog food. And although fun hunting, I think it should be obvious by now that pheasants are a silly endeavor. A non-native species with no chance of survival. May as well be stocking iguanas. I'd like to see money/effort go towards improving more sustainable species.
    The iguanas comment made me laugh. Especially the recent cold spell Florida had that had them falling out of the trees

  3. #13
    14 pointer WoodsmanA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Northwest CT
    Posts
    1,746
    Images
    1
    Haha! Whatís the bag limit on these iguanas?

    Iíd rather eat a swamp pickerel than a trout that was fed crap itís whole life. Iím sure the state is making a killing off stocking fish for the sport of it because those fish attract the anglers. All those sold fishing licenses and now even more off the trout stamps... thatís a lot of money. The rivers out this way are pretty much controlled by New Yorkers and will continue to be. How much are they spending on out of state fishing licenses? If all that money actually went directly to conservation Iíd support stocking a little more...
    Licensed Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator
    www.PAWServicesCT.com

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by ctrider View Post
    Iíve never understood stocking fish - same with pheasants. Unless youíre trying to boost a native population, why do we spend money as a state and then as anglers to go catch these fish somebody dumped in after being raised at a farm on fish food. Donít get me wrong, it was pretty cool to pull up a salon ice fishing- just seems money spent on enhancing the local ecosystem would be the best overall, even if it meant lower bag limits.
    This is an excellent idea.

  5. #15
    10 Point Mallard870's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Northeastern CT
    Posts
    384
    Some good points mentioned here. Not to derail the thead but the more I think about it, this trout stamp sounds a whole lot like the idea they had to pool together all turkey permits and the pheasant stamps under the "Resident Bird Stamp." Shouldn't we be more concerned with bolstering our native species like turkey than indirectly using those funds to keep the pheasant stocking program alive. If the sale of turkey permits actually did go towards conservation before (separate permits for state/private for spring/fall and a permit for fall bow), there's even less money in that "fund" now (one $25 stamp). Not sure why I'm surprised to see this state make another backwards decision about something.

  6. #16
    12 Point
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Hartland, CT
    Posts
    552
    Quote Originally Posted by ctrider View Post
    Iíve never understood stocking fish - same with pheasants. Unless youíre trying to boost a native population, why do we spend money as a state and then as anglers to go catch these fish somebody dumped in after being raised at a farm on fish food. Donít get me wrong, it was pretty cool to pull up a salon ice fishing- just seems money spent on enhancing the local ecosystem would be the best overall, even if it meant lower bag limits.
    Totally.

    Iíd rather we had more grouse than pheasant.

    Did the Stateís costs for fish stocking go up to suddenly warrant the need for a stamp? Or did they impose a stamp just because they can? I am guessing the stamp money isnít going back anywhere near the stocking of fish. Itís going to go support the guvmint...

  7. #17
    Forkhorn swalter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    South Windsor
    Posts
    59
    The stamp is to ensure funding for the hatcheries, similar to the pheasant program. Malloy proposed hatchery closures in just about every one of his budgets:

    "Another of Malloyís favorite targets for budget cuts is the fish hatcheries. Malloy proposed closing the stateís three fish hatcheries and laying off the 17 staff that work there. The $1.1 million in savings from the measure would require them to close by Jan. 1, 2016."
    http://www.ctnewsjunkie.com/archives/entry/not_a_lot_of_surprises_in_malloys_latest_proposal_ for_budget_cuts/


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •