Hereford Manor

As far as I know nothing has been determined yet as to the future of the lake.  Here's the last story I saw.

http://www.ellwoodcityledger.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20418217&BRD=2724&PAG=461&dept_id=563781&rfi=6

How many would support either of these two options. Considering that funding from any other source, while perhaps preferrable, is VERY unlkely?

One of those migrating fishermen was Gergely, who represents southeastern Allegheny County in Harrisburg. He proposed that the Fish and Boat Commission take out a bond and pay for it with a $2 surcharge on fishing licenses to repair dams statewide.

Barner said a license surcharge, known as a "stamp" would be a tough sell to fishermen statewide. A basic resident fishing license costs $22.70 for 2010.

"Some of the anglers would have heartburn with a $2 increase," Barner said.

Gergely, an avid fisherman, suggested an access fee for boat launching permits could raise $800,000 for a $1 fee, or $1.6 million for a $2 fee, which would enable the commission to make bond payments for dam repairs not just at Hereford Manor, but in all 17 of the commission-owned lakes.

Ball said he has approached the state Office of Surface Mining for funding under the Title IV of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which charges coal companies for damage done in former strip mining operations like the ones at Hereford Manor.

"Hereford Manor is the only Fish and Boat Commission dam on a former mining site and therefore the only facility that would qualify for Title IV funds. The state will receive $44 million in 2010 and could get $1.1 billion by 2022.

But those efforts have met with no success. The Office of Surface Mining has given no indication of any effort to help build new dams at Hereford Manor. Ball said surface mining representatives said Title IV funding was intended to address acid mine drainage, not build or repair dams.

Some of that money has gone to private property owners, which Ball said was ridiculous when public facilities like Hereford Manor need funding. Matzie agreed and said public property should get first consideration for the money."

The cash is already there, the govt. just won't give it to them.  Why pay more for nothing?

Honestly, I would support either measure if the money would actually be used responsibly and for what it was intended.  I do, however, believe that lakes like Hereford would have been better suited in the hands of sportsman's clubs.

total bull**** is all i got to say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

How many would support either of these two options. Considering that funding from any other source, while perhaps preferrable, is VERY unlkely?

One of those migrating fishermen was Gergely, who represents southeastern Allegheny County in Harrisburg. He proposed that the Fish and Boat Commission take out a bond and pay for it with a $2 surcharge on fishing licenses to repair dams statewide.

Barner said a license surcharge, known as a "stamp" would be a tough sell to fishermen statewide. A basic resident fishing license costs $22.70 for 2010.

"Some of the anglers would have heartburn with a $2 increase," Barner said.

Gergely, an avid fisherman, suggested an access fee for boat launching permits could raise $800,000 for a $1 fee, or $1.6 million for a $2 fee, which would enable the commission to make bond payments for dam repairs not just at Hereford Manor, but in all 17 of the commission-owned lakes.

i ceratainly would have no problem paying another $2 IFFFFFF the $$$ is used for what it is supposed to be used for.

in my opinion there may indeed be people that would have "heartburn" if the license was raised. however, i dont disagree with these people being upset. imo if youre going to raise the license, raise the license and set the agenda on what the $$$ is going to be used/needed for. plan ahead and raise the license so that you dont have these reports that lakes are going to be drained/closed, dams need rebuilt, trout cost more $$$, hatcheries need repaired, etc... imo the people that will have "heartburn" are people that may feel as though theyre being "nickel and dimed" with talk about raising fees, junior license, etc... raise it to what its going to take to do whats needed and be done with it. just sayin'

true all dat!!! unfortunately, corruption has spoiled the publics trust which imo is why people will get "heartburn" over the extra $2. gonna be a real shame if they close down hereford.

as to the boating issues, i have a hard time believing theres been a PFBC commissioner in the last 30 years that owns/uses a boat very often.

hate to see it go gramps taught me to fish there.

Heck spoony I'd donate $20.00 a year or more to cover 10 people that wouldn't donate.... Come on man give us a link to email some fat politician ..... Perhaps a poll with your license purchase from the pfbc ? An explanation to all who buy a license and a simple yes or no from ALL licensed anglers . Thats alot of public waters to lose close to urban areas ....

Great in theory .. but with less water to fish it will be even more crowded for your first day .... The circus has just gotten smaller . Goodluck to all hope for the best but if one out of ten fishermen thinks as I do we may just have a chance at saving these lakes .... Keep your 2 bucks ... Ya can't even get a burger from a fast food restaurant for that.

And that most of the casual anglers just care about how many trout are put in. 

It's a BIG if.

Far too many unknowns as to exactly how the money would be spent versus how the money should be spent. Call it a surcharge, a stamp, whatever. It's a tax. Why tax fishermen/fisherwomen exclusively? Why not instead apportion the monies the government has and use what we (the taxpayers, not the fisherpeople) have already paid in? I know it's there; my paystub told me so.

And aren't dams created for civil reasons, not fishing oppotunities?

I'm not looking to start a full-blown debate on taxes, politics, or the value of our license. To be certain, we're fortunate to gain the benefits of the license we buy for the price we pay. But I do not agree with the notion that every problem should be solved by raising taxes and/or fees.

Losing Hereford would be awful. I'd hate to see it go. It's a very beautiful and convenient place as well as a valuable commodity to the area. Just tired of having the hat passed around and being forced to put into it.

why don't they just charge the 2.00 and be done with it you either buy the license or not
but by the same token why not charge people 6.00 bucks a car load when going to the state parks to pay for park up keep.

ORIGINAL: fishenfool46

why don't they just charge the 2.00 and be done with it you either buy the license or not
but by the same token why not charge people 6.00 bucks a car load when going to the state parks to pay for park up keep.

LOL or charge a tax on the condom companies for the dam improvement ; perhaps they could design it for free it is the same concept. Lord knows how many of those I've seen lying around that area in the past 20 years it will certainly have an effect on sales of trojan STIMULUS packages ....

I like your idea Paul will be a sad day for all who enjoy that area . Not only the fisherfolk .

ORIGINAL: **commander**

good ideas but are they going to have to hire somebody to stand at a gate and collect cash? what are they going to pay that state employee? can you trust that all of the cash will get turned in and get to where its needed to go?

 
I don't advocate having to pay an entrance/parking fee but, if you wanted to enforce it, you could have pay boxes like they do up on Kinzua.  We use them to park at Willow Bay for ice fishing.  Never know when the warden is going to be checking and if he nails you, make sure it is fine to really nail the person and make them want to pay the $2 or $5 for parking/entrance fee.  For Fish Commission owned lakes, I think the $2 dam stamp would be the best approach.  We are going to have the pay the piper for upkeep on these dams sooner or later and if you want the Fish Commission to remain a semi-independent agency, the fisherman are going to have to support it.  As far as the "casual fisherman," and I mean that very loosely (I think even a casual 5-8 days of fishing per year fisherman gets his licenses worth), if they are going to complain and whine about it, so what.  They will still pay the extra money anyways because it is more about going away for that weekend; getting hammered with his buddies, time away from the wife/GF/kids, etc.... than it is about catching fish anyhow. 

ORIGINAL: Mags00

ORIGINAL: **commander**

ORIGINAL: mugz

i totally agree with you. people dont realize how cheap a fishing license is compared to other entertainment and it can be used 365 days a year Statewide. to me the $38.00 we pay now for a Resident with Trout/Erie combo stamp is priceless.

while i agree with you 100%, there are people that only fish 2,3,4,5 times a year. to them a fishing license is not the same bargain as it is to people who constantly go fishing. the people who say they would pay anything for a fishing license are the people who use a fishing license all the time.

Ya, but the 2-5 time a year people (Weekend warriors.) Would lose out too when they can't go fish close to their home. I mean how many weekend warriors go to erie to fish once or twice? I mean I'd shell out the $2-5 extra on a liscence if the pfbc would fix the lakes and such that need fixed and not just shove it places or in their pockets. Why not actually strictly enforce the regs and those cought fishing between April 1 - April 17... Fine them people $250-500 and bank that money up to help save these d@ms... Cause pretty soon another d am is going to need repairs so on and so forth.

a guy that fishes 2-5x a year isnt going to be too upset if he has to find something else to do those 2-5 days. just sayin'