Should Money Be Spent On A Put-and-take Trout Lake?

[fiveweight]

As a pseudo-libertarian who feels it is neither the role of the government nor optimal public policy to shuffle funding around in attempt to "stimulate" the economy, here is how I see the ideal funding solution to a situation like this:

If trout stamps and licenses purchased with intent to fish Taneycomo are insufficient to fund stocking and stream management, the community and businesses benefiting from the surrounding commerce should have enough incentive to pick up the remainder of the cost. If such a discrepancy does indeed exist, the burden should not sit on those removed from the situation. If the cost of funding the rest of the stocking is nominal and results in increased business, that cost is an investment worth paying by the local community. If such a cost burden on those businesses is enough to make them financially unviable then the question has to be asked whether they should exist in such numbers in the first place, because that would suggest their livelihood is being subsidized with public funding. That or the amount of stocking and stream management is just too ambitious and should be scaled back. That may sound harsh when it's a discussion of your own backyard, but if that same logic is applied everywhere the government spends money it will be better allocated and overall tax burdens will decrease.

Here's why I call my position "pseudo-libertarian" and differentiate myself from being all-out. There are exceptions. For example, to protect a threatened population or stream like Crane where it is considered in the public interest but not financially viable to do so. However, this must be considered a cost and not an investment, and as such must balance public interest in its benefit with the increased cost of trout stamps and licenses or taxes - not something to take lightly. And also, I guess the libertarian position would probably also say that individual businesses should take it upon themselves to fund the stream management but that isn't practical since nobody is going to voluntarially absorb a cost that would benefit their competitors just as much, which is why I suggest it be handled at the community level.

Having said that, I think it's a moot point. Lilly could probably give some insight, but my suspicion would be that the huge number of license and stamp sales surrounding Taney are indeed sufficient to fund its stocking and likewise for the other tailwaters.

[Gavin]

I havent been a fan of the urban trout lakes..but they are very popular here in St. Louis. The usually stock em the first week of November and its catch & release artificials only until February 1...After that its catch & keep, anything goes. The program isnt going away anytime soon, so I cant see a reason not to stock another lake depending on its proximity to other catch & keep trout opportunaties.

[eric1978]

Urban trout programs are a misallocation of funds, plain and simple. How many trout stamps do you think MDC would lose if they discontinued the urban programs? I would venture to say very few. A lot of you know I just got my first fly rod, and I've been taking it out to Busch to practice casting. While I'll admit it's nice to feel a tug on the line while I'm there, it's certainly no thrill.

Part of the enjoyment of fishing is the setting, the atmosphere. Pulling rainbows out of a mudpuddle is incongruent and unnatural. And stocking a lake with fish that will only survive 6 months or so is just flushing money down the toilet. Any funds spent at Busch should be used on managing and improving the populations of warm water species.

Taney is a different story because fish stocked there can survive indefinitely. I have no problem stocking fish in a habitat in which they can survive. My main beef is that there should be more emphasis on the growing, tighter regs and far less taking, and therefore would be less need for putting, and consequently less cost involved for stocking efforts.

I'm torn about where the MDC revenues should go, because I want as much funding as possible for worthy fisheries programs, but my wife is also a public school teacher. And I'll tell you this...for a person who is a few hours away from obtaining a PhD in her professional field, and puts in ridiculous hours of work, she is not compensated appropriately. Same goes for police, firefighters and (on a federal level) military.

I like fiveweight's pseudo-libertarian ideas about community funding of programs. Unfortunately, we know that won't work because most people will have the "let other people pay for it" attitude. If you were one of the few people actually contributing to a program, and you see no one else is, how long will you continue to cut checks? Not long. That's why we have taxes, because we must be forced to pay for the things we all need but no one wants to pay for.

[ness]

Eric,

It's kinda hard to know where to start.

As to fishing from a mud puddle -- so, it ain't your cup-o-tea. Lotsa people fish them -- I do occasionally.

I don't think anyone has offered up data as to the cost/benefit of the program. I've always assumed the licenses approximately cover the cost. My county (KS, Johnson) does a similar program and funds it with an additional 'trout' fee on the county fishing license. I suspect they've looked at the economics, and they keep doing it.

Underpaid teachers -- welp, ain't going there. But you can be sure none of MDCs money will end up curing that problem. Politics-free zone, so I'll stop here.

[fiveweight]

Eric you are right, I didn't outright say it but what I was referring to by "at the community level" would in practice most likely be a local tax (town of Hollister, county, multi-county compound, whatever is most appropriate).

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief,

I see no link?

I belive that a disproportionate amount of funds are allocated to nature centers, bird watchers, and hiking trails (tree hugers) in those places that do not allow hunting.

My link is in a thread below "Since we are all talking"....It has some great info concerning MDC trout program. In fact it about 35+ pages of nothing but trout.

I can't disagree more though with the rest of your statement. NC's have a great value for children of larger population centers that for one reason or another don't have a good chance of getting a good idea of what the outdoors are and are about. There is no telling how many children are affected in a positive way. And some of them just may become our next bioligist and continue work for the MDC.

So "free pie" really doesn't exist.

That was not really what I was refering to, but that was a hilarious spin none the less. Pat yourself on the back for that one! My point is that $13 million is nothing to sneeze at. That is a lot of money for those folks that make at least a portion of their living from what trout have to offer. As for the free pie, it sure is free. The cost of those trout and the cost of maintaining that lake is shared by everyone, but that $13 million ain't.

Urban trout programs are a misallocation of funds, plain and simple. How many trout stamps do you think MDC would lose if they discontinued the urban programs?

I'm torn about where the MDC revenues should go, because I want as much funding as possible for worthy fisheries programs

With all due respect eric, I don't see it that way. I understand your point though. But not everyone has the opportunity that most of us have to drive to a place like we know that has trout. Plus even if they did, I don't think we would want them fishing some of the places we do. I think you would find to many corn cans and worm boxes.

I also understand your point about where the revenues should go. But I also understand that they can't all go for programs that benefit just what I like. Even if it is for hikers or bird watchers, at least the money is going to preserve or ehance something in nature. And not some silly skateboard park or other silly things.

[Gavin]

I'm not sure how it gets paid for...but I'd imagine that STL & KC generate more than enough sales tax to cover the cost of a ten or twenty thousand trout. MDC's money is off limits to the pols, so it cant be used for other purposes...And I think thats good mostly...

I'm not sure how the trout program gets funded.....Maybe some of the municipalites pay for the fish delivery...I dont know..Lots of folks are out fishing though. I see folks out every time I drive by Tilles or Jefferson Lake. The folks I see fishing are generally men of voting age, but occasionally they bring their kids or grandkids. Caught a few over at Tilles last Tuesday and some at Jefferson Lake last Wednesday. I tell you what...those fish have seen some pressure since early November and they arent that easy any more. Cheers.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Don't forget that Branson, Forsyth, Hollister Rockaway and some other small towns had world class smallmouth fishing, before it was determined that the river and the area wasn't worth what the crops from the Arkansas delta were worth. Its not as if the area is getting a gift of trout fishing.

[fishinwrench]

Chief, if you liked my spin on free pie, you'll love my spin on the urban trout program.....

I live in mid-missouri and the odds that I'll ever get to travel to Africa to hunt monkeys, elephants and wapahickiti's (wtf?) is extremely remote. They should bring us some, so that our children will get a chance to experience stalking and tracking these majestic animals.

My point : Those city dwelling kids care about as much about trout as I do about their malls, skater parks, and video games. I've experienced all three of those things, and really wouldn't be bothered if I never saw another one.

I've also been to dozens of urban nature centers, and unless there's a forced field trip scheduled the places are practically empty. So although I think it is all a sweet little idea, I really don't think those people are inspired by any of it....and I'm good with that.

[eric1978]

With all due respect eric, I don't see it that way. I understand your point though. But not everyone has the opportunity that most of us have to drive to a place like we know that has trout. Plus even if they did, I don't think we would want them fishing some of the places we do. I think you would find to many corn cans and worm boxes.

I also understand your point about where the revenues should go. But I also understand that they can't all go for programs that benefit just what I like. Even if it is for hikers or bird watchers, at least the money is going to preserve or ehance something in nature. And not some silly skateboard park or other silly things.

I'm all for any program that makes sense. Like I said, I think they should spend the money on managing the warm water species at Busch, species that can actually survive indefinitely there. I just think it's a total waste to put fish in water where they can't survive. People that don't have the means to access trout streams could go to Busch and catch other species and enjoy it just as much...if the lakes were managed correctly and the fishing improved.

I'm also personally a "tree hugger" in the sense that I don't just enjoy water, but forests as well, and I support funds going to managing hiking trails and other habitats. But I wouldn't support a program that involved planting a bunch of tropical flora in an Oak/Hickory Ozark forest in spring so they could grow through the summer then die in the fall, just so Missourians could "experience" a South American rainforest. Which pretty much means I agree with this sarcasm:

I live in mid-missouri and the odds that I'll ever get to travel to Africa to hunt monkeys, elephants and wapahickiti's (wtf?) is extremely remote. They should bring us some, so that our children will get a chance to experience stalking and tracking these majestic animals.

If you're fanatical about hunting monkeys, go to Africa. If you're fanatical about catching trout, drive to the Ozarks. What would be wrong with Busch simply providing fishing opportunites for species that belong there? A kid could catch bluegill or bass instead of trout and still get hooked on fishing...they wouldn't know the difference. If it becomes a passion for them, they can travel a couple hours to a trout stream.