Stop The Closure Petition

[flytyer57]

I think this has gotten blown way out of proportion here.

From what I've read, there is a proposal to cut funding, but nothing I have read says the hatcheries will be CLOSED.

[Outside Bend]

I was reading through this and the thought crossed my weak little mind: What if it was State owned hatchery's that were in question here? Do we close the warm water or cold to bring State Budgets back? All kinds of species are in both State & Federal hatchery's , What Species would we cut?

Could we turn all the hatcheries over to private investors along with licensing the anglers? Do we have a crystal ball to see where this could all lead? Just a few things that entered my weak little mind while I looked at this issue.

If the state hatchery system were in trouble, the first thing I'd cut is the program to provide warmwater fish for private landowners. While bass, bluegill, and channel catfish are native, the use of public money to provide private fisheries doesn't seem ideal- plus the state's warmwater bass/bluegill/catfish hatcheries really are competing with private business.

To me privatization is a bad idea if you want to keep fishing opportunities available to a wide swath of anglers- just look at the places charging $500 or more for a day's fishing, or private retreats where a weekend on the water can cost thousands. If a private entity is providing the fish, there's no reason to think they won't try to maximize their profits by restricting access or other means.

[drew03cmc]

If the state hatchery system were in trouble, the first thing I'd cut is the program to provide warmwater fish for private landowners. While bass, bluegill, and channel catfish are native, the use of public money to provide private fisheries doesn't seem ideal- plus the state's warmwater bass/bluegill/catfish hatcheries really are competing with private business.

To me privatization is a bad idea if you want to keep fishing opportunities available to a wide swath of anglers- just look at the places charging $500 or more for a day's fishing, or private retreats where a weekend on the water can cost thousands. If a private entity is providing the fish, there's no reason to think they won't try to maximize their profits by restricting access or other means.

Good point OB. I like your thinking on the matter of cutting the bass, bluegill and catfish stocking program for private waters. That is definitely a place where they are competing and in fact undercutting the private hatcheries that do the same darn thing.

[flytyer57]

State ownership of hatcheries not on radar says AG&FC official

[Phil Lilley]

TU statement on FWS mitigation hatcheries at risk from possible budget cut.

Greetings, all. I am Steve Moyer, TU government affairs staff, and I wanted to clarify a few things about the risk of closure of FWS mitigation hatcheries. I have been involved with this problem for a number of years, and most recently, reviewed the FWS's detailed FY 12 budget document, and have discussed the issue with FWS hatchery program staff. Attached are helpful pieces of the information about the proposal that they have provided. There are 9 mitigation hatcheries nationwide at risk, 7 of which are in the southeast

The problem is that the Army Corps of Engineers, the TVA, and other dam operating federal agencies are not contributing enough of their shares of the hatchery operating expenses for the FWS hatcheries as they are bound by law to do. TU and other conservationists need to ensure that the Corps and the others pay their share of the costs, and the facilities will remain open for the foreseeable future. It is my sense that FWS does not want to close these facilities. But if the dam operating agencies do not pay their shares, then there is a real risk of closure. FWS staff say they are making progress in their discussion with the Corps, the major dam operating agency. Once agreement is reached with the Corps, then FWS staff will turn to TVA and the other agencies to try reach agreements with them.

In the coming weeks, TU will be asking the FWS, Army Corps and the other federal agencies to resolve their issues to keep the facilities open. TU will also ask the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to use their influence to compel the federal dam operating agencies to pay, if the inter-agency discussions fail to reach agreement. TU encourages concerned conservationists to contact your House and Senate members and ask them to weigh in with the Appropriations Committees to ensure that the problem is fixed.

Thanks

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

National Fish Hatchery Operations (-$6,288,000/-65 FTE)

Funding for National Fish Hatchery Operations will be reduced by $6,288,000 in 2012. This funding is associated with the production of fish for the purpose of mitigating the effects of federal water development projects. For many years the Service has been working to recover costs from responsible agencies in order to focus its available funding on native fish recovery and restoration. Beginning in FY 2010, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has provided some funding for this purpose. In the FY 2012 President’s budget, the Corps has requested $3.8 million to fund mitigation fish production. The Service will continue to work with the Corps and other partners, in all budget climates, to determine equitable reimbursable agreements to satisfy these responsibilities. Without these agreements there could be reduction of mitigation activities. . In 2009, mitigation facilities produced a total of 12,786,600 fish and 15,924,000 eyed eggs, which directly supported 3,500 jobs and nearly $325 million in total economic benefit to local and state economies from Service operated mitigation facilities, as cited in the Service report Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Production by NFHS.

An example of the activities at a mitigation hatchery includes:

Neosho National Fish Hatchery (NFH) in Missouri is the nation’s oldest operational federal fish hatchery. Established in 1888, the facility and its history are tightly woven into the social and cultural fabric of the Neosho community and southeast Missouri. More than 130 species of cold, cool, and warm water fish have been produced over the years for the purposes of conservation. The facility focuses on paddlefish and lake sturgeon restoration, endangered pallid sturgeon recovery, production of rainbow trout for mitigation of federal water projects, native mussel propagation, and serves as refugia for native Ozark cave fish. With the lack of reimbursable mitigation funding to keep it operational, this iconic center for conservation faces potential closure. Reduced funding would affect more than just the aquatic species produced and sheltered here. Neosho NFH currently hosts 45,000 visitors per year, with an anticipated 100,000 visitors per year expected after the completion of a new visitor’s center in 2010 -- complete with an auditorium and classrooms for purposes of educating local and regional students and the next generation of natural resource conservation professionals. The Hatchery’s Friends Group is among the most active in all of the Service, and in conjunction with the dedicated staff, provides a multitude of tours and information to the public. The hatchery provides total economic benefits of more than $10 million annually and an estimated 110 jobs from its mitigation stocking program.

http://www.fws.gov/budget/2012/toc%202012.html

mitigating_hatchery1.pdf

mitigating_hatchery2.pdf

http://ozarkanglers.com/mitigating_hatchery1.pdf

http://ozarkanglers.com/mitigating_hatchery2.pdf

Bryan K. Moore

VP for Volunteer Operations/Watershed Programs

Trout Unlimited

304-641-2658

www.tu.org

[exiledguide]

I find it sad that we must face gettign rid a few of the good government services that we all pay for so we can continue to fund two entitlement programs (social security and medicare) that are bankrupting our country. The preident said that these account for .94 out of every goverment dollar spent and until these two out of control programs are restructured we will have no funding for anything else.

Other than the federal highway trust fund Social security is about the program that has dedicated funding. What don't you understand about dedicated funding. You would do away with peoples, including your own, only chance to retire.How do you plan on retireing without social security to back up your pension.Oh, and let us in on how whith out Medicare you plan to pay your doctor bills? You want to do away with this to keep Trout stocking program that some would say is a welfare program for fishermen. What would you do with the money people have paid in over the years to Social Security. In my working lifetime social security taxes went from 3 1/2 percent to where they are today so we would keep it afloat if the rest of the goverment would make good on there loans there would no shortage.

[Tim Smith]

I think this has gotten blown way out of proportion here.

From what I've read, there is a proposal to cut funding, but nothing I have read says the hatcheries will be CLOSED.

Yes it has gotten blown out of proportion. The actual changes in the short term are likely to be very modest.

In the long term, however, the nature of the federal government and the fate of those hatcheries is very much in question.

None of us knows how that will turn out but an internet forum is an appropriate place to speculate.

[chub minnow]

Not blown completely out of proportion, FWS states that the Neosho hatchery faces potential closure due to it's mitigation role. They just spent big money renovating the hatchery with new visitor center, educational rooms etc. It's madness to spend millions(?)on something only to turn around and de-fund it. It sounds like the COE is at the heart of the problem (as per usual). Let's cut out some high paid engineers over at the Army Corps to come up with the money. Maybe if we quit giving money away in Afghanistan we could take care of our business at home. Seriously, if we don't cut defense and entitlements we might as well quit trying.

[Iliketoflyfish]

TU statement on FWS mitigation hatcheries at risk from possible budget cut.

Greetings, all. I am Steve Moyer, TU government affairs staff, and I wanted to clarify a few things about the risk of closure of FWS mitigation hatcheries. I have been involved with this problem for a number of years, and most recently, reviewed the FWS's detailed FY 12 budget document, and have discussed the issue with FWS hatchery program staff. Attached are helpful pieces of the information about the proposal that they have provided. There are 9 mitigation hatcheries nationwide at risk, 7 of which are in the southeast

The problem is that the Army Corps of Engineers, the TVA, and other dam operating federal agencies are not contributing enough of their shares of the hatchery operating expenses for the FWS hatcheries as they are bound by law to do. TU and other conservationists need to ensure that the Corps and the others pay their share of the costs, and the facilities will remain open for the foreseeable future. It is my sense that FWS does not want to close these facilities. But if the dam operating agencies do not pay their shares, then there is a real risk of closure. FWS staff say they are making progress in their discussion with the Corps, the major dam operating agency. Once agreement is reached with the Corps, then FWS staff will turn to TVA and the other agencies to try reach agreements with them.

In the coming weeks, TU will be asking the FWS, Army Corps and the other federal agencies to resolve their issues to keep the facilities open. TU will also ask the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to use their influence to compel the federal dam operating agencies to pay, if the inter-agency discussions fail to reach agreement. TU encourages concerned conservationists to contact your House and Senate members and ask them to weigh in with the Appropriations Committees to ensure that the problem is fixed.

Thanks

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

National Fish Hatchery Operations (-$6,288,000/-65 FTE)

Funding for National Fish Hatchery Operations will be reduced by $6,288,000 in 2012. This funding is associated with the production of fish for the purpose of mitigating the effects of federal water development projects. For many years the Service has been working to recover costs from responsible agencies in order to focus its available funding on native fish recovery and restoration. Beginning in FY 2010, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has provided some funding for this purpose. In the FY 2012 President's budget, the Corps has requested $3.8 million to fund mitigation fish production. The Service will continue to work with the Corps and other partners, in all budget climates, to determine equitable reimbursable agreements to satisfy these responsibilities. Without these agreements there could be reduction of mitigation activities. . In 2009, mitigation facilities produced a total of 12,786,600 fish and 15,924,000 eyed eggs, which directly supported 3,500 jobs and nearly $325 million in total economic benefit to local and state economies from Service operated mitigation facilities, as cited in the Service report Economic Effects of Rainbow Trout Production by NFHS.

An example of the activities at a mitigation hatchery includes:

Neosho National Fish Hatchery (NFH) in Missouri is the nation's oldest operational federal fish hatchery. Established in 1888, the facility and its history are tightly woven into the social and cultural fabric of the Neosho community and southeast Missouri. More than 130 species of cold, cool, and warm water fish have been produced over the years for the purposes of conservation. The facility focuses on paddlefish and lake sturgeon restoration, endangered pallid sturgeon recovery, production of rainbow trout for mitigation of federal water projects, native mussel propagation, and serves as refugia for native Ozark cave fish. With the lack of reimbursable mitigation funding to keep it operational, this iconic center for conservation faces potential closure. Reduced funding would affect more than just the aquatic species produced and sheltered here. Neosho NFH currently hosts 45,000 visitors per year, with an anticipated 100,000 visitors per year expected after the completion of a new visitor's center in 2010 -- complete with an auditorium and classrooms for purposes of educating local and regional students and the next generation of natural resource conservation professionals. The Hatchery's Friends Group is among the most active in all of the Service, and in conjunction with the dedicated staff, provides a multitude of tours and information to the public. The hatchery provides total economic benefits of more than $10 million annually and an estimated 110 jobs from its mitigation stocking program.

http://www.fws.gov/b...toc%202012.html

mitigating_hatchery1.pdf

mitigating_hatchery2.pdf

http://ozarkanglers....g_hatchery1.pdf

http://ozarkanglers....g_hatchery2.pdf

Bryan K. Moore

VP for Volunteer Operations/Watershed Programs

Trout Unlimited

304-641-2658

www.tu.org

This is a nice piece to add some clarity to the real weight of this proposal, but what I took away from it is that the dam operators (COE, TVA, etc) are as much at fault as the Appropriations Committees. I stand by my previous post. It's time to remind our lawmakers that we are their bosses, and urge them to work with the Appropriations Committees to revisit the economic and conservation impact that the approval of this proposal would have and to convince the dam operators to assume their financial responsibilities with this issue, also. The more I learn about this proposal, the more it seems to take on a certain odor. This is not a political issue, it is an issue of holding our government and the agencies that ratified the original pacts for these water development projects (and flood control projects) accountable. Ask your congressmen if they know where the funds that are marked to be withdrawn from the Hatchery Funding Project will be redirected. If they don't, ask them to find out, but make them do the job that you hired them to do. When they understand who their bosses are, they will finally start to vote for our interests and not their own special interests.

[drew03cmc]

This is a nice piece to add some clarity to the real weight of this proposal, but what I took away from it is that the dam operators (COE, TVA, etc) are as much at fault as the Appropriations Committees. I stand by my previous post. It's time to remind our lawmakers that we are their bosses, and urge them to work with the Appropriations Committees to revisit the economic and conservation impact that the approval of this proposal would have and to convince the dam operators to assume their financial responsibilities with this issue, also. The more I learn about this proposal, the more it seems to take on a certain odor. This is not a political issue, it is an issue of holding our government and the agencies that ratified the original pacts for these water development projects (and flood control projects) accountable. Ask your congressmen if they know where the funds that are marked to be withdrawn from the Hatchery Funding Project will be redirected. If they don't, ask them to find out, but make them do the job that you hired them to do. When they understand who their bosses are, they will finally start to vote for our interests and not their own special interests.

That's not how American politics works anymore. In an idealistic Republic, the government should fear the people. They have us all fearing them and they know it. Politicians do whatever it takes to get reelected rather than do what it takes to fulfill campaign promises.

This bill may get passed, and we, as sportsmen, will have to reap whatever they would have us reap.