Lake Champlain United - Forums

A simple law requiring a $ 15 conservation sticker to park your car on all state owned lands, would raise a ton of money. Just look at the Apple Island ramp on a weekend. I bet there isn't 3 stickers in the lot.

We can defeat this!!! Here is my first reply from my local reps, 1 down, 3 to go!


Hi,
I agree this is a bad, shortsighted idea. I will oppose it.
Thanks
Anthony

Anthony Pollina
Vermont Senate
Washington County

I have gotten positive replys from 3 reps. Keep up the work You are being heard

keithm87 wrote:We can defeat this!!! Here is my first reply from my local reps, 1 down, 3 to go!
Hi,
I agree this is a bad, shortsighted idea. I will oppose it.
Thanks
Anthony

Anthony Pollina
Vermont Senate
Washington County

bagman wrote:I have gotten positive replys from 3 reps. Keep up the work You are being heard

Some of you guys have great writing skills...better than some of us, including me. Would you care to share what you wrote and maybe help others use it as a template?

Also...anyone got any idea how to use change.org or other petition type website to get something started along the lines of a petition addressed to Govenor Scott?

This morning I Wrote on the site that was given to Gov. Scott !! Basically just said I thought it was terrible idea and that I thought he was pro outdoors and if this went through it would cost him dearly in the future! My problem per usual is that I dont fully understand the full impact or concequences of the bill! I hope im making sence!! Sleeps

This is an email I sent to Louis Porter, Having trouble forwarding to The Gov.

Sir, I suppose you have heard plenty from concerned fishermen from across Vermont. However, I am not sure that you have heard enough from your out of state anglers. It may seem like a sensible cost saving measure from your point of view, and maybe a battle not worth fighting with the Governor, closing the Sailsbury hatchery. But, being from Massachusetts and spending on average $ 10,000 camping and fishing your beautiful State, this sends a clear signal to people like me that the state may not be open to fighting for the tourist dollar. I don't think that Vermont has too many other economic resources nowadays besides tourism, and the need is greater now than ever before to compete for the fisherman's dollars. With Lake Ontario having record catches the past 2 years, and only getting better, Vermont at least has to try to maintain the fishermen you have.

One of the things that fires my butt, is fishermen and hunters, supporting non game programs and maintenance and acquisition of lands and fishing accesses that the general public use for free. One such program that imediatly comes to mind is the sturgeon study. It is very nice that you folks have gotten an idea about the sturgeon, but enough is enough. Valuable biologists time is consumed on this non game program, while there is no study underway to figure why salmon, steelhead, and brown trout are found in ever decreasing numbers in Lake Champlain north of Burlington. Not even a nod. Your head of department assured me that it was just a bump in the road for salmon numbers, but there is a growing concern that this is not the case. Yet, you want to close a hatchery. This sends a clear signal to out of staters, and to me especially as I am approaching retirement in a year or two, that Vermont is happy with the status quo and will never be able to keep up with a changing fishing and political environment.
Sadly, Jeff Light
Conway Ma. and So. Hero VT.

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

awsome jeff and others hoping things work out.

https://www.change.org/p/phil-scott-sav ... e_petition


Here is a petition I just made on Change.org

Thanks for the petition.

Keith,
Thanks for the petition.
Jeff very good job on the email to Louis Porter.

I don't believe there is much of an appetite in Montpelier for a 13 to 15 million dollar upgrade to Salisbury. That being said I believe there is discussion on a moratorium on closing Salisbury for a few years to allow other hatcheries to pick up the job of raising new brood stock thus ensuring continuity for the stocking programs.

Thanks for the petition Keith.... I’ve signed... and will pass it on.

Thanks for the sample letters guys and thank you so much for starting that petition Keith!

Here is Porter's reply to my email

Mr. Light,



As you can imagine I am getting a large volume of correspondence on this issue, but I wanted to reply to your note for a couple of reasons.



First, let me say thank you for fishing in Vermont and participating in a small state in the greatest restoration of species in history through a partnership between management agencies and anglers, trappers, hunters and wildlife watchers.



Second, I want you to know that no commissioner ever wants to take this kind of a step. However, like everyone, my department must live within it’s revenues. Our revenues are not keeping pace with expenses. In addition, there are budgetary reasons and practical reasons why a reduction in biological work, as one example, does not necessarily substitute for a cut in something like a hatchery. One major reason is that the hatchery will soon be out of compliance with clean water regulations, in part because the state moved where our discharge compliance point is measured.



Last, let me assure you that we do study all of those species, and in fact spend much more time and money working on those species through both biological research and stocking than we do on the sturgeon project, over the long haul. In addition the two things are not unconnected. What I mean is that the sturgeon study is an important part of our understanding what the impact and benefits of the lampricide program are, which is also crucial to understand for the species you mention.



I hope this is helpful.



Lp

Apparently, he thinks we'll believe him about using sturgeon to monitor lamprey numbers, and that justifies paying for the program. Don't they monitor fish returns at the GI hatchery, the fish ladder, creel surveys, this forum? Not truthful

Also, which agency in Vermont is in charge of levying fines for waste discharge in a public waterway? Seems a little hardball could be played here with allocating fines for Rutland, Burlington, Ludlow etc.when they have sewer overflows, for offsetting costs to renovate the treatment capacities at Salisbury. Oh, I forgot, human effluent is acceptable, but fish poop is not?