by Chris Bradley, President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs
According to the 2016 United States Fish & Wildlife Service National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation coupled with the 2020 Vermont Angler Survey, the Vermont fish culture programs generates approximately $39.6 Million worth of economic benefit to the State of Vermont in terms of tourism dollars generated through fishing alone. Given that the fish culture program operates with a $4.2 Million annual budget with a 60% federal match ratio ($2.5 Million), the State of Vermont’s annual return on investment is $23.00 for every $1.00 invested.
Disrupting the existing fish culture programs will adversely effect that ROI for years to come.
The Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs understands that the budget is tight, and cuts are necessary to balance the budget. We further understand that these cuts are painful and that they require tough decisions to be made, such as the suggestion to reduce costs in the F&W budget by cutting, or otherwise phasing out, the Salisbury Fish Culture Station.
Ultimately, it appears as though the Administration’s hands are tied; a balanced budget had to be delivered, and that could not be done without deep cuts. Salisbury however is a cut that will have disastrous effects for fishing in Vermont.
Regarding the possible closure, Act No. 71, Sec. 189(a) of the Vermont Public Acts of 2005 states: “The department of fish and wildlife shall obtain approval of the general assembly, or the joint fiscal committee if the general assembly is not in session, prior to taking any action that would result in closure or consolidation of fish culture operations.”
As we had concerns about the veracity of the true water quality issues at Salisbury, we researched and then authored a document that examines those water quality issues, both from an EPA and DEC standpoint, with that document found here. To our eyes, this issue of water quality and Salisbury appears to be greatly overstated.
When Salisbury was being consider for closure in 2019: This Closure report (3 pages) was writen by the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife. As a result of current discussions regarding a possible closure: This Closure report (6 pages) was drafted by the Agency of Natural Resources in late 2023.
Both reports are short, and we believe that they show the severe concerns why Salisbury cannot be abruptly closed, or even face a phased closure given the negative short-term and longer-term effects. Please take a few minutes to read them.
The decision to save Salisbury now rests with the Legislature with the solution being to increase F&W budget by finding cuts elsewhere: The effect(s) of closing Salisbury are just too dire.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Outdoors
Water quality, realy ? How does the spring runoff from the man-made snow from the ski areas affect water quality every spring ? You don’t suppose that the extra millions of gallons that are put into or streams every spring by the ski areas affect that do you ? Na probably not . Never mind, we’re worried about fish doo .
Or maple sugaring. RO’s produce completely inert water as waste. Often this is discharged out the sugarhouse into the stream altering the chemistry of our waterways. Closing the hatchery is just another example of disconnect our current state government has with vermont residents and reality. Find a study illustrating closure of the hatchery will disproportionately affect people with darker skin or those unsure of their pronouns and our government will suddenly care. Fish and wildlife does have a significant portion of their website dedicated to the lie of DEI.
For a state which prides itself on the outdoor experience this action would appear not to be well thought through. Unlike other segments of the VT populace the fishermen and hunters pay their own way. In addition, out of state dollars are brought in to add to the largesse. Blaming this on fish causing issues in the waterways seems to be a convenient excuse.
I agree with Patrick. Try this stunt with skiing and watch the stuff hit the fans. Artificial snow making, snow melt run off, how much pfoa/pho’s is in the runoff from decades of waxing the skis, massive tourist and locals transport burning fossil fuels to the slopes… as infinitum
Oh , I forgot these are the cool segments of society who get a pass.
Give the hatcheries a chance and think through the challenges before pulling the plug.
Thank you Chris. I was shocked when I first heard that suggestion from the Governor. It is the only one in the State. Right? There are a lot of other areas that could be cut. You have my support.
at least half of the house and senate need to be fired/// this may be a very bad year in the financial markets/// i do not think any of these people under stand the money system//
Its probably heresy but this might be important enough to enough people (customers) that it could be privatized.
Correct, to the flatlander-majority legislature, those who come as tourists to Vermont to fish are not “their kind of people”. I think the same could be said for the legislature abandoning tourism in general by converting many motels into junkie flophouses. The liberals in the legislature seems to be abandoning the sacred cow of tourism just as they have abandoned the dairy industry with regulations and lawsuits.
The liberal narrative includes that people who gather food from the natural environment, with or without the assistance of hatcheries are not “their kind of people”. The demoprogs prefer people who derive their sustenance from an EBT card. They dont like that old wisdom about “if you teach a man to fish…”. Self sufficient people are smart enough to not vote for democrats/progs, but we are a minority now in Vermont. If you want to tap a limitless source of energy, attach a generator to Calvin Coolidge and Ethan Allen spinning in their graves.