Deny Boaters On The West Branch Of The Deleware

[littlejuniata]

Laws intruduced for that purpose!! Good or BAD?

 

[JackM]

Seems a little... you know... selfish.

 

[TimMurphy]

JackM wrote:
Seems a little... you know... selfish.

Dear Jack,

No offense intended, but you have to see that place to believe it. It can be a zoo at times with all the drift boat traffic.

The worst part is the people running the drift boats are pretty much all allied in one way or another, mostly as guides but sometimes as boat rental customers, with the resorts that forbid wading anglers that aren't guests from fishing on their property.

I remember first going up the West Branch of the Delaware in 1987 with a buddy who began fishing it just after Cannonsville Reservoir was completed in the mid 1960's. By the early 1990's he was moaning about not being able to pull over along Rte 191 to take a whizz like you could in the old days because of the crowds. Now you can't find a spot to relieve yourself on the River itself.

I moved from that area in 2001. At that time the river was about as "pimped out" as I thought it could be. Apparently things have gotten far worse.

Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[vcregular]

Ahhh....the good ole daze syndrome Tim! I remember when...oh never mind - I won't bore ya. Attached is the actual proprosal, and please read is closely. No one is looking at shutting anything down, but rather the DEC is looking for input...they are seeking feedback on what to possibly do, if anything.

If you like floating, write, if you don't, then voice your opinion, but in the end it is really a sad state of affairs if a reg needs to be implemented due to what I would think are a few uneducated, or ignorant, or just maybe some aholes, and not to address the real issue on the whole D system and that is poor water managment. That is a whole nother can of worms, but I for one think restricting boats is silly, unless it is done to protect the fish (resource) once flows get below say 600cfs at Hale Eddy. But for a flat out social issue...give me a break. I do recall literature saying the coldwater fishery goes to Callicoon...certainly that ain't the case anymore. Why is that? That is the real issue here.

And I will say that I have always had more than enough room to flail while wade fishing on the WB or the main stem.

 

[cdogedoger]

is not allowing boats the right thing to do? how about a daily limit of boats per day? never been there or fished the stream. the only info i have is from reading about the river in books and magazines. how can you eliminate boating in favor of fishing. seems like that would be unfair. not sure of what the proposed law calls for.

john

 

[littlejuniata]

Just have the "A" holes arrested for harassment, or distrubing the peace or both, would suggest participation and input though, because the lodges and streamfront owners are probably behind and pushing this?

 

[tomgamber]

is it navigable? I find the timing of this kind of ironic.

 

[RLeeP]

If the river is in as congested of a state as Tim recalls it was headed for, this may be the best solution in terms of balancing continuation of drifting anglers with the best possible quality experience.

Sometimes, this stuff comes down to a choice like this.

It certainly would not be without precedent. Some western rivers are already managed this way, the Deschutes being one example.

As I understand it, this has worked quite well there...

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear vcregular,

They ought to ban them from Stilesville to Hale Eddy. That is the "unspecified reach" of the River they are talking about because the River becomes border water about 1 mile below Hale Eddy. It's rather small in that area and holds the DEC Angling Easements that allow fishing access in the NY portion of the river.

I don't think West Branch Angler's is going to allow boats to beach and fish "their" stretch of the river without some form of tithing?

Like I said, them that got just want more.

And to Tom Gamber,

The question of navigability and access rights isn't as clearly defined in New York as it is now in Pennsylvania. If this becomes an issue of anchoring and leaving the boat to wade fish the angler's will lose just like they did on the Salmon River. Big money made it pay to play with no driftboat anchoring on the Douglaston Run.

Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[tomgamber]

I do realize we're talking about another state and I know its kind of simplistic but we just weathered a fight to be able to float/wade/access a valuable piece of water and now there's a movement to deny the ability to float/access another piece of water. Can you have it both ways? I am not as familiar with the Delaware as many of you are. And its the outside perception that sometimes decides when the local factions cancel each other out. Just wondering if those pulling opposite directions shouldn't be careful what they wish for...

 

[Wulff-Man]

How much of the land in that section is private with restricted access? If a lot of it is private, then we are talking about keeping the public out (through their ability to float a navigable waterway where they can't get access), as opposed to making it a better fishing experience for the average guy. And if wading access isn't very restricted now, it may be in the future.

 

[Maurice]

Wulff-Man wrote:
How much of the land in that section is private with restricted access? If a lot of it is private, then we are talking about keeping the public out (through their ability to float a navigable waterway where they can't get access), as opposed to making it a better fishing experience for the average guy. And if wading access isn't very restricted now, it may be in the future.

The new york section...the one in question is, I believe from the article, public. Therefor, the Guide boats are interfereing with the fishing of the public license buyer and through creel surveys the wade fiehremen/public are complaining.

The way I see it, if the guide folk are interfereing with the wade fishermen and the property owners are not allowing folks to stop in front of their property, then the rich are monopolizing the river out of greed. I say make them stop to fish and wade if they cannot behave themselves.

I can't believe how money and greed can turn people into complete bung-holes. Hey, if you hire these guides...you perpetuate or are part of the problem.

Maurice

 

[JackM]

I don't know the situation, but I have to say that it is possible that some people like to fish the river from a boat. Are the boaters "disturbing" the wading anglers because the wading anglers don't wish to share the river or is it a situation where the wading anglers simply cannot enjoy the river at all if boaters are permitted?

Those who like to fish the river from boats answer in ALL CAPS, those who like to wade fish, use the e. e. cummings style. 😎

 

[JeffK]

New York has a delineation between navigable-by-fact and navigable-by-law.

Navigable-by-fact means one can travel on it, but the stream goes through private land where the land owners own the streambed. The right to travel (and to portage if necessary) is guaranteed even for recreational use (only within the last 10 years have the judgements considered recreational users) - good for canoers. However, the private landowners retain the rights to the fishery - bad for fishermen. That is why NYS has to buy fishing rights along the Beaverkill, E Branch, etc - they wouldn't need to buy the rights if they already owned them. In the Douglaston Case the owners had clear deed to the streambed dating to the original patents of land in 1792 from NYS. Therefore, the river is navigable-in-fact and one can float a driftboat down through the river, but cannot stop and fish without permission.

Navigable-by-law means the body of water is held in public trust and the bottom is owned by NYS. This includes all tidal waters, some major rivers (Hudson, Mohawk, St Lawrence) and bigger lakes. One can travel or fish on these since they are publically owned.

The distinction between the two can often require a lot of deed searching and legal opinion. If NYS has bought fishing rights on a river it can be assumed that they admit they don't already hold them. The West Branch would clearly be at least navigable-in-fact, but I don't know about the navigable-by-law. If it isn't navigable-by-law the proposal to prohibit fishing from a boat could create unintended consequences if the landowners banded together and stopped fishing and would result in a lengthy legal struggle since the fishermen would not give up without a fight.

 

[Chaz]

Isn't it getting a bit snobish denying boats the right to fish from the boat, give me a break. There won't be any economy up there if they deny boaters the right to fish from their boats. Anglers have to be a bit more tolerant so do landowners.

 

[littlejuniata]

Chaz: I would think if they deny boaters real estate along the river would skyrocket in value, so that kind of points a finger at who is pushing this law?

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear LittleJ,

The driving force behind wanting to change the law are people who walk and wade fish and who are sick and tired of fishing a pool only to have a drift boat set up and anchor and fish right where they are fishing.

The drift boat anglers think they own the river because they are guiding people. Maurice had it right!

As far as the local economy collapsing if drift boats are stopped that is simply not true. The local economy is not trout fishing, there are only a handful of shops and their guides. The shops open in April and close at the end of September when the season closes. The local economy is dairy farms, logging, and bluestone quarrying. I lived there for 11 years, and I know the area very well.

Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[JackM]

Tim, I would have thought the complaint from waders was that boat moving by "put down" the fish. I didn't know that the weak ethics of the guides "jonesing" in on fishing spots was the problem. Couldn't the guides still do this on foot? Or is the issue that, being in a boat, it is too easy for them to get away if a wader becomes irate enough to physically confront them? :lol:

 

[Wulff-Man]

The proposal is that they still can boat, but they must get out to fish. This may not solve the problem that Tim is talking about (crowding out wading fishermen). I think the best solution would be to regulate the boaters more closely. Make them get permits and limit the number of boats, if that's a problem. Then if they bother waders significantly the waders could file complaints and they could risk losing their permits. Basic rules could be established as far as giving waders their space, etc. Nothing too complicated. But the DEC says they don't have the authority to regulate boaters, whatever that means (sounds like they are, to some extent). Maybe whatever agency in NY that does have the authority should get involved.

 

[littlejuniata]

Good suggestion wulf-man there is a danger though these folks "test the waters" so to speak to see what they can get away with, next step would be to deny boaters access!