Hay Creek Fresh Posted Signs

[FlyGuy9]

Saw this weekend that the downstream side of the bridge on white bear road on Hay Creek has some fresh posted signs. There is one directly above one of the Approved Trout Water signs. These were not there in the spring. Anyone know when this section became posted?

 

[Mike]

I notified the regional PFBC office of your post and the local WCO who covers Hay Ck will be contacted. Typically, such occurrences are investigated if not beforehand, then close to the time that preseason stockings begin. Timing varies.

 

[Swattie87]

Thought I’ve had before and seen before on some ATW’s, and comes up in this context.

LEGALLY speaking, when you have an ATW/STW sign right above or below a Posted sign on the same tree (but no “Fishing Permitted - Walk In Only” sign), which sign takes legal precedence? Can you fish because of the STW sign, or is it a valid legal posting, and if you fish you’re trespassing? Or is it gray? As with most things in PA, I suspect the gray.

(For simplicity purposes for this discussion, leave any navigability discussion out. Assume it’s non-navigable.)

 

[Mike]

Fair question, and a point that I used to discuss with WCO’s after my staff or I had conducted posting surveys along STW’s.

 

[Swattie87]

It is true that an “approved trout water”sign under a posting sign naturally raises questions. A “fishing permitted”sign, IF that’s what’s intended, would instead present a clear message.

Agree. If I see the “Fishing Permitted” sign, I assume I’m good to go. There is a short, privately owned stretch of one of my favorite streams that abuts a large State Forest tract that has all three signs posted…STW, Fishing Permitted - Walk In Only, and Posted. I fish right through that stretch without hesitation, though I park on the State Forest stretch somewhere and “walk in”. (That private stretch is a hunting lease property with no structures on it, and I assume they don’t want other hunters in there, hence the posting.)

But what if the ONLY two signs are the STW sign and the Posted sign?

 

[Mike]

Agree. If I see the “Fishing Permitted” sign, I assume I’m good to go. There is a short, privately owned stretch of one of my favorite streams that abuts a large State Forest tract that has all three signs posted…STW, Fishing Permitted, and Posted. I fish right through that stretch without hesitation. (That private stretch is a hunting lease, and I assume they don’t want other hunters in there, hence the posting.)

But what if the ONLY two signs are the STW sign and the Posted sign?

See my response in #4 above. I know…still clear as mud for this angler. It may even be that the WCO is not aware of this apparently more recent posting, thus my call to the regional office so they can inform the WCO of the angler’s observation.

 

[Bamboozle]

"Legally speaking" a PFBC sign posted on a tree on private property implying access for fishing is OK means squat unless that landowner has agreed to permit public access to their property.

It is no different than a stream being on the Class A or Natural Reproduction List. Just because the PFBC has "labeled" a stream doesn't imply a no trespassing sign is meaningless.

If there are no trespassing signs posted above, below or beside a Stocked Trout Waters sign in this situation it is more than likely because the landowner has decided to not allow access any longer but also understands they don't have the legal right to remove the PFBC signage.

They also may not understand what exactly happens to Stocked Trout Waters section limits when there is a lack of access and maybe just want people to fish around their property.

The best solution is what Mike did, call the Regional Office and have the WCO investigate the landowner's intentions.

 

[Swattie87]

The best solution is what Mike did, call the Regional Office and have the WCO investigate the landowner's intentions.

Good advice. I agree. Probably the safest, and most respectful and prudent way to go about it.

So, in theory…

The situation of a simultaneous Posted and a STW sign (but no Fishing Permitted sign) shouldn’t be occurring? It should either be just one or the other, but not both. I think that’s what we’re saying?

All three can properly be present, and that would signify a situation where the landowner intends to allow fishing access, but not other types of access to their property. As in the above example I gave.

 

[6xAdams(Jones)]

Do posting signs still require the name of the person who puts them up? Maybe contact them directly with the agreement that you will park where they want you to, not camp or build fires, and pick up all your garbage before you leave.

 

[moodyblues]

Do posting signs still require the name of the person who puts them up? Maybe contact them directly with the agreement that you will park where they want you to, not camp or build fires, and pick up all your garbage before you leave.

Since they've passed that stupid, God awful, purple paint law , I don't think signs are even necessary, let alone being signed. What you propose is something we should all be doing regardless.

 

[moodyblues]

Saw this weekend that the downstream side of the bridge on white bear road on Hay Creek has some fresh posted signs. There is one directly above one of the Approved Trout Water signs. These were not there in the spring. Anyone know when this section became posted?

Not sure when it was posted, it may have been done for hunting season. I used to assist in stocking Hay years ago before the WCO who covered it retired. (He used to really have to schmooze them). Don't know who covers it today.
White Bear Road is still listed as the starting point for stocking Hay Creek. I suppose time will tell.

 

[moodyblues]

Saw this weekend that the downstream side of the bridge on white bear road on Hay Creek has some fresh posted signs. There is one directly above one of the Approved Trout Water signs. These were not there in the spring. Anyone know when this section became posted?

I recently saw where a stream I would fish in Schuylkill Co. became posted. Too many people trashed the area and camped out on it. I always cleaned it up when I would be on it. I suppose the land owners got sick of it.

 

[Bamboozle]

I may be wrong about this but I seem to recall the PFBC stating that biggest reason for loss of access is bad behavior and the resultant posting of private property by landowners.

It's a shame that people who enjoy the outdoors can't respect the outdoors at the same time...

 

[Bamboozle]

...The situation of a simultaneous Posted and a STW sign (but no Fishing Permitted sign) shouldn’t be occurring? It should either be just one or the other, but not both. I think that’s what we’re saying?

All three can properly be present, and that would signify a situation where the landowner intends to allow fishing access, but not other types of access to their property. As in the above example I gave.

All three signs can be present for any number of legitimate or illegitimate reasons but IMHO, on private property until I clarify it personally, a no trespassing sign trumps everything...

What I have seen in the past when a landowner doesn't want trespassing but has no issue with fishing is the "Fishing Permitted" signs that used to read, "Fishing permitted through landowner courtesy" or something to that effect.

There was also a red PA Fish Commission "NO FISHING ZONE" sign that read, "Fishing is permitted through landowner courtesy EXCEPT in the area between these red posters..." Those signs defined an area within an open section where you couldn't fish.

There is other signage I've run across defining a similar situation but I have no idea if the PFBC still has and uses those types of signs and offers to post them to fix a situation similar to what Moodyblues saw on Hay or if they just remove the entire section from the Stocked Trout Waters list.

Putting the signs up just to keep hunters out IS a possibility but I have no idea if you could legally hunt that area of Hay because of the proximity of houses. In similar situations I've run across where it was about hunting not fishing, there is always the option of NO HUNTING signs. However to be honest, you can buy no trespassing signs at Walmart and that is easiest and fastest option to keep folks out with our looking for special signage for special circumstances.

The 2023 Summary Stocked Trout Streams Lists or the section limits on the PFBC website mean nothing when it comes private property and IF this part of Hay is now closed to fishing it wouldn't be the first time I've seen it happen after the Summary was published.

Bottom line, the only way you can know for sure is to ask the landowner yourself or wait until Mike hears from the PFBC Region Office/WCO.

 

[Mike]

I recently saw where a stream I would fish in Schuylkill Co. became posted. Too many people trashed the area and camped out on it. I always cleaned it up when I would be on it. I suppose the land owners got sick of it.

Which stream was that? I used to cover part of that county as well, specifically the portion in Schuylkill R drainage basin. The stream where posting was spreading at that time was Pine Ck near Orwigsburg.

 

[caddisflyer]

I think some places get posted because the landowners just get sick of seeing people out there on the property all the time. Fishing has become a year round activity and some of these spots get some kind of activity daily. It was not always like this. People have become obsessive about their fishing and the internet has blown up locations. The flip side is people have become more selfish and insular than ever so that has caused a lot of those types to post.

 

[wildtrout2]

I may be wrong about this but I seem to recall the PFBC stating that biggest reason for loss of access is bad behavior and the resultant posting of private property by landowners.

It's a shame that people who enjoy the outdoors can't respect the outdoors at the same time...

It really is a shame. Some folks just don't know how to act, especially when someone's being nice enough to allow you on their land.

 

[Mike]

Bamboozle, the sign that you noted “ Fishing permitted courtesy of landowner. no littering,” was designed by Tom Kammerzel, Law Enforcement Chief, and me in the early 1990’s when I got tired of hearing WCO’s say that they didn’t like posting the fishing permitted signs along with the no littering, etc signs. They said all of the signage started to look like litter, but I was pretty demanding about posting fp signs. The sign you noted was my response and with Tom reviewing and slightly modifying the sign, I then had the Law Enforcement Chief, the WCO’s boss, on my side. Tom and I went way back together. As the sometimes say in law enforcement…Case closed.

When they don’t post them now it is sometimes because they have run out or haven’t gotten a shipment in time.

 

[troutbert]

Even if fishermen never littered and were totally perfect in all aspects of their behavior, the trend towards more posting would still continue. Not as fast, but it would still continue.

Littering was much worse when I was young (1960s & 1970s) than it is now, and less land was posted.

The main reasons for increased posting have to do with changes in land ownership, and with that changes in attitudes towards land.

The bottom line: If we want public fishing access, investments will have to be made in land purchases and easements.

If anyone imagines that the future will hold lots of PUBLIC access, on PRIVATE land, they're dreaming.

 

[wildtrout2]

The main reasons for increased posting have to do with changes in land ownership, and with that changes in attitudes towards land.

I'm sure liability concerns are an issue.