Here is a crazy idea

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Discussing a certain place with other people, that shall remain nameless got me thinking about something.

This place is posted. It has large wild fish and it is also being discussed for multiple angling uses. Pay for play, TU project and open to the public, etc etc...
Its all up in the air.

I hate pay for play for the most part. I can cite examples where the pay for play stretch helps the fishing in other public stretches but generally speaking i dislike posted water and you should too.

Angler Access. Our biggest threat really. Posted land everywhere and rising. You even had a certain man that will remain nameless buying up some of the states best waterways and he still controls some good ones.
The PFBC offers programs for donations to angler access but i often think many anglers are unaware that it exists.

Well....

Would anglers be willing to purchase a pay for play stamp, for X(unknown) number of years, from the PFBC, so the PFBC could rack up monies and buy access to some of our better waterways? Heck id like to see them get aggressive and buy out some on Spruce too. Then only anglers that purchase the stamp have access to these new waterways. Creating a "public pay for play" system.

Just me thinking and i wonder what your thoughts are.
Obviously how long and how much you have to purchase it would weigh in.

I know it sounds crazy and probably is but what do you think?
Boy id laugh if it worked and the public bought out those that shall remain nameless :lol:

 

[Biggie]

The idea doesn't sound crazy to me. But I'm sure there would be a lot of dissent because not everyone could afford it (no matter how inexpensive it is). But it would let people that can't afford the high dollar club prices have some decent fishing that otherwise would be off limits.

 

[jifigz]

I would love to see more angler access. For that to happen first we must respect the land and not leave litter, etc. I know we probably don't, but others sure do.

I don't think your idea sounds too farfetched. I like it. It could work. Who knows? This kind of ties into my thread about starting a conservation organization. A big part of it would be to secure and maintain public access..

 

[PennKev]

Yes I would purchase an "access" stamp but only with the following stipulations:

(In no particular order)

-The area becomes free and open to the regular license holder after a well defined and standardized length of time. For instance: Fishing access for stamp holders only for the first 5 (or whatever) years after the PAFBC acquires a property.

-No stocking on any such streams.

-Maybe, some sort of system of limiting the number of anglers per day during the period of time in which access is restricted to stamp holders. Although this is really dependent on size of the water and how long a section of stream becomes open to stamp holders. For a small spring creek, for example, this would be absolutely necessary for me to find it worthwhile.

So with those conditions met, I would purchase such a stamp or permit, however cost would be a factor. If the cost was modest I'd probably buy it just to support the cause. There would be a point where cost would force me to consider the access being purchased and it's location before I coughed up the money. I'm not sure what that dollar amount would be. I think I would buy it regardless of my actual benefit if the cost was kept under $50.

So yeah, I don't think it's a crazy idea at all.

 

[ryc72]

In theory the idea is great and I’d gladly pay it but in reality its a long shot to make it work. There are no resources to check to make sure people have the stamp. The place would get over run by poachers in no time and it would get completely fished out. At least with private and posted land it’s pretty obvious who belongs and who doesn’t.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

New York has a system where by angler access reduces property taxes. Areas on Ontario Tribs are pretty much open access . It seems to work well ,imo. GG

 

[Bamboozle]

I'll play...

Pay for play on how many streams?

I assume streams the "payers" get access to are private? If so, how would the member's feel? If not, how would the State justify giving selective access to a publicly held stream?

You would need a LOT of players and places to make a difference...

Theoretical situations aside, I for one don't have an issue with clubs and the posting of private property. I don't belong to any, but I understand the reasons people belong. Philosophically, anyone who pays for access to anything denied to those that don't, belongs to a club...

...and do angler's need top get SOMETHING in exchange for making a donation to acquire access?

Philosophy aside; the PFBC CAP Program (Conservation Acquisition Partnership Program) does exactly what you are after minus the "gift" of being able to fish on some hypothetical posted property. A donation can be in any amount, all donations are matched 100% and tax deductible.

It is a great program and one worthy of trying to keep in the forefront, (I have been trying for years).

Maybe I'll annoy the board with an annual post about it...? ;-)

https://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/AgencyOverview/Funding/Documents/caphandout1.pdf

 

[jifigz]

The way that the state would grant access to stamp holders and keep the rest of the public out would be by creating a private club.....only this time it is a club run by the PFBC and at a much more affordable cost.

The poachers I don't think would come because we wouldn't be sticking huge pellet heads. Anyone can fish at Spring Creek and I don't think that there are a ton of poachers there.

Enforcement would be a nightmare.

 

[PennKev]

jifigz wrote:

The poachers I don't think would come because we wouldn't be sticking huge pellet heads. Anyone can fish at Spring Creek and I don't think that there are a ton of poachers there.

Enforcement would be a nightmare.

So a lack of enforcement does not lead to poaching on Spring... ...but the same lack of enforcement would lead to many people breaking the rules on "special" access areas?

Of course you are going to have some number of people try to break the rules but that is true of EVERY fishing regulation. However, that doesn't keep us from have special regs in the first place.

I think the strongest argument against special pay-for-access areas is that it would be a bad look for the PAFBC as it could possibly alienate average license holders. However, I do think it is an interesting idea to try to reward anglers willing to pay more in order to secure public access. But again, I would need the areas in question to be guaranteed to eventually become open to all regardless of additional stamps, and for it to happen in a reasonable number of years.

 

[Baron]

Your Heart's in the right place, that's for sure, but you're thinking with your wallet. As a Grandpop of 10 and of modest means I'm not for 'pay to play'. In the Pocono's there are plenty of great streams that aren't fishable because of similar privately run programs. They mean well also. And I hope they dissolve one-by-one over time so their streams are again open.
It may be wiser to find out which member here has a tiger-in-their-tank that could funded according to our abilities to represent us and lobby the state for better legislation.....legislation that would persuade more private landowners to open up their land to public access. This could be an incentivized program, more permanency than pay for play and good for everyone. It could be managed, perhaps, kind of like the farm preservation act.

 

[timmyt2]

No

I'd be all for them doing that by re-allocating some of the money they waste on other things though

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Thanks guys for at least entertaining the idea. I like these kinds of discussions myself.
No one is right or wrong here. All a hypothetical nightmare.:lol:


PennKev,

Your first post is awesome. I agree with it all. I do think if the PFBC was to buy lands, then yes it should revert to public trust after so long . i also think this should be the main goal but you would likely get more bang for the buck by land leasing. Most private landowners along streams might not want to sell or dont own enough frontage to make it worthwhile. So multiple land leases to use the property would be more attainable. However the end goal should be permanent access.


My main issue besides, cost, how long, logistics is your current budget.
Too many times have i heard, "its a tax to fix the roads" and then its tapped for something else. I dont want them to be tempted.
Fix that then maybe this.


Bam,

I mentioned CAP without saying it. I love CAP and i wish more people participated. Im not sure if they dont know about it or if its the marketing.
There you are asked to make a donation to receive access, here you are asked to pay for it. It is the same thing however it is the appearance that is different.
If you put it on the ledger on the outdoorshop of stamps and permits you wish to buy, it looks as if you are paying for a service rather than making a donation.

People always prefer to feel like they are getting something for their money rather than get it and not feel it. Silly i know.

Please do make a yearly reminder. Wont annoy me in the least. You can post it right after Fred makes his yearly fiberglass hate post or the annual its too warm to fish thread. :lol:

 

[coyoterahn]

I for one have never heard about the PFBC CAP program. I like it and will most likely participant.

@Sal, on the surface not a crazy idea but for sure would be controversial to many.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I get ya and it should be controversial for sure.

Im glad i made this thread now! We got a new CAP participant!
Kudos to you and thank you on behalf of all anglers in advance.

 

[Bamboozle]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
I mentioned CAP without saying it. I love CAP and I wish more people participated.

Please do make a yearly reminder. Wont annoy me in the least. You can post it right after Fred makes his yearly fiberglass hate post or the annual its too warm to fish thread. :lol:

Or maybe after the annual post, "Don't fish it's spawning season..." ;-)

coyoterahn wrote:

I for one have never heard about the PFBC CAP program. I like it and will most likely participant.

I feel vindicated!!

I have been telling the PA fishing world about CAP for years and it still amazes me that the PFBC doesn't promote it on their website, in the PFBC Angler & Boater Magazine or at fishing shows.

 

[afishinado]

Bamboozle wrote:

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
I mentioned CAP without saying it. I love CAP and I wish more people participated.

Please do make a yearly reminder. Wont annoy me in the least. You can post it right after Fred makes his yearly fiberglass hate post or the annual its too warm to fish thread. :lol:

Or maybe after the annual post, "Don't fish it's spawning season..." ;-)

coyoterahn wrote:

I for one have never heard about the PFBC CAP program. I like it and will most likely participant.

I feel vindicated!!

I have been telling the PA fishing world about CAP for years and it still amazes me that the PFBC doesn't promote it on their website, in the PFBC Angler & Boater Magazine or at fishing shows.

Agreed ^

Everyone is looking for a place to fish.

Why does the PFBC make it so difficult to donate to the CAP Program?

Here is the link to the paper form one must print out and send a paper check to the FBC.

Save the trees!!.....just make it digital and allow people to type in info and charge it to their credit card or PayPal account to donate to the CAP Program.

Plus as said above, promote it on their site, in their magazine as well as at every outdoor show where they have a presence.

 

[jifigz]

PennKev wrote:

jifigz wrote:

The poachers I don't think would come because we wouldn't be sticking huge pellet heads. Anyone can fish at Spring Creek and I don't think that there are a ton of poachers there.

Enforcement would be a nightmare.

So a lack of enforcement does not lead to poaching on Spring... ...but the same lack of enforcement would lead to many people breaking the rules on "special" access areas?

Of course you are going to have some number of people try to break the rules but that is true of EVERY fishing regulation. However, that doesn't keep us from have special regs in the first place.

I think the strongest argument against special pay-for-access areas is that it would be a bad look for the PAFBC as it could possibly alienate average license holders. However, I do think it is an interesting idea to try to reward anglers willing to pay more in order to secure public access. But again, I would need the areas in question to be guaranteed to eventually become open to all regardless of additional stamps, and for it to happen in a reasonable number of years.

Yes, I don't think poachers will be there because there aren't large dumb fish to be had and made into hero shots and wall hangers. Yes, I think people will not pay for the stamp of membership or whatever and will still go fishing in these sections all of the time and, yes, enforcing it will be hard.

Missouri's trout parks seem to be popular with many. Stock fish often all year and charge $10 a day to fish it or whatever it is. Obviously, not most of our cup of tea, but they are already kind of doing this. Pay to fish, you know the fish are there, they are fine spring creeks (a shame that they are stocked), and the public is welcome.

 

[jifigz]

I've been a die-hard angler and browser of the PFBC page for a long time and I've never even heard of the CAP program..

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

:-o

Im starting to think that we as anglers should be promoting this ourselves.
Any way to get TU involved? I know it is hard to get them going on access issues.

 

[Bamboozle]

I've asked more than a few WCO's at fishing shows if they ever heard of CAP. 98% of the time they were as uninformed as the rest of us which is sad...

I actually made my own CAP flyers in addition to the ones the PFBC sent me many years ago when I asked. (I've been on the CAP bandwagon for a LONG time). I used to put those flyers on car windshields in parking areas along streams so if you ever got one, it was me although I haven't done it for awhile.

Maybe it's time to ask the Boater & Angler Magazine to do an article about it again. When I asked a while back, all they did was print a copy of the donation form way in the back of the magazine. I really think the program is worthy of at least a one page article.

In the meantime, if you know a fly or bait shop owner, you might hand a them a few copies of the donation form or email it to them and ask if they would put some on the counter along with the Honey Bugs & license holders...

Would it be a violation of PAFF policy to use a link to CAP in a signature line?