Newly Posted Section of Elk Creek

[hammertime]

StarvinMarvin wrote:
I would rather go to NY at this point anyway.

+1

 

[wsender]

StarvinMarvin wrote:
I would rather go to NY at this point anyway.

Go to the reservation too.

 

[ryguyfi]

I spoke with my contact at Uncle Johns and the rumors about them selling off are false according to him.

 

[PennKev]

PatrickC wrote:
While I agree with your sentiment about mountain streams Biker...every trout fishery in PA is an artificial fishery. Those spectacular native brook char are the only non-contrived salmonid fishery in PA.

Oh come on now. You know what he meant. The Erie steelhead fishery is a blast, but it is fake to the core. Lumping wild brown trout fisheries together with the Erie tribs is just silly.

 

[PatrickC]

PennKev wrote:

PatrickC wrote:
While I agree with your sentiment about mountain streams Biker...every trout fishery in PA is an artificial fishery. Those spectacular native brook char are the only non-contrived salmonid fishery in PA.

Oh come on now. You know what he meant. The Erie steelhead fishery is a blast, but it is fake to the core. Lumping wild brown trout fisheries together with the Erie tribs is just silly.

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me Kev. I do silly pretty well ;-) I do know what he meant, but let's not forget, out dirty little fingers are in most of the fisberies....our beloved brown trout included. That's all I'm saying.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
Have to agree with the comment that said "all private water = nursery water with no fishing. There's your fix".

Very bad idea in my opinion. No way should any private property be deemed nursery water without the owners blessing.

If an agency ever did that to my property especially for an artificial fishery, they would be required to come out there and arrest me every flocking day and twice on Sundays. I'd do it just to make a point.

How would you like it of the Game Commission said that there will be no hunting on private property including your camp?

Really, I fully understand that landowners have to put up with a lot of crap there. And I fully understand and support their decision to post for that reason.

I cannot support the ones who post to achieve a private fishery, for profit or personal enjoyment. They ain't wild. Those are publicly stocked and paid for fish. If the public wasn't paying, there wouldn't be fish.

Wait a second... You can't support the right of a land owner to make money off of his own land in such a way that it doesn't hurt the environment? Land that he or his family paid for and pays taxes on. Sorry, here is where we differ.

I absolutely support a landowners right to do such a thing as you described. I don't like it at all, but I most definitely support their RIGHT to do so.

If you don't like publicly purchased pisces passing through privately purchased posted property then the public should stop putting privately purchase pisces in waters that pass through previously professed privately purchase public property. Otherwise, pay up or shut your pie hole and fish somewhere else.

Yeah, it'll start a war. If you didn't notice, there's already a war going on for the Erie tribs.

If it were me, I'd say BRING IT!

I'm thinking the proper way to handle this is not force the issue with the people who actually own the land. You might not like the outcome.

 

[inthedrift]

The nursery water idea will never work. The way the regs (PA Code 67.1) are written, it seems feasible, but it's not fair to restrict access to the landowner who posts the land just because the fish swim through there. This isn't the issue here.

The issue is that without the publicly funded fish, there really wouldn't be a cause for outside parties to pay the landowner (likely for a profit) for the lease. These aren't self sustaining, year round fisheries that would exist on their own. Those creeks are all but dead for much of the year, and without the the stockings, aren't worth nearly as much from a fishing standpoint.

So what's the solution?

It would likely take a rewrite of the regs to get this, and I don't even know if its legally possible, but my thought has been that a specific reg dealing with tribs to Lake Erie needs to be written to address this situation. Let the landowners and their family fish the posted land, but either prohibit outside "fishing leases" from occurring, or institute a tax on the leases to private parties. This would have the potential to make the offers that PFBC is making to the private landowners a bit more appealing and hopefully discourage the real problem; which is the pay to play leases that are becoming more common. If a landowner is truly tired of the crap that goes on (I can understand why they would be), then they would be free to go ahead and post it up. If they wanted to turn it into a lease for profit, then they would be paying the tax to fund the program that makes people want to lease their land for fishing in the first place.

With more people being crammed into less and less water, it's easy to see which way this is headed. The Erie Access program went into play in 2004, and has worked in some cases, but clearly needs some refining to end up with the best possible outcome not only for the anglers, but for the PFBC and the local businesses that rely on this part of the fishery to get them through the winter.

 

[turkey]

I think the easement program is still the best option right now. New laws telling people what they can and can't do with their land are fundamentally wrong. I can't agree with more taxes either.

I can see why the DSR in NY works financially but don't see that working on Elk. Who in their right mind would pay to fish a section when the other 90 percent of the stream is free?

 

[inthedrift]

turkey wrote:
I think the easement program is still the best option right now. New laws telling people what they can and can't do with their land are fundamentally wrong. I can't agree with more taxes either.

I can see why the DSR in NY works financially but don't see that working on Elk. Who in their right mind would pay to fish a section when the other 90 percent of the stream is free?

I doubt many more easements are on the way, so how is the existing program still the best option?

It not telling landowners what they can do with their land. It's telling them what they can do with the publicly funded fish. You want to use them for a profit, then you would have to pay.

90% of Elk is far from "free." Look at the map. http://fishandboat.com/steelhead.htm

 

[pcray1231]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I do support easements. Would rather the water be open to the public than posted and deemed nursery waters.

FD, Erie is a "different" situation. Anywhere else, posted waters simply aren't stocked by the PFBC. If there happen to be wild fish there, and it's a non-navigable stream, good for the landowner. I still may not like it but fully appreciate that he bought it and has that right.

But in Erie, just not stocking that water doesn't work because they are migratory. They have to go through that water to get to the public water. Yet, they are still stockies. Essentially, the fishermen are paying good money to stock fish in water that they have less and less area to fish, while guides are paying big bucks for exclusive access to the public's fish.

On the flip side, the angler hassles a landowner faces are huge. Picture opening day crowds, only every day for 7 months of the year.

While I support easements and such to reward landowners who do leave their land open, there is still the issue of how to deal with those who don't. I fully respect their right to post their land. I might do the same in their shoes. I don't want huge numbers of anglers parking on my property, walking through my backyard, etc. If that's truly their motivation, I'm on their side.

But I think it is simply wrong to exclude the public if the motivation is to make a buck from guides who want exclusive access to fish that the public put there. And that exists too.

How do you resolve this? Simple. You have a right to post your property. We are willing to encourage you not to in the form of easements, PFBC leases, or whatever. But if you choose to do so, we understand and respect your right to do so. We hope you understand that we will close the water to fishing, as is our right. It's fair. If you want to benefit from the public's fish, you have to allow the public. If you want to exclude the public, fine, but you don't get to benefit from their fish.

You're not "restricting access" from the landowner. He can walk down, and wade around all he wants. Just can't wet a line, which is not a "right", but rather a privelege granted by the PFBC. Heck, I'd even support selling him a special landowners license. If he owns, say, 1% of the stream frontage, then he can pay 1% of the cost to stock said stream, and get to fish "his" section all himself.

Regarding nursery waters being "actual" nursery waters, lol. I know there is a small % of successful reproduction on the Erie tribs. But it's very small.

 

[turkey]

inthedrift wrote:

turkey wrote:
I think the easement program is still the best option right now. New laws telling people what they can and can't do with their land are fundamentally wrong. I can't agree with more taxes either.

I can see why the DSR in NY works financially but don't see that working on Elk. Who in their right mind would pay to fish a section when the other 90 percent of the stream is free?

I doubt many more easements are on the way, so how is the existing program still the best option?

It not telling landowners what they can do with their land. It's telling them what they can do with the publicly funded fish. You want to use them for a profit, then you would have to pay.

90% of Elk is far from "free." Look at the map. http://fishandboat.com/steelhead.htm

As far as 90 percent, I just threw a number out there. For the sake of debate, they
aren't publicly funded fish. They are voluntarily funded when you choose to buy a license. If someone doesn't like where the funding is going or how the waters are managed, they have the option to not buy a license.

I can see how it isn't right to turn a profit with fish someone else paid for but would imposing a fee be a deterrent or just another revenue stream for the PFBC.
Imposing a fee is saying, "you can do whatever you want with your land but you have to pay us." I can't get on board with that. If people don't want pay to access water...don't pay. If the market won't support it, it'll go away.

 

[FarmerDave]

inthedrift wrote:


It not telling landowners what they can do with their land. It's telling them what they can do with the publicly funded fish. You want to use them for a profit, then you would have to pay.

I'm sorry, but that is just BS. Did the land owner force the Government to put those fish in there? Of course not.

Besides, if they are making money off of it, they are paying taxes on that money already.

Government has way too much control as it is.

 

[pcray1231]

It not telling landowners what they can do with their land. It's telling them what they can do with the publicly funded fish.

I'm sorry, but that is just BS. Did the land owner force the Government to put those fish in there? Of course not

I don't think so. We already do that, don't we. I know there's a program for farm ponds where the landowner doesn't need a license. But on a stream, does not the landowner need to buy a license for the right to fish? Can he keep more than the typical creel limit? If a fish is out of season, is he allowed to fish?

A landowner is treated no differently on fishing rights than any other angler. The PFBC controls fishing laws. And if they want to make a law saying no fishing, to anyone, they can. They already do! If you own land along an ATW, even if your section is not stocked, you are not allowed to fish in the closed season.

Again, the ONLY thing I'm accusing landowners of is posting for profit boosted by public fish. It's only a % of the landowners who post with that motivation, not all of them. Some % also have very noble motivations. What % falls in each category I don't know, but both groups exist.

And yes, just stopping the stocking is a viable option. It's been discussed. And at the current trajectory of things, it will happen eventually. It already happens on several of the tribs. But I'm not sure why this is a better option than the nursery waters thing? It's pretty much the same for all landowners. i.e. they'd have the right to post. Regarding fishing, they'd ALL have no fish to fish for. With nursery waters, at least they'd have a choice, allow access and be able to fish, or don't allow access and not be able to fish.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

FD, Erie is a "different" situation. Anywhere else, posted waters simply aren't stocked by the PFBC.

Soooo?!?

But in Erie, just not stocking that water doesn't work because they are migratory. They have to go through that water to get to the public water. Yet, they are still stockies. Essentially, the fishermen are paying good money to stock fish in water that they have less and less area to fish, while guides are paying big bucks for exclusive access to the public's fish.

And you somehow envisioned that I don't know this? But remind me again how this is the landowner's fault?

...

But I think it is simply wrong to exclude the public if the motivation is to make a buck from guides who want exclusive access to fish that the public put there. And that exists too.

Sure it's morally wrong to lots of people, but it is not illegal, nor should it be.

How do you resolve this? Simple. You have a right to post your property. We are willing to encourage you not to in the form of easements, PFBC leases, or whatever. But if you choose to do so, we understand and respect your right to do so.

I was with you on this one up to this point. Then you had to add the stink to it.

We hope you understand that we will close the water to fishing, as is our right. It's fair. If you want to benefit from the public's fish, you have to allow the public. If you want to exclude the public, fine, but you don't get to benefit from their fish.

That is both selfish and twisted and certainly not their right. Go ahead and try it without justification.

You're not "restricting access" from the landowner. He can walk down, and wade around all he wants. Just can't wet a line, which is not a "right", but rather a privilege granted by the PFBC. Heck, I'd even support selling him a special landowners license. If he owns, say, 1% of the stream frontage, then he can pay 1% of the cost to stock said stream, and get to fish "his" section all himself.

Look Pat, what your are talking about is tantamount to extortion at best. No way would it pass a constitutionality test. You are infringing on the landowners right to the pursuit of happiness on his own property. You have to also look beyond that and how this could be abused elsewhere

A much better suggestion would be to have the courts declare the larger tribs navigable. and one could likely get this on Elk. It is probably only a matter of who wants to spend the money. Remember, the rule is, was it ever navigable, not is it navigable today?. Yo know damn well at least part of it is. There is a boat ramp. Wouldn't that be a kick in the pants for Donny.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

It not telling landowners what they can do with their land. It's telling them what they can do with the publicly funded fish.

I'm sorry, but that is just BS. Did the land owner force the Government to put those fish in there? Of course not

I don't think so. We already do that, don't we. I know there's a program for farm ponds where the landowner doesn't need a license. But on a stream, does not the landowner need to buy a license for the right to fish? Can he keep more than the typical creel limit? If a fish is out of season, is he allowed to fish?

No idea, but it isn't a program. PA laws are screwed up on these regards. I believe one can fish on their own property without a license as long as the water isn't navigable. I could be wrong on that, but I don't think it is limited to ponds. But did you know that I need a license to fish in my brother's pond? What is up with that? I'm his brother for Pete sake.

Furthermore, I can hunt on my own farm in Ohio without purchasing a license. I just have to follow the same laws. But I am pretty sure my brother has to buy a license to hunt on his own farm. Neither of us make a living off of our farms.

You shouldn't justify bad legislation with bad legislation. At first I said can't, but we both know that is the wrong word.

A landowner is treated no differently on fishing rights than any other angler.

And it is you that is proposing to change that.

The PFBC controls fishing laws. And if they want to make a law saying no fishing, to anyone, they can. They already do! If you own land along an ATW, even if your section is not stocked, you are not allowed to fish in the closed season.

Name one example where the fish commission has closed one private property to fishing while leaving an adjacent property, private or public, open to fishing.

Again, the ONLY thing I'm accusing landowners of is posting for profit boosted by public fish.

Again I understand that, but it is wrong to do.

I lost interest in the rest and deleted it.

 

[geebee]

if i recall right, the navigable includes by canoe and does not exclude occasional portage.

I wonder if a compromise would be to make all species C&R except on public land and easements - sure, catch em up all you want, but you can't keep em.

that may make them think twice about posting and should have a limited effect on the public stock. not an ideal solution i know, but i have seen demand drop right off in streams that become C&R.

the DSR is C&R i think ?

unless they have a crown grant on their property like the DSR then they don't own the riverbed and so have no 'right' to harvest that is challengeable in court unless the grant specifically granted submerged lands (like in VA or on the Salmon) on the property.

thats how they won the Little J...

this is the denial of the Evil Empires appeal :

http://fishandboat.com/water/public/little_juniata/copa_brief.pdf

its the same law that allows anglers in MA to fish on the Kennedy compound

 

[pcray1231]

FD,

In PA, a landowner, and immediate family of the landowner who resides on said land, do not need to have a fishing license if the water body is 100% within the person's land. You can fish it without a license. So can your wife and kids, provided they live with you. You cannot invite anyone else to do so, nor let your brother (who I assume doesn't live there). They'd have to get a license.

It does not apply to streams unless it's both non-navigable and you own from headwaters to mouth. The entire water body has to be on your land. If any part touches anyone else's land you and everybody else needs a license. That law was designed for farm ponds, but there are situations where it may apply to larger lakes or small streams.

The logic behind this is that a landowner may own a non-navigable streambed or lakebed. But they do NOT own the water, nor the fish in it. In hunting situations, they do not own the wildlife. The appropriate wildlife agencies have 100% control over fishing and hunting. They can and do often accomodate landowners with special priveleges, such as crop damage permits and so forth. And they should. But they don't "have" to. It's not a landowner's right to fish and hunt on their own land. Nobody has a "right" to fish and hunt anywhere, even public land.

The right to access said land does not equate with the right to do anything you want on it.

Name one example where the fish commission has closed one private property to fishing while leaving an adjacent property, private or public, open to fishing.

Penns Creek. Above Coburn has significant posted sections. It is ATW, and thus closed for the month of March, including in the posted sections and for it's landowners and the guides who lease it. Meanwhile, in the public gorge, it's special regs and open year round.

There are many others. Really, any stream that is ATW is closed to all fishing at certain times, regardless of whether it's private or public.

Look, you said about stopping the stocking. It's getting to the point where I'd actually be in favor of that over the status quo. Why should the public throw money at it if they get less and less access to what their money buys?

I just can't figure out why the landowners would prefer that to what I was saying?

My suggestion, landowners can choose:

1. No fishing for anyone.
2. Allow public access and be allowed to fish.

Your suggestion, landowners would not have a choice:

1. No fishing for anyone.

Because what good is the "right" to fish if there are no fish there?

At the current trajectory, we're sooner or later gonna have to put an end to this one:

1. Exclude the public, but make boatloads of money on the fish the public put there.

It's just getting widespread enough that you can't let it slide anymore. If the landowners and guides wanna stock it on their own, have at it. Just don't expect any public help.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
FD,

In PA, a landowner, and immediate family of the landowner who resides on said land, do not need to have a fishing license if the water body is 100% within the person's land. You can fish it without a license. So can your wife and kids, provided they live with you. You cannot invite anyone else to do so, nor let your brother (who I assume doesn't live there). They'd have to get a license.

I believe I said that.

It does not apply to streams unless it's both non-navigable and you own from headwaters to mouth. ...

I don't think that is 100% true, but it doesn't matter. It's just a tangential discussion anyway, so who cares.

The logic behind this is that a landowner may own a non-navigable streambed or lakebed. But they do NOT own the water, nor the fish in it.

If the source is on the property, the property owner does own the water until it leaves the property. But no, they never own the fish. Unless of ccoures it's a licensed fish farm... ;-)

But explain to me again why I should need a license to fish my brother's spring fed pond?

Did the PF&BC put the fish there? No, they didn't. Me and my younger brother did for my older brother yet we both need a license.

But then, if you come and visit me in Ohio, you don't need a license to fish either of my ponds, or the crick if you are an invited guest. I could be wrong on the crick, but don't think so. Besides, it only has bait.;-)

In hunting situations, ...

Blah blah blah, I'm growing tired of that. Just another tangent.

I don't need a license to hunt my property in Ohio, but my brother technically needs a license to hunt on his own farm simply because he doesn't make a living off of it. What sense does that make.

The right to access said land does not equate with the right to do anything you want on it.

That's true to some extent. But what you are talking about is creating legislation that says I cannot pursue the same happiness on my own land that I can legally pursue on public or someone else's land simply because I put up some signs. More accurately it is simply because a bunch of selfish pukes from the city want to do as they please on my property and I won't let them. (if I owned land in PA which I currently do not)

Name one example where the fish commission has closed one private property to fishing while leaving an adjacent property, private or public, open to fishing.

Penns Creek. Above Coburn has significant posted sections. It is ATW, and thus closed for the month of March, including in the posted sections and for it's landowners and the guides who lease it. Meanwhile, in the public gorge, it's special regs and open year round.

False example and you know it. Well, maybe you don't know it and just think I am an idiot. You should have known that I meant closed outside of ordinary regulation such as ATW.

There are many others. Really, any stream that is ATW is closed to all fishing at certain times, regardless of whether it's private or public.

Either you are arguing with yourself, or this is your way of showing that you did know what I meant. Give me an example where said property is closed to trout fishing year round (without owners consent) while adjacent property on the same stream is not closed year round. I'm betting you can't.

Look, you said about stopping the stocking. It's getting to the point where I'd actually be in favor of that over the status quo. Why should the public throw money at it if they get less and less access to what their money buys?

Whatever. All I am saying is you can't infringe on the right of a landowner to the peaceful enjoyment of his own property whether or not there are fish that someone else planted passing through said property.

I just can't figure out why the landowners would prefer that to what I was saying?

Fine, but I doubt the expect it.

My suggestion, landowners can choose:

1. No fishing for anyone.
2. Allow public access and be allowed to fish.

And your suggestion is extortionl.

Your suggestion, landowners would not have a choice:

1. No fishing for anyone.

So!

But in reality, it isn't true.

Because what good is the "right" to fish if there are no fish there?

Like that would happen.

At the current trajectory, we're sooner or later gonna have to put an end to this one:

I'm game.

1. Exclude the public, but make boatloads of money on the fish the public put there.

That is a valid choice.Just not a very nice one specially for mupears.;-)

It's just getting widespread enough that you can't let it slide anymore.

I can't?

If the landowners and guides wanna stock it on their own, have at it. Just don't expect any public help.

I don't think they do expect it. But as long as the public was willing to do it anyway...

Look, I don't like it any more than you, but you know as well as I do that property owners should and do have the right to decided who has access to their land. No matter how you slice and dice it, you are suggesting that the PFBC use extortion tactics to keep him from exorcizing his right.

 

[streamerguy]

Lake Erie Ultimate Angler posted this on their Facebook Page.....

Don't know if everyone has heard about the posting on Elk yet. Some bad stuff brewing. We found out about the posting yesterday. Trout Run Bait and Tackle is sub leasing land for guiding from the tubes down to Rt. 5. This is a real shame, and a horrible loss for the fishery....

And here's what Trout Run Bait and Tackle says on their site...

WOW What a day! I got my first piece of hate mail. Thank you to Don S. for checking your facts.
WE DID NOT LEASE THE PROPERTY ON ELK CREEK!!!!
For everyones' information, the property was going to be posted by the landowner and then was leased by another local......Not us!! I can't afford it!!! We were approached by the gentlemen who leased the property, and asked if we would like the rights to guide on it. If we refused, he was headed for the Ultimate Angler in Erie. We accepted his offer............what would you do? I don't necessarily agree with the entire thing either, but it was a business decision. Again, we did not lease or post the property!
These are the facts!! If any of you post to the Fish Erie site, you have my permission to copy and paste this post. There seems to be a great many rumors and outright lies going around. Give us a call if you'd like.

 

[inthedrift]

A lot of energy here could be better directed at actually making progress rather than bantering back and forth...

http://fishandboat.com/promo/grants/erie_access/00erie_access.htm

"Questions regarding the (Erie Access Improvement) program can be directed to Scott Bollinger at (717) 346-8196"

John Arway, Rep. Greg Lucas, Rep. Curtis Sonney, and Senator Sean Wiley are also good people to contact and share your concerns.

We can have all the ideas we want, but in the end, these are the people that can actually make a push for some kind of progress on this issue.