Newly Posted Section of Elk Creek

[pcray1231]

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

You're wrong on that one. If the stream sources from and/or flows off your property, you need a license, and must abide by all the rules that everyone else has to.

The law was set up for fishin farm ponds.

If the source is on the property, the property owner does own the water until it leaves the property.

Again, wrong. Water and water rights are not the same thing. The state owns all surface waters. For instance, if someone can get a boat on it without crossing "your" land, and they don't touch bottom with the boat, they can technically "float" it. While that is extremely unlikely if you own the source, we also weren't really talking about streams where you own the source, were we?

Ohio may be different, and that's beside the point. We were talking about PA. That goes for hunting situations too. In PA, even if you do make a living on your farm, I think you need a hunting license to hunt it. If you don't, then it's by blessing of the PGC, not because the landowner has that "right".

You should have known that I meant closed outside of ordinary regulation such as ATW.

How is nursery waters not an ordinary regulation? They already exist on the Erie tribs. And yes, some of them are on POSTED property, and even the landowner cannot fish them. They just are not on ALL posted property, nor are they all on posted property. T

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.

He can do whatever he wants on his property. Again, water is not his property. He is already restricted on when and how he can fish.

If it were 5 or 10% of the water being posted, I wouldn't want to start a war over this. But it's not. We're to the point that over half of the fishable stream miles are now posted or inaccessible without crossing posted property, and that number is growing. As it does, anglers are pushed into tighter and tighter areas, and the impact on the remaining landowners increases. Meanwhile, the guide business explodes and bigger and bigger sums of money become available to those who post and lease.

That's all fine and good, cept the group providing ALL of the fish is the group being pushed out.

And make no mistake, you can make the call that it's still worth stocking fish. I can't disagree. But on the current trajectory, we WILL reach a point where it's not. And I'm fully in support of saying that if X% of the stream miles are posted, that stream does not recieve any smolts.

My note of the "nursery waters" solution. It's time may not be here yet. But when that time comes, I would find it a preferable solution, for landowner and fishing public alike, than just stopping the stocking.

 

[RLeeP]

I do not see the referenced incident as being determinative for the future of the fishery. The state of the situation is likely to see saw back and forth with a little water being lost somewhere and then, likely in organized response, a little more accessible water gained somewhere else in the drainage. And back and forth and on and on it will go, most likely for years..

The whole thing is precarious, though. You have a locomotive (the popularity of the fishery and all the public and private interests involved in sustaining it) and a boulder (the property owners who've perhaps had enough and the pressure for additional commodification of stream sections through leasing and the like).

If a collision is to be avoided, its going to require a lot of attention to the tracks.

We'll see...

It may well be that the entire thing will devolve back to what it was 30+ years ago before the Commission get so heavily involved, a much smaller privately-fueled program (3CU, etc.) that attracts a commensurately smaller number of anglers.

We'll see about that as well.

 

[geebee]

its only one bank right ?

http://www.fisherie.com/Images/FE-Maps/LowerElkCreekMap.pdf

still a big chunk...

 

[geebee]

just read that the tackle store is not paying or charging for access to the land - the landowner doesn't want unaccompanied anglers on his land.

thats a different issue imho - in some Canadian states you can't fish for Salmon without a guide to protect the resource and land.

its understandable but regrettable.

 

[SBecker]

And I just read the tackle store backed out of it once they heard the outcry.

 

[FarmerDave]

OK, I deleted the irrelevant stuff and won't even mention them this time

pcray1231 wrote:

You should have known that I meant closed outside of ordinary regulation such as ATW.

How is nursery waters not an ordinary regulation?

What the... That was not your example.

They already exist on the Erie tribs. And yes, some of them are on POSTED property, and even the landowner cannot fish them. They just are not on ALL posted property, nor are they all on posted property. T

Still doesn't fit the example I asked for. Show me a section of a stream that is closed to trout fishing year round on private property without the blessing of the land owner while adjacent unpasted sections are still open, public or otherwise.
And the lake doesn't count.


I deleted a bunch here too because it was redundant.

That's all fine and good, cept the group providing ALL of the fish is the group being pushed out.

And how is this the landowners fault?

And make no mistake, you can make the call that it's still worth stocking fish.

Wasn't planning on it.

I can't disagree.

Sure you could if you wanted to.

But on the current trajectory, we WILL reach a point where it's not. And I'm fully in support of saying that if X% of the stream miles are posted, that stream does not recieve any smolts.

So, now you are changing your argument to agree with mine?

My note of the "nursery waters" solution. It's time may not be here yet. But when that time comes, I would find it a preferable solution, for landowner and fishing public alike, than just stopping the stocking.

Of course you would. Hell, I would prefer that about 4 or 5 billion people step off of this rock, but that aint happening either. (sarcasm).

Extortion is a bad idea, and we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[FarmerDave]

If a group of people who regularly fish there offered to police the property and pick up trash, there might be a chance the landowner will open it back up.

 

[bingsbaits]

Got this quote from another site. Can't verify if it's true or not.

"""The reason the land was posted is based on a couple of instances experienced by the landowner. First, he had a couple of unpleasant encounters with steelhead fishermen on his own property. This set the stage for combustion to eventually occur. What started the fire and ultimate posting of the property was the landowner was apparently recently cited for a trespassing violation by parking his car, along with a couple of friends, on the adjacent property which is posted. According to my reliable first hand source the owner had a hand shake agreement with the nursery owner to access his land through their property. From what I gather the land in question is landlocked or quasi inaccessible. All landowners have a right to access their property whether landlocked or not. The party responsible for the citation was the Pennsylvania Game Commission, not Fish and Boat, and it apparently went to court. The fines ended up standing and were around $180 for each person. This broke the back of the property owner and triggered the posting, so the story goes. If this is correct it is actually shameful. Not that anyone is above the law but it seems common sense and law enforcement discretion was not applied. This is what I was told anyway. None-the-less I can’t blame the landowner."""


If that's the truth it sounds more like a hissy fit to me....

 

[FarmerDave]

bingsbaits wrote:
Got this quote from another site. Can't verify if it's true or not.

"""The reason the land was posted is based on a couple of instances experienced by the landowner. First, he had a couple of unpleasant encounters with steelhead fishermen on his own property. This set the stage for combustion to eventually occur. What started the fire and ultimate posting of the property was the landowner was apparently recently cited for a trespassing violation by parking his car, along with a couple of friends, on the adjacent property which is posted. According to my reliable first hand source the owner had a hand shake agreement with the nursery owner to access his land through their property. From what I gather the land in question is landlocked or quasi inaccessible. All landowners have a right to access their property whether landlocked or not. The party responsible for the citation was the Pennsylvania Game Commission, not Fish and Boat, and it apparently went to court. The fines ended up standing and were around $180 for each person. This broke the back of the property owner and triggered the posting, so the story goes. If this is correct it is actually shameful. Not that anyone is above the law but it seems common sense and law enforcement discretion was not applied. This is what I was told anyway. None-the-less I can’t blame the landowner."""


If that's the truth it sounds more like a hissy fit to me....

If it is true, it's not a hissy fit to me. I wouldn't care if the fine was 10 dollars or a thousand. I don't consider property owner rights to be trivial and my handshake means something.

 

[bingsbaits]

I couldn't agree more Dave on property owner rights...
Then why lease for steelhead fishing if your just trying to spite the PGC and his neighbors..

 

[pcray1231]

How is nursery waters not an ordinary regulation?

What the... That was not your example.

Actually, it was my original example. It wasn't my 2nd example.

Show me a section of a stream that is closed to trout fishing year round on private property without the blessing of the land owner while adjacent unpasted sections are still open, public or otherwise.

See nursery waters on Crooked Creek, Trout Run (and all tribs), Orchard Beach Creek (and all tribs), and Godfrey Run (and all tribs). All 3 are private property, where no fishing is allowed, even by the residents. Though I can't say whether it's with or without the resident's approval. For several of them, though, there are dozens of residents with land adjacent to the waterse, and I can't imagine that ALL of them agreed (nor did they have to, as the PFBC has the authority to prevent fishing in any water it chooses).

And how is this the landowners fault?

I didn't say it was. I'm not attacking landowners here (well, not all of them, anyway). Nor am I infringing upon their rights. They DO NOT OWN the water nor the fish. I'm merely proposing taking away the ability to profit unfairly on a resource the public owns and provides. I still fully support their right to post their land.

So, now you are changing your argument to agree with mine?

Not changing my argument. I see ending the PFBC funded stocking as a viable alternative if public fishing opportunities continue to decline. Always have. This equates to the death of the fishery, period. Nobody gets to fish. It might be preferable to the public if they see themselves paying too much for too little, they can just stop paying.

But it's still an admission of failure from the public. They want a fishery, and they want to pay for it. The guides want a fishery. The local economy wants a fishery. Many landowners want a fishery, and those who don't, would still have the option of posting their land.

I just don't see any party who would find ending the stocking preferable to the "nursery waters" solution?

But you will get to the point where the status quo is no longer a viable option. What's your solution? My ears are wide open, and I'm open to suggestion. The only "wrong" answer is that the public keep paying to stock fish while only being able to access an insignicant amount of stream miles.

Again, the current status quo is that the water is public, the fish are public (and paid for), the streambeds and land are private. EVERYBODY'S ability to fish is a privelege provided by the public, not a right. And this privelege can very legally be taken away from anyone, including the landowner.

 

[pcray1231]

If that story is true, then the PGC has some answering to do!

I could see getting the citation, if the PGC was enforcing parking for the nursery, and didn't know who's car it was. But doesn't the landowner (in this case, the nursery), have to press charges? Once they figured out who it was, why wouldn't they drop them? Why would the PGC continue to prosecute after finding out the backstory? Since he had a right to his land, why didn't the court just drop it?

I might say the landowners response amounts to taking it out on the wrong party, but the landowner had every right to be upset.

 

[RLeeP]

>>Not changing my argument. I see ending the PFBC funded stocking as a viable alternative if public fishing opportunities continue to decline. Always have. This equates to the death of the fishery, period.>>

If this happened (Commission withdrawal..), I don't believe it necessarily means the "death" of the fishery. Particularly if the Commission's sole involvement were throttled back to only supplying a finite number of eggs eggs or fry or however it works to the Co-ops. In 2005, the last year I could find numbers for, the Co-ops raised and stocked roughly 15-20% (or about 180,000) of the fingerlings placed in the tribs that year. I have no idea what the average return rate is for these fish, but just for the halibut, lets say it is around 10%. Using the 2005 stocking numbers, this would be a return of 15 to 20 thousand steelhead. This is not an inconsiderable number of fish and could provide a modest but worthwhile fishery, all with minimal (or perhaps no) Commission involvement. I'm pretty sure 3CU has the infrastructure and raceways in place to handle something like this and then some. Lots of volunteers would be needed, but that shouldn't be a problem

As a I sort of said in a previous post, this is what it may eventually come down to. Right sizing the supply side of the fishery to fit the somewhat delicate access situation.

But by no means would the fishery have to "die" if the Commission largely or completely withdrew. The fishery was there before the Commission ever got involved and there is no reason it could not remain if the Commission pulled stakes. It would be a significantly smaller and more modest fishery, but that may well be a far better match for the realities of the access situation.

 

[pcray1231]

Yeah, that is true.

I realize 3CU started before the commission was involved, but it still was funded mostly by people who were interested in fishing on publicly accessible waters, of which there were a lot more of. Should the PFBC exit for public access reasons, I would suggest that there would have to be substantial changes to the way they fund themselves.

Many of the current donors and volunteers would drop out, and to continue even the same level of "fishery creation", they'd have to find new sources. They might be able to, though. Absent the public, the guide industry and landowners would have to fill the gap in a major way.

But yes, I agree, that's a viable alternative. Just give up on it as a publicly accessible resource. Take the public out of it. Make it totally private, and then it's up to those private entities to support it. Landowners and guides would have to pay a LOT more for a lot less fish, but they'd get it all to themselves, and there's not much we the public could or should say about it.

You'd probably have the opposite situation, with the "public" picking off privately provided fish out in the lake, as well as at a few publicly owned access points.

Dang migratory fish. Whoever puts them in, well, they don't stay where you want em!

 

[CRB]

Stopped yesterday afternoon to fish, almost went into trout run bait to put a large amount of money down to purchase some tying materials and drove right on by and ordered on the Internet $250 worth of materials from a mid state retailer. Money is what it is about. That stretch was owned by an excellent football coach in the day and taught life lesions that are still remember to today. If only his wisdom would show more often in the local community there would be fewer problems in the west county.
FWIW
Fairview Evergreen Nursery gave the WPC the land south of the tracks and the fields are administered by PAGC. No Parking means NO PARKING!
Posted land on Erie county tribs should be NO FISHING. Landowners do not have Cart blanch the what they what with land.FACT and more regulations should be written.

 

[StarvinMarvin]

Is it true, CRB that TR was claiming they were forced into a lease? and then backed out once they heard the outcry??

 

[inthedrift]

Assuming the property is zoned as residential, how does that figure into a commercial operation (guides and shops) leasing the access to turn a profit for themselves and possibly the landowner? Is this even legal? Just a thought.

 

[bingsbaits]

Yes it is legal, Donny Beaver and Senyo have proven that...

 

[CRB]

and reason enough for me to push for nursery water fishing regs. this has to be stopped. I would purpose using Erie stamp money to fight for all streams in the state being navigable or posted streams sections become no fishing for everyone sections. it may be the only way to keep streams viable. In my belief the free lunch fishing guides and fish clubs need to be stopped sooner vs later.

 

[CRB]

just like zoning regulations.