Newly Posted Section of Elk Creek

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

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).

There is a difference between putting the regulation on the entire stream (trout run) and on just a section of it (Crooked Creek) and the latter is what I asked for an example of. And your Crooked Creek example, how do you know that this was not in agreement with the land owner. I highly suspect it was. See my earlier question. You still have not provided an example.

If you are proposing making ALL of Elk creek, nursery waters, then good luck with that.

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).

Just the oens who don't want you on their property.

Nor am I infringing upon their rights.

No, you are just proposing that the Fish Commission do so.

As you pointed out, fishing is a privilege, not a right. However, peaceful enjoyment of your property is a constitutionally protected right. Taking away the privilege of fishing on ones own property without the landowners blessing while allowing it on adjacent property would be an infringement on that right.

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

Again, how is this the landowners problem?

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.

You have four choices.

1. Get the stream declared navigable.
2. Fish somewhere else.
3. Pay to fish.
4. Buy your own property.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
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.

Technically speaking, the guy would need to have written permission. In other words, fish commission technically does not recognize handshake agreements and technically speaking, the law was broken.

Why would the GC continue on that? Maybe the guy who got cited was a **** about it from the start. That is never a good practice when dealing with law enforcement, but it does happen. I'm betting if he would have just explained it, the charge would have been dropped with the landowners blessing.

 

[FarmerDave]

CRB wrote:
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!

Interesting. If this is true, then I rescind my earlier comment where I said it wasn't a hissy fit. No PArking means No Parking and if the Game Commission has control of the property, then a handshake agreement with the former owner means nothing.

Posted land on Erie county tribs should be NO FISHING.

You are entitled to that opinion.

Landowners do not have Cart blanch the what they what with land.FACT and more regulations should be written.

They do within reason and it should stay that way. Do you have a back yard? If so, who has control over who can access it?

 

[osprey]

WHOA!!!! Just got back to the nest and come to see this , if this is the area i'm thinking it is , between rt 5 and the Conrail trestle that is alot of water , caught my first on there above the metal bridge they were fixing last year. Didn't they just build a new access there? Have i got the wrong section in mind?

 

[salmonoid]

It's not to the tressle; just up to the tubes.

 

[bjkaledas]

I think this is the stretch from the bridge upstream of Uncle John's Campground up to the Tubes (railroad bridge tubes)? It is a sorta small stretch, but a good one. I caught my first Erie brown ever here last year. Sad to see it go

 

[bjkaledas]

Ya know, if the landowner posted this due to fisherman walking by the windows and everything, that makes me worried about the same thing happening on 20 Mile downstream of the Route 5 bridge. I know the landowner there has the same problem, so hopefully that never becomes an issue there. I think a relatively small amount of water could be posted though.

 

[CRB]

If a property owner has problems with trespass and fisherman a fishing easement would be an advantage as the PAFBC WCO/DWCO could uphold all PA criminal code violations and provide policing to said easement. If a property owner elects no be enrolled their only recourse would be PASP. Which at times have limited availability to non life threatening calls.
A few bills in the property owners pocket and policing of the stream in exchange for public easement. Sounds fair to me.

 

[pcray1231]

FD, responding to post #81.

1. No, I wasn't proposing ALL of Elk Creek. I too do not know on Crooked Creek whether and of what nature any deal with the landowner is. Nonethless, the other examples, while being the whole creek, are indeed examples where streams are "NO FISHING" year round against the wishes of at least some of the landowners. I fail to see how this is a different situation than if it was just a portion. The fish commission can have no fishing regulations anywhere it chooses. It can do it with or without the landowners approval, but I agree it is and should be more hesitant to do it without. Nonetheless, I gave examples where they do.

2. No, not just the one's who don't want me on their property. I'm cool with that. Just the one's who don't want me on their property FOR THE PURPOSE OF profiting from paying fishermen who are fishing in public water for fish that I paid for and put there.

3. Firmly disagree with you on saying that taking away fishing from a landowner takes away a right. The main reason is, that again, THE WATER IS NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. It does not need to be navigable for this to be true, it is true of all flowing surface waters in PA. Navigability only determines the ownership of the streambed. But the water itself and any fish found within are PUBLIC property, owned by the public, NOT OWNED by the adjacent landowner.

4. I didn't say it was the landowners problem. There is a problem, but the status quo is that the problem is 100% against the public, not the landowner. The public has the option of backing out, and stopping the stocking altogether. RLeeP and I discussed the outcome of that, and it is an option. I'm just not sure that it's a preferable solution for anyone involved, including the landowner. You seem to be arguing for continuing the status quo forever. Make no mistake, we'll reach a point where the status quo is not an option for the public. Any group who pays a lot of money for a resource that they have very little access to is just not a sustainable model.

You have four choices.

1. Get the stream declared navigable.
2. Fish somewhere else.
3. Pay to fish.
4. Buy your own property.

None of the above have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. AT ALL. Whether or not it's navigable, I dunno, but it either is or isn't; you can't enact some action to "make" it so. The rest were always options and always will be and are not at all related to solving the problem we were talking about, hence don't belong in this discussion.

Here are the options.

1. Keep the status quo. Keep paying to have it stocked, keep losing more and more access, until the only access is on the small amount of public property (which is ZERO on some tribs).
2. Go all in on easements and PFBC buying property or buying fishing rights wherever it can. End up in a bidding war with guides.
3. Propose some sort of management change, such as the "nursery waters" option, to remove the one most troublesome motivation for posting.
4. Give up on the fishery, have the PFBC totally back out of Erie, and no more stocking. See RLeeP's discussion.

Personally, I would choose #3. That isn't what'll happen, though. For another decade or two, we'll go at a combination of #1 and #2. Eventually, #4 will occur.

I could accept anyone supporting any of the above options, or any other suggestions. Such as RLeeP basically saying "let's get on with #4." The reason I keep coming back to you, though, is that you seem to deny that there's a problem at all. There is.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

Option 5. When unfettered public access falls below 50% of adjacent land stop stocking. Intended to stop the transfer of public goods to private ownership.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
FD, responding to post #81.

1. No, I wasn't proposing ALL of Elk Creek.

Of course not. You want to fish there on someone else s land.

I too do not know on Crooked Creek whether and of what nature any deal with the landowner is.

It's likely with land owner blessing. Surely you have seen it.

Nonethless, the other examples, while being the whole creek, are indeed examples where streams are "NO FISHING" year round against the wishes of at least some of the landowners.

None of those fit the example I asked for. Crooked Creek was closest, but unless you can prove it was against landowner wished... It doesn't fit, either.

The fish commission can have no fishing regulations anywhere it chooses.

Good luck with that.

2. No, not just the one's who don't want me on their property. I'm cool with that. Just the one's who don't want me on their property FOR THE PURPOSE OF profiting from paying fishermen who are fishing in public water for fish that I paid for and put there.

But you yourself said it would be difficult to determine that, so it would have to be all posted land.

3. Firmly disagree with you on saying that taking away fishing from a landowner takes away a right. The main reason is, that again, THE WATER IS NOT PRIVATE PROPERTY. It does not need to be navigable for this to be true, it is true of all flowing surface waters in PA. Navigability only determines the ownership of the streambed. But the water itself and any fish found within are PUBLIC property, owned by the public, NOT OWNED by the adjacent landowner.{

I'm fine with you disagreeing with me. But it doesn't make you right.

'''

Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda'

...

FD wrote:

You have four choices.

1. Get the stream declared navigable.
2. Fish somewhere else.
3. Pay to fish.
4. Buy your own property.

None of the above have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.

Bullshit! You asked me for alternatives to special Gestapo rules for landowners that you don't like and I gave them.

This whole conversion has been about the "have nots" wanting to force a "have" into giving up a right that the "have" has because you feel entitled to the trout that pass over his land.

The right being the right to control who uses his property.

If you could catch those fish without using his property, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

You apparently will never see that, but what's next? Making it no hunting on all posted land? Landowner's don't own the deer, or the substance they breath either. Do you honestly think it will stop at planted trout?

If you look at this from a logical side, your idea simply will not work.

Conversation over. I'm done.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
The reason I keep coming back to you, though, is that you seem to deny that there's a problem at all. There is.

P.S. read my avatar.

I have not denied that at all. Not once.

 

[bingsbaits]

They are not leasing the land....Without those fish in that stream there would be "0" leases or pay to play sections on these streams. They are leasing for the purpose of making money off of a public resource..Excluding those who paid for that resource.

All land leased for this kind of profit and all Pay to play areas should be deemed commercial property and should be taxed as such..

Or designate all pay to play areas as "Refuge areas".


As far as the deer go that is a **** poor example.
The deer are not stocked and paid for by the hunters.

 

[FarmerDave]

bingsbaits wrote:
They are not leasing the land....Without those fish in that stream there would be "0" leases or pay to play sections on these streams. They are leasing for the purpose of making money off of a public resource..Excluding those who paid for that resource.

Baloney, Doesn't matter the purpose, they are leasing the land. It is the only stationary thing in the equation.

Property value is determined by 3 things. location, location and location. These people just happen to own a great location that others want to use.

All land leased for this kind of profit and all Pay to play areas should be deemed commercial property and should be taxed as such..

Now that would be an interesting discussion. But do we know how the land in question is zoned currently?

Do we know that commercial would be taxed higher especially when it can't be built on (flood plane)?

Either way, they should be paying income taxes on any income they get off of their property.

I would also speculate that many of the leased properties are zoned something other than strictly residential, such as agriculture, or whatever. This is based mainly on size and I did say I was speculating.

Or designate all pay to play areas as "Refuge areas".

Refuge, as in the socialized version of private refuge where only "authorized" personnel are allowed to tread?

As far as the deer go that is a **** poor example.
The deer are not stocked and paid for by the hunters.

I disagree.

Doesn't matter to the fish commission if the trout are stocked or not. They are regulated exactly the same.

The next logical progression from going after posted land for fishing is going after posted land for hunting. Do we really want to go socialize property rights?

The approach of "if I can't use it , then the property owner can't either is not a good approach at all as long as this is still a semi-free country.

IMO of course.

 

[pcray1231]

Of course not. You want to fish there on someone else s land.

Nope. I just don't want to pay for someone else to have a private fishery. I'm happy if I don't pay and don't get access. And I'm happy if I pay and get access.

It's likely with land owner blessing. Surely you have seen it.

I've seen the property. I haven't talked with the landowner.

But you yourself said it would be difficult to determine that, so it would have to be all posted land.

Yes.

I'd also be ok with similar to how they do with farm ponds. i.e. the landowner and his immediate, resident family members can fish without a license, but nobody else. Cept here, it'd be to fish, not just to get a license. Basically outlawing leasing it or running a for profit business on the fishery. That'd be harder to enact, though.

This whole conversion has been about the "have nots" wanting to force a "have" into giving up a right that the "have" has because you feel entitled to the trout that pass over his land.

The right being the right to control who uses his property.

If you could catch those fish without using his property, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Could you not reverse that? The landowner feeling entitled to the fish that pass over his land? He's not. They're not his fish.

If he could get his lease money without me supplying those fish, then we wouldn't be having this conversation either. Cause I'd have no rightful grievance.

I completely support every landowners' right to post their property, and there exist plenty of valid reasons to do so.

I just don't think profiting by supplying exclusive access to a public resource is a valid reason, and find it very reasonable that the public should want to confront this issue should it become large enough. Staying within their legal means, of course. We already do this with regular stocked fisheries. We don't stock posted property, period. If there's wild fish on that land, good for the landowner. If a few of our stockies swim through, well, we'll put up with that, it's a small %. I know of zero situations where landowners profit from exclusive access to publicly stocked (non-steelhead) fish. But in Erie, they HAVE to pass through and are being profited on handsomely.

To me, I would think that this proposal is better for landowners than the alternative, which is what RLeeP describes. I'd be in support of that too. I guess I don't understand why, if you claim to be on the landowners side, why you would prefer that approach? Is the PFBC backing out completely what you think should happen? I'm asking, not telling...

 

[FarmerDave]

Ignoring all the fluff and additional tangents...

pcray1231 wrote:

Could you not reverse that? The landowner feeling entitled to the fish that pass over his land? He's not. They're not his fish.

Of course I could reverse it, and I believe we have numerous times.

True he doesn't own the fish, just like I don't own the deer or turkeys in my woods.

It really boils down to this.
As far as the fish goes, you both have about the same privilege and level of ownership.

However, the land owner is entitled to his own land (tittle, deed, whatever). You are not entitled to it without his blessing and that my friend should never change.

 

[riz]

Geez, yes the LANDOWNER is entitled to use their own land. However, the land owner should not be allowed to sell the use of public resources, to others, without paying the PUBLIC to use public resources. Every other state that allows hunting and fishing on public property by outfitters charges a fee and gives them a license to hunt/fish on said property. This is the same thing. Landowners need to apply for a license and pay the fees to use public property for profit. This is the right of the public to get fair reimbursement for our property.

 

[FarmerDave]

Geez, yes the LANDOWNER is entitled to use their own land.

Technically that is all he is doing. And he is entitled to make money off if it of he so choseso.

However, the land owner should not be allowed to sell the use of public resources, to others, without paying the PUBLIC to use public resources.

Technically he isn't. He is only leasing that which he owns. In order for people to enjoy the resource, that you speak of they still have to buy a license in PA.

Also, ... Because of that resource, he likely paid a considerable amount of money to acquire said land and pays a boat load of taxes on it.

[/quote]

Every other state that allows hunting and fishing on public property by outfitters charges a fee and gives them a license to hunt/fish on said property. This is the same thing.

I don't know if this is true or not, but even if it is. Why can't a landowner do the same thing and charge a guide to fish on their land?

Landowners need to apply for a license and pay the fees to use public property for profit. This is the right of the public to get fair reimbursement for our property.

True, but they don't have to pay a an additional fee to make money off of their own land cept for the usual taxes and such. And trout are not considered property at least not when in a stream.

What if stocked pheasant ended up on my property? Would I not be allowed to post it and control who hunts on there whether I charge a fee or not?

Believe me, I understand your frustration. But be careful what you wish for. Start trying to put more restrictions on private landowners and see where it gets you. You also need to consider other ways these these proposed rules will be abused.

 

[pcray1231]

However, the land owner is entitled to his own land (tittle, deed, whatever). You are not entitled to it without his blessing and that my friend should never change.

Here's what it boils down to. I agree with the above. But the fish in question and the water they swim in are NOT his property in any manner whatsoever, other than that he's one member of the "public" which does indeed own them. The landowner has every right to exclude me from doing anything on his land. And the public has every right to exclude him, me, or everyone, from doing anything to the water or fish held within.

It's quid pro quo.

Like I said, what you're angling towards is a complete withdrawal from the PFBC. You haven't said that, but you haven't offered a single other solution.

And I'd be just fine with that solution, even if it means I don't get access. Your attacking this as if I'm trying to get access. And you couldn't be more wrong. I'm not asking for his land. I'm trying to prevent public money from going towards a resource that is more and more serving private for-profit interests.

The "no more steelhead" thing isn't being used as merely a threat. It's a viable option and it's been discussed by many.

I just didn't see that as the preferable solution for landowners. I thought they'd prefer to have a choice. But apparantly you see it differently, and that's fine.

 

[StarvinMarvin]

All these ideas, are absolutely idiotic. If a water is nursery, it has to be used that way, so theres a no go on that one. This isn't that hard, either your land is open to public fishing, and you gain a tax exemption or get money from the pfbc, or your land is simply closed to you and whoever you are willing to let walk on it for free, you shouldnt gain a profit for anything other than parking. Anglers should be willing to pay for parking on private water, and make sure to clean up after them selves. I would think that if the PFBC could pay the landowner and we could put signs up like "its not your right to fish here, this landowner was kind enough" blah blah maybe people would stop being slobs just a little bit. Or the other very real alternative, is no more steelhead, oh well.
Either way, its pretty much screwed up.