Newly Posted Section of Elk Creek

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
How would this be? Maybe a little overcomplicated, but I'm thinking it's fair. Kind of combining the approaches.

1. If a landowner leaves his land open to the public, he recieves a property tax break.

2. If a landowner wishes to post, he may. Expand the "farm pond" rule. i.e. the landowner and all immediate family members may fish, but nobody else, and the landowner cannot recieve any compensation for it.

3. If the landowner wishes to lease his land to guides, he may, but he has to pay a fee. The fee can be structured "per mile", and will match that % of the water. i.e. if he leases 10% of Elk Creek to private interests, then the fee will be 10% of what it costs the PFBC to stock steelhead in Elk Creek. The public then pays only the portion of the costs equal to their ability to access it. Landowners who are motivated to post for profit likewise would pay what it costs to create their private fishery, and can charge the guides for it.

This fee would have to be a special "Erie fee", as it would not apply to landowners leasing land elsewhere (for hunting or fishing purposes). Kind of like the Erie stamp on your fishing license, only this one is for landowners.

Supporting details: "Posting" means only stream frontage miles, below the high water mark. i.e. a landowner can prevent parking, or prevent the public from accessing portions of their land which do not include stream frontage, and still have the land deemed "open". i.e. they could then still get the property tax break, they could lease prime parking spots without paying the "fee", etc.

Yea, definitely overcomplicated, but there is some merit.

First of all, get rid of your number 2 because it is frankly ... number 2. No need for number 2 in this. Do you really thing that would make a difference? Never-mind, don't answer that.

Number 3 could be greatly simplified.

I'd say more, but no time.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

IMO no it isnt. It is one of the reasons why such places exist, but carry on.

But not the reason that's the problem, and the proposal(s) didn't prevent posting for this purpose.

BTW, the M in IMO stood for MY.

 

[pcray1231]

The only problem I foresee would be a fee equal to the stocking costs charge based on the percentage of stream being closed. I would guess that to be a lot of coin.

And it should be. i.e. it's setting up a free market, so to say. If guides/landowners can cover the cost of creating their fishery, good for them. I support them in their endeavors. Even if they posted up 100% of the fishery, that just means they collectively pay 100% of the costs, and I have no moral issue with that.

If they can't support it, then they can't support it. Landowners can still post to keep the slobs out. They just can't make money at it. Guides can still guide on public land like always.

The key is the validity of the actual costs. I do see a problem with verifying the costs. The PFBC would have to state their costs. And landowners would argue that there's nothing preventing them from just inflating that figure, not because it actually costs that much, but because they want extra revenue or that they want the leases to be cost prohibitive. It's an honest gripe. There'd have to be some sort of oversight to make sure the PFBC figure reflects reality.

Likewise, it'd open up complicated questions of who gets a say in management decisions. That cost isn't set in stone. They can stock more, or less, and by buying access the landowner/guide interests would also be buying a stake in that decision. The Donny Beavers of the world would want more, so that it costs more, pushing out all the smaller guiding operations and tipping the scale in their favor. Many landowners/smaller guides may want less, so that they can still sell the fishery to the unknowing tourist but do it more cheaply. i.e. I can't pay $500 for 1000 private fish to myself, but I'd be happy to pay $50 for 100 private fish to myself, and be able to sell the experience to my clients just the same.

 

[pcray1231]

First of all, get rid of your number 2

Fair enough. But whether stated or not, no compensation without paying the fee.

Number 3 could be greatly simplified.

I'd demand that it stay on a per mile basis, rather than a flat fee.

 

[SBecker]

OMG STFU both of you. Use the dang PM feature if you want to debate the same thing over and over for 9 pages.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

Number 3 could be greatly simplified.

I'd demand that it stay on a per mile basis, rather than a flat fee.

So, if I only have half a mile... Just joking.

You mean base it on frontage and of course if it involves both sides of the crick, that would be double. Right?

I wouldn't rule out basing it on value or amount charged just yet, though.

Lets think about it for a little bit.

Lets say I own a quarter mile stretch of mostly flat relatively featureless part of Elk Creek. Less desirable water. My neighbor has only 200 feet of stream, but it contains something like the Manchaser hole of one of ht popular spots. We both lease out our land to the same guy. I get peanuts because I own basically a wet bowling alley. Neighbor gets big bucks.

Maybe it should be based on value.

I also think the fee should be paid by whoever is charging people to fish there. If the landowner is doing this himself, fine, he pays the feel
But lets say I lease out the recreational rights of my land to Donald L Rodent (fictitious name), and Mr' Rodent has a club where he charges his members big bucks. Mr's Rodent should be paying the fee. If he doesn't like it, he can pass the cost of the fee onto the landowner, the members, or not renew the lease.

But what I really want to see is you admit the nursery water idea wouldn't work.

OK, I'm joking again.

 

[FarmerDave]

SBecker wrote:
OMG STFU both of you. Use the dang PM feature if you want to debate the same thing over and over for 9 pages.

My last one was mostly for your benefit.

You do realize there are other topics that you can browse, don't you?

 

[SBecker]

I am just saying what a hundred others are thinking. It is bad enough when I have to skip Pat's 12 page diatrabs, but then you add your thesis and it just is too much.

I am actually interested in what happens with this stream and is why I check the thread. I dunno why I do, because it is just you two blabber mouths going on and on.

 

[FarmerDave]

Is that a yes?

 

[PatrickC]

FarmerDave wrote:
Is that a yes?

:hammer:

 

[pcray1231]

Interesting stuff. But now your talking sense, which I can relate with, rather than getting defensive and putting up a wall.

For the value vs. length, if both sides are double, etc., well, they are very good questions and I have to take a little bit to think about em.

As for the question on who pays the fee, I'd make it be the landowner, but the landowner is EXPECTED to pass that cost off onto their lessee's, whether it be a guide or a club. Cause, first, there ain't no fee unless the landowner thinks they can make money, and they're gonna calculate that with revenue - cost. And having all fee's on their side means they can lease solely to this guide if he pays this much, or to these 4 guides if they collectively pay this much, or to an entire club if they collectively pay this much. A guide can then lease as much water as he wants, provided he pays what they're worth, and for his level of "exclusion".

 

[PatrickC]

pcray1231 wrote:
Interesting stuff. But now your talking sense, which I can relate with....

Oh Pat, you just couldn't stop yourself could you? They need to have a class on tact in engineering school

 

[CRB]

Land owners can cash in.
fishandboat

CRB I hope this is what your were referring to.

 

[CRB]

no this
http://fishandboat.com/promo/grants/erie_access/erie_operating_statement.pdf

 

[JackM]

I passed through the posted area and saw an enforcer on the shore. He was waving his arms, yelling, "you didn't pay." I yelled back: "I paid the state for these fish, gosh darn it," and he just looked at me. I stayed in the water and moved quickly through nobody's lies, since there was no one there, because of the scuttlebutt.

Anywho, I wasn't really there, but I write down my dreams, and sometimes post them.

 

[PatrickC]

Here's an article about this topic of this thread that is dated yesterday in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/4881416-74/commission-fish-posted#axzz2iJMQ7Op3

 

[CRB]

Pony up PAFBC and pay what the property owner wants vs what the state will pay that would entice the property owners into the program. The stamp goes to the legislators in 2014 for renewal if there is a fund balance or unspent moneys the program could get axed.