Pa Steelhead, catch the value?

[TimRobinsin]

Are you happy with the value you get from your Lake Erie Permit for steelhead fishing? With the loss of more water to posting, I have to question the value of the permit.

It seems to me that every year a large group of us are paying extra fees for a very small group of individuals to enjoy private access to a resource that was funded by all of us who bought permits or donated to organizations like 4-CU. Maybe it doesn't bother you but I have heard estimates that now posted land makes up approx. 1/3 of Elk Creek and almost 50% of 20mile.

That seems like an awful lot of water that a paying public is shut out of. I wonder how the PFBC feels about this. I wonder if they care? I know this gets brought up every year but how far is too far?

 

[sandfly]

2nd reason I don't fish steelhead in Pa.

 

[AkDan76]

Start selling raft trips and fidhing trips. Show the state the economical value and change the navigable water to high water mark. Now rivers become open to everyone! Or at least those who are willing to float!

Mans greed will shine should you attempt this. Be warned!

Mans greed is what likely caused it to get posted to begin with. People not caring who owned what and considered it a 'free for me'!

 

[pcray1231]

FWIW, I buy Erie stamps and only make a long weekend trip every 2 years or so. And yes, I am satisfied.

Absolutely I consider posted land a major issue. But I do know the money is buying easements. So like you said, 2/3 of Elk Creek is open, 1/3 posted. That sucks. But thanks to the Erie stamp the majority of that 2/3 that's open is certain to be open FOREVER.

It's really just been the last couple of years where the PFBC has gotten serious about access issues. I would argue they got into it too late with a lot of damage already done. But, nonetheless, it's a good program. We are approaching equilibrium where the way it is is the way it'll always be.

I do tend to agree with some regulatory solution to the "guide problem". These are public fish paid for by the public and absolutely there are areas that are posted because guides outbid the PFBC access program. That's wrong. I've heard the thought/proposal of making all waters that are not open to the public declared as nursery waters with no fishing. That'd be fine. I'd also support a lesser measure, where maybe to fish posted land you need a "private land stamp", which should be considerably higher than the public Erie stamp.

I mean, I don't mean to sound like I hate landowners. I get it. If I owned land on a steelhead trib, with armies of guys coming in day after day, many before daylight, leaving trash, yeah, I'd consider posting! And where that's the sole motivation, well, not a lot I can say. But in many cases it's not the motivation. The motivation is to get money from guides for private access to the public's fish. Getting a landowner to admit that isn't easy, and sure, in many cases it's dual motivation. Get the riff raff out but still make your bank. My point, I guess, is that posting is fine. But you shouldn't be able to make a dime on the public's fish if it's not open to the public. The choice for landowners SHOULD be to allow the public and get paid under the easement program, or to exclude the public and not make a cent. In that case all posting is due to honest privacy concerns, and while they have a right to exclude the public, they also give up a check from the public by doing so. We have to get rid of the situation where they can exclude the public and still get paid.

 

[PatrickC]

40% is posted from the mouth of Elk to McKean. 38% is posted and people are charged to fish the waters. Tim/Derek and I were discussing this from the perspective of me paying for a guide license to guide on the PA tribs. I believe that is appropriare. But if property is posted and then used to generate revenue from the fishery we pay for with license/stamp fees....those properties should be forced to pay something as well if they are generating revenues from the state stocked fish.

Anyway, the lower returns of fish bother me far less than the loss of access. And I'm not just concerned about it in PA. I own property in OH that everyone wants to deer hunt. I fully understand why people get ticked and post property. Wish we could reach a reasonable balance.

 

[McSneek]

Haven't been up there for several years yet continue to buy the Lake Erie permit each year "just in case."

Fact is, besides the posting issue, the streams themselves just aren't able to sustain a quality fishery. Sure, if you live within an hour or so, you should be able to time things perfectly to get there after a rain fills them up. It's almost impossible to plan a successful trip more than a couple days out.

"They" created this fishery and the huge demand for it and are now desperate to sustain it as fed up landowners push back by posting land. I'm sure many are profiting from that but I believe a lot of land is posted to keep the slobs out. PFBC had to dig holes on Walnut Creek so the fish and hundreds of "anglers" had somewhere to go. Now looking at these trickles that go into Lake Erie and trying to knock down any barriers so the fish can go a few hundred more yards upstream.

A successful day of real steelhead fishing out West or even the Salmon River might mean one fish to hand. In Erie people expect double digits every time out. Maybe the lower returns will lower the interest too and it can settle into something that's less like a circus and more like a real angling experience.

Thanks - sorry if this offends anyone. Think I've talked myself out of it again this year.

 

[PatrickC]

I like your points . You are absolutely correct about poor fisherman behavior resulting in posted land. And I agree, the returns are now closer to realistic. Steelhead fishing is a process of hunting and then enticing, not walking on top of fish. Still hope we can find a balance and not a collapsed fishery.

McSneek wrote:
Haven't been up there for several years yet continue to buy the Lake Erie permit each year "just in case."

Fact is, besides the posting issue, the streams themselves just aren't able to sustain a quality fishery. Sure, if you live within an hour or so, you should be able to time things perfectly to get there after a rain fills them up. It's almost impossible to plan a successful trip more than a couple days out.

"They" created this fishery and the huge demand for it and are now desperate to sustain it as fed up landowners push back by posting land. I'm sure many are profiting from that but I believe a lot of land is posted to keep the slobs out. PFBC had to dig holes on Walnut Creek so the fish and hundreds of "anglers" had somewhere to go. Now looking at these trickles that go into Lake Erie and trying to knock down any barriers so the fish can go a few hundred more yards upstream.

A successful day of real steelhead fishing out West or even the Salmon River might mean one fish to hand. In Erie people expect double digits every time out. Maybe the lower returns will lower the interest too and it can settle into something that's less like a circus and more like a real angling experience.

Thanks - sorry if this offends anyone. Think I've talked myself out of it again this year.

 

[pcray1231]

Fact is, besides the posting issue, the streams themselves just aren't able to sustain a quality fishery.

I disagree. Also somewhat disagree on "lesser runs". It's true that the PA tribs are small enough that they only come up in "pulses" after a rain. But harvest is a real issue.

We fished upper Elk last weekend and saw 60+ fish come out on stringers from 1 access point. It's not a huge stream. That kind of harvest day after day will reduce numbers quickly. Yes, at the next rain, more will come in. But, with similar harvest going on in lower elk, less are coming up. And, without that massive amount of harvest, it's not like fish are leaving. Each run would ADD to the previous, rather than merely replacing what was lost.

There are plenty of fish and if it weren't for harvest, there'd be a whole heck of a lot more. I don't mind guys keeping a fish now and then but seeing 3 guys together each carrying 3 fish out makes me kinda sick. They are big fish. How many do you need? And then there are the Russians, lol.... I'd support lowering the limit to 1 or 2. And part of it is just on anglers to practice C&R more often even if it's not required by law.

As for Walnut, Christ, fish used to run way up that stream. The project waters have really hurt things, IMO. All the fish stay in the lower end. Concentrating fish and anglers isn't a good thing in a fishery like that. It was always a zoo in lower Walnut but instead of trying to alleviate it, they made it even more of a zoo and took away choices to avoid the zoo.

40% is posted from the mouth of Elk to McKean. 38% is posted and people are charged to fish the waters.

Yeah, that's a problem. I'm not saying all 38% post for the sole purpose of getting money. I'm sure some have fair reasons for posting and would do so anyway, but they'll take the money.

And I understand posting to keep armies of slobs out.

But, they should have 2 choices.

1. Post and keep the slobs out. Collect not a single dime.
2. Keep it open, put up with the slobs, accept a check from the slobs.

I'd encourage anglers to be less slobbish, but the fact is, even the ones that aren't. There are a lot of them! If I have a stream in my backyard, I don't care if every single angler is the next coming. I'd not like 100 of them coming in by flashlight before daylight and staying till after dark every single day for 6 months of the year.

Would I accept a big fat check to let it happen? Maybe. I dunno. I'd consider posting. So I don't blame landowners for posting. But I do think that IF I chose to post, I should not be able to collect a single red cent from anyone to fish that water. I'm not even sure I should be able to fish that water.

If you wanna take advantage of the fishery, well, you gotta put up with the fishermen who made that fishery. If you'd prefer there were no fish in the water on your property, and no fisherman, fine, you have that choice. Post it. Nobody fishes. Not even you. But the fish and the fishermen come as a pair. Both or neither.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

McSneek wrote:
Haven't been up there for several years yet continue to buy the Lake Erie permit each year "just in case."

Fact is, besides the posting issue, the streams themselves just aren't able to sustain a quality fishery. Sure, if you live within an hour or so, you should be able to time things perfectly to get there after a rain fills them up. It's almost impossible to plan a successful trip more than a couple days out.

"They" created this fishery and the huge demand for it and are now desperate to sustain it as fed up landowners push back by posting land. I'm sure many are profiting from that but I believe a lot of land is posted to keep the slobs out. PFBC had to dig holes on Walnut Creek so the fish and hundreds of "anglers" had somewhere to go. Now looking at these trickles that go into Lake Erie and trying to knock down any barriers so the fish can go a few hundred more yards upstream.

A successful day of real steelhead fishing out West or even the Salmon River might mean one fish to hand. In Erie people expect double digits every time out. Maybe the lower returns will lower the interest too and it can settle into something that's less like a circus and more like a real angling experience.

Thanks - sorry if this offends anyone. Think I've talked myself out of it again this year.

I was talkin' to a PAFF member who is near Erie recently, and I suspect he'd agree w/ this assessment. It's an artificial fishery that may have unrealistic expectations. My question is, what would those tribs be naturally, and why can't they be managed as such? Why do we need an artificial steelhead fishery in PA?

 

[PocketWater]

I'd be all for a rule that if your land is posted then nobody can fish it at all, or maybe just the landowner or something. Just to prevent the guiding situation.

 

[PatrickC]

Uh, Andy, outside of the wild brook trout fishery in PA, the remainder of the salmonid fishery in PA is artificial with unrealistic expectations. Why shouldn't all of the cold water streams in PA be managed naturally based on that argument. I wouldn't disagree with that, BTW.

The_Sasquatch wrote:


I was talkin' to a PAFF member who is near Erie recently, and I suspect he'd agree w/ this assessment. It's an artificial fishery that may have unrealistic expectations. My question is, what would those tribs be naturally, and why can't they be managed as such? Why do we need an artificial steelhead fishery in PA?

 

[Char_Master]

If the Tribs were managed for a natural number of steelhead, you'd have only 1-5 fish in each hole even in prime conditions, Manchester would rarely have more than 20 fish. So at that point you have the same amount of guys pressuring fewer fish that may be absent altogether in conditions that aren't optimal. It'd be perfect if there were only 1-10 guys fishing a single trib each day, but let's be realistic here, that's never going to happen anytime between September and March. Just a thought.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Yeah that's a good point. And you're right, the realization is, naturally PA is a brook trout state. But, of course, the reality is, browns and bows are here to stay. You know we can't change the past. I wish we could go back in time and protect the wild brookies in the Letort and so on! I guess I tend to think of it more in terms of stocking and whatnot. We have plenty of streams that are supporting wild trouts, and they should be managed as wild trout fisheries. But we have a crap-ton of streams that are managed as "trout streams", when we all know that's not what they are. Especially in Lancaster County, this summer as I was fishing for smallies I kept thinking, "why is this stream stocked w/ trout? What's the problem with managing it as a smallmouth fishery?" It, at least in my mind, seems like a lot of time and money spent trying to make something that just isn't there.

I admittedly don't know much about Erie, which is why I was asking my friend about it. I don't know what those stream are like usually, what kind of fishery they'd be if no one messed with it. Would they be great smallmouth fisheries, for example, and if so, why not manage it as such?

 

[pcray1231]

Sas,

The streams in question get natural runs of suckers in early spring. The extreme lower ends of the larger ones get some catfish coming in at certain times of the year, but they rarely go much beyond the first hole, which is often more like a little bay in the lake.

Other than that, they are minnow fisheries. They would not support what are considered "sport" fish. They are essentially solid slate bottomed with very "flashy" flows. Spate streams. Virtually zero groundwater. Even the relatively large streams nearly dry up at certain times, leaving just a bunch of puddles with really no flow between them.

So yes, it's an artificial fishery. But it's not like they'd be managed for smallmouth instead. If it weren't an artificial trout fishery, it'd not be a fishery at all.

 

[Rollingdog]

few thoughts

- 1/3 of elk being posted is an over estimate. The section from the senyo water to folleys is really the only posting. You can walk from the lake to the senyo wire and from folleys up there are only a few little posted sections

- the watershed/fishery cannot hold the amount of people who want to fish it. This week (mid week) there were more people than I have ever seen on elk... even on a prime holiday weekend. Maybe because it was so nice our OR the slow start and a few recent rain events.... but pressure will never get less year over year. The size of the streams and fishable holes/runs just cannot support the amount of people... esp when the high water events are so short and not powerful enough to push around gravel to make fishable runs. a quick up and down will leave just some scoured bed rock with no holding water that fish just blow past

 

[PatrickC]

Not an over estimate at all. I'm on that water multipletimes a week. We came up witb the number from actually measuring all of the posted sections on Google Maps. You may underestimate just how many stream miles it is from just above Legion to Folleys. There is a other area above Platt road and a couple of other small sections. When you add all of those sections up compared to the number of stream miles from the mouth to McKean, it was 40%.

Agree 100% with your 2nd paragraph.

Rollingdog wrote:
few thoughts

- 1/3 of elk being posted is an over estimate. The section from the senyo water to folleys is really the only posting. You can walk from the lake to the senyo wire and from folleys up there are only a few little posted sections

- the watershed/fishery cannot hold the amount of people who want to fish it. This week (mid week) there were more people than I have ever seen on elk... even on a prime holiday weekend. Maybe because it was so nice our OR the slow start and a few recent rain events.... but pressure will never get less year over year. The size of the streams and fishable holes/runs just cannot support the amount of people... esp when the high water events are so short and not powerful enough to push around gravel to make fishable runs. a quick up and down will leave just some scoured bed rock with no holding water that fish just blow past

 

[pcray1231]

Right. In terms of stream miles, from the first posted sign above Legion up to Folly's is roughly 1/3 of Elk Creek. I never measured it exactly but based on a map it's about a third. It wouldn't have shocked me if you said it was 25% or 40%. But that's a LOT of water in there, with all the big S bends. And also good water. And among the most scenic water on Elk too with those high cliff walls. I used to love the section where you parked at the cornfield on Beckman and went down in there, but that got posted in the early 2000's. Even before that, it was only a small section you could fish, you couldn't touch up around the covered bridge and so forth.

Other than that, yeah, most of Elk is open. There's that little section above Rt. 5, the little section above Platz, and another little section farther up that I know about. Those are more nuisances because it prevents you from walking through, and limits what's excessible from a given access point without jumping back in the car and driving around. But they really don't block off large amounts of water.

 

[PatrickC]

pcray1231 wrote:
Right. In terms of stream miles, from the first posted sign above Legion up to Folly's is roughly 1/3 of Elk Creek.

I'm glad the engineer agrees :-D I don't post often enough anymore to get Pcrayed. Feels like home.

 

[Rollingdog]

- mis-read that we are only talking about the lake to 79

- there is no posted section between the lake and the senyo wire. it was posted like 3 or 4 yrs ago for a month for guide only access, but the pucblic outcry reversed it. it was supposed to be only for PHWFF, but the typical erie slobs ripped down the signs

- FYI here is another 5000 ft (0.9mile) section that would not surprise me to see posted in the coming years (i haven't been on this section in years) - http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8585-W-Nissen-Dr-Fairview-PA-16415/67945530_zpid/

 

[PatrickC]

To McKean. And yep, the posting above Rt 5 never stuck. That guy is a good guy. If you see him, be sure to tell him you appreciate the access.