Pa Steelhead, catch the value?

Rolling,

Your link has to be real close to that one very short posted property. I've been in there in recent years, from both above and below. It's all of like 40 yards in there that's posted, but it prevents passing through.

Edit: The posted property is just downstream from there. That property you linked is currently open, accessable from the Steretania side, and does not have an easement, and there is a nice hole on it. So yes, it is another spot in danger of becoming posted. Buyer will almost certainly have a choice to accept PFBC money to put an easement on it, or post it.

Currently off the market. Wonder if old owner is considering taking the easement money before selling?
 
I'll start by saying I didn't read every post...

Here's a few of my thoughts. Seeing that I've fished Erie probably 2-5 times a year for around 10 years now I haven enough of a database to throw in my 2 cents.

The idea of driving a few hours to catch big fish is the draw. Lots of fish makes it that much better. I'm bringing 2 completely new guys to Erie tomorrow and they're pumped. If there were a few thousand fish every year instead of 10's of thousands then it probably wouldn't be worth it to drive up for most people. The streams don't resemble the steelhead water out west where you need a spey rod to cast and present a fly to the lower numbers of wild fish so I don't think it's fair to compare the Great Lakes to that. Keep pumping fish in, creating commerce for the areas, and bringing people from outside the area to fish.

I don't see any more or less people now than when I did 10 years ago now. Whether there's more fish or less, within reason, people will come to fish. The fish won't reproduce, so if they're there, and they're stocked, then I don't mind some harvest. But like Pat, seeing dozens of fish being pulled out of one spot on the stream every day does get to me. I brought the first 3 fish I ever caught up there home and ever since then maybe 2-3 fish a year, most recently maybe 1. It's a generational mentality to go fishing to catch fish to bring them home to eat. I fished a brookie stream a few weeks ago when I was in a cabin with my family and my parents and sister asked why I didn't bring any home to eat. First off they were 5" but yet that's their mentality and they don't even fish. It's just part of the culture. I think it should be like deer where you purchase tags and if you bring fish home then you have to tag them. You want more fish, you buy more tags. People say it's hard to regulate, but how do thousands of deer get checked every year? Yeah some go untagged, but an adopted system like that could help as well as raise more funds.

Here's my view on the property owners. Yes it has to suck to have dozens of people a day potentially on the creek edges fishing, leaving trash, etc... but they knew that going in. Erie has been hosting an artificial fishery for decades and I would venture to guess that most property owners knew what they were getting into when they bought their property. I see some people getting angry with a certain campground that charges $5 to park there, but if you have land and access to the property then I don't think something like that is too outrageous. Something like an extra access pass that the proceeds help to towards certain "private" stretches to help with keeping access open and having funds to help pay for trash clean up and restoration. I know that stretch that just got posted by Folly's very well. People usually walked on the edge of the cornfield to get downstream and the landowner would come out on the porch to yell at them. The edge of the cornfield would get trampled on and I'm sure there was a need of time and money to fix it.

I would gladly pay an extra $5-20 a year for an extra pass to fish such areas, even if I never actually fished them.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Amen.
If this is what the fisherman want. Get vocal and hammer home this point with the PAF&BC. The loudest voice is the voice they will hear.
My point if it is not the direction you want get involved. There are organizations that have this same opinion. I tried and have had some rewards over the years by doing so.

The Fish commission needs to up the amounts they will pay for easements and get other organizations on board helping to up the amounts the waters on Elk between Greens and Folly's would make an excellent state park. All that area can not be accessed to build on.
 
McSneek wrote:
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.


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

There are a few barriers that really end the fishing in a LOT of water. I used to fish Walnut with great success up to the mall. Changes due to a flood at the top of the Manchester pool kept the steelhead from moving upstream in anything but the best opportunities.
In a lot of streams, just ONE barrier will open the creeks for a good, long ways, more than doubling their existing good water.

Syl
 
When I bought my Senior Lifetime License in 2005 I also got the lifetime Erie steelhead permit so I only had to pay for it once. That being said when I first started fishing Erie, and Elk Creek in particular, back in 2005 the stream was much less crowded than it is now and the fish were averaging 24" - 26" with frequent 27" & 28" fish. For the past five years, for me at least, the average fish I catch is in the 21" - 23" range. Heck I've been using a 9' #5 rod and can handle them easily.

There used to be some lovely water around the bend at the end of Folly's long pool downstream of the fly shop. That water went down stream about a half a mile and there was a lovely big pool with a high clay bank on river right. About 100 yards below that was a wire across the stream indicating the start of the posted water.

You can imagine my surprise last week when I was going down there and a new wire had been strung across the creek right at the first bend below Folly's long pool. I spoke to a fellow who told me what happened. He said the fellow who owns the property on river left had put a picnic table, some lawn chairs, and a fire pit on his property near the edge of the river. This guy told me that all the stuff was stolen and he inferred that the property owner thinks that people from Folly's campground stole his table, chairs, and fire pit. I am just relating what this guy told me.. It seems kind of far fetched since it would be no small task to lug a picnic table across the creek and back up to Folly's. It has to be at least 100 yards.

I asked him if the land owner owned both sides of the creek and he said no but the guy's father owned the property on the right side of the river.

I haven't been fishing there long enough to know how the impact of losing public water to private has affected the fishing. I never fished the now private water. I've fished mostly from Legion to Route 5 and from Folly's up to Struchen Flats. My complaint is why does the daily limit have to be three steelhead. If 150,000 fish return every fall to all of the PA steelhead streams (15% of the 1,000,000 smolts supposedly stocked every year and guys are roping three fish every day and there are dozens and dozens of guys doing this on Elk every time I go up there it doesn't take many brain cells to recognize the chance of second time spawners and those bigger 25" - 28" fish is drastically reduced because they are being killed on their first return to the creeks. I say first return but I'm not positive as I do see many 15" - 17" jacks this year so maybe the 21" - 23" fish have spawned once before.

I've been up three times this season and landed nineteen steelhead. Seventeen were 21" - 24" fish and two were larger 27" - 29" fish. There were dozen of guys fishing Elk last Tuesday from the Legion to the Route 20 bridge. The water had good color but the flow was down and fishing was slow. We drove over to the Project Waters (for me a last resort) and there were hundreds of guys but also hundreds of fish. That really can't be called fishing especially if you are a fly fisher. Because there were so many fish entering the pool we were fishing many fish were foul hooked. You couldn't avoid hooking a fish in some part of their body. I foul hooked 4 but fair hooked and landed 4 more. My buddy was at a section of Walnut where there is a little falls below a Vee and there is a very narrow chute. There was a black mass in the bottom and it was just one big ball of steelhead. Eight guys with spinning rods were throwing into that little pool. I was just sick.

I digress from the original posting. We fished five streams in three states in three days, 2 in PA, 2 in NY, and 1 in OH. The Catt was a perfect height but the turbidity was quite high. All I saw caught were 15" - 17" jacks so we left after two hours. BTW a reservation license is only $15 a year if you are 65 years of age or older. The license can be purchased at the gas station at the round about on Route 5 in Irving, NY.

I've decided to fish the PA creeks less and fish more in OH and NY. The fish are bigger and there are far fewer fishermen. I'd rather catch two 25" - 27" steelhead with no one within eyesight than 10 when guys are so close that we have to try and time our casts so we don't cross each other.
 
TimRobinsin wrote:
Are you happy with the value you get from your Lake Erie Permit for steelhead fishing?
Click to expand...

No, but I buy it anyway.

Not really happy with the value I get for my non-res PA fishing license, either. But that's all on me. I could fish more, and keep fish, but I usually don't.

If I kept every fish I caught in PA waters this year, I'd have paid probably $100s per pound.

But I still buy a license and spend money in PA. Yea, I know. It sounds crazy. You are welcome.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who originally said that because I didn't read them all. I spotted this on CRBs response.

I disagree with most of it.

I own a farm. If I want to post it and selectively grand permission to people to hunt for the people's deer, while they are on my property, that is my right. If I want to charge a few buck, that is my right, too. Hunting is only a privilege, not a right.

If game commission stocked pheasant nearby and some ended up in my corn or soy beans... Same thing. I should be allowed to control who is on my property to hunt the people pheasant whether I charge admission or not.

Same with the vastly artificial and comical fishery known as Erie Steelhead. I don't own any of the land up there, but if I did...

I should be allowed to post it for any reason I want and control access to my property whether I charge admission or not. I bought it, I maintain it, and I pay taxes on it.

Navigability MAY come into play, but as far as the land goes? I have the right to peaceful enjoyment, and have the right to control access.

If someone comes along and offers me a few bucks to offset my taxes and maintenance, I should be allowed to accept (and pay taxes on that as well of course).

If you don't want me, to have the right to grant permission to fish for the people's fish while they are passing through my property, then stop putting them in there.

I don't like the fact that so much is posted, anymore than the next guy. But I cannot condone or trampling others RIGHTS so the general population can pursue the peoples fish as they pass through.

I know it sucks, but it is what it is and should stay that way.

If you disagree, PM your address to me so I can go camping you your back yard. Don't worry, I'll bury my number 2.
 
FD, it was me who said that.

I understand your point of view, but disagree with it in the case of steelhead.

As you said, hunting is a privilege, not a right. Same for fishing.

Even in the case of deer, or pheasant, or anything else, since the animals are NOT yours, the commission has full ability to control whether you are allowed to hunt for them. i.e. the game commission would have 100% right to say that, if you post your farm, then neither you nor anyone you invite can hunt on that farm. It's a no hunting zone. And it's a no fishing zone for any streams that pass through you're property too.

There is very much talk in Erie about doing just that. Any land that's posted become steelhead nursery waters and are off limits to fishing.

I don't actually want to do that. I don't have a problem with you hunting on your farm. I just recognize that yes, if we wanted to prevent you from hunting on your own farm for our deer and pheasant, we could. And I don't like the situation where I'm paying to put animals on your farm so that you can collect money from someone else to keep me out.

Now, lets go back to pheasant. Lets say there's a group of farms in close proximity, and some parkland intermixed. No wild pheasant, all stocked, and they move back and forth from farm to farm. The public pays a boatload of money to stock boatloads of pheasants in this area. Not only that, the public also offers the landowners considerable money to keep their farms open for public pheasant hunting. However, there are guides who want to take clients hunting in areas that aren't crowded, and they offer landowners more $$$$ than the public does to post and lease. One by one the farms put up posted signs so that they and guides can benefit from the pheasants the public stocked.

That's not a good situation. I don't want to make it sound like I don't feel for the landowners. I do. Many don't want dozens and dozens of pheasant hunters on their property day after day. And they should have the right to exclude them. I see that as an absolute right that cannot be taken away. Landowners that want no part of this whole scene must always be able to completely opt out and just have no part of this scene. But I don't feel right about them profiting from the public pheasants by excluding the public, either.

The options to me are:

1. Leave it as is - I don't think this is viable. Public is paying too much for a shrinking amount of hunting land. As the available land shrinks, the rest of the areas become more crowded with hunters, prompting more landowners to post. The natural culmination to this is:

2. Stop stocking the pheasants to begin with - obviously. The public doesn't HAVE to stock those pheasants. If they aren't getting enough value in return they will just not stock them. But nobody really wants this. The hunters want to hunt. The guides want to make money. And the landowners want to make money too. For those landowners that just want privacy and don't post for the purpose of $$$, well, this is no different to them. They could always post it and allow no one, if they wanted to.

So who would a policy like this benefit? I don't see anyone who benefits from what happens here.

3. Make a rule that a landowner can post his land, but if he does, nobody can hunt on that land. Not the landowner or anyone else. All pheasant on his property are protected. This is viable and 100% legal. And it's the direction we're headed. But I don't want to go there if I don't have to.

4. Make a rule that a landowner cannot collect money to grant anyone the right to hunt pheasants there. It's a little cumbersome but not illegal. Landowner has the choice. Keep it open, and collect money from the public for doing so. Or shut the public out, hunt the pheasants himself, invite his friends to do so, but just not collect money for it. I would think landowners would find this a superior option vs. #2 or #3. No?
 
Reading all these posts really makes me not ever want to go to Erie and fish for steelhead. I fish to get away from people and crowds and all this BS. Erie sounds like the complete opposite.
 
It's possible to get away from the super crazy shoulder to shoulder crowds, but even in the best scenario's, it's still pretty crowded by any other measure. Yes, when it comes to gameday strategy (where, when, and how to fish, whether to move to another spot, etc.), then other fishermen are definitely a major part of the equation.

It has it's attractive qualities, namely lots and lots of enormous hard fighting fish in an often beautiful setting. But the good comes with the bad. It is what it is.
 
Posting rivers with wild trout or trout that have been stocked by the state is BS. Personally, I think it should be illegal to post any moving water.

The DSR in NY is the biggest example of this and I will never fish there (even if I had a free pass).
 
pcray1231 wrote:
FD, it was me who said that.

I understand your point of view, but disagree with it in the case of steelhead.
Click to expand...

I should have known it was you, because I skipped the longest messages. Plus, we had this discussion before.

I don't make exceptions for rights. It's either a right, or it isn't. Punishing me for exercising my rights would be unconstitutional.

I don't have time to argue with this again either, but the nursery waters did make me smile.

Look, I feel your pain, but rights are rights and privileges are privileges. You can't exclusively withhold a privilege on my own property for simply exercising my right. That would be unconstitutional.

Now please send me your home address so I can exercise my privileges in your back yard.;-)
 
moon1284 wrote:
Posting rivers with wild trout or trout that have been stocked by the state is BS.
Click to expand...

Sure it is, but legal.

Personally, I think it should be illegal to post any moving water.
Click to expand...

It already is, but not illegal to post legally owned land.
 
FD,

Again, the alternative to nursery waters or some kind of "no profit" law is:

- Stop stocking steelhead.

I could stomach that. But I don't see where it's in the landowners best interest. I just know that there comes a point where the public will no longer fund the stocking of fish it doesn't have access to. Meaning, the ability of the landowner to profit on publicly paid for fish by excluding the public HAS to end. Again, your choices would be.

1. Stop stocking.
2. Nursery water solution.
3. Some sort of no profit from posting policy.

One of those 3 HAS to happen at some point and I think #3 is the best solution for landowners, don't you?

And yes, it would be constitutional. It is not your right to fish for those fish, on your property or elsewhere. It's a privilege. Which means government has every right to implement #2 if you don't voluntarily submit to #3.

:)

P.S. And yes, I think many landowners post for honest reasons and just want some privacy. None of this prevents them from doing so. If you don't want people on your property, post it. Nobody is denying that right. Merely that you shouldn't be able to turn around and sell access to those fish.

In the case of wild fish, while I'm not thrilled with letting people profit, I don't see where it hurts anyone else. Nobody paid to put the fish there. Restricting landowner privelege doesn't accomplish anything. Different situation.
 
I never steelhead fished but...I don't understand "nursery waters" since steelhead don't really reproduce? What's the purpose for them then?
 
Shaner wrote:
I never steelhead fished but...I don't understand "nursery waters" since steelhead don't really reproduce? What's the purpose for them then?
Click to expand...

The traditional sense (Trout Run and Godfrey Run) is where fishing is prohibited so the PFBC can grab the fish for harvesting eggs and milt, to keep the scheme going. The other notion is more of a refuge water, where the fish would presumably have some respite from the crowds.
 
And yes, it would be constitutional. It is not your right to fish for those fish, on your property or elsewhere. It's a privilege.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why it isn't a land owners "right" to fish for whatever fish are in the waters that flow through his property? Suppose we weren't talking about stocked steelhead. Suppose this fellow owned a chunk of land on both sides of Elk Creek. It has wild browns that were there for eons. PFBC also stocked the stream and those stocked trout moved in, and through, the water on his property. Would he not be allowed to fish for the wild fish because there might be a chance he would catch stocked fish?
 
wbranch wrote:
I don't understand why it isn't a land owners "right" to fish for whatever fish are in the waters that flow through his property?
Click to expand...

The landowner does not own the wildlife found on his land/water whether it is deer, trout, turkey, etc. He still must abide by the laws pertaining to fishing seasons, creel limits, etc.

Build a pond and stock it, then that is another situation altogether and one which the regulations take into consideration.

Suppose we weren't talking about stocked steelhead. Suppose this fellow owned a chunk of land on both sides of Elk Creek. It has wild browns that were there for eons. PFBC also stocked the stream and those stocked trout moved in, and through, the water on his property. Would he not be allowed to fish for the wild fish because there might be a chance he would catch stocked fish?
Click to expand...

It sounds like in this situation, the stream would likely fall under general ATW regulations, the property owner would be obligated to follow those regulations, including the closed season in early spring.

Additionally, the actual regulations do not differentiate between wild and stocked. They only specify which size and species of fish are legal to creel, how many can be kept, and when.

If a property owner wants all the fish and game for himself, he is free to post his land, but he still must follow the fish/game regulations. Realistically, he could probably get away with an awful lot if he chose to ignore the law.
 
I never meant to suggest the land owner could fish whenever he wanted, keep excessive amounts of trout, or use illegal catch methods. I should of added he had a license and trout stamp, used permitted fishing tackle and released all the trout he caught.
 
Like anything else their are the 1% who ruin it for the 99%, and the posted signs multiply.

Erie is still a good return for your investment if you are not a fair weather fisherman, avoid the crowds, read the streams and fish where the fisherman aren't.

the unwritten secret to success on the tribs is don't do what everyone else does, including fly selections.

The average hours fished vs crome caught on the west coast is some where in the 40+ hour mark, so are we impatient or just greedy?

If you see litter pick it up'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top