Pa Steelhead, catch the value?

[pcray1231]

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?
I'll start off by being absolutely clear that in most situation I do not actually want to do any of this.

Because it isn't anybody's right to fish for whatever fish are in any waters.

As salmonoid said, the wildlife are not owned by landowners. All wildlife, wild or stocked, is publicly owned and the public puts the fish commission in charge of regulating fishing. The season, creel limits, tackle limitations, etc. are all fully under the purview of the fish commission. Land ownership doesn't change any of that (provided the waters are flowing, as it is different if it's still water and fully within the property boundaries, i.e. a farm pond).

As such, if they wanted to, they can absolutely declare sections of stream as no fishing. Or designate areas C&R only. Or whatever else they want to do. And the landowner must abide by those regulations the same as anyone else.

Again, in 99.9999% of the situations, while I consider the above to be within the capability of the fish commission, I do not advocate it. Even in Erie, I do not want to "punish" landowners in any way, nor take away their legitimate rights to privacy. I merely want to end a situation where there is monetary incentive to exclude the public (guide leases) based on the presence of publicly stocked fish.

Some sort of ban on receiving money for access would be difficult to structure and do. I don't deny that. But I still find it a preferable solution in Erie, for all parties, including the landowners, compared with extreme measures such as ending stocking altogether, or declaring posted sections as no fishing at all.

 

[troutbert]

Sheesh, yinz are still talking about this?

It will never happen. You do know that, right?

 

[pcray1231]

I think we were a heartbeat from the "nursery waters" solution.

But, the easement program won out and at least delayed, if not totally prevented that. Now, this actually precipitated more posted property in the short term, I think. There became a race of sorts between the fish commission and guide groups to lock up property, each fighting for the support of the remaining landowners that haven't gone either route. Both sides won some battles. But it changed the dimension from a slow trickle of losing access to "everyone pick a side".

Easements are permanent, and we'll reach an equilibrium where there's no more properties unspoken for. They'll all have an easement or else be posted, with hardly any exceptions. Cause if you're gonna leave it open anyway, you might as well take the public's money for it. I think we're almost there, actually.

 

[Rollingdog]

"nursery" is not just some random classification you can slap on a stretch of water in response to limited acess.

Imo it will never happen


Permanent easements are part of the problem
You'd have to be crazy to agree to permanent public acess... Esp with the insane increase of people and the way a single internet posting can put dozens of people in an area that may only support a few anglers

 

[CRB]

$$$ will always win out. The PAFBC needs to step up the amounts payed per-mile to lock these areas up. Partner with the WPC and attempt to make the Devils Backbone area part of Lake Erie Bluffs State Park.

 

[brookieaddict]

To respond to the thread stealing topic, the PAFGA has been slowly pushing us toward "parks" due to their in ability to restock waters fished out by those who must get heir limit mind set nimcompoops.

They uped the trout stamp by saying we'll give you more trout, then we'll give you smaller trout. then we cant afford to stock twice, then sorry seniors you have to pay for a trout stamp every year now, we need the money.

The upper mgmt keeps growing and our return for investment shrinks. if they were a .com they would be oob.

 

[pcray1231]

Rolling, plenty of landowners have signed onto permanent leases already. Most of these properties were open to fishing to begin with, but now they will be forever. Seems it's hard for landowners to pass up a $100k plus check to just keep doing what they're already doing. Here's a map of easements for ya. Yellow shaded means it's under easement. If it's not shaded, it doesn't mean it's posted necessarily, just that the landowner hasn't taken an easement. But the amount of non posted, non easement water is shrinking pretty fast, as these easement offers also kind of got the guides in gear to lock up more water before they lose it for good. If you are a landowner and 2 groups are offering you money, not many choose neither.

http://pfbc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=30d3c4cdaae74096b565da19cbc061d3

 

[FarmerDave]

PennKev wrote:

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?

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.

Right. He technically doesn't own the wildlife in that it is not exclusively his. He has the same privilege to hunt or fish that wildlife as anyone else.

Landowner does however have the RIGHT to control access to his land. That he does own. So, go ahead and hunt that pheasant, but don't hunt on my land if I say no.

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

Not sure that is true. Could be,, but I'm not sure. I live in Ohio, so I will use my brother's pond as an example. He can fish his pond, but I believe he has to follow the same rules as everyone else, but may not require a license. If I visit my brother, all fishing laws apply, and I am pretty sure I would also need a license. That is the way it was when I last checked. But it is likely one of those things that isn't enforced.

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.

Exactly

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
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.

I'd display the yellow BS flag but would probably get a red flag from a moderator for doing so.

Your conclusion is both illogical and emotional BS, which is strange to see from an engineer.

Sure those are the three choices, but where your logic falls apart is where you said the Government has every right to implement #2 if I don't accept #3.

Think about it.

The only way it would work is if they did it for the entire stream (more or less). They'd also have to come up with a better reason. Saying they did it because of my little property would still be unconstitutional.

Implementing number 2 just within my boundaries would CLEARLY be unconstitutional. If they tried that, I'd fish there anyway and hope I got arrested.

No more "agains" please. They may be nice thoughts from the public side, but are mostly a lot of number 2.

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.

From a legal standpoint, you haven't proven why not.

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.

More BS. Doesn't matter if stocked or wild. Landowner doesn't exclusively own the fish. But he does exclusively own the land. Go ahead and fish for them, just not on my land.

 

[nomad_archer]

This is really a simple issue for me. It is the landowners right to control access to is property no matter where the property is located or what creek run through it. A land owner can charge for access or not that is their choice.

If the land owner doesn't want to take the fish commission money to grant permanent easement than that is there right. If they want to lease access to a guide service or charge for one day fishing access then that is there right.

It sucks that fishermen lose access. I cannot get behind any idea that limits the landowners right to charge for access to his land regardless of who is paying.

 

[FarmerDave]

nomad_archer wrote:
This is really a simple issue for me. It is the landowners right to control access to is property no matter where the property is located or what creek run through it.

If the land owner doesn't want to take the fish commission money to grant permanent easement than that is there right. If they want to lease access to a guide service or charge for one day fishing access then that is there right.

It sucks that fishermen lose access. I cannot get behind any idea that limits the landowners right to charge for access to his land if the landowner doesn't want the state money

Exactly.

As a side note, ... start waiving a lot of state money around, and you might actually see more land posted. Its rewarding those that do post.

For the record, there is no trout stream on my land. If there was, I'd likely allow fishing. But that is irrelevant. Rights are rights even when they are somebody else's.

 

[pcray1231]

Not sure that is true. Could be,, but I'm not sure. I live in Ohio, so I will use my brother's pond as an example.

FD, the laws are different for still water entirely within one's property in PA. I'd have to look up details, but I believe seasons, bag limits, etc. all go away. I don't think that the fish commission HAS to set it up like this, but they do, and I agree with it. What do I care if a farmer fishes for bass out of season in his own pond? If his actions on his property in no way affect anyone else, then live and let live.

But you are wrong on the other part. The landowner has every right to fully control ACCESS to his property, receive money for access, or whatever. But access means the passage of people. When it comes to the act of hunting game or catching fish, the landowner has no rights at all, and the appropriate fish or game commission has complete control.

You can let me on your land and even accept my money for it. Or you can deny me access. That is fully your right. I in no way deny that.

But that's just for me to actually go onto your land. When it comes to the act of hunting or fishing while there, you have no say in it. The game and fish commissions have all the say. And they can tell me I can, or they can tell I can't.

Now, obviously, to actually hunt or fish on your property, I need both permission from you to be there (your control), and the commission's permission to carry out that activity (their control). I need both. Either one of them saying no, means no.

But absolutely, just like you, the commission has every right to tell me no on the act of hunting or fishing, as well as control where I can do it. Whether it SHOULD is a different question than whether it CAN, and we can debate that all we want. But they can.

 

[Rollingdog]

you may want to check your numbers... easements from 2016 range from $5000 (410 linear ft) to $18,000 (1,175 linear ft) NOT 100,000

I'm well aware of the easements and postings

My point $5k or $18k is an INSANEly small amount of money to give away my rights as a landowner for a lifetime

 

[FarmerDave]

Where do I start. I know, this one.

pcray1231 wrote:

Not sure that is true. Could be,, but I'm not sure. I live in Ohio, so I will use my brother's pond as an example.

FD, the laws are different for still water entirely within one's property in PA. I'd have to look up details, but I believe seasons, bag limits, etc. all go away. I don't think that the fish commission HAS to set it up like this, but they do, and I agree with it. What do I care if a farmer fishes for bass out of season in his own pond? If his actions on his property in no way affect anyone else, then live and let live.

I think you are wrong. The only exemption I was able to find was for license requirement.

This is from the FAQ. "The exemption allows landowners who reside on their land throughout the year and members of their families residing thereon to fish on their land in waters wholly within said land without a license. This exemption does not apply to any person temporarily residing upon the land or any tenant who is not a member of the family of the owner. The exemption also does not apply to any servant or employee of the owner."

So, basically I need to buy a license to fish in my brother's pond, and I suspect I also need to follow all the other regulations as well. As far as my brother goes, I am pretty sure he has to follow all the regulations as well, but just doesn't require a license. If I owned a piece of land with a pond, or a farm but didn't live there, I still need to buy a fishing license and follow the rules.

As I said, I could be wrong, but you certainly did not prove it.

It isn't about you or whether or not you care if someone keeps a few fish out of season on his own pond. It's about control. They may not enforce all those rules, but it doesn't make it legal.

Don't tell me I'm wrong unless you are prepared to prove it.

Frankly I don't think either of us care, so I'd be just as happy if we leave it at that. But I know you can't resist.

 

[FarmerDave]

Now the rest.

But you are wrong on the other part. The landowner has every right to fully control ACCESS to his property, receive money for access, or whatever. But access means the passage of people. When it comes to the act of hunting game or catching fish, the landowner has no rights at all, and the appropriate fish or game commission has complete control.

You can let me on your land and even accept my money for it. Or you can deny me access. That is fully your right. I in no way deny that.

But that's just for me to actually go onto your land. When it comes to the act of hunting or fishing while there, you have no say in it. The game and fish commissions have all the say. And they can tell me I can, or they can tell I can't.

Now, obviously, to actually hunt or fish on your property, I need both permission from you to be there (your control), and the commission's permission to carry out that activity (their control). I need both. Either one of them saying no, means no.

You are so wrong on so many ways. It's not just about access. I can control activity on my land as well.

Wanna play baseball in my side yard? Sure. Soccer? No way.

If you want to pass through? Have at it.

If you want to go cow tipping on my land? Meet my bull.

You want to play blindfolded lawn darts? Don't ask. Note that I didn't say you can't, I said, don't ask.

Those are also privileges that I may or may not grant you.

Hunt or fish? Well, those are privileges too that I can grant, or not, but they also require granting from the appropriate commission.

But absolutely, just like you, the commission has every right to tell me no on the act of hunting or fishing, as well as control where I can do it. Whether it SHOULD is a different question than whether it CAN, and we can debate that all we want. But they can.

Partially true, but there are limitations.

Hunting and fishing are public privileges, not private. Provided one is in good standing, the privilege is granted to the individual upon purchase of a license.

They can withhold these public privileges from individuals if they have done something wrong to warrant it. For example, convicted of a crime, or didn't buy a license. Exercising ones Constitutionally protected right does not warrant it.

Can they take the public privilege away for everyone just while they are within my property lines? In other words, outlaw hunting on my land while it is legal on adjacent land?

Good luck with that.

No doubt they could try. It wouldn't be the first bad and unconstitutional law and likely not the last.

Dad used to say "wish in one hand and poop in the other and see which one fills up first. (paraphrasing)"

 

[pcray1231]

Hunt or fish? Well, those are privileges too that I can grant, or not, but they also require granting from the appropriate commission.

Fair enough. You have the power to grant or deny access, and can do so with conditions if you wish.

But the game commission always has the right to say I can't hunt, or the fish commission that I can't fish. That's the point I was trying to make.

If the fish commission wants to say that nobody can fish on this land, they have every right to do that. Whether they SHOULD is a different question, but they can. That was the point.

Can they take the public privilege away for everyone just while they are within my property lines? In other words, outlaw hunting on my land while it is legal on adjacent land?

Yes, absolutely they can. Or within any lines on a map. It's not unconstitutional at all. The fish commission can close any waters it dang well pleases from fishing, at any time, for any reason.

Again, can vs. should.

 

[nomad_archer]

Rollingdog wrote:
you may want to check your numbers... easements from 2016 range from $5000 (410 linear ft) to $18,000 (1,175 linear ft) NOT 100,000

I'm well aware of the easements and postings

My point $5k or $18k is an INSANEly small amount of money to give away my rights as a landowner for a lifetime

Wow, with $ figures that low I personally wouldnt take the money. I am sure more could be made from a yearly access lease to a private group or guides.

Plus having a life time easement could potentially be detrimental if trying to sell the property later.

 

[pcray1231]

This site gives $$$ figures on some of them. Click the markers.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=17thf7I9zKFQRFysNhlaE_AYx7Is&hl=en_US&ll=42.01151894384195%2C-80.34945273777362&z=15

Seems highly variable. They're listed by acreage, but I'm guessing stream frontage has more to do with the $$ involved, perhaps also nearness to public access points to the stream. Have to imagine it's some sort of formula.

Using Elk Creek for examples:

24.58 acres: $45,000
8.3 acres - $73,000
54.76 acres - $198,845
19.2 acres - $15,000
11.6 acres - $27,000
16.9 acres - $1 (property owned by university)
55.50 acres - $70,000
7.14 acres - $18,000
40.2 acres - $15,000
95 acres - $24,000
45.58 acres - $173,512
47.61 acres - $128,865
4.3 acres - $55,000
2.53 acres - $23,000
1.44 acres - $50,000

 

[Rollingdog]

I would check to see if all those numbers are easements, not property purchases

some of those are also for the establishment of parking lots

some of those are 5-8yrs old


Here is the press release from Jan 2016 from the PFBC

http://www.thefishingwire.com/story/365906

Easements of 1,175 and 870 linear feet along Elk Creek in Fairview Township, Erie County. The easements are located off of Elk Valley Road downstream of Fairview Township's Struchen Flats property and were acquired for $18,000 and $13,500 respectively. The addition of these two easementscreates a 1-mile corridor of connected public access.

An easement of 410 linear feet along Elk Creek in McKean Township, Erie County, acquired for $5,500. The easementarea is located off of Rick Road upstream of the PFBC's Rick Road access.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

Hunt or fish? Well, those are privileges too that I can grant, or not, but they also require granting from the appropriate commission.

Fair enough. You have the power to grant or deny access, and can do so with conditions if you wish.

But the game commission always has the right to say I can't hunt, or the fish commission that I can't fish. That's the point I was trying to make.

If the fish commission wants to say that nobody can fish on this land, they have every right to do that. Whether they SHOULD is a different question, but they can. That was the point.

Can they take the public privilege away for everyone just while they are within my property lines? In other words, outlaw hunting on my land while it is legal on adjacent land?

Yes, absolutely they can. Or within any lines on a map. It's not unconstitutional at all. The fish commission can close any waters it dang well pleases from fishing, at any time, for any reason.

Again, can vs. should.

Pat, most of this I already acknowledged. And in a way it does boil down to could or should.

Could the Fish commission make an unconstitutional law or rule? Absolutely.

Should the Fish Commission make an unconstitutional law or rule? I'll let you answer that.

and one more...

Would I fight that to the bitter end? Absolutely.

Id deliberately break that rule, over and over again just to force the issue. If they refused to enforce, I wouldn't harvest anything there. No, instead I'd hunt and fish public land and waters and harvest everything that was legal to harvest just to make a point. I may even use the harvest as fuel to heat the house. You'd be surprised at the BTU in a wild turkey or whitetail dear. or 20 lbs of steelhead. I may have to bend the tail of a 30 incher to make it fit, but not much.

Then if they had the stones to actually arrest me on my own land for hunting or fishing, in season, I'd fight it to the end.

I would also sue for my legal fees and expenses, and lost wages for making such a stupid and obviously unconstitutional rule. Even pain and suffering for depriving me of my Constitutional right of peaceful enjoyment of my own property.

Where would I get the money? LOL! I wouldn't even need my own money for something like this.

The result would be other landowners posting to protest the overreach and extortion by the fish and game Nazis.

So, as I said before, good luck with that.

Do you get it now?

Call this one a reality check. Careful what you wish for.