Why Not In Our State??

[littlejuniata]

http://www.gov.ns.ca/natr/enforcement/Trespass_2.pdf

 

[NJAngler]

Sounds good to me. I wish NJ had the same thing. Owning flowing water should be impossible. All streams should be public domain. All it takes is to get one state representatitive or senator to introduce a public domain bill and go from there. Offer property tax relief as a incentive(no taxes on riparian land) or just offer to pay them a user fee. Monies generated/granted for growing greener projects could also be used to "bribe" landowners. It wouldn't hurt to try and you have a lot to lose if Pa continues to grow as fast as it is.

Mark

 

[RLeeP]

>>All streams should be public domain. All it takes is to get one state representatitive or senator to introduce a public domain bill and go from there. Offer property tax relief as a incentive(no taxes on riparian land) or just offer to pay them a user fee. Monies generated/granted for growing greener projects could also be used to "bribe" landowners. It wouldn't hurt to try and you have a lot to lose if Pa continues to grow as fast as it is.>>

I'm not exactly sure as to the nature of the approach you're suggesting here. It sounds sort of like a hybrid of redefining the nature of property rights on non-navigable waterways combined with an easement program of sorts.

My guess would be that the first half of this would be so volatile that the second half would never see the light of day to even receive legislative consideration.

I would think any effort focused on this should key on one or the other. And since reconfiguring something this basic concerning property rights law probably stands about as much chance as manned flight to Neptune, the effort would be better expended on a massive easement program, IMO. I particularly like the idea of tax relief-based inducements. But outright corridor leasing for hard cash should also be strongly considered. It works in a lot of other places.

You're spot on though that there is no time like the present to get it going full bore. 20 or 30 thousand yesterdays ago would have been a lot better though.

These days, I fish mostly in a state where stream access law basically says that if you can float (not travel, float) a canoe or kayak or anything else on any day of the year in a given stream, that waterway is public and so long as your feet are wet, there is no trespass. What's funny about this is that virtually nobody takes advantage of this to fish past no trespassing signs. The entire thing is pretty much self regulating.

 

[Gone4Day]

RLeeP has it right, when you start messing with private property rights you will see huge resistance. Since the majority of folks don’t fish, there is little chance a politician is going to risk reelection by pushing such an unpopular change.

That leaves tax breaks or purchasing easements. If you examine the history of the clean and green program, you’ll see the tax break idea has been tried and is now failing miserably. The basic problem was local politicians did not like their tax revenue declining so rather then raise taxes slightly on everybody else, they started chipping away at the clean & green program. Most recently eliminating streams, ponds, riparian buffers, access roads and the homestead from consideration. For me, if timber prices go up 5% I’ll be paying more taxes under clean & green then if I stayed out of the program and posted the land.

So our final hope is purchasing easements. This is the approach I prefer. As long as its funded by the people that benefit, anglers, we don’t run into the problem of resistant from folks that don’t fish. The other advantage is once an easement is purchased, its written into the deed and can’t be revoked if the property changes hands. The Erie stamp is an example. The PFBC already has nearly $1 million in that account. A similar program on a statewide basis could easily bring in $5 million a year. But we better get started soon, its just going to get more expensive the longer we fiddle. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Stone_Fly]

Landowners don't own the streams in this Commonwealth, the Commonwealth owns the streams as stated in the Constitution. All the state has to do is define what the streams are, admitedly a difficult task but in my mind a stream is the water and the historic flood plain.

 

[JackM]

The water, the fish and the other contents of the water are public property in any waterway, but the streambed on non-navigable waterways can be privately owned in PA. That's the present state of the law.

I agree that stream corridor easements or purchases is the way to go, but I am concerned that once the state starts paying to gain such access, landowners that presently permit access will begin to wonder "why shouldn't I be paid as well?"

 

[Padraic]

JackM wrote:
The water, the fish and the other contents of the water are public property in any waterway, but the streambed on non-navigable waterways can be privately owned in PA. That's the present state of the law.

I agree that stream corridor easements or purchases is the way to go, but I am concerned that once the state starts paying to gain such access, landowners that presently permit access will begin to wonder "why shouldn't I be paid as well?"

I'd rather they were paid by the state than by a private lodge!

 

[Bamboozle]

This just in from the PFBC.

So I guess they are trying.