Fishing access: A story of people, property and profits

F

fishink

New member
Joined
Mar 5, 2013
Messages
2
On Utah, Montana, Senyo, Beaver, Erie, DSR, TU, PFBC, etc.

http://www.anglersnotebook.com/2013/03/05/fishing-access-a-story-of-people-and-property/
 
easy to criticize land owners for posting, but I keep seeing things that were recently dumped in really nice places. shingles with nails, TVs, tires in ravines...
 
Beaver appears to be a dwindling foe in PA steelhead waters

unfortunatly it sounds like Greg Senyo and Co have stepped up to fill his shoes 2 fold
 
k-bob, I agree with you to some extent. It irks me to no end when I'm fishing a wild trout stream on private property and I see garbage, tires, crap like that. I try to clean up trash the best I can, but what am I supposed to do with an air conditioner?

That is very different than what this article is talking about, though, with poser conservationists like Beaver buying up large stretches of land on public waters. There were a few things in the article I never thought about before, particularly the ethics of the DSR. Those ARE state managed fish, paid for by the NY anglers. I never thought about that before and I'm not sure how I feel about it now.
 
Yeah, migratory fish are tough. For normal stocked waters, if a landowner posts it from the public, they just don't stock it. If there are wild fish, well, good for the landowner. He's still not benefitting from fish supplied by public funds.

But migratory fish are different, they move. Sections of stream are public and others are private, so either you let the private sections benefit from public funds, or you take away the fishery in the public areas too.

I do sympathize with landowners who post for reasons other than procuring a private fishery with public fish. Litter, privacy, idiots parking on their lawns, etc.

The ideal solution, to me, in these situations is that if an owner excludes the public at large, thats fine, he has every right to do that. But that water becomes a no fishing zone, for everyone. The water itself, and those fish, are not privately owned. They are publicly owned. We have every right to do that. To me it's a fair solution.
 
"As I write this, Pennsylvania’s misnamed Department of Environmental Protection and their pals in the PAFBC are busy selling the natural gas out from under the rivers, lakes and land to the detriment of the natural environment."
...

"A prescription for the PA model: selling out natural gas from under a lake to pay for its upkeep. This kind of “partnership” is about as desirable for the general public as one between the American Cancer Society and the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company."

just too snarky. large eye roll. I see the PFBC doing a lot of good, and if they get gas rights $ and do good things for trout it's just too easy to write this righteous "selling out" stuff...

access and conservation are political issues, and while people may vent online, I sure hope that anyone with any actual role in negotiating such things doesn't come across like this...
 
Thank you for the post, Fishink. We need reminded that the foes of public access still lurk out there. beaver may not have been making much noise lately, but don't think for one minute that he and his minions and supporters are not ready to greedily grab up more waters for their schemes.
(I was a good old man yesterday and did not comment about kreh being a true fraud in that he is a beaver supporter, but I have no respect for him, humphreys, and the becks, who have made their living selling articles, photos, etc. to mags supported by average anglers but who have given their support to beaver and his evil empire.)
Anyhow, thank you for this reminder that beaver et. al. are still out there, just waiting to rob from the poor and average and sell to the rich.
 
rrt-I was thinking the same thing about Kreh and his membership in Beav's club. Didn't know about Humphreys, etc.
 
Well, those NY and PA paid for steelhead and salmon actually could end up being harvested by anglers in Canadian waters.

Privatization sucks and if you don't like it, buy land and deed it to the state for public access. Privatization is a business, plain and simple.

My cousin spent 4 years in college, 4 years in med school, and then 5 years as a resident/intern training to be a brain surgeon. He finally became a full fledged doctor, he opened up his own practice in Montana and makes a ton of money. He's a huge hunter and fisherman and once he could afford to do so he bought the rights to a couple thousand acreas of prime hunting and fishing land.

You know what, good for him. He spent 13 years working his *** off to become a brain surgeon and now he's benefitting from it. If you're upset, you should have spent 13 years of your life training to become a brain surgeon so you could afford that luxury too - or afford the luxury of buying the land to open it to the public. And you know what, the rancher likes the deal because he knows he's only got one RESPONSIBLE person on his land. Ranchers have had all kinds of problems with allowing public access and people shooting livestock whether on purpose or poor aim, leaving gates open allowing livestock to get free, failing to put out campfires that turn into field fires, leaving trash all over the place, riding ATV's through fields and through herds of cattle, etc. These ranchers don't need to deal with crap like that.

The reality is nobody has the RIGHT to anything - what we have are temporary PRIVILEGES.

Not to drag gun control into this but the second amendment is not a right to bear arms, it is a privilege to bear arms that can be taken away at any time.
 
Yes, but some individual can't take it away. It has to be taken away via an amendment to the constitution, with 2/3 of the states ratifying, etc.

Your cousin in Montana cannot post the water. That's public. He has every right to post the land, which may include the reasonable access to the water.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a few thousand acres of prime land. And if I had it, I'd go in with plans NOT to post it. Like I said, I do understand there are lots of idiots among the public, and eventually that wears on you. I would probably get there myself, and may cave in. Even then, I'd likely freely grant permission, just have to ask.

Regarding my personal judgement of the character of a landowner who posts, it very much depends on his REASON for posting his land. The water, the fish, the wildlife, etc. Those are public, NOT private. Even if you own the land, you don't own exclusive rights to the wildlife found on it. That's not part of what your cousin bought. And if your reason for posting is to have exclusive access to them, or to profit from them, then it's simply wrong.

But if you're posting because your land is being damaged, littered on, or generally overrun by idiots, that's a little different. And it doesn't mean you can't fish or hunt.

It does, however, mean that the public should not subsidize your fishing or hunting by stocking fish or game on your land. And you do not have control over management rights on your land. If the fish and game commissions want to make your land no fishing or no hunting, they have every right to do so. I wouldn't advocate this without reason, and in your large western ranches, there probably isn't a reason. In the case of publicly stocked migratory fish in PA, though, there is a reason.
 
But it can still be taken away and therefore it is not a right it is a privilege.

The water, the fish, the wildlife, etc. Those are public, NOT private. Even if you own the land, you don't own exclusive rights to the wildlife found on it. That's not part of what your cousin bought. And if your reason for posting is to have exclusive access to them, or to profit from them, then it's simply wrong.
Click to expand...

If I own the land I control who accesses my land and what they can and can't do on my land. I agree, I may not "own" the wildlife but since they are on my property, maybe permanetly, maybe temporary, I certainly can control who has access to them because I own the land.

Hunting is a bit different that fishing because you are right in one regard, water itself cannot be privately owned whereas land can. I know there are some real issues out west with float boaters fishing in "private" waters. In these instances they have every right to float the river and fish these privately owned stretches because they are floating on publically owned water and the fish aren't privately owned BUT they have no right to touch the stream bottom or ground in any capacity including anchoring or dragging anything to slow them down. They can fish all they want but just don't touch the privately owned ground.

With hunting, you don't float on air or water to hunt you walk on the ground, which is privately owned. So while the landowner doesn't own the wildlife, he certainly owns the land that you need permission to touch so he absolutely controls who has access to these publically owned creatures that are on his land. What you are basically saying is anybody who won't allow the public to access their property at anytime to shoot, catch or take pictures of the wildlife isn't allowed to have wildlife on their property. So can I stop by your place during rabbit season to shoot a few and I have the right to do that because you don't own that rabbit according to your logic.

But what is the public? I am the public, you are the public so if the public owns the rights to the wildlife, what does that mean? Who has more rights you are I? Or the two people standing next to us? I want to shoot them, you don't so the compromise is on your land you can declare it no hunting and on my land I can hunt. End of story.

Interesting thoughts, could you float a stream through privately owned land, shoot an elk that's in the stream and as you float by wrap a lasso around the rack and drag him out as long as you never touch bottom? Or could you fly a helicoper over land, shoot an elk and drop a lasso to pick him up?

I agree the pubic should not pay for stocking of fish or pheasant or whatever on private land but the question is a stream is 10 miles long and the middle 5 miles runs through private property and is posted so there is no access. Assume the stream is either not navigable or not classified so one cannot walk within the mean high water bank. So should the state not stock the waters above and below for the public to enjoy or should the state spray paint their fish and every week check out the private water and relocate their fish back to their water? And to be fair, the landowner should have the right to remove and relocate all trash that floats into his stretch of the water from the public water above because that is public trash.

And you do not have control over management rights on your land. If the fish and game commissions want to make your land no fishing or no hunting, they have every right to do so.
Click to expand...

Based on everything I am aware of, they have ZERO right to tell me what I can and can't do on my property. In fact the laws even say a person can fish on their own property without a license.

I get where you are coming from but this appears to be your opinion and not the law. If otherwise, please cite references.
 
So while the landowner doesn't own the wildlife, he certainly owns the land that you need permission to touch so he absolutely controls who has access to these publically owned creatures that are on his land.
Click to expand...

Correct.

What you are basically saying is anybody who won't allow the public to access their property at anytime to shoot, catch or take pictures of the wildlife isn't allowed to have wildlife on their property.
Click to expand...

I said no such thing.

So can I stop by your place during rabbit season to shoot a few and I have the right to do that because you don't own that rabbit according to your logic.
Click to expand...

Absolutely you do. If you are outside the safety zone, and I have not posted my property, and you are following the PGC's laws, you have every right. Now, follow me. I recognize the semantics of it, but it's important for when comparing to different scenarios. If I post, and I can, then you cannot be on my property. What I have taken away is your privelege of being on my property, NOT your right to hunt the bunnies. Now, it's awfully tough to hunt the bunnies without being on my property, but if you can figure out how, yes, you can.

could you float a stream through privately owned land, shoot an elk that's in the stream and as you float by wrap a lasso around the rack and drag him out as long as you never touch bottom? Or could you fly a helicoper over land, shoot an elk and drop a lasso to pick him up?
Click to expand...

Yes. Your lasso, though, cannot touch the ground either. Perhaps even the bullet, would have to check on that. But the premise is correct, you have a right to the animals, just not to the land.

Based on everything I am aware of, they have ZERO right to tell me what I can and can't do on my property. In fact the laws even say a person can fish on their own property without a license.
Click to expand...

In regards to the wildlife, they have EVERY right to tell you what you can do on your property. Sometimes, as a courtesy, we do make laws exempting landowners. But they are courtesy, or else a separate law wouldn't be needed to exempt them. The details vary by state, but these kind of laws are reasonably common.

In, PA, regarding fishing licenses, you can only fish license free on your own land if the water is WHOLLY within your land. Meaning no streams, only ponds/lakes where you own all boundaries. And it only fits if you reside on the property year round. So for a temporary home or camp, even if you own it, you need a license. It also applies to your family or tenants provided they too live on the land year round. It does not apply to your guests.

And regarding hunting licenses, IF you derive your primary livelihood from your land, then you can kill non-threatened animals for crop damage without a license. You still must report the kills and be able to show a crop damage problem from said species if asked. If you do not derive your primary livelihood from your land, then you must purchase a hunting license and obey all seasons and bag limits, as well as tagging and reporting requirements, even to hunt on your own land. If your land is >80 acres, and you leave it open to the public and enroll in a PGC program pretty much stating such, you are eligible for a landowner license which is considerably cheaper than everybody else's.
 
So should the state not stock the waters above and below for the public to enjoy or should the state spray paint their fish and every week check out the private water and relocate their fish back to their water?
Click to expand...

They can if they want. The water is public, the fish are public. The public can put them where they choose. We can choose not to stock water within your property, or we can choose to stock it (our water, our fish). We can choose not to stock within 1 stream mile of your property. We can spraypaint whatever fish we want. Relocating fish is not allowed unless done by an agency. But be clear, we decided that, and we could make it allowed if we wanted. And if we really want to relocate fish off of your property onto ours, we can do it with wild fish too, not just the stockers. We own ALL of the fish.

And if the PGC wanted to, they could likewise trap all the deer on your land and locate them somewhere else. They aren't your deer. And WCO's and game wardens, as law enforcement personnel, have trespass rights.

And to be fair, the landowner should have the right to remove and relocate all trash that floats into his stretch of the water from the public water above because that is public trash.
Click to expand...

No, it's not public trash. It's individual trash. The public's law does not permit littering, and if caught, it carries a fine. If it fouls your land, you can sue the individual responsible for damages. You can relocate it if you want, but you cannot re-litter it on someone else's land.
 
I love fishing access debates ;) ;)
 
I'd say Pcray is holding his own, nicely...
 
Regarding the DSR, it is a total joke. I wouldn't pay a dime to fish there. There are plenty of spots in the pubic sr areas you can catch bright fish. Its a function of timing and walking. The fly zones are filled with wannabes and the dsr is way worse. With that being said i fish the sr often because i live close and its very easy to catch fish and it very rarely blows out. If i was coming from out of town to ny to fish for salmon/steelhead/browns, the sr would be 5th or 6th on my list.
 
And you do not have control over management rights on your land. If the fish and game commissions want to make your land no fishing or no hunting, they have every right to do so.
Click to expand...

Based on everything I am aware of, they have ZERO right to tell me what I can and can't do on my property. In fact the laws even say a person can fish on their own property without a license.

I get where you are coming from but this appears to be your opinion and not the law. If otherwise, please cite references.
Click to expand...

Nursery waters in Erie
 
not a comment on the comments above, but going back to the original linked article, it says there's a "trend toward making all the best parts of the world the sole domain of the wealthy."

isnt that a little bit much? I grew up in Ohio, and am often impressed at the amount of public land in PA. I know nothing about steelhead or the Little J, but at least on the small to medium stream side of things, I think that if you look around and ask around you can find a lot of excellent wild trout water to fish in the state with just gas money and hiking. Including some private land owners who will let you fish.

the original article also bashes the DEP and PFBC for "selling out" over getting some gas rights money... and then gives links to articles about D Beaver and how he was sued and stopped by on the little J by... the DEP & PFBC. ?

I know of several good stretches of small stream, wild trout water that have recently been acquired by the state - just in the last few years. I found these by reading public things from the state, or noticing changes in posted SGL borders or state forest borders and contacting state people who sent me maps and have been unfailingly polite and helpful.

this private land issue at least on small streams can be a "grass is greener" effect. .. ... I cant fish pohoqualine's water, or some broadhead club's water. but a) they preserved it, good for them, and helped entire watersheds in the process, and b) I don't assume that I can't find fishing as good or better if I just work at it.





 
I'll bet if you looked it up the Salmon River is navagible
 
Is the navagible law a state by state law, or federal one?
 
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