Donny Beaver and Field and Stream call us out

[FarmerDave]

If things get bad enough, I suppose I will just fish on private club waters.

Please note that I only said I would fish there, I said nothing about joining. :-D

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

So do you guys think CAP is a bad idea? Is the outright purchase of land turned over to the public bad?

I can definitely see the point of not encouraging leasing or private clubs and other private profitering from land..........but how could increasing the amount of public land be bad? Especially if it was done in a quiet manner......

I really think having more public land would be a GREAT sporting legacy........

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Ohio Outdoorsman,

First let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with your proposal to form a sort of "access enabler's" club. Being nice and respectful and polite to landowners is second nature to me so it certainly wouldn't require any behavior modification. I'd gladly contribute $ 20.00 or so to help promote an organization that only seeks to leave land better than it was found.

Like you I don't want to join a lobbying group and I don't want to promote exclusionary regulations unless everyone involved wants the same thing, which I doubt would be the case. If we want to be successful in maintaining access we can't exclude fishermen because of their tackle or harvest tactics. We need all the allies we can get.

As far as CAP goes I think it is designed more to acquire small parcels so that a boat ramp, canoe launch, or parking area can be built. It's not designed to buy 500 acres and only a very generous person or a fool would surrender a large property to an outside agency for less than fair market value which for even large remote rural properties exceeds $ 1000.00 an acre. I can't see it ever having the money necessary to acquire large parcels but I may be wrong.

In closing I'd like to thank you for keeping this discussion alive. You've obviously thought about this a great deal and it shows in your responses. I appreciate your role in these type of discussions, and I'm not just saying that to kiss your heinie. You come off as the kind of sportsman that we all should aspire to be.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

The appealing thing about CAP is that it has matching dollars and works with other conservation groups.

And even if its just small plots to ensure access to the river, which is then ours according to the law, its worth pruchasing a small plot every mile or so.......

I see public land as the only permanent way of keeping the people's fish the people's fish and not the king's fish.

 

[RLeeP]

>So do you guys think CAP is a bad idea? Is the outright purchase of land turned over to the public bad?>>

CAP is a good thing. It's way late getting off the ground though, and that is going to limit its effectiveness. The outright purchase of land is not bad, per se. It is much more difficult than it used to be though. To some extent, this difficulty is about money. But another big part of it is that additions to the public trust have become very politicized ever since the emergence of a strong property rights movement in PA in the mid-80's. The President (Hemlock/Porky) deal in Venango County was about as straightforward and innocuous as they come for this sort of transaction and the property rights folks almost brought it down. It was a very near thing.



>>I really think having more public land would be a GREAT sporting legacy........>>

I think most of us feel the same. But, here is one of the problems with the more narrowly focused efforts to increase public access to currently privately held trout streams. The constituency and hence the potential financial ability to do these things is less today than it was 20 years ago. And it will be even less tomorrow. The why is pretty simple. Fishing itself as a recreational pastime is slipping in the total number of participants. As we become more urban and less rural as a society, this slippage is all but certain to continue.

In my view, this means that the smart money will be aimed at 2 somewhat disparate approaches to the problem. The first is to join in with other outdoor enthusiasts whose sports continue to grow (and there are many: birders, hikers, the whitewater nutcases, foilage photographers, etc. etc.) to pool buying power to purchase significant tracts that of cross-interest value. The second is to kick off an active program, not of purchases, but leased conservation easements, with defined access and egress points and maybe 33 foot corridors along either bank. Perpetuity would be best, but 20-30 year agreements wouldn't be such a bad thing if they became the only workable option. You'd be able to secure a lot more access for a lot less moeny with these easements than you would with outright purchases.

This would be my viewpoint, at any rate.

In addition, I think your Stream Steward idea is a great thing and it has some potential. But we are a busy people and if you've ever tried to staff a TU workday, you know that this level of commitment by volunteers can be difficult to maintain.

I think the winning approach is a little like a menu in a Chinese restaurant where you make multiple choices from the columns and combine it all for best effect. Landowner relations are a significant part, smart coopertative additons to the public trust are another as is, IMO, a strong, aggresswive and attractive lease/easement plan.

 

[RLeeP]

I also agree with everything Tim said. Highly intelligent for an Irishman...

Seriously though, I do agree and would like to second his kudos to OO.

One question: When CAP first same around a pretty fair number of years ago, one of the things that (as I recall) was a bit of a turnoff for some guys was the Commission's refusal to allow donations to be specifically earmarked even to trout streams in general, let alone a specific creek or watershed. In theory, this could have meant that say, State TU would raise 20K to give to CAP and then perhaps see it used to build a boat ramp at Raystown.

I understood the Commission's position at the time. I wonder though if it has been at all modified since then (this would have been in the early 90', I think..)

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I agree, agree, agree.....

Well, I'm going to go forward with developing this idea. I'll start a seperate post as a call to action once I get it more fleshed out.

Raising money is just one prong of the plan......the other would be to work on maintaining the access we have by generating goodwill between landowners and landusers.

As a physician specializing in older adults, I'm always surprised who little old ladies leave in their will........I hold out hope....why focus on losers like DB, when we can focus on the 90% of people who are generous and civic-minded.

 

[littlejuniata]

Ohio guy, I think CAP is a great idea, but underutilized by the PFBC, they should give the program more exposure, I made my contribution for this year and will continue to do so in years to come. It is great to be discussing the access issue regardless of your personal thoughts on it, at least it is on the front burner in this thread, lets push to get it media attention and educate the public by any means possible, it is a great program.

 

[FarmerDave]

RLeeP wrote:
>So do you guys think CAP is a bad idea? Is the outright purchase of land turned over to the public bad?>>

CAP is a good thing. It's way late getting off the ground though, and that is going to limit its effectiveness. The outright purchase of land is not bad, per se. It is much more difficult than it used to be though. To some extent, this difficulty is about money. But another big part of it is that additions to the public trust have become very politicized ever since the emergence of a strong property rights movement in PA in the mid-80's. The President (Hemlock/Porky) deal in Venango County was about as straightforward and innocuous as they come for this sort of transaction and the property rights folks almost brought it down. It was a very near thing.

RLP, The Hemlock/Porcupine started out as being straitforward, but it surely did not end up that way. The true locals were actually not against it. In a nut shell: Most of the town of President was built on land leased from the President Oil Company with 99 year leases. Many of these now have less than 40 years left. Many of these people who owned houses or cottages were hoping on being able to buy the land under their building, or extend the lease. Western Pensylvania Conservancy came along and bought all the land (because they can), with the intention of reselling it to the game commission. Of course the WPC did not want to sell tiny parcels first. Would you? I sure wouldn't. Without getting too deeply into it, they are in the conservation business. The game commission is not in the business of selling land either. Well, that is where it got ugly. Threats of law suites, etc. although the threats were mostly bullchit, the Game commission decided not to touch it. Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat. The WPC isn't in the business to lose money either. So, they timbered some of the land to recoup some money, then sold it all to a lumber company. Some people would think ... my oh my, a lumber company? The sky will surely fall on this valley. Well, the WPC put deed restrictions on the land (best timber practices, etc), and kept the recreational rights to the land for the public in perpetuity. The home and cottage owners still are on leased land that has not been extended. Nothing really has changed for them. Most hope to be able to extend the leases or buy the land. Me personally??? I couldn't care less if this happened. The hunting and fishing will be better off if they are not renewed. These people know what they have, and what they don't have. Heck, one of my brothers owns one of those places (he bought it after WPC sold the land). He knew what he was getting into. Sure he hopes to be able to buy the land under it (which would increase the value trememdously), but in any case, he knew the risks. Most of the cottage owners are from Pittsburgh or Cleveland, and frankly, they haven't done all that good of a job of protecting the surrounding land. They don't respect their neighbors either. They go there to get away from the city, yet they bring their city attitudes. They come mupear and think they can do anything they want. OK, I'm not saying all of them are that way. I'm not even saying most, but certainly a lot of them act that way. I certainly don't feel sorry for any of them. They knew what they were getting into. It is very peacful there during the week, and will be that way all weekend if the leases are allowed to expire.

Now, lets please stop talking about those streams. ;-)

 

[FarmerDave]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
So do you guys think CAP is a bad idea? Is the outright purchase of land turned over to the public bad?

I can definitely see the point of not encouraging leasing or private clubs and other private profitering from land..........but how could increasing the amount of public land be bad? Especially if it was done in a quiet manner......

I really think having more public land would be a GREAT sporting legacy........

OO, I read somewhere that when you include game lands, Pennsylvania has a higher perentage of state owned land than any other state. There are pieces of land deeded over to the state all the time. Some large, some small.

To answer your question, I don't think CAP is a bad idea. Although large areas of land is better, small stream accesses are valuable too.

 

[CRB]

Easements,easements and more easements into perpetuity.
Let's start to do what NY has been doing for decades or enact a wade law on ALL FLOWING waters in the state.