Donny Beaver and Field and Stream call us out

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Spending most of my weekend staining my deck instead of fishing, I sat down to read my F and S that came on friday. Low and behold, there is a article on pages 32-36 about Donny Beaver and the Spring Ridge club.

Much of the article is sympathetic to Beaver and spends a few paragraphs on the internet reaction to Beaver's efforts. Beaver and F and S basically call the PA blog sites as being ineffective.

"They could do what I'm doing instead of bitching on the Internet. I'd even show them how to contact landowners and raise money," Beaver says. "Access is being lost at an alarming pace. I'm either going to watch it and moan or I'm going to participate."

While I'm not going to defend Beaver, he does have a point.

Consider:

1) Access and habitat is decreasing
2) The PFBC focuses on stocking instead of conserving wild trout watersheds.
3) TU national has pulled out of the access debate.
4) In about a year of lurking and a year of membership, I have seen and particpated in many debates about regs, conservation, etc....a tremendous amount of energy.

Maybe its time for action. Without the PFBC and without TU.

Could we harness the power of the internet and raise funds for the purchase and/or lease land that would preserve habitat for and public access to our wild trout resources?

Some forums I belong to have a fund or fundraisers, I do not know how these operate, but it could be a start........

Maybe we should take Beaver up on his offer.

Yours in trout,

Bill

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i know your not defending him and he does have a point. BUT!
isnt the fact that the SRC is buying up streams and closing them off to members the same as posting it? isnt he just as much a part of the problem? hes a joke and its not a funny one at that.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Ohio Outdoorsman,

As an addendum, TU national is not out of the access debate after being told in no uncertain terms by many State TU's that backing away from the access debate would alienate many if not most TU'ers. National was roundly chastized for their sell out attitude and they had a change of heart.

Like Sal said, if Beaver posts it or the landowner posts it it's still posted and off limits. He's no hero.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Well, I hope you're right on TU national. But I also received my TROUT magazine from TU on friday.

On Page 5, in a letter, TU president Charles Gauvin says:

"The reality is that stream access is not, and never has been, part of TU's mission or vision."

All I'm saying is why not use Beaver's tactics (raise money and buy land or lease land) to keep land un-posted and ensure public access on our wild trout streams. This would be much more productive than bashing Beaver or arguing whether Little J should be C and R or all-tackle trophy trout or whether slot limits would work on brookie streams, yadayadayadayada......

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Ohio Outdoorsman,

I think that was more of a case that the letter from Gauvin was already at the printer's than it was an actual policy statement.

If you like to take the time to read what some of the State Leadership Council's wrote to TU national when the news first broke about this you can read it here. A lot of people who are very active TU members in a number of States chimed in with their thoughts. There are over 5 pages of comments here but there are a lot of good thoughts.

http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=597676

As to your point about purchasing access unless it is in the form of an irrevocable easement like New York State does with fishing and hunting easements I am against it.

I just see too many problems with actually purchasing tracts of land to maintain stream access. There are too many streams that are made up of many small patches of land rather than one continous parcel. I see people holding out for more money than their neighbors, or reneging on offers to sell unless they get their price. I can see a landowner who has traditionally offered access feeling miffed that now people are being paid for land when they had been giving it away. I short, I don't think it will work.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[Wmass]

OHIOOUTDOORMAN I don't think you realized what Beaver was doing at all. Beaver was buying land on specific waterways so that he could then close them to the public and charge 50,000 dollar membership fees to his SRC. Now, the SRC wasn't likely to be for those who truly love fishing, it was more likely to cater to the wealthy elite from Washington DC, NY, or NJ; who have that kind of cash to throw around. I know for a fact that the Wash Post had a story on the SRC.

Now, I would much rather have a landowner post a stream and keep it in his/her own family; than have some D-bag like Beaver buy up prime realestate and then block access.

Also, since the Little J was deemed navigable, its a moot point because you can access the water without punishment via entry points. Beaver was trying to stop anyone from accessing his stretches.

And I bet I can predict the future: If the day would come when Donny Beaver realized that his land on the rivers was worth more than his SR Club was making him, he would sell it off to the first home developer that came calling. He is solely a profiteer.

 

[Chaz]

I'vr been saying the same thing since Elk Run had a section posted, and that has been at least 10 year ago.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

For the record, I think what Beaver does/did is wrong and does nothing for the fish or the future of the sport. I really kind of miffed at F and S for publishing what was in essence a 4 page advertisment for the Spring Ridge Club.

If the project focused on smaller unavigable rivers that had large tracts of undeveloped lands and operated on a very low key level until a lot of the land was bought or under trust it would work.

As far as with navigable rivers, access seams to be dependedent on the whims of the judge hearing the case. I would like something more permanent.

Alternatively, the money could be used to pay a small royalty to all landowners who allow access to approved trout waters as a way of saying thank you for putting up with all the crap that allowing access causes.

Tim, you bring up good points. But, unfortunately, I think both hunting and fishing are becoming increasingly pay to play sports. While we may not each be able to afford our own stream, if we band together we could afford streams for all of us to use and ensure that our decendants will have them also.....

 

[JackM]

In a way, the mechanism for this already exists in the PA CAP program. The problem is that while people complain about access, they aren't willing to make the donations necessary. I suggest looking into the CAP program and considering whether it deserves our efforts to publicize it so that the fund can increase.

 

[Padraic]

I'm not sure I understand the criticism in the F&S article. It strikes me as saying Microsoft is ineffective because it can't deliver a pizza in thirty minutes or less.

PAFF is not raising money to guarantee stream access, because PAFF is not a fundraising entity. It doesn't even cover it's own bills.

I think if fundraising is your goal, you should organize a group to do that work. By all means use PAFF and it's readership as part of your strategy. PAFF has been effective in mobilizing people to join in on the efforts of other groups. TU Chapters post their work days here. We organized people to oppose the renewal of the Big Spring Hatchery discharge permit. And since Donny Beaver spent so much time criticizing us here (through his people) and in email (to me, and presumably Dave) I have to think we were more effective in keeping pressure on him than the article indicated.

The thing that gets to me about this idea is a truism about business websites. "There are no online businesses". There is business that is done on line, but if it isn't a valid business in the real world being online isn't going to save it. If you want to make a difference in raising money for this issue, organize a group that has a valid and effective overall strategy.

 

[LouM]

A while ago I posted about adding a 1.00 or more charge to the license fee for stream access only and it was received with mixed reaction. Maybe now is the the time to PFC push for it?

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Padraic,

I am not in any way calling out or criticizing this website.....just wondering if the internet could be used as a fundraising tool. PAFF is probably not the most appropriate place for this. PAFF is a wonderful website, and sounds like it is like most forums, is a profitless labor of love for those involved.

Jack -

How could I/we find out more about PA CAP?

 

[JackM]

Here's a start: http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/qpfbcgift.htm

Also, I think it is in the regs booklet.

 

[Coughlin]

I agree with Wmass (and others). if Beaver buys up land and closes off streams to the public, that's no different than a landowner posting. Except that I can occasionally get a landowner to grant permission and I rather doubt that Beaver would be as generous.
Coughlin

 

[littlejuniata]

The landowner needs compensated, no argument about that. Now how is the best way to do that?? Why not a system set up where you can pay the landowner through a permit, which you buy at any place that sells licenses, with the internet it should be pretty easy, the funds would go directly to the landwoners account. Landowners do NOT NEED a third party profiting from their streams, they should just market (and improve) the stream for income, just like they market ther crop fields. Wouldn't it be worth a "sum" of money to proetct access and actually improve your favorite stream? Another thought, why not have a rod fee on state owned premimum waters and that income go towards purchase of stream access?

 

[Will]

Beaver has been on a very vocal and very disingenuous PR campaign ever since he lost in court.

First of all, he's acting as if access to the streams he buys is being "preserved" when in fact, for most anglers that access is being lost. He defends that by saying the stretches he buys were all private before he bought them. That's true, but some of them were open to the public through the generosity of the landowner. And even those stretches that were closed might have opened up again if purchased by someone new who didn't have a commerical interest in keeping it closed (it does happen).

Which brings me to point #2. What Beaver has done by buying and leasing lots of prime limestone water is to accelerate the process of turning access to such waters into a marketable commodity. By offering landowners a way to "monetize" the value of their streams, Beaver decreases the likelihood that they will give it away, as used to be common.

Third, as a "pioneer" of this business model, Beaver is both setting an example for other businesses to follow, and creating an "arms race" where other guides services, lodges, etc. may feel the need to lease of buy access in order to avoid being shut out of the best waters.

In all those ways, Beaver is creating or at least greatly accelerating the problem he is publicly bemoaning. Its very cynical. I am annoyed, but not surprised, to see F&S buying into it.

 

[ryanh]

Little Juniatta that is an excellent idea! Anybody w/ stream access can submit their name and plot plan to the PAFBC if they want to participate. A seperate license or stamp is sold to access those properties and the money recieved for the stamp would be divided by the land owners. The only problem then is that EVERY land owner would post because they would want a piece of the action I guess. Maybe it should be only on designated streams where access is a problem. I know I would pay for it! I mean why not you pay for everything else.

Win/win.

 

[CaptMatt]

Will wrote:
I am annoyed, but not surprised, to see F&S buying into it.

I have lost a lot of respect for Field and Stream for many other reasons other than this. Check out their website some time and read the "forum". It's garbage. Field and Stream has stepped on many toes with some of their publications and this is no exception. I cancelled my subscription a while ago.

 

[littlejuniata]

Mr wild trout stream protecter wants to build houses above the Little J, up on that hill above the stream and have the sewage drain filelds in the flood plain of the river, which is already overly enriched with nutrients. I would think that Dr Bachman the trout researcher would say that with the overabundance of pellet fish, that there would be few if any wild trout in the SRC section (of any of the SRC waters). I really don't like the idea that if you do catch a big Brown in the river, that it could be one of the dumbass pellet fish and not a wild or fingerling raised trout.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Little Juniata,

I don't know why you keep sounding the horn and calling for landowner compensation? It's a ridiculous idea for the public to have to pay for access to what already belongs to them, as in fish.

Not one single fish alive in a stream in Pennsylvania belongs to the landowner, they all belong to the public. If beaver hadn't already started trying to convince people they should be paid to allow people access to the fish that the public already owns no one would even think to do it.

That is why Beaver has been succesful, he has been able to appeal to people's inate sense of greed. We absolutely do not need more people buying access, lest it turn into a bidding war which is what always happens when two or more people want the same property.

A landowner has the right to post his/her property and I won't dispute that one bit. They do not have the right to charge people to access the people's own fish. Post it and close it or leave it open, those are the only two choices that make any sense. Stop giving people ideas that they should be paid. What's next, charging people to stop and look at deer or to take a picture of a barn framed against a backdrop of fall colors?

If you want pay to play trout fishing you can have it but I won't pay one thin dime to go trout fishing today or in the future. It's not that important to me and I'll wager that if it does come to pass you will find that it's not that important to most people either.

Change the laws in PA and allow for the purchase of permanent easements if you want to, but stop saying we need to compensate landowners. It's a terrible idea that will create far more problems than it will ever solve.

Regards,
Tim Murphy