Public or Private?

silverfox said:
They did. I’m honestly not sure if they still do or not. My cousin bought one of the properties. They don’t lease the one section anymore. I think they sold another section a while ago. I believe they still own the stretch below the fly project.

Even with the impoundments it’s still cold all year. Imagine what it would be if they were removed.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it would be pretty sweet, I'm sure. I've always heard good things about Yellow.
 
Roofin' Trouter said:
Which counties do you regularly look in? I look at land/ houses in Elk, Jefferson,Tioga, Clearfield, McKean,Cameron, and Potter Counties pretty much every day and don't come across deals like that.
For instance, for a 112 acre property that borders Freeman Run for 100yd approx , they are currently asking $336,000.[QUOTE="troutbert, post: 933517, member: 26
That sounds WAY low.
Click to expand...
It is way low or I'm looking in the wrong places.
[/QUOTE]

Yer just lookin' in the wrong places...

The real estate ads are probably sprinkled in between scholarly articles in a journal somewhere...

They must be really sinuous streams too. Or really long properties, because a 100 acre parcel that is in a square is less than half a mile on each side....

But I digress - post stats that are pre-real estate boom. No need to verify for current conditions.
 
5footfenwick said:
https://www.gis.dcnr.state.pa.us/publicstreambeds/
Here is an interactive map of all navigable waters in Pa 🙂 Hope this helps some.
Tight lines~5footfenwick
Click to expand...
That map has nothing to do with public access until the navigabilry is confirmed via court. Only a handful of rivers in PA have went through the process. For trout fishing interests that includes the Little J and Lehigh. You could likely win the court case if charged with trespassing in most creeks on that map, but you may need deep pockets. Choose battles wisely
 
Fish Sticks said:
Your absolutely right about the postings and stocked trout. This is something I continually bring up. Game comission gave us SGL’s where some of our best small and big water fishing is, DCNR gave us state parks, wild areas, and state forests(they just bought two kore state parks by the way this year).

PFBC largely just focuses on fish production for anglers to compete for in crowded space and the risk there in my opinion is who is looking out for the future of this sport and our outdoor traditions. That 27.5 million dollar grant they wasted on hatcheries in 2020 could have bough alot of real estate especially in FEMA flood zones vital to ecological health and stream access but useless to developers.

I regularly see 100 or 150 acres in wild areas of PA boasting “2 miles total” of trout stream for less than 100 thousand dollars!!!

PFBC just gave potter county anglers coop hatchery around 65 thousand just to make their hatchery meet great lakes compliance!!

Trout hatchery program was 13mill a year in 2009. With inflation oil prices ect what is it now 15, 20 million a year??

If that money was used for access instead of a couple week fishery we wouldn’t have to worry about these fickle access agreements with landowners, conflicts, and vague stream access laws nearly as much most likely (even if navigable up to judge is my understanding).

My 2 cents
Click to expand...
It would make a lot of sense for the PA government to dedicate significant funds buying / long term access leases to high quality trout streams, steelhead streams, and warmwater fisheries. The tourist dollars spent would make up for the cost if streams like Elk Creek in centre county and other year round limestone fisheries had much better access
 
lycoflyfisher said:
That map has nothing to do with public access until the navigabilry is confirmed via court. Only a handful of rivers in PA have went through the process. For trout fishing interests that includes the Little J and Lehigh. You could likely win the court case if charged with trespassing in most creeks on that map, but you may need deep pockets. Choose battles wisely
Click to expand...
This is true.

Many people are saying that the DCNR list is a list of navigable streams that the public has a right to access. That is simply wrong. Just read the disclaimer:

Welcome to the new Public Streams and Navigable Waterways Map​

NOTE: The waterways identified herein as having publicly-owned streambeds have been compiled by the Commonwealth over time from various sources. Identification is based upon information believed to be reliable and persuasive evidence of such ownership. The identification of a waterway as having a publicly-owned streambed herein is not intended to be a final determination that the waterway is navigable under state or federal law. Moreover, other waterways not identified herein may be navigable under state or federal law, in which case their streambeds would also be publicly-owned. The Commonwealth reserved the right to add or remove waterways identified as having publicly-owned streambeds as additional information becomes available.


The DCNR can express their opinion. But they are not the deciders. The courts are the deciders.
 
Bamboozle said:
www.fishandboat.com

Conservation Acquisition Partnership (CAP) Program

CAP was created by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission to solicit and accept donations to be used solely to obtain additional access to Pennsylvania's water.
www.fishandboat.com www.fishandboat.com
Click to expand...
“The success of the CAP program is dependent on the generosity of people like you.”

The success of the trout hatchery program relies upon more than 13 million dollars annually, most of 27.5 million in growing greener hatchery grants in 2020, and all from first dibs on license revenues/federal/state grants.

That cap program is like saying we have a access acquisition fund like saying you have a juicing company when you in fact have a lemonade stand duct taped together

We can see the priorities are rubber trout not actually maintaining places to fish for us or for future’s generations to protect our sporting traditions
 
CRB said:
What is needed is an access fund. Up here in Erie county we fought the state for permanent easements instead of out right purchases. Every time there is a recession more stream easements are added. New York's access program has been around for almost 100 year and you can see the positives that have come out of that program.
Click to expand...
Earlier this week I did a search along Elk Creek of all the public access. There is a lot. PFBC and the Game Commission has funded various land purchases.

However Ohio seems to have the best public access of the Lake Erie tribs. They had the foresight to make most rivers into “metro parks” so the land is accessible for picnics, walkers, fishing, bicycles, and some allow horseback riding. Some tracts like Rocky River seem to be continuous for 15+ miles.
 
Fish Sticks said:
“The success of the CAP program is dependent on the generosity of people like you.”

The success of the trout hatchery program relies upon more than 13 million dollars annually, most of 27.5 million in growing greener hatchery grants in 2020, and all from first dibs on license revenues/federal/state grants.

That cap program is like saying we have a access acquisition fund like saying you have a juicing company when you in fact have a lemonade stand duct taped together

We can see the priorities are rubber trout not actually maintaining places to fish for us or for future’s generations to protect our sporting traditions
Click to expand...
BINGOOO!
 
Prospector said:
Earlier this week I did a search along Elk Creek of all the public access. There is a lot. PFBC and the Game Commission has funded various land purchases.

However Ohio seems to have the best public access of the Lake Erie tribs. They had the foresight to make most rivers into “metro parks” so the land is accessible for picnics, walkers, fishing, bicycles, and some allow horseback riding. Some tracts like Rocky River seem to be continuous for 15+ miles.
Click to expand...
True. But otherwise public land opportunities in Ohio pale in comparison to PA, so I'd stay here any day. We have a pretty good amount of public land.
 
Fish Sticks said:
“The success of the CAP program is dependent on the generosity of people like you.”

The success of the trout hatchery program relies upon more than 13 million dollars annually, most of 27.5 million in growing greener hatchery grants in 2020, and all from first dibs on license revenues/federal/state grants.

That cap program is like saying we have a access acquisition fund like saying you have a juicing company when you in fact have a lemonade stand duct taped together

We can see the priorities are rubber trout not actually maintaining places to fish for us or for future’s generations to protect our sporting traditions
Click to expand...

So therefore we 8itch incessantly, bemoan everything the PFBC does even if some of it is beneficial to whatever cause the 8itches care to wear on their sleeves on a particular day and do nothing but complain and complain and complain...

Absolutists are morons...
 
Bamboozle said:
So therefore we 8itch incessantly, bemoan everything the PFBC does even if some of it is beneficial to whatever cause the 8itches care to wear on their sleeves on a particular day and do nothing but complain and complain and complain...

Absolutists are morons...
Click to expand...
I can't say I've seen much of anyone suggesting anything that qualifies as absolutism. So I guess the moron tag doesn't apply to anyone here.
 
Bamboozle said:
So therefore we 8itch incessantly, bemoan everything the PFBC does even if some of it is beneficial to whatever cause the 8itches care to wear on their sleeves on a particular day and do nothing but complain and complain and complain...

Absolutists are morons...
Click to expand...
I gave PFBC credit for the stocking auth…before it folded. I have given PFBC credit for unassessed waters. I have stayed over and over that I am not for trying to get rid of brown trout in every case its possible, nor anything close to that. I live in a state that will not compromise a single invasive salmonid to help its state fish, has no areas devoted to their conservation specifically. I have watched surrounding states that are decades ahead of us in aquatics resource management and am asking for a small piece of what they have, crumbs. A stocking auth, a native brook trout reg, a native brook trout management area, any meaningful stocking reform, a removal/reintroduction in a tiny trickle and have gotten NONE. Yet sticking to the important conservation issue of stocking reform and fishing issue of access I am some how the uncompromising “absolutest”?

In fact it seems like pot calling kettle black because it seems like for some whats absolute is their unwavering support and mental gymnastics/apologist explanations for a derelict incompetent resource manager thats the laughing stock of the east coast
 
Fish Sticks said:
I gave PFBC credit for the stocking auth…before it folded. I have given PFBC credit for unassessed waters. I have stayed over and over that I am not for trying to get rid of brown trout in every case its possible, nor anything close to that. I live in a state that will not compromise a single invasive salmonid to help its state fish, has no areas devoted to their conservation specifically. I have watched surrounding states that are decades ahead of us in aquatics resource management and am asking for a small piece of what they have, crumbs. A stocking auth, a native brook trout reg, a native brook trout management area, any meaningful stocking reform, a removal/reintroduction in a tiny trickle and have gotten NONE. Yet sticking to the important conservation issue of stocking reform and fishing issue of access I am some how the uncompromising “absolutest”?

In fact it seems like pot calling kettle black because it seems like for some whats absolute is their unwavering support and mental gymnastics/apologist explanations for a derelict incompetent resource manager thats the laughing stock of the east coast
Click to expand...

Exaggerate much?

I don't remember the details because I was just a kid, but I seem to remember an effort decades ago to remove brown trout from Little Sandy in Venango County. I don't think it is a class A, but it does have a section that is FFO.

And the locals and TU revolted.

IMO, it isn't so much that they refuse to make changes, but when they have, they have run into brick walls.

Before you start attacking me for disagreeing on this one point, understand that I do agree with much of what you say. I just try not to yell at the choir so much. Or at least not as much as I used to. Also, compromise is a two-way street.

Stop stocking all streams, open the hatcheries to fishing and charge admission. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
FarmerDave said:
Exaggerate much?

I don't remember the details because I was just a kid, but I seem to remember an effort decades ago to remove brown trout from Little Sandy in Venango County. I don't think it is a class A, but it does have a section that is FFO.

And the locals and TU revolted.

IMO, it isn't so much that they refuse to make changes, but when they have, they have run into brick walls.

Before you start attacking me for disagreeing on this one point, understand that I do agree with much of what you say. I just try not to yell at the choir so much. Or at least not as much as I used to. Also, compromise is a two-way street.

Stop stocking all streams, open the hatcheries to fishing and charge admission. Problem solved.
Click to expand...
These are all the reintros and removals(zero) PFBC is willing to own up to. BUT I believe there may have been some non listed ones potentially not mentioned as you suggest and I realize anglers might flip out but I think this is where education comes in instead of secrecy. It anglers know their quality brown trout fisheries are safe they won’t sweat when a 4 foot wide first order stream above a waterfall gets reclaimed. I think some public engagement and info for a prolonged period before removal would go along way. Also I think we are in a different place today as far as more people understand we need to change how we do somethings in fisheries management in a few places.
15D835AD-DEA5-4891-A7CD-B60DC26D8A83.jpeg
 
Shocker this thread got derailed....again. I'm sure there might be a thread where this conversation could go.

To the op I remember a thread from a number of years ago about navigable water. I will do a search and see what I can find.
 
ryansheehan said:
Shocker this thread got derailed....again. I'm sure there might be a thread where this conversation could go.

To the op I remember a thread from a number of years ago about navigable water. I will do a search and see what I can find.
Click to expand...
Thank you! I’m all for it. I don’t mind the errant discussions, I’d be reading them elsewhere anyway, but I appreciate your input. Where I am in Columbia County, there’s currently a court case, Beishline vs. Commonwealth, stating the obvious “my stream vs. our stream”. I’m sure it will set precedents in the state, hopefully on the commonwealths side. We shall see!
 
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