Private Water Fly Fishing

[FarmerDave]

rrt wrote:
1. Maybe it was sophomoric or pretentious (moronic?) of me to use soporific.
2. I think I am one of those who doesn't give Humphreys a pass, since he made so much money from average Joes. I know that Kreh did, too, and though I won't buy any of his stuff, I am reluctant to say anything negative about him, since he put his life on the line in the WWII, being involved in Battle of the Bulge during that war.

See there, I didn't have to look up the definitions of those words.

It wasn't moronic. I was just messing with you.

As far as a pass for Humphreys or Kreh, or anyone else who is credited with contributions to this sport ... I don't see a need for passes because I never put any of them on a piedistallo.;-)

It's fishing for Pete sake. But I do put our WWII vets on a pedistal. All but especially WWII.

 

[FarmerDave]

wbranch wrote:
Wild Trout wrote;

"Actually, they achieved this with the introduction of the brown trout in the 1800s."

That may have contributed to the demise of the native brook trout but believe me the brook trout, in the Catskills, was already in serious decline due to the clear cutting all over those mountains, running logs down the rivers, and contaminating them with run-off from the tannic acid factories all up and down that corridor. There is even a pool on the Beaverkill called "The Acid Factory Pool". Brown trout were introduced to supplant, and augment, the decimated brook trout fishery. If brown trout hadn't been stocked those rivers would be devoid of all but a few wild brookies in the tribs and the native suckers and chubs. Hey but a nice chub is fun to catch!

I'm not going to argue with most of that, but brook trout are way more tolerant of acid than browns. The only reason Americans of European descent wanted it that way. The truth is that Brook trout can live and and thrive as well as brown trout in any stream that currently is dominated by brown trout ... if not for the brown trout.

I'm not suggesting removing all brown trout. I'm just point out a fallacy.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
Greenweenie, I'm not sure if you were talking to me. But my point of view is that the club cannot be considered a "conservation" effort. It wouldn't matter if they were all wild, and the excellent fishery is solely the result of making it the best trout habitat on Earth.
...

I disagree. If I sunk a bunch of time and money into said stream making habitat improvements, why wouldn't that be considered a conservation effort? Does something have to be Gubermint sanctined before it is considered conservation?

Whether I posted it or had other people contribute in exchange for fishing privileges is for th emost part irrelevant if I, we have made actually conservation improvements.

Of course if I am making money on the effort, it definitely middies up the water.

A friend tried to start one up. His family has several hundred acres. People from out of town (SWPA) lease up a bunch of land around him and started hunting and fishing clubs. So rather than lease their property out, he decided... what if I post it and charge 50 bucks a year to hunt. I'd put ALL the proceeds back into the property making habitat improvements for the deer and grouse.

His friends and neighbors had been hunting that property for years. They damn near crucified him for the idea. I actually thought it was a good idea, but most people apparently don't want to see anyone else especially their friends get ahead or even break even.

People suck.

Sure I was talking hunting, but could have been talking fishing. There are a few small trout streams on the property. but I don't think he cared if people fished.

 

[pcray1231]

I disagree. If I sunk a bunch of time and money into said stream making habitat improvements, why wouldn't that be considered a conservation effort? Does something have to be Gubermint sanctined before it is considered conservation?

It outlines a philosophical difference. It boils down to the question of whether nature has value in of itself, or whether it's value is purely as it benefits humans. My answer is the latter. That may sound cold, but consider what path the former sends you down. It leads to the conclusion that man is innately evil and that Earth would be far better off without us. I can't accept that. Man is a part of nature, made by nature. And we are free to change nature as it suits us, the same as a bird can build a nest, beavers can build dams, and a woodpecker can poke holes in trees. The key, though, is to make intelligent decisions about proper use, because man definitely has enough power to hurt itself. We don't always make proper decisions. And the reasons are many. Putting the decision to act in the hands of too few, being too short sighted, acting before we have a sufficient understanding of the consequences, overvaluing money and undervaluing our own happiness, etc.

So my philosophy would say that if you want to improve your stream, go right ahead. Is it conservation? Well, YOU can consider it conservation of your own resources. But if it's posted, and it doesn't benefit the public in any way, you shouldn't expect them to give you credit for anything.

 

[McSneek]

So if I'm a farmer and I post my entire property to keep people off of it and away from my livestock, don't allow hunting or fishing but decide that I should fence off the stream that runs through my property to keep my cows out of it, and improve the riparian buffer I don't get credit for conservation efforts? What happened to the phrase, "We all live downstream?" This kind of stuff is going on all the time in Lancaster County. Most of these aren't trout streams but they flow into the Chesapeake. This may not really be Macri's "Conewago model" but to say conservation can only take place on public land or private land open to the public is wrong IMO. I think I'm with FD on this one.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

I kinda think Mother Nature does her own habitat improvement.
Man thinks he's smarter,but in the end gets proven wrong.
ie. Forest fires aren't all bad and existed before man figured out that controlled burns benefited wildlife and forests. Lightening at the right time and a regenerative burn. Floods scour stream beds and remove silt that chokes the bottom. Stick in a dam and get the silt to build up in one place till you get a shallow lake with a waterfall.
We ain't that smart. GG

 

[FarmerDave]

McSneek wrote:
So if I'm a farmer and I post my entire property to keep people off of it and away from my livestock, don't allow hunting or fishing but decide that I should fence off the stream that runs through my property to keep my cows out of it, and improve the riparian buffer I don't get credit for conservation efforts? What happened to the phrase, "We all live downstream?" This kind of stuff is going on all the time in Lancaster County. Most of these aren't trout streams but they flow into the Chesapeake. This may not really be Macri's "Conewago model" but to say conservation can only take place on public land or private land open to the public is wrong IMO. I think I'm with FD on this one.

Well written McSneek.

I had a long response just about done, but then the phone rang. Came back and after reading what you wrote, I decided you said most of it better with a lot less words.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
Well, YOU can consider it conservation of your own resources. But if it's posted, and it doesn't benefit the public in any way, you shouldn't expect them to give you credit for anything.

thank you for your permission to consider it to be conservation, but I do have to ask...

Credit from whom, and why should I care?

Listen Pat, your argument is just as much based on greed as some of the others. Not willing to call it conservation unless you and everyone else can use it at no additional fee.

How do you feel about some of the State preserves in PA where ALL people are denied access, cept for the conservation officers of course.

Then again, maybe you are a closet socialist.

Not conservation unless all good comrades can enjoy it for no additional fee. I'm joking of course.

I have this large area on the farm that I am currently not using. It would make a heck of a nice lake or improved wetland habitat. Don't worry, it won't result in thermal degradation of any stream. Hell, it might even help. Not that it matters. No cold water fisheries here. It will cost me well into the 5 figures to do this, so I may end up posting it so it doesn't get trashed. You might not think it is conservation, but I'm betting the ducks geese, herons, egrets, deer, muskrats, and even bluegills will beg to differ.

I don't do things for credit. I don't want credit, but will accept cash. :lol:

 

[GreenWeenie]

I second McSneek. Well written.

Pcray, I understand what you are saying but it seems that your feeling is if you personaly can't access or use the resouce, it isn't conservation and nobody should get credit. I disagree with that.

Here's an example. The Northern White Rhinoceros in Africa was poached almost to the point of extinction in the late 90's so private game preserves in Africa were set up to confine and protect the animals in a natural setting away from poachers to hopefully allow them to begin repopulating (and they did, slowly but they did). Some of these preserves are not open to the public so by your definition, because you can't see them or somehow benefit from the preserve, this is not an effort of conservation. There are, however, several rhinos confined in zoos that are open to the public so by your definition, because you can see them, you benefit and therefore that is a conservation effort.

 

[FarmerDave]

gulfgreyhound wrote:
I kinda think Mother Nature does her own habitat improvement.
Man thinks he's smarter,but in the end gets proven wrong.
ie. Forest fires aren't all bad and existed before man figured out that controlled burns benefited wildlife and forests. Lightening at the right time and a regenerative burn. Floods scour stream beds and remove silt that chokes the bottom. Stick in a dam and get the silt to build up in one place till you get a shallow lake with a waterfall.
We ain't that smart. GG

All true, which is why I prefer the types of "habitat improvements" that allow mother nature to do her thang.

I kind of laugh at some of the stream improvements I've seen over the years. What were they thinking?

 

[JeffK]

I think too often we anglers expect to get something for nothing. Most of our trout waters are on private property where someone else pays the mortgages, the taxes, and upkeep on the land. Allowing us to fish is a gift, not a right. Shouldn't the landowner get something back other than trash and abuse?

Back in the 60's a lot of farmers in popular fishing areas would charge $1or $2 to park on their land and fish. That seemed reasonable. There seems to be a big span between the $3 bridge and a $50,000 a year club. Back in the day everybody knew each other and public fishing was part of the community fabric. Now some destination streams are over-run by people from far away. How much should private landowners support free fishing? The trend seems to be either the state buys the fishing rights or you pay to fish.

The other thing I'm coming more and more to believe is that streams are all interconected and that everything that happens in the watershed affects the stream. The work in the stream bed is of small importance to hard surface, fertilizer practices, and every thing else as rain runs into a stream. That unfortunately means that conservation involves a lot of work with private landowners.

 

[pcray1231]

What happened to the phrase, "We all live downstream?"

Nothing. It's conservation only in the extent that it does effect other areas. That's why I put the stipulation in there that a club can dump growth hormones in the water if they wanted, and it doesn't make a difference, so long as it doesn't escape their property.

To the extent that you are improving areas outside of the property, yes, it is conservation. And likewise if you damage areas outside the property, yes, conservationists have every reason to consider you the enemy. But whatever stays on your property is no business of anyone else.

In FD's case of making wetlands. Again, to the extent it improves the fortunes of birds and other critters which also grace areas open to the public, I would label it as conservation. If he, however, fenced in those critters and didn't let them leave, then no, the public shouldn't care about the welfare of them. They don't hold value by existing. They hold value by man's enjoyment of them, however he chooses to do that.

Having wildlife, trees, open spaces, etc. is beneficial to our health and mental welfare, in addition to providing recreation, and in some cases, providing food and other renewable resources.

This argument always comes up in land-use decisions. For instance, drilling. If it's damaging to public resources then the public has a right to concern themselves with it. If the benefits outweigh the cost, then you choose to do it in a manner and place where that trade off is most positive. And included in that decision is how many people it's effecting. For instance, in my mind, while drilling in ANWAR may not be a "good" thing from a conservation standpoint, it is certainly "less bad" than drilling in areas where a much higher number of people are affected in a more damaging way. If forced to make that choice, I'd choose drilling in ANWAR over, say, a national forest in the lower 48.

Or logging. There are anti-logging groups out there who think that "hands off" is always the best approach, logging is evil and if we could simply stop doing it that would be best. And yes, logging can be damaging. But it can also be very beneficial if done right. Mixed age forests tend to support considerably better biomass of wildlife, and they also tend to support a higher degree of human tourism as a result. And that's not to mention the obvious, supplying wood and paper to people in a renewable manner, which may be FAR better than the alternative materials that would be used for those applications. So, IMO, it's something we need to watch and make sure it's being done in an intelligent manner. But yes, it CAN be better from a conservation standpoint to encourage logging!

Humans effects on the environment are not innately evil. We have the power to change it, for better or worse, and need to be intelligent about our decisions. Conservation is about making good decisions, and preventing bad ones.

 

[GreenWeenie]

Pcray, I think I know what you are trying to say but your last posting appears to be introducing environmental awareness and somehow equating that to conservation and they are completely different animals in my view.

Your logging example is a great example of how man is more environmentally aware and will conduct activities in such a manner to minimize environmental impacts when harvesting natural resources but the fact is the primary purpose of most logging activities is to obtain the raw natural resource that man needs to make stuff and it has nothing to do with conservation. The fact that man can now do it in a more environmentally friendly manner than 100 years ago or maybe the forest does benefit from this activity in 50 years isn’t conservation it’s a beneficial byproduct of the operation. I do agree that there are probably some selective harvesting activities specifically designed to help "conserve" the forest but for the most part, logging operations are a business of harvesting natural resources simply done in an environmentally friendly manner.

Question, how do you classify the benefit the conservancy at Lititz Run is providing? If they didn’t own the property it is entirely possible that the stream would be posted and no one could fish it (not conserved). But since they own the land, they are granting the entire public access to the stream (conserved) BUT you have to pay an annual fee to get a badge (not conserved) BUT the badge money is used to implement improvements that will hopefully make the natural resource more enjoyable to the public (conserved……or not conserved because you have to pay to enjoy it). Oh yes, the trout are also stocked (not conserved) but without stocking there might not be any trout in ths stream and trout fishing is what brings enjoyment to the public and public enjoyment of a natural resource means the resource is being conserved.

So how would you classify the Conservancy – conservation or not conservation?

 

[GreenWeenie]

Conservation is about making good decisions, and preventing bad ones.

I completely agree with that statement but where I have trouble following your logic is the exceptions to public/private and pay/no pay.

If the good decisions are implemented on private property and you don't benefit from them personally, those good decisions are not conservation. If you do benefit from them, then it is conservation. The decision is the same the only thing that changes is you either benefit or you don't.

If the good decision costs you anything to enjoy than the good decision is not conservation but if it costs you nothing then it's conservation. Again, the decision is the same the only thing that changes is you either pay or you don't pay.

Here is paradox by your definition. You are a paying TU member at Chapter A and your membership fee is being used to fund good decisions on streams within Chapter A to improve habitat, to you those decision can't be conservation because it's costing you money but to me, as a Chapter B member, those decisions in your chapter are most certainly conservation to me because it's costing me nothing. Conversely, improvements in Chapter B, my chapter, are not conservation to me but they are to you.

 

[WhiskeyRiver]

GW1, I’m glad we both agree that there is a huge difference between the two different groups of pay to play, your analogy of the two were spot on. I will agree that before commenting one should be well informed with the facts to maintain a civil dialog. You must admit though, what has happened in PA and stills continues (to some degree) the mere mention of pay to play will have a negative if not hostile initial reaction for most, myself included.

As I said before I didn’t know Mr. Marci so I checked out his bio and read some of his writings which I found very interesting and recognize his contribution to stream management. With what yourself and others that know of the club and how the system is being managed I’m ok with it even if they do make a few buck’s as long as it is truly honorably.

So……… the fact I read bio and understood his writing ya think I could get a few bonus SAT points? See the jobs a little shaky and I really need to bump up the old resume.
;-)

 

[pcray1231]

greenweenie, generally I am a huge fan of conservancies. They are probably the most effective conservation organizations out there. I'm a member of TU and no offense meant to that organization, but dollar for dollar, there's no doubt there are conservancies out there that have done more for trout fisheries, not to mention every other sort of wildlife you can think of. Really, much of our national and state forests, state parks, SGL's, etc. are there because of the work of conservancies.

I was not aware of that specific situation in regards to the Lititz Run conservancy. By your description, I'd definitely call that particular project a gray area. I'd have no problem if they required the badge for fishing or any other specific activity. As far as requiring it for any type of access, yes, that puts the conservation angle of that particular project in question somewhat, though it still may be preferable to the situation had they not owned it at all. It can be "good" without being considered conservation. And that's only for that property, I'm sure the same conservancy has other projects which may be set up differently, they likely are even using the badge money for other projects as well. Remember, even if I don't consider the project itself to fall under the flag of conservationism, that doesn't mean those profits aren't being leveraged for conservation elsewhere.

I think Falling Water is a similar situation with the Western PA conservancy. They charge admission, and then offer paid tours as levels on top of that. They definitely turn it into a bit of a tourist attraction to raise money. In that sense, I do have trouble calling Falling Water itself to be a conservation project. However, they are using that money to fund other projects, which DEFINITELY fall under the flag of conservationism. I fully support what they are doing there, and the organization's mission as a whole falling under "conservation" is not in question. And I'd also say that the customers who pay money in order to visit Falling Water, or buy the badge in the case of Lititz Run, could likely consider their contribution to be a "donation" towards conservation efforts.

If Mr. Macri's club's profits were being used to fund projects on public land, I'd say the same of his members.

I don't need to personally benefit to call it conservation. But yes, it has to certainly be aimed at benefitting public resources. There's a million things that I'd consider conservation that I haven't personally visited nor plan to in the future.

Again, I don't see widlife to have intrinsic value. It's value is to the extent that it improves our lives. But I do think wild areas, plants, wildlife, etc. improve our lives in an unfathomable number of ways, to the point that most of us don't quite appreciate just how much value it has.

 

[Greenweenie1]

Whiskey, I do apologize for the comment. Sometimes taking the shock approach causes one to to sit back and think. If you came back and said you researched gene and what he has done and you still don't like it or agree with me, that is fine, I respect that. It when you go back the original 5-10 responses to this thread you realize that people who have no clue about the situation are wrongly making assumptions.

And I fully understand the hostility towards pay to play. My personal grip isn't so much pay to play its when clubs do nothing other than stock the crap out of a stream and try to spin doctor that into conservation. That is not conservation, that is creating recreation. And most of the streams that belong to clubs are actually incapable of sustaining wild trout so call it like it is - it is a natural hatchery raceway that you are charging people a fee to fish.

Spring ridge and the little j is something completely different. There you have a business enterprise making tons of money by attempting to privatize a stretch of water that the public has legal right of access. That is something completely different.

 

[Greenweenie1]

The club is a not for profit operation. Now that can be misleading because that doesn't mean people can't make money in the form of being paid a salary it just means that whatever profits are left over after all operating costs can't be distributed.

The clubs dues are about $600 per year. Assume 100 members, which is very generous, that is $60k and I hardly believe anyone is getting rich off that and it's a far cry from the $75k charged by spring ridge for membership. Maybe it is not $75k but it's in that range.

 

[pcray1231]

Are they using the profits to improve any lands open to the public?

 

[Greenweenie1]

I do not know the answer. Not avoiding the question because i know if they don't that means no conservation but I really do not know the true answer. If I were to guess, I would say no they don't but that is my guess.