Private Water Fly Fishing

[Will]

"Moreover, the angling public generally supports the state stocking over wild populations as well."

"Where/how did you get this impression?"

I'm taken aback by the question, to the point where I am tempted to turn it around - what gave you a contrary impression? I believe the state continues to stock over class B and even sometimes class A populations largely because that is desired by a majority of anglers who use those stream sections, though I wish it were otherwise. When the state stops stocking such a section , there is usually signficant opposition. And that's not even counting class C and D streams that might improve (or, to be fair, might not).

To be very clear, probably in common with most on this board, I am opposed to stocking over fishable wild trout populations.
If you have evidence that a majority PA trout anglers oppose stocking over wild fish, let's marshall that evidence and use it, because we are missing a great opportunity to lobby the PFBC to stop the practice.

Anyway, my point in raising this in the context of the thread was just that the public non-fee-fishing community isn't, collectively speaking at least, entirely free of the "sin" of supporting stocking over wild pops in order to catch more and larger trout.

 

[GreenWeenie]

5RingsBL, and you add what value to this or any other thread?

BTW, Greenweenie1 is my home account because this site won’t let me log on with my original GW account from home so I’ve got far more than 16 posts.

And I stand by my comment that some of the responses to this thread were made by clueless idiots. If you are going to bash someone’s scientific credentials or claim they are ruining a stream, do some research and find out their credentials and what they are doing and don’t conclude the guy is an idiot and ruining streams just because the video isn’t a well polished professional video or you think his website is cheesy or you don’t like that he’s associated with a pay to fish club. While any of those may cause you to not like the guy, that in itself doesn’t mean he’s ruining streams, a hypocrite or an idiot. Many are making wrong assumptions and jumping to erroneous conclusions as to the club’s operations.

Of the people who have made disparaging comments, I ask how many of you have taken the time to email Gene and find out some info on the club and what he and the club does for the stream? If you haven’t (and I doubt many did), and you are not familiar with the club’s operation and Gene’s involvement as riverkeeper, then yes, you are a clueless idiots when you make baseless negative comments.

Will, good post, you definitely get it. Very much continuing the lines raised by Jack earlier in the post.

 

[pcray1231]

I tend to side with Tim on this one.

Regarding pay to fish. It ain't my cup of tea. In my mind, once a stretch of stream becomes posted, whether totally posted or pay to play, it is completely gone from any discussion of "conservation". It ceases to be a resource, period. There is no longer any resource to be protected. It's gone.

I do respect the landowners right to do this. And would not lobby that it should be illegal or anything like that, provided they aren't taking public land to do it. I just find it incredibly insulting to advertise is as "conservation", as if they're doing the public a favor or something.

The issue about stocking over wild trout, well, again, it's not a reasource for the public. So long as they're not ruining any sections which are open to the public in the process, I could care less what they do with it. If I were a member, I'd prefer to fish over truly wild, unfed fish. And to be quite honest, if a club were truly to cater to such desires, I'm not above doing it on occasion. I'd consider paying a rod fee to fish a truly wild trout stream. But I'd still see it more as a private amusement park, rather than a natural "resource", and could not ever associate it with the term "conservation". And I probably couldn't get really into fishing such a place on a regular basis, it'd be nothing more than a novelty, as the motivation for me is enjoying our "resources".

 

[SBecker]

What is your guys take on a place like Harman's? I mean its basically a pay to fish place, but a bunch of us on here would like to go there.

 

[Greenweenie1]

So I guess the issue is what constitutes or defines "conservation." If I understand, if John Q Public can't fish the stream,the resource is gone and not conserved. In this instance if the stream is posted and no one ever fishes the stream and the wild trout thrive, it doesn't matter, it isnt conserved because no one can fish it. So conservation has nothing to do with what is best for the fish but rather it's more about the benefit of the fisherman.

And privatizing a stream doesn't mean they are doing the public a favor - they aren't - but that doesn't mean the stream isn't being conserved as a natural resource -it just may. Unfortunately John Q Public can't fish it.

In NJ there are "nature preserves" that are off limits to trespassing of any kind. This is land that has been acquired but the state and specifically set aside as a nature preserve with no intrusion from man. Sounds like pretty good conservation to me. Or is this not conservation because I can't shoot the deer or the turkeys or fish for anything?

 

[pete41]

Between Jm and myself we have over 28,000 posts and I am the only one he has ever called idiot.
I agree with you Gw but not your presentation.

 

[BigBronco]

GreenWeenie wrote:
And I stand by my comment that some of the responses to this thread were made by clueless idiots. If you are going to bash someone’s scientific credentials or claim they are ruining a stream, do some research and find out their credentials and what they are doing and don’t conclude the guy is an idiot and ruining streams just because the video isn’t a well polished professional video or you think his website is cheesy or you don’t like that he’s associated with a pay to fish club.

Here is why I don't like him, some quotes from riverkeepingflyfishing.com :

"(Please note these fish were not harmed; the water was removed digitally to show the fish)", I wish I knew how to make fish swim on their side, and those rocks look mighty dry in places to me.


"(Photo below shows a wild native rainbow from Big Spring Creek Newville PA caught by Gene Macri; notice the girth of the fish)" , native? Huh.


"How would you like go fly fishing on Pennsylvania spring creeks with the most knowledgeable fly fisherman and expert in the world?", Anyone who claims to be the best at anything in the world is a tool.

There is more, but I think I got my point across.

 

[krayfish]

I'll probably hate myself in the morning for saying this but I will have to agree w/ GW on some of this. If someone owns the land and posts it, the general public has technically lost that resource. If the same guy wants to make it a fish for a fee operation, what's the difference? We (general public) have still lost the stream. If they stock it, they stock it. They do own the land and the rights to the stream. They aren't stocking foreign / invasive species or doing anything much different than the PFC would do. Yes, it sucks but it's not illegal or morally wrong. Nobody tells you that you're morally bankrupt for putting an addition onto your home while the rest of America struggles in tough economic times. I may not totally agree with posting / pay to fish operations but the owners are perfectly within their rights. Doing it to a navigable stream is never going to work as Mr. Beaver found out. 10 yrs ago, I almost bought a building lot that included 400 yards of Clarks. I guarantee that it would have been posted and stocked w/ fingerlings. I’m just happy we have so many miles of water open to the public. It could be much worse.

 

[IdratherbePhishing]

I see both sides in the vid. If you own it sure do whatever you want with it. If I did own a nice piece of land on a stream I'd probably post it. Hate to say it but I don't like people leavn trash and messing it all up. That being said I would never make people pay honestly I would never even think I could "sellout" and make money. Yea you prOlly don't like that comment but thats what it is! But anyone on here saying they wouldn't take money is lieing. I also don't like people who say they're The best at anything. I've played paintball on the professional level, and the people who say they're the best, get embarrassed in more sports than one period. But I'm the type of person where actions speak louder. I appreciate anything good that this guy does for any stream. And for that I commend him. So I guess I'm on my own side lol

 

[wbranch]

krayfish wrote;

"If someone owns the land and posts it, the general public has technically lost that resource. If the same guy wants to make it a fish for a fee operation, what's the difference? We (general public) have still lost the stream. If they stock it, they stock it. They do own the land and the rights to the stream. They aren't stocking foreign / invasive species or doing anything much different than the PFC would do. Yes, it sucks but it's not illegal or morally wrong. Nobody tells you that you're morally bankrupt for putting an addition onto your home while the rest of America struggles in tough economic times. I may not totally agree with posting / pay to fish operations but the owners are perfectly within their rights."

This is exactly what has been done on numerous spring creeks in Montana for at least forty years. Let's suppose you have a 6000 acre cattle ranch and it just so happens that a beautiful, crystal clear, spring creek is bubbling up out of the ground on your property and is full of naturally reproducing browns, rainbows, and cutthroats. Ranching has many expenses and meeting payroll and getting new equipment can get expensive. So you decide to augment your income by closing the creek to the free fishing that you and your family has permitted for 100 years and offer prime fishing, to stream born trout, for a fair fee.

I have fished spring creeks like that dozens of times over the years and felt that the fee was very fair considering that the fishing was just fantastic. Shouldn't those land owners be allowed to do what whatever they want with their own property?

 

[wildtrout2]

krayfish wrote:
They aren't stocking foreign / invasive species or doing anything much different than the PFC would do.

I consider rainbow trout to be an "invasive species" here on the east coast. I'm pretty sure there are some who will agree. You can prolly count on 2 hands the number of streams in Pa that have natural (used loosely) repo of brook, brown, and rainbow trout in one stream.

 

[PennKev]

It seems that there are those who would not mind to pay "a reasonable fee" to fish provided the fishing meets their asthetics. This is fine, but what is a reasonable fee? $100 a day? $100 a year? $1000 a year? And, if like most other things prices are based on quality of the product, would not the very best streams be priced outside of what most can afford? Say, if you payed $20 a day to fish a marginal stocked trout stream, would you not expect to pay much, more for a stream like Spring, Penns, Etc? How about some of the famed western creeks? I think if anyone expects to be able to pay-to-fish regularly on a high quality wild trout stream, they had better be ready to pay quite a bit.

The idea of a "reasonable fee" just seems like a slippery slope to me. In a world where $10,000 will buy you a used Chevy, and $200,000 will get you a Lamborghini, I don't see how the average fisherman would be able to afford to fish what is truly the "best" water. Fortunately in both our state and country as a whole, there is still plenty of very good water available to the public with no additional fees.

Kev

 

[afishinado]

Like many other posts above, I am never thrilled when a club takes over a stream and posts it. It is their right I guess. I do have a problem when the club stocks huge fish over wild fish and pushes the stream population well over the natural carrying capacity; so much so that the fish have to be fed artificially......and touts how they are conserving the resource!

This is definitely the case with the Beav, I have no idea if this is the case with the stream and club in question here. If so...shame on them. If not...just chalk up another loss for all us Joe Anglers.

 

[krayfish]

wbranch,
I'm with you on this. It is the owners property and their choice. I'd probably pay at least once to fish Armstrongs or Nelsons.

wt2,
If you feel that rainbows are an invasive species, you might want to address that with the PFC more so than a land owner that posts his stream and charges a fee. I'm fortunate enough to fish one of the few resources in the state that has a wildly reproducing rainbow population.

I hope you understand why the property owner is stocking pellet hogs over a population of 4" wild fish. If you paid $100 to fish Spring Creek and the only thing you caught / saw was 4-6" wild fish, you'd probably be less likely to spend the money next time. If you caught somebody's "pet trout" and they were 4-6 pounders, you'd be more likely to come back and pay again. It's pretty simple and can't say that one side is right or wrong. If I owned a creek, I'd be damned if you would tell how to manage the property / resource.

 

[JackM]

Pellet-fed trout is a slight myth, I think. Not all pay-to-play play that way.

Stocked trout in good-quality water learn to rise despite suggestions that this is a remote and rare thing. I think If I saw a 7 pound brook trout rising steadily to a strong hatch, I would cast to it and probably enjoy the thrill of a lifetime. It would not make me less of a fly angler to do so.

And, yes, I would have my picture taken as well.

 

[bikerfish]

they are managing it to make money, no different than people that sign gas leases or billboard leases or anything else. hell, they could just strip mine it and then the entire resource would be gone. At least they are allowing fishing, with a price yes, but hey, it's private, not public land.
personally, I'd enjoy a place that charged a reasonable fee(cheap!) had a rustic little lodge, some rooms to rent cheaply, and a nice old timey bar with a good beer selection. oh yeah, a nice porch overlooking the creek would be cool also. some of us don't have camps in the mountains, and never will, a place like that would be awesome for some of us.

 

[midnightangler]

In NJ there are "nature preserves" that are off limits to trespassing of any kind. This is land that has been acquired but the state and specifically set aside as a nature preserve with no intrusion from man. Sounds like pretty good conservation to me. Or is this not conservation because I can't shoot the deer or the turkeys or fish for anything?

That is definitely conservation. It also isn't what fishing clubs do.

I hope you understand why the property owner is stocking pellet hogs over a population of 4" wild fish.

This is exactly what fishing clubs do. It's not conservation. They're just trying to make money.

 

[pcray1231]

If I understand, if John Q Public can't fish the stream,the resource is gone and not conserved. In this instance if the stream is posted and no one ever fishes the stream and the wild trout thrive, it doesn't matter, it isnt conserved because no one can fish it.

That is correct, that is my view on conservation, though I wouldn't limit it to "fishing", but rather use a more broad term like "recreation". Hiking, bird watching, photography, etc. are all valid recreational activities for the public, just as valid as my own choices. And all nature preserves I know of still allow you to go out and enjoy nature, even if you're not allowed to fish or hunt. If it truly is "no trespassing" whatsoever, yes, I would view it as ceasing to be "conservation".

You do get into situations where what happens in one area can affect what happens in another. So yes, I recognize that, if they disregard the stream, it can hurt public areas downstream. And likewise, if they are good stewards, they can help areas downstream. But such can be considered "conservation", or neglect of conservation, only so far as it's effect on the public resource.

So yes, my view of conservation is 100% in terms of how it affects the public use of that land. The purpose of conservation is ultimately, people's enjoyment of nature.

 

[mcwillja]

Krayfish and Wbranch are exactly right on this. A landowner has the right to post their property and do with it what they chose. Not everybody has to agree with it but that's the way it is and the way it should be.

There is plenty of publice water to fish. The problem is nobody wants to walk or explore anymore, just drive by the nearest bridge or stocking point and fish. It's ridiculous how much public water there is in PA and NY and people complain about somebody posting their private property. I personally love to fish new water or fish places I have to walk a while to get to. These sort of posts about peoples private clubs and how rich they are getting is just stupid IMO. If you don't like it then you don't have to fish there. I personally don't think any less of anybody who does fish in these private clubs. I wouldn't do it, but I don't care if anyone else does either. They way I look at it the more people that fish teh private clubs the more open water for me to fish.

 

[pcray1231]

This is exactly what has been done on numerous spring creeks in Montana for at least forty years........I have fished spring creeks like that dozens of times over the years and felt that the fee was very fair considering that the fishing was just fantastic. Shouldn't those land owners be allowed to do what whatever they want with their own property?

Should they be allowed? Yes, I would never contend otherwise unless the water itself was public property.

Is it conservation? No, well, not directly anyway. Their use of the land may improve things downstream, so in that sense, maybe. But their "resource" is THEIR resource, not the public's, and thus what happens ON that land and stays on that land is of no public concern whatsoever.

Does it appeal to me? Yeah, a little. I mean, I don't think I could do it on a regular basis. But leaving it all natural, like the western model, certainly holds more appeal to me than dumping huge pelletheads in. I could have fun there and could see myself paying the rod fee on occasion.

But I still view it kind of like an amusement park, rather than a public resource. It's just that those particular amusement parks have roller coasters that appeal more to me.