Private Water Fly Fishing

[jayL]

I'm with pcray.

 

[wildtrout2]

krayfish wrote:
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.

I don't think the PFBC really cares if I think Rainbows are an invasive species or not. They seem to do as they please.

As far as Macri stocking "pellet hogs" over a population of 4" wild fish goes, maybe that's why there's only 4" wild fish in his stream?

 

[krayfish]

Re: prior post... Nowhere did I mention conservation. Pay to fish areas have nothing to do with conservation or preservation....unless you count the owner's interest. As for stocking rainbows or other pellet hogs over 4" wild fish, have at it. Doesn't really matter much to me. I probably will never fish "x" stream anyhow. ,

 

[krayfish]

"the state seems to do as they please"....... Landowner rights. Just like the guy that posts his property and makes it a pay to play operation. All legal even if you don't like it.

 

[wildtrout2]

When saying the PFBC "do what they please", I'm speaking of the stocking of public waters. As some others have said, I don't really care what they're doing on that stream, and I wouldn't be caught dead on it. It's private, stocked (over wild trout), pay to fish, and run by money mongers. Regardless of their credentials. These are all the things I avoid.

 

[wbranch]

wt2 wrote;

"I consider rainbow trout to be an "invasive species" here on the east coast."

Invasive in that it created a trout fishery after the first growth forests were cut down and the brook trout could no longer create a meaningful fishery? Or invasive in that PA should cease stocking rainbows, and browns to since they are foreign to the USA, and retonone all the other moving, and still, waterways to purge those nasty invasive species from all states east of the Mississippi.

Boy oh boy we would really have a lot of fun then wouldn't we? Thank God for the rainbows and brown trout that were nutured and stocked in eastern rivers and waters after the "native" all but dissappeared from all but the smallest, and coldest, and cleanest, mountain waters.

Cost to pursue trout in a pay-to-fish water is really relative. I wouldn't have any interest in belonging to a club (considering I could afford say 50G's a year membership) if the trout were stocked and there was virtually no natural reproduction. I prefer not to fish for hatchery trout. The spring creeks that I'm familiar with in Montana are pristine, cold, and pure. The fish are wild. As far as I know they were never stocked - actually I don't believe MT stocks any of their "blue ribbon" waters. The owners allow only a specific number of anglers per day to insure a quality experience for the fishermen. The fee in the prime months of May - September is not all that high considering I go to MT on vacation and I save my money for a whole year to enjoy myself. So if I wanted to pop for $100 a day for 3 - 4 days that is not really a big deal. As it is though I don't fish the springs any longer because there are other, public, waters with just as many fish, but bigger, than those three creeks.

I wish I could attach a few pictures of those creeks here but it appears that is not an option. They really are pretty, well Armstrong used to be pretty before a giant flood pushed the Yellowstone over it's banks and ran helter skelter through the bed of Armstong for days on end. But Nelson's is still pretty and DePuy's has a riverkepper who manages the water and makes various improvements to the section they own.

 

[WhiskeyRiver]

GW1 just a simple question.... You got a nickel in this? I mean the way you are defending these "idiotic" stewards of the stream it seems you may somehow be connected (if not my bad). I just want to make sure we keep this on the up and up and as transparent as posible.

To call anyone on this board an idiot is beyond belief. Now I'm not a big time poster here but I can say this; I visit this and many other sites reguarding flyfishing and these guys are more stewards / conservationist of the stream than these pay to play "IDIOTS".

Ramcatt's post with the bland so called rainbow being bass griped on a dock say's it all (hope this tool with dry hands pricked his finger and got a infection). Bottom line it's all about money at no cost to the enviroment not to mention the fish. I don't care if it $25 or $250,000 per year to play. If you are stocking and feeding hogs to make a buck it' wrong period!

 

[Greenweenie1]

Whiskey, no nickel in this? You obviously have not read what I have said. Let me guess, your SAT reading comp score, 380? And you get 300 for spelling your name right! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Greenweenie1]

Whiskey, how much do you know about the club? Did you contact macri to inquire what his role as river keeper actually consists of? Did you ask what they are doing to bring wild trout to areas that are not currently inhabited by wild trout. So what have you done to gather information?

Please explain how stocking and feeding hogs to make a buck is wrong? How do you know this club is all about making money at the cost of the environment? btw, as Roman Moronie said, "its a free country icehole."

 

[JackM]

Greenweenie1 wrote:
Whiskey, no nickel in this? You obviously have not read what I have said. Let me guess, your SAT reading comp score, 380? And you get 300 for spelling your name right! :lol: :lol: :lol:

You need to curb your enthusiasm and your insults, imo.

 

[tomitrout]

If you are stocking and feeding hogs to make a buck it' wrong period!

So, basically you're also against any stocking by the state? They stock trout so we'll buy licences, which is money in their coffers which enables them to 'make money' to pay their salaries and operating costs.

Local sportsman's clubs also charge membership fees and raise trout to stock in their local streams, is that wrong also?

The 'money monger' phrase someone used above makes me chuckle, at least wrt this club in particular. Their annual membership is under $500 a year, which includes acces to a private stretch of the Conewago and two ponds on private property. Assuming a club membership of ~100 folks, I doubt anybody is getting filthy rich off this operation.

 

[Foxgap239]

I think I have read most of the posts on this thread although don't hang me if I repeat. Whether we like it or not, agree with it or not, find it offensive or not, the fact remains, this is America. If it is not "illegal", you have every right to do as you wish with your property. Where I will probably never pay to fish like this, I can't say that it bothers me at all because it is their property.

Some of these places charge incredible amounts of money to join that I visualize one day some filthy rich guy sitting on a chair drinking a beverage of his choice while someones fishes for him. When they hook a fish, they turn and say "here you go sir". And they fight the fish, maybe land the fish and they return the rod to said employee and move to the chair awaiting the next fish.

We really have better things to complain about, don't we?

 

[JackM]

Has anyone ever been on Spruce Creek or Penns, in private sections, when a hatch is on? If not, how can you discount the thrill of seeing, say, multiple 20"+ trout rising to naturals?

True story: hooked a "Spruce Creek Steelhead" one time in the public section. Certainly wasn't wild, but I can tell you he put up one heck of a fight and won! He wasn't easy to catch either.

Whatever our thoughts on private pay-to-fish waters, let's lose this idea that wealthy folks are poor anglers who MUST fish such waters because of their poor skills. It is counterproductive, first of all, but more important matters exist for us to resent the wealthy; if you are looking for an idea, send me a PM. 😎

 

[wildtrout2]

wbranch wrote:
wt2 wrote;

"I consider rainbow trout to be an "invasive species" here on the east coast."

Invasive in that it created a trout fishery after the first growth forests were cut down and the brook trout could no longer create a meaningful fishery?

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

 

[FarmerDave]

I just noticed thread. Sorry I missed all the fun.

I'm personally not a fan of pay to fish, but then, I'm almost as cheap as JackM.

I'm a supporter of property owner's rights. If I decided to charge people money to hunt on my land, who are any of you to say that is wrong? Who am I to say Gene is wrong for what he is doing?

Look, if you don't want to pay, then fish somewhere else. It's what I do.

As far as I know, I have never met Gene Macri, but he earned my respect over the Big Spring thing, and for now that respect hasn't been destroyed by a simple video that nearly put me to sleep.

I didn't have time to read all the responses, but I suspect there is nothing new.

 

[Foxgap239]

FarmerDave wrote:
As far as I know, I have never met Gene Macri, but he earned my respect over the Big Spring thing, and for now that respect hasn't been destroyed by a simple video that nearly put me to sleep.

It was a good insomnia remedy, wasn't it!

 

[gulfgreyhound]

I read this whole thread. Seems like a recurring theme which imo boils down to what the individual choose to do or support. Privatization of streams is not new the direction toward European style private waters ,is also found in Canadian salmon rivers , which,by in large are "private" with beats based on land ownership. You ,as a nonresident ,pay to fish and must have a guide. It's not cheap.
Conservation: the wise use of natural resource so that they provide the greatest good for the most people over the longest period of time.Conservation began in New Hampshire with a deer season.
After reading this it reinforces the fact I rather be in New Zealand. Just ask permission to fish prime water. GG

 

[rrt]

I finally got around to the whole video. As some of you suggested, it was soporific. I think, especially for the young lions out there, that more places like this will become the norm as time passes and as respected (or formerly respected) fly-fishermen lend their names to these operations. In n/c PA, we are fortunate to have many streams that are located on public land. However, in many others, the streams we publicly access are located on private properties; and as landowners scrape for money, I believe more of them will be amenable to privatizing their water to help with their finances. You can't blame them. That is why I believe the PFBC needs to become much more active in purchasing private water or must gain easements wherever possible -- and soon. I hate to say this, but I fear that donny beaver's evil empire is a forerunner of things to come. The Macri video seems to bear this out.

 

[JackM]

gulfgreyhound wrote:
Conservation began in New Hampshire with a deer season.
.... GG

The native North Americans always limited their kill to what was reasonable. Some groups made a practice with bear of hanging from a tree a particular part of the body of the males harvested. There was some ritualistic array so as to mark the location of harvested males. This would tell other hunters to leave the area alone, depending upon the apparent age of the appendage.

 

[JackM]

rrt, I agree with this to a certain extent:

"That is why I believe the PFBC needs to become much more active in purchasing private water or must gain easements wherever possible -- and soon. I hate to say this, but I fear that donny beaver's evil empire is a forerunner of things to come. The Macri video seems to bear this out."

But, I think this falling of the sky is still a good ways off. This is why the subtle, non-panicked activism of anglers can be used to shift the model a little more toward "preserving" public access to sufficient good waters to satisfy the recreational interests of a wide spectrum of stream anglers.

We have numerous agencies to work through: DCNR, PFBC, PGC, and a myriad of private "conservacies" that do not mind (fly) anglers very much.