The Future in PA is Grim!

jifigz said:
I understand and appreciate your input that counteracts mine, and I say that to all posters who have made points that counter mine, and I still disagree. I think this sets a bad precedent. It is irrelevant how many bookings a landowner might get or how much money made. What matters is that there is now an avenue where a landowner can make a profit and remove all liability from allowing someone on their land. Yes, the website states that it is helping to open up otherwise unavailable waters, and that may be true for now, but how long until the "leases" start to gobble up tons of private water that is currently open? When will landowners begin to close their sections only to then list them here. The owner responded to me, and he said he would never partner with a landowner who does that. I'll believe that when I see it.

Maybe I am crazy, but I don't see anything good coming from this.
Click to expand...
"where a landowner can make a profit and remove all liability from allowing someone on their land."
I disagree with this statement, but landowners don't know this. It reduces liability though. Without seeing the actual hookstr policy that claims coverage, you don't know. The waiver the clients signs is just a speed bump to lawsuits, not a prevention. Many a company have lost cases where the plaintiffs signed a waiver.

I 100% agree nothing good. I wonder about the impact though.
 
I don't see any good coming from it either, especially if people start ponying up money to fish these sections of stream.

Unfortunately in the world we live in, people want to get their slice of the pie. For example a land owner on Spruce might see whatever the lodges charge and say well why can't I get a slice?
 
Dear Board,

While I completely despise the concept of paying to freshwater fish, I have a few more concerns about this model.

From viewing the properties listed the descriptions and pictures are lacking detail. Paying to fish section of wild trout stream and arriving to find you bought a pig in poke is a real possibility from the descriptions. Without more details how do you know that you didn't just pay to fish the most marginal section of water on the stream. There are lots of 6-inch riffles in the pictures.

Reading the Q&A for landholders I find it surprising that there is no review section for the anglers' impressions of the property while the landowner can review said anglers. Likewise, I don't see any notations about refunding cancelations or perhaps the better word, rainchecks. Booking a trip in advance is always a bit of a gamble, but seeing flash flooding in the area the day before your trip seems to leave the angler hanging. Every fishing charter I've ever been on has a weather clause. I've had trips canceled and refunded due to weather conditions. Unless I'm missing something that isn't a possibility here.

I also see the potential as was mentioned above for other landowners to see how fellow landowners in the area are faring and decide to turn their property which was formerly open into a pay situation.

Bottom line, I'm just glad I am getting old. Everything will cost money to do eventually.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂
 
CLSports said:
I do not like the name however. Leaving out a letter or a vowel to seem cool and hip is overdone. Should be changed.

There are posts with zero fee or a minimal fee. I do not like the charges of $100 or $150. That just seems greedy.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't know what aggravates me more...the business concept or spelling of the business name lol
 
nymphingmaniac said:
"where a landowner can make a profit and remove all liability from allowing someone on their land."
I disagree with this statement, but landowners don't know this. It reduces liability though. Without seeing the actual hookstr policy that claims coverage, you don't know. The waiver the clients signs is just a speed bump to lawsuits, not a prevention. Many a company have lost cases where the plaintiffs signed a waiver.

I 100% agree nothing good. I wonder about the impact though.
Click to expand...
If there was pressure to force these fishery "owners" to have to carry a certain amount of liability insurance, this could make a fish for fee enterprise less attractive. I had to carry a million dollars of liability just to shoot weddings 20 years ago. Way less dangerous than fishing.

Are guides required to carry insurance?
 
tomgamber said:
If there was pressure to force these fishery "owners" to have to carry a certain amount of liability insurance, this could make a fish for fee enterprise less attractive. I had to carry a million dollars of liability just to shoot weddings 20 years ago. Way less dangerous than fishing.

Are guides required to carry insurance?
Click to expand...
Dear tomgamber,

Yes, from the PFBC website:

Charter Boat Operators and Fishing Guides Requirements​

  • Display their Charter Boat/Fishing Guide permit on a hat or an outer garment in plain view
  • Possess a vaild fishing license and permitting appropriate for the waters they are fishing (and ensure the same for all workers and customers)
  • Possess and maintain General Liability Insurance
  • Possess and maintain CPR and First Aid certifications.
    • BLS does not include first aid training. A separate first aid course would be required,
  • If using a boat, Charter Boat Operators/Fishing Guides must also possess a Boating Safety Education Certificate issues by the Commission or another state in accordance with NASBLA or a U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC)
  • Permittees must provide proof of all requirements upon request of a Waterways Conservation Officer (WCO)
Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂
 
nymphingmaniac said:
BTW, if you haven't visited the site, look near the bottom.

"
Hooksetr partnered with the Susquehanna Chapter of Trout Unlimited to support the 2026 Lycoming Creek cleanup."

I am curious if this TU chapter knows this company is whoring off them to grant legitimacy?
Click to expand...
Some leadership of that TU Chapter was also in a management role of a water authority local to that area that owns many thousands of acres of property with several really good wild trout streams that they do not allow angling on. They allow hiking, mountain biking, birding, snow shoeing, limited hunting, but no fishing.
 
Not good I hear ya...but when easy money or any money is a easy grab all thoughts of decency go out the windows money corrupts when money is your god then there's no room for the real one coz it's never enough to satisfy greed greed greed
 
I'm afraid we are entering an age of "pay to play" fishing (and hunting) in this country similar to what is found in most of Europe. If you have the bucks, you can get the big bucks or big fish. No pheasants for the peasants and you're out for the trout. I'm afraid this this trend will do nothing but accelerate the amount of land and streams closed to public access.

Really sad. I've been around for quite a while and when I visit my old stomping grounds my head spins at the amount of streams and land that has been developed, paved over and/or posted. While PA has many acres of public land, we all should support increasing the amount of public access to our woods and water. Check out and support local conservancies that purchase land and streams to preserve these areas for everyone to enjoy and access, and encourage them to allow fishing and hunting on the land.
 
dudemanspecial said:
I agree with this assessment. This smells to me like more of someone trying to grift off of what is already being done. Like an VRBO for Donny Beaver types so they don't have to do any legwork.

Edit: To be clear, I hope their business fails miserably, but I'm not gonna add this one to the list of things that make me angry.
Click to expand...
Allenberry business model (cough cough) - DB calls it wild fishery management when most of the trophy trout are pellet heads whipped into a feeding frenzy by a “ghillie” an hour before the paying customer (“sport”) shows up to “his” beat for the allotted time period - it’s all a sham and it’s all gonna be that way as we continue down this road - TU is complicit too and has forgotten about the habitat management in their original mission statement and continues to manage select waterways for better angling - NOT for the sake of the fish or ecosystems - they are merely copying stream grooming techniques from the UK where pay to play among the landed gentry is the only Trout fishing available … salmon fishing is WAY more expensive as that culture has been around for over a century - yeah I’m calling it out - get used to it PA or switch to “coarse fish” like the rest of us worker bees
IMG_0240.jpeg
 
Bamboozle said:
TCO is mentioned on another page...
Click to expand...
I talked about this recently on this forum - and years ago when I brought it up at one of the last CVTU meetings I attended - several of us started hashtagging “itsaboutthefish” with our social media posts - notes from the field etc etc and were promptly blacklisted - it didn’t matter to me at that point as I smelled a couple rats in PHWFF, Semperfli USA, certain retailers, and other “conservation” organizations - and exited ALL of it circa 2021 or so. I know when I’m not welcome and have plenty to do with my time left here on Earth without joining any more causes for someone else’s financial gain or notoriety
 
Is there anything in life that is not being monetized and made worse? I see it in youth sports, particularly baseball because that’s what my kids play, where private equity and commercialism has turned what used to be fun into a revenue stream.
 
TimMurphy said:
Dear Board,

While I completely despise the concept of paying to freshwater fish, I have a few more concerns about this model.

From viewing the properties listed the descriptions and pictures are lacking detail. Paying to fish section of wild trout stream and arriving to find you bought a pig in poke is a real possibility from the descriptions. Without more details how do you know that you didn't just pay to fish the most marginal section of water on the stream. There are lots of 6-inch riffles in the pictures.

Reading the Q&A for landholders I find it surprising that there is no review section for the anglers' impressions of the property while the landowner can review said anglers. Likewise, I don't see any notations about refunding cancelations or perhaps the better word, rainchecks. Booking a trip in advance is always a bit of a gamble, but seeing flash flooding in the area the day before your trip seems to leave the angler hanging. Every fishing charter I've ever been on has a weather clause. I've had trips canceled and refunded due to weather conditions. Unless I'm missing something that isn't a possibility here.

I also see the potential as was mentioned above for other landowners to see how fellow landowners in the area are faring and decide to turn their property which was formerly open into a pay situation.

Bottom line, I'm just glad I am getting old. Everything will cost money to do eventually.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂
Click to expand...
I never dreamed I’d have to pay $9 for one of these either
IMG_5286.jpeg
 
JG63 said:
I never dreamed I’d have to pay $9 for one of these either
Click to expand...
People have been saying for over half a century that if you don't take care of the water, you won't have any drinkable water left. Some fools responded by stating 2/3 of the earth is covered in water. But here we are. If you didn't see it coming, you weren't listening.
 
A theory:

The success of pay-to-play fishing already in place has a LOT to do with the number & size of the fish being caught and/or other amenities associated with membership like limited and easy access, facilities, dining, lodging, camaraderie, etc...

When all of those things exist, sports with the cash are willing to pony up BIG bucks to take part. However, my theory "reckons," without the big & plentiful fish, you will have limited success and/or buy-in.

This is one of the reasons most of us think that even WITH limited and easy access, facilities, dining, lodging, camaraderie, etc., the Allenberry experiment is doomed to failure without Allenberry stocking LOTS of fish and LOTS of BIG fish...

After looking at the locations already on the Hooksetter list (there I added the missing letters 😉), my theory begs the question:

Does anyone really think there are enough sports (or other folks) out there who are willing to pony up to $100 bucks a day to fish for & catch a dozen or so gemmies or 8" wild browns on an un-stocked Class A section?

And if there are other larger fish in those sections, what is your potential for catching one or some those fish during your allotted day & time on said creek with the added pressure and/or mortality created by selling access to places that were hardly fished prior???
 
tomgamber said:
People have been saying for over half a century that if you don't take care of the water, you won't have any drinkable water left. Some fools responded by stating 2/3 of the earth is covered in water. But here we are. If you didn't see it coming, you weren't listening.
Click to expand...
Oh I was listening all right - I read Heinlein’s “The Man who sold the Moon” MANY years ago - I’m just complaining like old people do - so we can irritate anyone who’ll listen to us for a change 😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest Forum Posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing

USGS Stream Gauges

USGS Pennsylvania Stream Gauges

Share this page

Back
Top