Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,368
Please see this thread for incongruity. 🙄
The Future in PA is Grim!
- Thread starter jifigz
- Start date
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I used to fish a section of a Class A on private farm property and asked permission the first time I went.
The owner was 87 years old, a really nice guy and we even hid from his wife while we shared the beers I always have with me in a cooler in my car.
However, he had steadfast rules on asking permission EVERY time, parking in a specific location and where to access the field I had to cross to gain access to the creek.
I found out that the asking every time thing was so he could deny access to the second person that asked on a given day ensuring the first angler got the stretch to him or herself...
Like I said, really nice guy and I always made sure I got there early and had beer. 🙂
The owner was 87 years old, a really nice guy and we even hid from his wife while we shared the beers I always have with me in a cooler in my car.
However, he had steadfast rules on asking permission EVERY time, parking in a specific location and where to access the field I had to cross to gain access to the creek.
I found out that the asking every time thing was so he could deny access to the second person that asked on a given day ensuring the first angler got the stretch to him or herself...
Like I said, really nice guy and I always made sure I got there early and had beer. 🙂
falcon
Well-known member
I asked permission to fish a wild trout stream that was behind a Bible camp. They said yes and they copied my fishing and driver license.
I had to email them the night before in case there were functions going on. I fished on week days and always got the green light. I signed in and out at the main building. The stream had a fair population of wild browns from little to 18 in. I never saw another fisherman. Really good people ran the camp.
I had to email them the night before in case there were functions going on. I fished on week days and always got the green light. I signed in and out at the main building. The stream had a fair population of wild browns from little to 18 in. I never saw another fisherman. Really good people ran the camp.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I haven't printed any in awhile because I haven't needed them, but I used make "business cards" with my name on them and underneath it said:
"NO Litter, NO Damage, NO Harvest" and below that:
"All around nice guy!" and my cell phone number. 😉
It got a lot of laughs and smiles, lots of permission and invitations to return.
Of course as I still do to this day, I always send a thank you card in the mail after the first encounter and Christmas/Holiday cards to the owners on private property I frequent often.
Another thing I do is join any fish & game/club that may have access to property I want to fish. Most memberships are pretty cheap and in the case of one of three I belong to, I get access to a ton of property the stream crosses through because the locals are all members too.
falcon
Well-known member
I gave the Bible camp a 25.00 donation for the fishing season. Beer and cigar is a social faux pa
Mikey2006
Well-known member
found this comment from the owner of Hooksetr on Instagram. It seems like he is aware of the possibility of access being removed and then monetized as a result of this and is committed to not allowing those landowners to list their property on hooksetr. (that’s what he says, anyway 😒)
My concern would be that while that sounds nice, there is no possible way to know which properties allowed access previously and which didn’t. Some of the best waters I fish the landowners aren’t exactly setting up signs saying “come fish here” and publicizing the fact that they allow access. Most just turn a blind eye to fisherman or have given permission to a few people who have asked nicely. There would be no way for someone to confirm a landowners claims that their property was previously closed to all fishing in 95% of cases. So on paper no established access could be removed by this, but in reality more of our best waters could potentially become off limits.
Last edited:
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
well that's not surprising
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
with bridezillas........ at 1 million, you were under-insured
rustbeltwilds
Well-known member
I do not like how the dsr thinks there some hoitey toitey doing the fisherman a favor club. Just a bunch of pretentious socially elite trying to cash in on the publics fish
Roofin' Trouter
Well-known member
If they succeed in this business to monetize fishing access it will make stream side property even more expensive.
salmonoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,783
There will remain plenty of open water in the state. Rumors of the demise of fishing are overstated. I remember a run on real estate during the pandemic. Everyone thought they were going to get rich with rentals, VRBO and AirBNB style A lot of those properties are for sale now. Turns out turning a profit is more work than.people thought. Happy to be proven wrong but will this fishing access business even exist in 5 years?
Because PA has a lot of public land including boating accesses.
But the category of "private but open" is disappearing fast and long term it will disappear almost completely. That has been obvious for decades now.
Our response should be support for buying public land.
FisherOfMen
Well-known member
I agree.
Thankfully we do have some public land. If I remember about 30 percent of our wild trout resource is on public land and I think 25 percent of our stocked resource. Something like that.
The notion that fee fishing will die out is not what shows to be true in other parts of the world. In England 100 percent of fishing is pay for play. Its only going to grow, not diminish.
caddisflyer
Well-known member
For years I have said the state should take the streams and a buffer on the banks and make them public. I have been called every name in the book from kook to commie.HopBack just sent this to me, and maybe I am out of line on this one, but I am fuming. As far as I am concerned, this is going to lead to nothing good with regards to access and flyfishing in PA. The premise is this: List your stream section so it is available to flyfshermen to rent for a day's fishing. A day on Elk, for example, costs $150. Everyone wants a dollar these days, and soon the days of a simple knock on the door and a polite request for access will be gone. This simple strategy has gained me access to numerous stream sections in my life, but when landowners realize they can earn money for access, who is going to allow a schmuck on their land to fish for free.
Honestly, I despise the world that we are starting to see. I love PA, but I am starting to get very disgruntled by the privatization of our natural resources. Old timers often lament how you used to be able to hunt wherever you wanted, and people were very friendly. Gone are those days, and I fear that future generations won't have near the fishing opportunities we currently have because our best waters, many of which are on private land, will be pay to fish only, and that may only further help to drive up pressure on certain sections of our famous PA streams. Yep, it's great to live in Central PA's trout paradise, except that is exactly where this business model has taken hold, and it is where all of the current listings are. Hooksetr, I don't approve. Please go away. There is no telling how many miles of streams this business model could gobble up in the next 20 or 30 years. This is another reason why I wish we had those access laws like Wisconsin. Man, what a freaking bummer.
Hooksetr | Turning PA Trout Water Into Landowner Income
Hooksetr helps Pennsylvania landowners earn from their private trout water through verified anglers, clear rules, no public maps, and structured access.www.hooksetr.com
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
TBH, I doubt that. The amount of money one would make is not large. The value exists in exclusive access for the buyer. I haven't looked into it, but I bet leasing to a guide or fly shop would be more lucrative and a more predictable stream of income.
CinnamonJoe
Well-known member
tomgamber
Well-known member
If the state owns the water and is entrusted with the protection of that water, and buffer zones are vital to that protection, maybe they should be included as part of the water. Just a thought. I've seen people lose more than a strip of land for new buildings that protect nothing.
FisherOfMen
Well-known member
And this is the part of the conversation that I vehemently disagree with.
I am not for the state taking riparian buffers to "protect" the water. Lets be honest, protection of water isnt even what we were discussing. Where is this water being ruined and under threat from landowners? If anything, the state rubber stamping projects and or approving industry has ruined more water in Pennsylvania than landowners. This conversation isnt about protection of water at all, its about fishing access. Im not about to go along with striping landowners of land they previously paid taxes on and held in their trust so we can have more mediocre trout fishing in the state, especially when under the guise of "protection".
Im all for purchasing permanent easements, giving tax breaks to landowners that allow access etc... the second you want to take it from them, then im out.
I am not for the state taking riparian buffers to "protect" the water. Lets be honest, protection of water isnt even what we were discussing. Where is this water being ruined and under threat from landowners? If anything, the state rubber stamping projects and or approving industry has ruined more water in Pennsylvania than landowners. This conversation isnt about protection of water at all, its about fishing access. Im not about to go along with striping landowners of land they previously paid taxes on and held in their trust so we can have more mediocre trout fishing in the state, especially when under the guise of "protection".
Im all for purchasing permanent easements, giving tax breaks to landowners that allow access etc... the second you want to take it from them, then im out.
The percentage of total trout stocked stream length that flows through private riparian lands in Pa is 83% according to a reference to the PFBC. I believe it, as I recall when it was estimated to be 90% for presentations back in the 1980’s. It’s very easy to generate the accurate number from the pFBC database, so 83% should be accurate.
While some here take every chance possible to bash the trout stocking program, it’s clear that it it quite valuable in keeping private lands open to public fishing. Yes, some properties are lost each year from that program due to land ownership changes and poor angler behavior, but some properties are also gained each year. Furthermore, those that are lost probably would not have been open to public fishing at any recent point in time preceding their closure had the trout stocking program not existed.
While some here take every chance possible to bash the trout stocking program, it’s clear that it it quite valuable in keeping private lands open to public fishing. Yes, some properties are lost each year from that program due to land ownership changes and poor angler behavior, but some properties are also gained each year. Furthermore, those that are lost probably would not have been open to public fishing at any recent point in time preceding their closure had the trout stocking program not existed.
