The Future in PA is Grim!

[Bamboozle]

Just wonder how many of the advocates of the State "taking streams & buffer zones and making them public" own or live on property with a stream or a lake that is fed by a stream??

And if 'ya own any, is your property open to anyone to fish without restriction like it would be if the State seized it?

If not, why not?

 

[tjsingle]

That's why Montana's Stream Access law is great. No takes or easements on private lands, just simple means of access to water up to the highwater mark of a stream. Provided the way you get to said stream is legal, from public land, roadway, etc.

Will that ever happen in PA? No, but one could dream.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

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 certainly support private property rights and would not support govt seizure of riparian areas. However, poor landowner management of these areas from farmers pasturing livestock, row cropping to top of bank, golf course and turf management to top of bank, building roads, impervious surface and buildings in riparian areas absolutely has a negative impact on stream health. We absolutely should have stronger regulatory protections of floodplains and riparian areas or start with actual enforcement of existing rules. Better management of these areas would improve water quality, instream habitat and reduce the severity of flood damage.

 

[FisherOfMen]

I certainly support private property rights and would not support govt seizure of riparian areas. However, poor landowner management of these areas from farmers pasturing livestock, row cropping to top of bank, golf course and turf management to top of bank, building roads, impervious surface and buildings in riparian areas absolutely has a negative impact on stream health. We absolutely should have stronger regulatory protections of floodplains and riparian areas or start with actual enforcement of existing rules. Better management of these areas would improve water quality, instream habitat and reduce the severity of flood damage.

I mean, yeah I agree with that, of course.

I've been told time and again our streams are getting healthier and healthier and trout populations are expanding. So taking riparian areas for "protection" as framed in this thread is nothing more than anglers panicking over stream access loss.

 

[FisherOfMen]

That's why Montana's Stream Access law is great. No takes or easements on private lands, just simple means of access to water up to the highwater mark of a stream. Provided the way you get to said stream is legal, from public land, roadway, etc.

Will that ever happen in PA? No, but one could dream.

Im not entirely sure thats possible in a lot of areas in Pennsylvania. High water mark in Montana could mean you are 5 miles away from the landowners house. In Pennsylvania that could mean you have a right to sit at the picnic table of a homeowner during a family event.

 

[GANGGREEN]

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

It's not just Pennsylvania. In fact, I think Pennsylvania still has at least some ethic whereby landowners are inclined to allow access because that's just how it's always been. I think the PA Game Commission has done a really good job providing access with the state game lands system and with their public access programs (farm game, forest game, etc.). I think the PFBC has NOT done a great job ensuring access, but the PFBC can't really stop a landowner from doing as they wish with their own property, though they could improve and expand access programs of their own for sure.

I moved seasonally to South Carolina a few years ago as a recently retired snowbird. I live on/near a lake and have several trout streams that are surrounded by national forest nearby, so I do have some access there and I fish a LOT when I'm down there. I could also hunt the national forest or the very limited sections of state owned WMUs, but I reached out to a game warden in that part of South Carolina when I moved there. I introduced myself as a retired PA game warden and explained that it was always just me and that I would be VERY cautious of abiding by game laws and landowner rules and asked if he knew of any private landowners who might offer permission to hunt spring gobblers if I did the leg work, made the visits and asked politely, offered small gifts at Christmas-time, etc. etc.. His response wasn't intended to be smart *** at all, he was being open and honest when he said, "You ain't getting permission to hunt turkeys here" (if a retired game warden with a decent conservation ethic who was willing to occasionally drop off a gift or something can't gain access (or to take the landowner with him, call turkeys in for the landowner, etc.), what chance does the normal guy have?).

I can completely understand why some locals in upstate South Carolina might not like "outsiders" from NY, PA, Illinois, Ohio, etc., because they're being overrun with them and sometimes these simply aren't very nice people or very thoughtful people, but a non-resident could still approach landowners in PA and SOME of them would allow spring turkey hunting, deer hunting, trout fishing, etc. etc., but not in South Carolina. Access to trout streams in North Carolina is much the same, if it's private land, it's very hard to gain access. It's simply a sign of the times and while I agree that I don't like the way people are these days and the way things seem to be going, I'd state once again that it's not just Pennsylvania.

 

[TheDuke44]

Im all for purchasing permanent easements, giving tax breaks to landowners that allow access etc...

My question with the easements is if they are offered by the PFBC as one-time payments to the property owner, what happens if/when the property is sold? Does the easement need re-negotiated with the new landowner? As I understand it, MOST easements "run with the land," which would prevent future property owner's from getting any sort of benefit from the agreement.

I admittedly haven't researched the specifics of the easements used, but I can't imagine The Commission would make annual payments towards these in order to prevent this.

I do like your idea of tax breaks, but then worry that corporations, etc. would be incentivized to take advantage of this while undoubtedly only harming fisheries...ie: placing factories along stream banks in order to receive a tax break.

 

[tjsingle]

In Pennsylvania that could mean you have a right to sit at the picnic table of a homeowner during a family event.

Doesn't sound too bad, depending on what's on the grill

 

[JeffP]

I certainly support private property rights and would not support govt seizure of riparian areas. However, poor landowner management of these areas from farmers pasturing livestock, row cropping to top of bank, golf course and turf management to top of bank, building roads, impervious surface and buildings in riparian areas absolutely has a negative impact on stream health. We absolutely should have stronger regulatory protections of floodplains and riparian areas or start with actual enforcement of existing rules. Better management of these areas would improve water quality, instream habitat and reduce the severity of flood damage.

Regulations are just feel-good non-solutions. 🙂

 

[FisherOfMen]

My question with the easements is if they are offered by the PFBC as one-time payments to the property owner, what happens if/when the property is sold? Does the easement need re-negotiated with the new landowner? As I understand it, MOST easements "run with the land," which would prevent future property owner's from getting any sort of benefit from the agreement.

I admittedly haven't researched the specifics of the easements used, but I can't imagine The Commission would make annual payments towards these in order to prevent this.

I do like your idea of tax breaks, but then worry that corporations, etc. would be incentivized to take advantage of this while undoubtedly only harming fisheries...ie: placing factories along stream banks in order to receive a tax break.

Depends on the easement type but yes, I do believe most stay with the land. However, any possible new landowner would be aware of it before purchasing the property.

They could choose not purchase it.

 

[rustbeltwilds]

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.

As long as there's money to be made your absolutely correct.... money is alot of people's god

 

[vern]

IMHO the subdivision of large tracts of forest and farmland and residential is a major reason for the dramatic decline in the ability to fish and hunt freely and safely.

My late friend Mark Antolosky was a well known guide.
One year we fished Elk Creek.
He guided there. It had been purchased by a certain entity that offered public access but wanted the PFBC to set catch and release restrictions.
The PFBC refused the offer. Elk Creek was then off limits to the public. Mark was allowed to guide on it.
Even during the pre-farm flipping to commercial and high density residential zoning subdivisions, the family farms mostly allowed public access.
And a lot of the access maintenance I observed was done by the volunteer deputy fish wardens who would meet the land owners to assure them that it would be safe for the PFC (pre-boat DUI regulations enforcement and when wardens enforced 24/7 instead of the modern 8-hour day shift requirement) to stock their streams.
But when the 1980-1990s changes from family farms to corporate farms occurred many miles of streams were eliminated from public access.
The same with large tracts of forest that had been open to the public. They became subdivided and also leased and privatized.
That removed miles of public access to native brook trout streams.
Public non-fishing activities such as having large campfire drinking parties did shut down public access as well.
And greatly increased legal battles were involved. (Previously lawyers and attorneys were prohibited from television and radio advertising and comparatively little legal battles were conducted.)
Another issue is the civil engineering standards applied to streams after the 1972 Hurricane Agnus. Civil engineering is not designed for creating or maintaining healthy streams. Its use in creating and maintaining roadways is actually known as a major factor in stream degradation.
(Which is why the Dirt and Gravel Road program came to counter the heavy siltation and road surface sourced pollution from the civil engineering.)

Bottom line is that today’s paradigm is many fewer miles of access and healthy flows due to major changes in industry. Corporations rule. Privatized acres are leased or otherwise controlled to prevent legal issues.

Modern streams flowing through residential subdivisions are generally not healthy and are off limits.

Can the PFBC work to prevent the continuing losses?

Again, IMHO, it would take political efforts to make liabilities eliminated and lawsuits against the landowners very restricted.

It seems that the PFBC could perhaps focus more on ensuring the health and access of aquatics than enforcing boating regulations.

However it seems that the bottom line is for government to step up and maybe follow the structure created by the Rails to Trails program.

Ensure public access to at least public owned waterways and improve the aquatic health.

 

[Lithic]

I really do wonder how much this will take off, especially with all the talk about "side hustles" lately.

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 🙂

Ugh now I'd worry about folks using AI "enhanced" pictures to make the stream look better than it really is. It's already a problem with house listings.

 

[riverwhy]

I just got served an ad for Hooksetr on a Facebook reel.

 

[jifigz]

I just got served an ad for Hooksetr on a Facebook reel.

That's how HopBack found it too I believe.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

That's how HopBack found it too I believe.

because I visited the website, my FB is now being polluted with their ads. When I get a chance, I'll block