Matt_Geiman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2019
- Messages
- 40
Just stating that we’re loosing access, and this case is just one of many in our area.
Yellow Breeches
- Thread starter joebamboo
- Start date
Jay_H
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2013
- Messages
- 313
Mrangler
Member
I’ve fished this area for over 40 years and as much as I agree that it is not what it used to be, it is still a very nice place to fish. The real problem I have is the management group from Allenberry has taken an almost million dollar renovation and made it there own. This money that renovated this section of stream was not all Allenberry money. To now restrict an area that is already restricted just doesn’t go well with me. Why was this money spent to renovate public accessed water when the owner can turn around and keep you off. Why was this ever agreed to in the first place. The citizens of the area and the commonwealth have been shamed. I understand they own it ,but this project should have never been done knowing the owners could do this. I will miss going there. I will not patronize such foolishness.
Weird 4-sentence news article with phrases like: "cracking down on fishermen without permits."
"However, authorities say anglers need permits to do so..."
Makes it sound like the permits have been in place for a while?
I dont post mine
The Rodfather
Well-known member
I contest that the navigable water, and the bed below are not theirs, and as such, they cannot forbid me from using said water so long as I dont pass through thier property to access it.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Publicity is good thing!! Kudos to whomever alerted the media.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Does yours have a trout stream flowing through it???
I own property with a Class A trout stream flowing through.
It's posted...
Until you own land with a stream flowing through, you don't understand how landowners like me cringe when we hear folks talking about horse$#!+navigable water and Montana legalities that don't fly in PA.
FWIW - I have a pit dug for any self-righteous yahoo that chooses to trespass on my property without permission...
JG63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,483
Looks like a seventh grader wrote this report - the mass media continues to amaze me
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Good luck with that opinion and fight...
East Branch Delaware River. Ever heard of it? Haha!
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Not even close to the same situation...
Haha!!
Haha!!
I'm not trying to argue but I dont see how that is the case unless if you mean I'm on a more popular body of water than you.
I own 10 acres with a camp on two sides of a road and there is a nys pfr easement that runs through my property along the east branch (the nys wild premier section or whatever they changed the name to when they made the mistake of allowing year round rishing).
You have to go through the woods that i own to access the easement. I took the posted signs down as soon as I bought the property.
Ive never let a posted sign deter me from fishing somewhere so I felt obligated to not post my land. I walk the talk.
JG63
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 1,483
Just a footnote to all the above discussion - it just occurred to me yesterday that the silt/sand I spoke about came from the lake/dam reconstruction some two years ago - when the accumulated silt was flushed out of the lake, into the run,
then and settled downstream in the main stem of the Breeches. I witnessed it firsthand when the construction began - so the implication that improvement projects were the culprit is wrong - it was caused by the reconstruction of the lake and the subsequent re-channeling of the run - just my cynicism running wild
then and settled downstream in the main stem of the Breeches. I witnessed it firsthand when the construction began - so the implication that improvement projects were the culprit is wrong - it was caused by the reconstruction of the lake and the subsequent re-channeling of the run - just my cynicism running wild
caddisflyer
Well-known member
I would love it if the state came in and took all the waterways and said they were public. I would like to see a minimum 25 ft on either bank made public as a kind of buffer to protect the stream banks from mowing etc. The government uses eminent domain to take or purchase land for all sorts of projects. Since we are talking about protecting a natural resource and providing something good for the general public I think this is perfectly justifiable.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
First off, the Delaware System is declared navigable in law & fact and there is NY Public Fishing Rights easement so while I may not agree that navigability should apply to that part of the river in 2026, the easement AND the navigability thing means the public can fish there.
Another question, is this your primary residence?
The reason I ask is the stream that runs through MY property is my primary residence. The stream is navigable by ducks through my land, but the stream (like the Yellow Breeches) has NOT been declared navigable in PA.
However, the stream at its mouth is much larger than the Breeches at its mouth so if some yahoo someday decided to fight the navigability, I could have people fishing on my property even if I don't want them ON my property.
However, I do let a guy bow hunt on my property, but that's because he asked, lets me know and technically asks every time he wants to access my property and didn't just walk up the creek with a sense of entitlement...
He also gives me venison. 😉
I might feel the same way if someone asked to fish the creek, but I want to be able to say no if I want...
Another thing, and I admit I don't know the legalities of this but IF a streambed is public property by virtue of navigability, can someone walk up a creek and hunt without the knowledge or permission of the adjacent property owners if hunting is legal in that area?
I get the "how to retrieve the game" thing, but what if the hunter dropped the deer right in the creek??
As far as me, I respect landowners rights, I never fish posted property without asking and if the answer is no, I don't stir the pot I just go elsewhere.
Maybe it's because I detest things like eminent domain and the adverse possession law that our own Governor is trying to exploit to steal property from his neighbor...
Last edited:
Bamboozle
Well-known member
At the same time I would love it if the State government also takes a small parcel of property via eminent domain from EVERY landowner without flowing water running through their property...
You know, to keep things fair...
This way the public that doesn't fish can have equal rights to "somthing good" like picnics, bird watching, BBQ's while also protecting the natural resouces...
ROVERT
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 674
I've become more and more supportive of public rights to waterways. I think we stand to see dramatic changes to stream access in the next quarter to half century. Allenbury and DB are just the start of this.
Increasing numbers of people will monetize the natural resources on their properties. This will eventually negate the North American Model of Wildlife Management. As anglers, we'll be facing the same kind of beat system that is prominent in the UK.
This won't just affect trout fisherman. It may start that way but it will spread. My father in law in England pays to fish for coarse fish in his local river.
Sure we have more public land with stream access. That will always be available, right? Maybe, but it will get more crowded and eventually governing bodies will enact permit systems for that water as well (British Columbia).
Our model of wildlife conservation has been extremely successful. Large amounts of public land and private/posted land that isn't monetized allow for this. When access becomes pay to play, things go down hill. Hunting leases have already gotten out of control. I don't like what I see in the future.
I'm a pretty conservative person but I think we may be approaching a critical point for sportsmen. More public access rights are likely necessary for future generations to have outdoor experiences that resemble what we have been blessed with.
Increasing numbers of people will monetize the natural resources on their properties. This will eventually negate the North American Model of Wildlife Management. As anglers, we'll be facing the same kind of beat system that is prominent in the UK.
This won't just affect trout fisherman. It may start that way but it will spread. My father in law in England pays to fish for coarse fish in his local river.
Sure we have more public land with stream access. That will always be available, right? Maybe, but it will get more crowded and eventually governing bodies will enact permit systems for that water as well (British Columbia).
Our model of wildlife conservation has been extremely successful. Large amounts of public land and private/posted land that isn't monetized allow for this. When access becomes pay to play, things go down hill. Hunting leases have already gotten out of control. I don't like what I see in the future.
I'm a pretty conservative person but I think we may be approaching a critical point for sportsmen. More public access rights are likely necessary for future generations to have outdoor experiences that resemble what we have been blessed with.
tomgamber
Well-known member
Thats the 112th market in the country. It's where grads go for their first job in a local small market station. The pay is slightly more than minimum wage. So, yes it was written by a newbie. But its hardly "mass media". 🤣 My first TV job paid 6.50 an hr. In the 138th market.
