Yellow Breeches

[tomgamber]

Access controlled by the privileged few is a recipe for killing the sport.

does anyone know if that is the case? Having to go online and get a free permit that is only good for one day is hardly privileged unless they are always gone. Not saying I support it, just that if that's all you have to do, and you can probably do it from your phone, you'd just rather not have to bother. Remains to be seen I guess.

 

[sarce]

does anyone know if that is the case? Having to go online and get a free permit that is only good for one day is hardly privileged unless they are always gone. Not saying I support it, just that if that's all you have to do, and you can probably do it from your phone, you'd just rather not have to bother. Remains to be seen I guess.

I was more responding to the attitude that you have to be a streamside landowner to deserve access. There are a few places near me that require a day use permit - but these are lakes owned by water companies and typically cheap. Even MD parks do this in some places. But it's like $3. There are levels to this, for sure.

 

[joebamboo]

does anyone know if that is the case? Having to go online and get a free permit that is only good for one day is hardly privileged unless they are always gone. Not saying I support it, just that if that's all you have to do, and you can probably do it from your phone, you'd just rather not have to bother. Remains to be seen I guess.

That's not the issue at all. It is about them being able decide who and when someone can have access to state and co op fish. A "free permit" from a land owner in order to fish for state stocked trout is in my opinion, if not already, should be illegal.

 

[jifigz]

Access controlled by the privileged few is a recipe for killing the sport.

Yeah, it sounds like much of our European associates, and it sounds like it's in support of prestigious clubs.

Sorry, Bam, but I disagree with you wholeheartedly. Honestly, the Juniata near me was probably never used for any more commerce other than what the creeks like Penns and the Little J were. Yes, it's "navigable," but it's not deep, and they weren't doing anything more than driving logs down the stream. Now, if we are counting the canal that paralleled the river, then that's different, but still...


I very much appreciate landowners who allow people to access and utilize land along streams. Those landowners who allow fishing are much appreciated by me and many other grateful fishermen. My family owns a substantial chunk of land on the Juniata, and we allow people to access the river for fishing/tubing via our land. I do have it posted due to duck hunters always screwing over my hunting, but people know that you can catch stonecats, helgies, or fish from there, and it's always been that way.

 

[dudemanspecial]

Anything that restricts access to popular spots is not good. It forces people into the unpopular spots many of us rely on when the people hatch gets thick.

 

[kbobb]

So a landowner posts his property to the effect of "fishing by permission only" and allows no more than 5 folks/day on his little stretch (say 250 yards) of creek. The state stocks the rest of the creek.

Your thoughts on this?
Should the state stock this little section of creek or not?

Just wondering.

 

[Matt_Geiman]

So a landowner posts his property to the effect of "fishing by permission only" and allows no more than 5 folks/day on his little stretch (say 250 yards) of creek. The state stocks the rest of the creek.

Your thoughts on this?
Should the state stock this little section of creek or not?

Just wondering.

No and the state will not stock on posted land

 

[wildtrout2]

So a landowner posts his property to the effect of "fishing by permission only" and allows no more than 5 folks/day on his little stretch (say 250 yards) of creek. The state stocks the rest of the creek.

Your thoughts on this?
Should the state stock this little section of creek or not?

Just wondering.

Fish Class A streams and forget about complexities. 😉

 

[Matt_Geiman]

Concerning, no doubt. At the root of this, I believe, is Allenberry's desire to create a more exclusive fly fishing destination. Hard to charge premium rates and guiding services when every Fudd can wander onto the stream.

The only saving grace to this is this section of water now sucks. I fished the white fly hatch one evening this year and despite the bugs on the surface, I did not see one single fish feeding on the surface.

The stream "improvements" reminded me of creeks channelized after the '72 Agnes flood. Essentially, run a bulldozer over the stream bed to level it out.

Exactly. This is not going to make Allenberry any more appealing for their guests. The draw of this section is the history and what it offers to the public. This just one more hit to our local community and economy.

 

[The Rodfather]

I want to buy the plots upstream and downstream from that posted 250 yard plot and have 20 of my buddies fish to the limit every day. Take your "private stream" and shove it. If you want fish in your private stretch of a publicly stocked stream you can pay to stock yours and hope that those fish stay on your stretch or else they will get harvested. 😉

 

[The Rodfather]

No and the state will not stock on posted land

They will not, but they will stock just upstream and just downstream of it. Fish move.

 

[Bamboozle]

If I may point out the obvious...have you seen the cost of real estate these days? I'd love to buy streamside property but it's a pipe dream - and yes my job/career pays well. It's a feat to be able to buy such property and also find a job in one's chosen field within reasonable distance of this hypothetical primo private trout water

Access controlled by the privileged few is a recipe for killing the sport.

What is being lost in my objections to the ruse is the fact that IF a stream is deemed navigable, the entire stream is included which is preposterous.

Here's a hypothetical, let's say that the Yellow Breeches was on the navigable list. Take a drive up to Walnut Bottom and cross the creek on Water Street or Pine Road and tell me if you think that part of the Yellow Breeches should be considered navigable...

FOR the intended purpose of commerce.

But IF the Breeches was on that list, the folks living up there on properties that HARDLY could be considered "unaffordable real estate options" would have to put up with people fishing in their backyards, even if they didn't want people fishing in their backyards...

And I'm sure the same situation exists WAY upstream on the Lehigh, Delaware, and Little J....

And you know what, it is folks like that ALWAYS get screwed because they don't have the money or clout to fight eminent domain or other things that effect THEIR quality of life on THEIR property. Unfortunately, I've seen it many times with things like rail trails or nature walks. In my world, it just isn't fair to those folks, because a few other folks think THEIR rights or desires are more important.

Think about how YOU would feel being awakened at 5:00 am every morning by a bunch of people walking and yakking it up on a rail trail 20 feet behind your house or someone bushwhacking through your backyard while you were grilling with family so that they could fish a "navigable" trickle...

I realize fishing headwaters places like this aren't everyone's cup of tea and many might agree that it shouldn't be in the mix, but I have heard MORE than few folks with the "Montana mindset" say it all should be fair game...

As for me, I don't care what Allenberry does as long as the PFBC doesn't stock a stretch that appears won't be accessible to 100% of the people who want to fish there, on any day or time according to the regulations.

 

[Bamboozle]

Exactly. This is not going to make Allenberry any more appealing for their guests. The draw of this section is the history and what it offers to the public. This just one more hit to our local community and economy.

Wanna bet..?

IF they go through with the restricted access and it leads to no more free fish from the PFBC and YBA, they will have to stock their OWN fish IF they want to draw anglers to their accommodations. To not do so would be beyond stupid and I don't think they are stupid.

However, IF they aren't stupid, do their own stocking and manage it as C&R, offer exclusive access and other fishing/lodging packages OR allow the harvest of one or two of fish per day that the Allenberry will prepare for your dinner... 😵

I think their business would significantly increase and easily justify the added expense of a few 100 fish every year.

I wouldn't be one of their guests, but to be able to fish a privately stocked stream for the cost of a nights lodging without paying thou$and$ in membership fees will have tremendous appeal to a LOT of people who don't have the time or inclination to do it the hard way.

I'm just surprised they waited this long to get the ball rolling...

 

[dudemanspecial]

Think about how YOU would feel being awakened at 5:00 am every morning by a bunch of people walking and yakking it up on a rail trail 20 feet behind your house or someone bushwhacking through your backyard while you were grilling with family so that they could fish a "navigable" trickle...

I would rather the law be firm and clear instead of the muddied mess that it is now. Why is it fair that people with property on the Little J are subject to stream access laws but people on the ditch that is the headwaters of Yellow Breeches are not?

 

[Bamboozle]

Why is anyone subject to a law that has no place on the books in 2026? Maybe someone should start running 50 to 100 commercial barges a day down the Little J and see how that flies with the fishermen...

There is a reason the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company built the Lehigh Canal on the navigable Lehigh...

Because it isn't, except in a kayak or canoe...

 

[dudemanspecial]

Why is anyone subject to a law that has no place on the books in 2026? Maybe someone should start running 50 to 100 commercial barges a day down the Little J and see how that flies with the fishermen...

There is a reason the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company built the Lehigh Canal on the navigable Lehigh...

Because it isn't, except in a kayak or canoe...

I'm sure Native Americans did plenty of commerce via canoe.

 

[Bamboozle]

And I'm sure OUR government didn't write laws for the benefit of the Native Americans or THEIR commerce...

 

[The Rodfather]

Can I purchase land upstream of Allenberry and request to float timber down the steam on my drift boat to market? Create commerce?

 

[joebamboo]

I wonder, could this be the beginning of Allenberry becoming an Orvis endorsed destination. Private water for Orvis guests?

 

[DomR]

Wanna bet..?

IF they go through with the restricted access and it leads to no more free fish from the PFBC and YBA, they will have to stock their OWN fish IF they want to draw anglers to their accommodations. To not do so would be beyond stupid and I don't think they are stupid.

However, IF they aren't stupid, do their own stocking and manage it as C&R, offer exclusive access and other fishing/lodging packages OR allow the harvest of one or two of fish per day that the Allenberry will prepare for your dinner... 😵

I think their business would significantly increase and easily justify the added expense of a few 100 fish every year.

I wouldn't be one of their guests, but to be able to fish a privately stocked stream for the cost of a nights lodging without paying thou$and$ in membership fees will have tremendous appeal to a LOT of people who don't have the time or inclination to do it the hard way.

I'm just surprised they waited this long to get the ball rolling...

I'd wager to bet that if advertised correctly and affiliated correctly they could book out their resort more than a few weeks a summer for well heeled corporate types to have guided flyfishing "getaways" and team building exercises. They are in a good location relative to major metropolitan corporations.