"We as anglers buy a special access stamp( cheap say 5 bucks) to fish all these areas the proceds get divided between the landowners based on amount of avialible stream frontage they give access to. only people with the special stamp can fish these areas..this is just a thought may not work but is an idea."
 
We basically do that now 

Having happy feet and the desire to explore, I walk upstream and eventually end up near where I used to fish years back before it was posted.  Is it surprising that I ended up on land and did not know the owner?  No.  Does a posted sign on the shore always mean no stream access?  No.  I grew up on a stocked trout stream and people very often posted their property to keep people from cutting through their yard BUT stream pass-through and fishing was permitted.

That's me!

Getting back to the original specific topic, if anyone knows the proper method for fishing Elk, upstream from public access, to 90, and beyond, please, please, PM me.  I was up there my first time up, and was rudely kicked out.  I'd rather not repeat that experience, but I love walking and walking, without ever having to retrace my steps until my day is done.

ORIGINAL: vmises

Hey Iron, if other guys are like me, I walked in via a known access area.  Having happy feet and the desire to explore, I walk upstream and eventually end up near where I used to fish years back before it was posted.  Is it surprising that I ended up on land and did not know the owner?  No.  Does a posted sign on the shore always mean no stream access?  No.  I grew up on a stocked trout stream and people very often posted their property to keep people from cutting through their yard BUT stream pass-through and fishing was permitted. 

For clarities sake, I think we should color code no trespassing signs, red for no access, blood dot for enter at your own risk, chartreuse for enter with caution, olive for come on in, and crystal meth for bring your dancing shoes.

 
I understand what you are saying BUT having happy feet and the desire to explore is no excuse for NOT knowing who owns the land AND having secure permission to be there.
 
Ironhed

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

"there are two main falls that have caused arguably SOME OF THE BEST FISHING WATER TO BE POSTED. why is it so hard to understand? "

Then it seems to me, that under your theory, installing ladder would cause them to no longer BE the "best fishing water", so you gained nothing. OR these spots would continue to hold large numbers of fish even WITH the ladders ( which they would ), and thus still attract the crowds leading to posting.

DuUd, that area uis close to the lake, and a hudred yards from the road. If it hold fish in any numbers, and it would. It will still attract numbers of anglers. All you have to do to verify this, is look at any section with close, easy access. They draw big crowds, wether they hold fish, or not. Left un- molested, any fish that want to move up fom those falls can, and do move up. It doesn't take "blown out" conditions either.

most motos are attracted to large numbers of fish, not necessarily easily accessible areas. believe me if you didn't have the huge runs of steelhead we have today there wouldn't even be half as many fishermen. yes, you would still have fish in the lower stretches of water with or without the ladders. but NOT as many with the ladders. anglers would spread out, and the fish would be few and far between in the lower sections late in the season. thus, the owners would NOT have as many people walking around on their land. they certainly wouldn't have the large number of anglers the ENTIRE season if the fish were able to pass through falls easily. i fail to understand how you can NOT see the logic in this.....

it has already ruined two fishing spots. now they are trying to install ladders in the some mile streams before the same problems cause more land to be lost for fishing. better late than never i guess. just sad that it wasn't done earlier for other areas......

ORIGINAL: carpitiss

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

"there are two main falls that have caused arguably SOME OF THE BEST FISHING WATER TO BE POSTED. why is it so hard to understand? "

Then it seems to me, that under your theory, installing ladder would cause them to no longer BE the "best fishing water", so you gained nothing. OR these spots would continue to hold large numbers of fish even WITH the ladders ( which they would ), and thus still attract the crowds leading to posting.

DuUd, that area uis close to the lake, and a hudred yards from the road. If it hold fish in any numbers, and it would. It will still attract numbers of anglers. All you have to do to verify this, is look at any section with close, easy access. They draw big crowds, wether they hold fish, or not. Left un- molested, any fish that want to move up fom those falls can, and do move up. It doesn't take "blown out" conditions either.

most motos are attracted to large numbers of fish, not necessarily easily accessible areas. believe me if you didn't have the huge runs of steelhead we have today there wouldn't even be half as many fishermen. yes, you would still have fish in the lower stretches of water with or without the ladders. but NOT as many with the ladders. anglers would spread out, and the fish would be few and far between in the lower sections late in the season. thus, the owners would NOT have as many people walking around on their land. they certainly wouldn't have the large number of anglers the ENTIRE season if the fish were able to pass through falls easily. i fail to understand how you can NOT see the logic in this.....

it has already ruined two fishing spots. now they are trying to install ladders in the some mile streams before the same problems cause more land to be lost for fishing. better late than never i guess. just sad that it wasn't done earlier for other areas......

 
Carp, just for the record, manchester hole and the chutes area are NOT posted.  Also, at most points during any given season (especially the last few) there are far more fish above the falls on Walnut than below.  They have no problem clearing those falls even with the crowds and the lack of a ladder being present.  So, I would hardly call that area "ruined".  If anything it keeps the crowds down low on Walnut instead of upstream where they can cause alot more damage.

"Ken

Think about what you are saying.  If EVERYONE who fished in Elk Creek or any other trib, ( I know this would probably never happen but bear with me) took your advice and called the landowner or knocked on his/her door for permission, then the landowner would be either bombarded with phone calls, or getting a visitor about every 20 minutes at their door for 4 months out of the year with people asking permission to fish on their property.  Common sense tells me, that if I was a landowner, I would avoid that at all costs.  Signs are a more reasonable approach.  If you want anglers to stay off one bank, put signs there; off both banks, put signs on both or wire off the creek.  I think that makes more sense, then suggesting ALL OF US bother each landowner everytime we want to fish in an area. "

Livin,
How are ya?
Actually that is one of the first thoughts that came to mind.
If the scenario that you laid were true, you'd be absolutely right.  It would become a real pain in the rear.
We are talkin Erie-area steelhead fishing here. There never seems to be any rules, there never seems to be much common sense and most of the time you can throw etiquette right out the window.  Thats reality and it does not hurt to take a day or two, if thats what it takes, and find out who the landowner is and find out if you can be there. 
We(as a whole) are too selfish and do not want to take away precious time away from our fishing, "because we drive two hours one-way to get here", to ask for permission to be on private property.
The worst response could be no.  If so, go to the next location of interest.  I'll take my chances and ask and be sure to not follow the Gore-Tex/Neoprene Parade.
Signs or no signs, most of the property is private and just because it is unmarked does NOT give anyone other than the landowner permission to be there.

Ironhed

ORIGINAL: vmises

Hey Iron, if other guys are like me, I walked in via a known access area.  Having happy feet and the desire to explore, I walk upstream and eventually end up near where I used to fish years back before it was posted.  Is it surprising that I ended up on land and did not know the owner?  No.  Does a posted sign on the shore always mean no stream access?  No.  I grew up on a stocked trout stream and people very often posted their property to keep people from cutting through their yard BUT stream pass-through and fishing was permitted. 

For clarities sake, I think we should color code no trespassing signs, red for no access, blood dot for enter at your own risk, chartreuse for enter with caution, olive for come on in, and crystal meth for bring your dancing shoes.

 
 
If the sign says "private property, access allowed," then have at it.  If it doesn't, stay off.  Pretty simple.

"thus, the owners would NOT have as many people walking around on their land. they certainly wouldn't have the large number of anglers the ENTIRE season if the fish were able to pass through falls easily. i fail to understand how you can NOT see the logic in this....."
 
I "fail to see the logic", because that is not the reality. But let's say it's so, and there were only half as man anglers there. Maybe even a quarter. How do you know she would not have faced the same issues, her stretch would STILL hold big numbers of fish just like Elk access, the tubes, behind uncle John's, and others. So the "motos" would still congregate there, nuimbers of fish AND easy access. Motos don't like to walk.
 
Also, the posting of the eastside of the "Manchester" had nothing to do with the number of anglers.

Carp,
 
There HAVE been complaints by the lessee, not the owner on 4 mile. That however, is NOT why the ladders were proposed. In fact it was not even initiated by the PF&BC. It came from an organization, with the intent to create an upstream fishery that did not previously exist.

"well, there will be fewer complaints once the fish can migrate upstream and every angler and his grandmother aren't crowded into that one section."
 
DuUd,
 
I don't know how MUCH you actually fish up there, but you have been around long enough to know different. Seventy to eighty percent of them will STILL be fishing that hole, rather than upstream.
 
"then the majority of the fish wouldn't be left for beaver and his yuppie customers......"
 
The majority of the fish, are NOT in that section. For crying out loud, there is a whopping 250 yds of water that you can't fish, and another section in which you can only fish from one side ( which by the way makes THAT section MORE easily fished ). Why even bother to go up? Get over it, and TRY some new water.
 

 "do YOU get out and fish for steel much?"
 
Hardly at all any more.  H@ll, I probabely haven't even hit a 100 days this year. Of course I was away for 3 prime weeks, so I might even be under 70.

ORIGINAL: carpitiss

sorry but the east side of manchester and the chutes is posted. it didn't used to be that way. MORE fish are NEVER above the chutes than below. i will agree that some years with high water there are a good number of fish upstream, but most years this is not the case. the fact that so many fish are trapped in such a small area caused a majority of anglers to stay in that exact spot over the years. this in turn created an area that became extremely crowed with fishermen followed by littering. the owner then posted that side of land (luckily not the entire area). if fish can pass freely upstream then they are spread out and so are the fishermen. seems pretty logical to me. not sure why some can't understand this. YES during early season steel you will still have larger concentrations of fish in the lower sections, and in places like manchester and the chutes. but, later in the season the majority of fish should be spread out with larger concentrations upstream. i think a land owner would be willing to accept fishermen on his/her land for a portion of the season, but when they see them in larger numbers day in and day out they just can't put up with it.

i'll agree that the past few years have allowed more fish to migrate upstream due to high water. however, there were several years of drought that kept most of the steel in manchester and the chutes where a rediculously number of anglers congregated (on both sides of the stream) the problems worsened. then the landowner did something about it. same thing happened with 20 mile.

i see your point about causing more problems upstream, for walnut has some longer posted sections. but, there is enough water before and after these tracks of land to hold a lot of fishermen who can spread out (there are plenty of holes). 20, i'm not so sure about......

 
"Sorry, the east side of manchester hole is posted and it never used to be that way"
 
Carp, for crying out loud, that is the best thing to EVER happen to that area!  You can actully fish is now without hooking up with someone else's line! Come on dude!  Art posted that side, because when he bought that property is was thick with litter and garbage.  Not to mention is probably one of the best steelhead fisherman Erie has ever had, and knew how much that area would improve if one side were posted.  He is a great guy and we should thank him, for not only keeping that area open, but for making it a better place to fish by posting the one side of the creek.  Besides, "POSTED" to me means an inability to access a area all together.  There are quite a few areas in Erie that are open to fishing but access is limited to one side of the creek.
 
"More fish are NEVER above the chutes than below"
 
I have to say that if you truly believe this, then you have never fished anywhere above the chutes.  In fact the exact opposite is true and for the most part always has been.  People fail to realize that there are about 10 miles of stream, upstream from the chutes, all of which hold fish.  Even early season they have NO problem clearing that waterfall.  Last year in the third week of september, me and my dad had probably 500 fish to ourselves at Rt 5.  And the fish were all through the riffles upstream from there too.
 
"Later in the season the fish should be spread out with larger concentrations upstream"
 
You fish at all the weekend after thanksgiving?  The chutes/project waters were nearly void of fish.  Manchester will ALWAYS hold fish, and it would regardless of their being a waterfall upstream or not.  Upstream, a little better, way upstream.........well you get my drift.  Millcreek Mall isn't only good for shopping you know.
 
You're right about 20 mile not having good holding water, which is why it should be cut drastically in terms of the numbers of fish stocked.

ORIGINAL: Ironhed

"Ken

Think about what you are saying.  If EVERYONE who fished in Elk Creek or any other trib, ( I know this would probably never happen but bear with me) took your advice and called the landowner or knocked on his/her door for permission, then the landowner would be either bombarded with phone calls, or getting a visitor about every 20 minutes at their door for 4 months out of the year with people asking permission to fish on their property.  Common sense tells me, that if I was a landowner, I would avoid that at all costs.  Signs are a more reasonable approach.  If you want anglers to stay off one bank, put signs there; off both banks, put signs on both or wire off the creek.  I think that makes more sense, then suggesting ALL OF US bother each landowner everytime we want to fish in an area. "

Livin,
How are ya?
Actually that is one of the first thoughts that came to mind.
If the scenario that you laid were true, you'd be absolutely right.  It would become a real pain in the rear.
We are talkin Erie-area steelhead fishing here. There never seems to be any rules, there never seems to be much common sense and most of the time you can throw etiquette right out the window.  Thats reality and it does not hurt to take a day or two, if thats what it takes, and find out who the landowner is and find out if you can be there. 
We(as a whole) are too selfish and do not want to take away precious time away from our fishing, "because we drive two hours one-way to get here", to ask for permission to be on private property.
The worst response could be no.  If so, go to the next location of interest.  I'll take my chances and ask and be sure to not follow the Gore-Tex/Neoprene Parade.
Signs or no signs, most of the property is private and just because it is unmarked does NOT give anyone other than the landowner permission to be there.

Ironhed

 
Ken
 
Doing good man! Hope it's the same for you!
 
Look, I think that your message on this thread is a good one and is very well intentioned, and you're right in the fact that most landowners wouldn't be bombarded with calls and visits, and I obviously laid out a extreme scenerio.  I am just always careful when giving out advice, and I want things that I say to apply to everyone and not just a select few. 

I haven't been to the '90 hole' in 15 years or so.  Is it posted from their down to the tressel?  I think the year I quit fishing that stretch was the same year I heard it got posted.  Many years ago.