In MOST cases, theres not enough profit margin to be deemed "Commercial" property. Again, in MOST cases.

I see NO problem with private land owners trying to make some money, especially in these times, to help pay their bills. And do not agree that they should be in any way penalized for doing so (depending on profits, intentions and such of course).

bottom line
land owner is the owner of the waterway

i have a neighbor who doesn't like my shed or my dog kennel
he complains, whines, and makes an azz of himself, but he could have bought the land and didn't, now its mine and i can do as i please
so if you really feel its unfair and just not right
buy your own piece of the river and post it
then just hope the state decides to keep stocking like they do

Sneak in at night, wait for rainy nights, stay in the water.

I realize the government doesn't have the money for such a plan.
But I would like to see them give a property tax break to those landowners that would sign an easement with the PFBC for fishing access..
What ever property they put into the program they would not have to pay property taxes on that piece of ground...

ORIGINAL: bigbear2010

bottom line
land owner is the owner of the waterway

 
land owners do not own the waterway.  just try and build a dam or dig a canal and find out who owns what.

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

I realize the government doesn't have the money for such a plan.
But I would like to see them give a property tax break to those landowners that would sign an easement with the PFBC for fishing access..
What ever property they put into the program they would not have to pay property taxes on that piece of ground...

 
That's an idea worth consideration, but 1) our state taxes would most likley increase to fund it, 2) licensing fees would most likely increase to fund it, 3) im not sure if property tax forgivness would be enough incentive for the "private club" & "guide" owners and 4-in response to bughawk) the state already taxes lease income.
 
There are some not-for-profit organizations that purchase property and acquire easements throughout the State to provide greater public access.
 
 
 
 

That was my point on another thread...eventually it will impact license fees and then possibly the stocking program...but paying "whatever" wont sit well with the taxpayers who dont see a direct benefit from the program and many others that do.

ORIGINAL: Bughawk

Landowners own the land under the water, i.e. the creek bed.  If they divert too much water or build a dam, etc... that effects the water, not the land under the water.

With that being said, since the fish are in the water, not on the land the land owner does not own the fish. But since they own the land around the water they can "post it" and tell people to leave. Thats life. Those are the rules.

I do not stealhead fish, do not care for it. But i do other fishing from the banks when the weather turns. I can understand the complaints. What i have found that pays off big is doing some home work, leg work, and try to build relationships with landowners that are not open with allowing people to use there land.

Believe me alot can be done with respect and open honesty. Some time you win somtimes you lose. the worst they can say is "no".

Ask your self this, if you owned a great peice of a creek, would you want the circus of people to be marching all over it? Look at it from there view. Then try to relate to it. Well at least it works for me

Are any of you aware of the Clean and Green Act. This give property owners a break on there property tax assesment. A few farmers along twenty mile, this property owner is included are active in the clean and green assesment. This information can be found on the Erie county web site. Property owners along other streams in erie county are also taking advantage of this act. When partisipating in clean and green you as a property owner agree to allow the public limited use of your land. Just punch up Clean and Green Act, read and learn.

I don't think there's enough public water to justify the license fee....Fisherman numbers are sky high.

A PA fishing license is not a "trout only" license either. For the many fishing opportunities in PA, the price of our licenses are a bargain! The issue lies in allocations as far as I'm concerned.

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

I'd pay double the price if half the idiots would stay home or take up knitting....

When you buy a fishing or hunting license, it does not come with a guarantee you are going to harvest your share of fish, deer, squirrels, turkeys, etc...  You are purchasing the priviledge to fish or hunt within the bounds of the laws and regulations of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that is all.  These fish are not your fish nor are they anyone's. 
 
Think about it.  How many steelhead would be yours?  If you buy a license and assume 3 fish per day and a fishing season starting September 1 and ending May 1 and you fished everyday, that comes out to be 242 days fishing at 3 fish per day = 726 fish.  I would bet there are a few people who actually catch that many steelhead per year, but most don't even come anywhere close to that, so I guess they are not getting their fair share of fish.
 
The issue here is not how many fish you catch, but rather have you had a good time catching the ones you did catch.  We all pay into things we don't get our fair share out of, but there are other things we pay into we get more than our fair share, so as I see it, it is a wash in the end.
 
Enjoy the fishing, fish where you are permitted, respect the land and the landowners, respect the fish, respect your fellow fisherman and remember to have a good time.  Quality of experience trumps quantity of fish.

ORIGINAL: DarDys

Who pays for the fish?

About 500,000 + license holders that will never fish for them.

Are you catching theirs?

Better stop that.

At the heart of this whole issue about who owns the fish is the real issue, who has access to the fish and does access mean access to the entire stream.

I fully understand the frustration over someone feeling left out and others seemingly making an unfair profit.  But are these feelings and perceptions real?  This whole situation is complicated by several vested interests. 

The landowners are one.  It is their land and they do have a right to keep people off of it.  They do not have a right to do whatever they want with it.  There limits to what a landowner can and cannot do, especially when it comes to doing something that will have a negative impact on a creek.  Just go put a backhoe into a creek without a permit and see how fast the DEP and DCNR show up.  Trust me, I saw it happen when some folks decided to do a little work to change the course of a creek.

Also, as far as I know, the landowners were not consulted by the Fish Commission when the stocking program begun and I do not believe they have much if any say in the current stocking program.  If I am wrong on this please correct me.

A second vested interest are all those who profit from the steelhead fishery, the bait and tackle shops, guides, this website, the fly shops, the local motels, restaurants and taverns, etc....  People come to fish and they spend money.  The extent to which each of these groups profits will vary, but they all are making money off of the fish being in the stream.  Some make more when they can restrict access, others make more when there is more access which translates into more people fishing.

The third vested interest are the fisherman.  We have come to love a sport that allows us to fish for some really wonderful fish, in a beautiful setting, on some fantastic streams.  Our streams have the potential to be a world class fishery and as fisherman we have come to appreciate and expect that to continue on into the future.

I guess the last vested interest is the Fish Commission.  They have a lot tied up in the stocking program and law enforcement.  I would seriously doubt there would be much interest by the Fish Commission in the tribs if there were no steelhead swimming around in them.

Now, the bottom line here is how can all of these varied and different interests come to realize that each of them are independent and yet interdependent. 

How about this as a radical idea.  What if all of the streams become pay to fish enterprises.  Besides your regular fishing license, if you want to fish for steelies in a stream you have to pay a fee and that money goes directly to the landowners.  Each landowner sets the fee for their land, so they can control access by how much they want to charge.  They also can limit the number of people fishing.  So if you want to fish section X on creek Y you contact the landowner, make a reservation for the day or days you want to fish, send in your money and when your day arrives, you show up and fish.  Of course, keeping track of all the reservations, fee collection, taxes, liability insurance, etc... may prevent people from wanting to engage in this so some may opt out and go one of two ways; post the land and don't let anyone fish or open it to the public with or without permission.

A variation on this idea may be a creek association for each creek where the landowners come together, decide what they would like to do, how much they would like to charge for access, where the access points would be, how many access permits they want to sell, etc... and then as a group set up on contact point where people will make reservations, pay their fees and get their access permits.  The permits could be for a day, a week several months or a year with different fee schedules.  The creek association would run this as business and all members would share in the profits.

Of course, there is always the plan to just leave things alone and let the situation evolve on its own and the fishing will be what it will be. 

The bottom line in all of this is access to the fish and how can be find a way that benefits as many of those who have an interest in the resource.  The first step is realizing we all have an interest in the steelhead fishery and if we want it to continue into the future, we have to work together manage this fishery properly.