Spoon the constitution is the common shared vision...  What I am talking about is anarchy.

howdy fellas, thought i might chime in on this one since ive been afforded the luxury of fishing in pa.(im an erie native) and , currently, in montana which does have the high water mark law in place. ive been discussing the issue of stream access with many of my neighbors and other landowners recently. what i have found is that the overwhelming majority of landowners who have streams or rivers running through their properties do not mind and in fact welcome the presence of fishermen. this is because the locals realize that fishermen and hunters are normally conservation minded individuals. preserving, conserving and enhancing(where necessary) the habitat is more important to them than the ability to tell someone " get out, this is my land". the only opposition to the current law in montana comes from extremely wealthy individuals who either possess the same mindset as donny beaver or they are concerned with privacy issues. these individuals are normally absent from the properties they own except for one or perhaps two weeks a year. the local farmers and ranchers appreciate the efforts of fishermen, and fishing organizations for the benefits they bring. i remember reading on the old board that a few of the members here, cant remember specifically which ones, were planning a trip out here to fish the big hole river this year. to those members and any others who may be planning trips remember that 90% of montanas fishable rivers flow through private property. without the current laws the state has in place, most of that land may not be accessible to the general public and more of the ranches where these waters are found would be more likely to charge a fee for any access they might grant. so be thankful when you come here that montanas laws are what they are for they are allowing you the freedom to fish where you wish. T.T. mentioned earlier in this thread "if its so great, go there". well i will speak from first hand experience in saying that it is great to be able, by law, to fish wherever the water is deemed navigable in the state of montana. here they dont have the debates and arguements between fishermen screaming for access and private landowners who have the right to deny it. i suppose some of the differences between montana and pa. are a product of the environment where you are brought up. the landowners here have accepted the current law, if they hadnt, rest assured the laws would be changed almost immediately. the landowners are willing to allow fishing on property that is "theirs" without arguement. most of these landowners are fishermen themselves. the difference is that here they arent worried that someone might catch "their" fish". infact most of the diehard flyfishermen here actually keep and eat trout believe it or not. now im not referring to guides. im referring to the locals, who are true flyfishermen but being montanans they enjoy eating trout. noone chastizes them for keeping a few trout for the dinner table. here keeping trout is an accepted practice by the locals. does this make the locals less conservation minded than the catch and release angler. in my opinion, no. it simply means that they arent as selfish and consumed with fish greed. they dont mind that if they take one today it wont be there to catch tomorrow, because there will always be another fish to catch tomorrow. now dont be mistaken by thinking that just because a river runs through a private ranch that you have permission to access the ranch itself. you dont, you simply are afforded the luxury of being able to fish the waters up to the high water mark but you must access the waters via public access points(which the state of montana provides in far greater numbers than pa. does) or by permission from the land owner. another thing about montana that makes me wonder about pa. is that montana provides literally thousands upon thousands of access areas yet has hundreds of thousands if not millions less dollars than the pa. fish commission due to far cheaper resident license fees and far fewer numbers of licenses sold than pa. on an annual basis. perhaps here in montana, they simply have better organization, better accountants or could it be that the state simply cares more about the rights of fishermen than does pa. if the montana landowners are willing to allow access to the rivers and streams then why should it be so difficult for pennsylvania landowners to do the same. simply put, a different mindset and attitude with a little less selfishness. i personally support the right to fish waters to the high water mark, and apparently so do thousands of montana landowners. well now that im done ranting. fellas, if you have ever contemplated taking a trip out here to fish, i promise you will not be disappointed. the fishing, scenery,wildlife, and hospitality of the locals is beyond description. it truely is fishermens paradise here. just my two cents.                                                                             m.f. 
 

"i suppose some of the differences between montana and pa. are a product of the environment where you are brought up."
 
I'd suggest it has more to do with Montana being twice the size of Pa with LESS total state population than the CITY of Philly.
 
I've never fished in Montana.
Heck, I've never even been there,  but I dare say there's nothing like Sterritaina there.
Or Art's back yard at the Manchester hole  where 1000s of people a week  is the view from your back porch from Sept to April.
 
Whole 'nother ball game here and it's like comparing beans to watermellons
 
..L.T.A.

genie, no offense intended here brother but you have never seen the green drake hatch on the yellowstone before. it is a natural phenomena that you would have to see to believe. when this hatch occurs, literally, everyone in town heads to the river and thousands of anglers from around the world pland their trips on this one hatch and descend upon the river. it can be as crowded as the manchester hole, and then some. the only difference is that the hatch, compared to the steelhead run is relatively shortlived. during this time, though, youll see hundreds if not thousands of anglers and an army of drift boats. picture steelhead fishing at the walnut marina having a season opener in mid october. that influx of fishermen might, might compare to the green drake hatch here. genie, if you ever get the chance to head out here for some fishing, seize the opportunity, and if its during the drake hatch be prepared for combat fishing without the combat...                                          m.f.

"Tryanny of the masses or the will of the people?"
 
The will of people kept Jim Crow laws in place.
 
  "Really depends on whether you agree with what is happening or not."
  The alternative is tryanny of an individual or small group." 
 
There is no tyranny if a land owner decides to keep us out of make a buck off of a recreational sport on a property that he bought and paid for.
There is no "right"  in the constitution I'm aware of that's violated if he says NO you can't PLAY on my land.
 
 
"  What about concensus making?  Seeking to bring the majority of the parties to agreement."
 
I'm cool with that.
Long as it reprsents ALL parties involved and not just the recreational sportsman's agenda

"When a group decided to be a group and function as a group, there needs to be some common vision that helps to hold the group together.  If not, the group will degenerate into a collection of individuals who may be working at cross purposes.  While this may seem like a good idea, especially if you believe you are a self sufficient individual, but eventually you will come to realize putting your own interests first may not be in your long term best interest. "
 
You know Bugs, if this whole debate wasn't about purely recreational issues, i may agree with your last paragraph.
 
Further, It would be very EASY for me to vote in MY personal interest and be all for imposing a wading law.
It's my priciples that get in the way.
They just don't allow me to usurp land owner rights for purley recreational reasons
 
 
..L.T.A.
 
 
 
 
..L.T.A.

BTW Jeremy, aren't you a guide that makes MONEY off a public resourse?

That would be a negative, although Ive considered starting.

LOL!

You guys seem to forget, theres a certain house on Spring Creek that will someday be mine!

I just dont wanna see the state pumping money into things like buying access, although Ive contributed to the CAP program because its about the only way anymore. I know me personally, if I had a problem with people fishing due to lack of respect, money wouldnt be enough to change my decision. Pay to play people are just wrong. If you post your land, it should be only for your family to use.

Kinda like no hunting signs, if I remember correctly(this may be wrong), if you put that sign up, even you cant hunt it. It then becomes a sanctuary.

Not sure my 2 acres of grass in the country would qualify me as "Fuedal Lord" LOL!
 
But a group of people dictating to me that anyone is entittled to have a picnic on my yard might start a "fued", I'll betya! 
 
That's essentially how I see this issue.
 
We're trying to FORCE our personal recreation agenda to allow us to play and hang out in someones back yard to the high water mark  anywhere we darn well please.
 
I'm curious if our self serving agenda will exclude every other form of recreational users?
Not talking about about hikers and bird watchers, I'm refering to bikers and four wheelers.
Seems to me, if one supports this forced recreational use on a property owners land, youinz otta be with the four wheelin' dudes too.
 
Seems what's good for the goose, otta be good for the gander, no?
 
bet you're not in favor of letting other "sportsman" riding up and down the creeks on their fo-whillers
 
How come?
Cause it doesn't suit "OUR" agenda?
 
 
..L.T.A.

"If you post your land, it should be only for your family to use."

Great sentiment!!!

I've never received an official answer to the question of "No Hunting" signs.  That's the way it should be, but I'm not sure if it's law.

In the pre-civil war south, slaves were not considered to be people, they were property.  That was wrong thinking, but the reality is the folks who were forced to give up their property were not happy about it, even if they did not have the right to own the property in the first place.  The point I was trying to make is that people were forced to change their long held beliefs and way of life.  That was what I was getiting at.  I don't believe slavery was a good idea and needed to be changed.
 
 

Bugs, i love you man, but to equate civil liberties and basic human rights to recreational use of private property is just silly.
Regardless of entrenched views and traditions.
 
BTW, for the record, I AM an advocate of peeps being allowed to distill their own spirits and grow their own wacky tabbacky if they so choose.
 
..L.T.A.

it seems to me that much of the oppostition to a change in the law is by landowners who are more concerned that their land or property rights will be violated. i, personally, dont feel that landowners rights would be violated because it is not land we are talking about. it is waterways. montana has addressed the issue of landowner rights by having in place very strict laws pertaining to land ownership. landownership and stream access are two separate entities and here the state seems to have addressed both issues to the satisfaction of the landowners. apparently, montanas laws are accepted by the majority of the poplulation or else the laws here would not be what they are. montana has also addressed the issue of how waterways are to be traversed. wading and floating are the two permitted avenues for accessing waterways flowing through private property. 4 wheelers are strictly prohibited and in most places so is the use of motorized boats. i listed a link to a website that outlines the laws here in montana, and if you were to read it carefully you would see that accessing waterways is just that, and not permission to use someones private property (land). so picnics in your yard are not an issue here in montana. true you might see a flyfisherman or drift boat on "your" waterway, but rest assured they will not be camping out on your property. if they violate or trespass on property other than said waterway then you have the right to confront the individual, kick him off your "land" and force him back to the waterway and if the offense is more serious then you have the right to call the authorities. noone is calling for all land to be made accessible to the public. i own a piece of land here that has a stream running through the middle of it and my house is less than 75 feet from that stream. if a fisherman wants to fish it and he accesses the stream from a legal access point i certainly will not get upset by his presence for i purchased this land with full knowledge that it was his right to fish it and personally, having the stream run through my property is more important than having the ability to tell him you cant fish here. apparently, most of my neighbors and fellow landowners are of the same opinion. all i know is that with the laws being what they are here in montana, everyone seems happy. fishermen get to fish and the only thing the landowners have lost is the ability to say no to use of a waterway. noone argues over the matter. so if anyone wants to come to montana to fish, know that here you are welcome. you wont hear any arguing over the issue. and if you so choose you can even keep as many fish as the law will allow and noone that i know of here will criticize or ridicule you for it. the mentality in montana is much more generous and welcoming from that in pa. and i say this from first hand knowledge of both states. i am of the opinion that allowing access to waterways is acceptable, and apparently a few hundred thousand of my neighbors agree. here you wont find the "me,me,me,mine,mine,mine" attitude, if you did you probably wouldnt be able to fish most of the states streams and rivers. most of the land here is privately owned. so you can thank the ranchers and farmers who own the land surrounding the states blue ribbon trout waters for allowing you to access these waters. so once more i ask, if it works here, why couldnt it work in pa.? if the answer is something other than landowner selfishness i for one would love to hear what it is.                                                                                                  m.f.

Montana the point is you purchased it with full knowledge of the high water mark laws of Montana. Here people purchased with the knowledge of our local laws which do not give those same rights to fishermaen accessing. Now as an after thought some greedy me me me mine types want to change the laws for thier benifit. If the laws had been as they are in Montana since the 1800s I for one would be fighting to keep waders rights from greedy landowners trying to exclude them from thier rightful access to the fishery. But since the laws are as they are I find myself on the side of the landowners.

"if it works here, why couldnt it work in pa.?"
 
Population desity and angling pressure
 
 
as far as my "picnic" analgy, there is nothing stopping those who would, from bringing a lawn chairs, coolers, bait buckets and all their friends, to set up and spend the whole day at the high water mark in your back yard.
Day in and day out from Sept to April, i might add.
 
I'd dare say, if the Big Sky peeps had the same angling pressure day in and day out for 9 months a year, in densly populated areas on tiny shallow creeks that run through back yards, their "attitude" might change.
 
We're not talking thousand(s)acre ranches in the middle of nowhere
 
oh yea, MontanaFish, help a brother out with ADD and reading disablities.
(me)
Pare them posts length down a tad or use paragraphs
 
..L.T.A.

Montana 22 years or 220 years makes no difference in that you stated you knew the laws when you purchased your property. As I recall it was not the easy transition you make it seem when the rulings were made there. I think I remember some rather ugly dust ups with ranchers stringing wire across some of the major rivers and confronting some anglers with guns. Perhaps over time things have settled down but at the time those old school Montana ranchers take it lying down. 
Here it is the same those that bought, paid for and have been paying higher taxes on thier waterfront property feel as those ranchers did. They did the deal with the knowledge of the laws as they stand now and it is hardly fair to change the rules after the fact. A law stating that any property bought after a certain FUTURE date would be subject to new wading laws might be fairer but still the price of a piece of land might go down because the new owner would not have the rights that art in place now.
About that picnic of geies. What is to stop those that would change an owner's rights of stream ownership from changing them for any other reason. I like the view I get from outside your bedroom window and who are you to think you can own that view. Scenery is everyones just like moving water and the only way for me to get the view from your property is for me to have the right to go on your property to view it.