Helpful ReplyHot!Elk Creek "Tubes" posted???????

Page: << < ..678 > Showing page 6 of 8
Author
pikepredator2
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 978
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/05/14 18:11:06
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 09:42:15 (permalink)
Thought the same thing about kjh's post except for one thing:  say i buy a piece of property adjacent to a stream and post it for my own and my families use.  nobody else will be fishing it, no pay to fish (etc).  so now i won't be allowed to fish my own land because my posted area of the stream has been designated a nursery water?  that doesn't sound right.  and i can tell you right now that the ****ing will never stop. i can hear it now, "why is that guy fishing with us when he has his own stream side property to fish?"  if other states have worked out these problems mentioned in the 6 pages of this topic, then PA needs to look to them for solutions.
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 10:47:52 (permalink)
pikepredator2
Thought the same thing about kjh's post except for one thing:  say i buy a piece of property adjacent to a stream and post it for my own and my families use.  nobody else will be fishing it, no pay to fish (etc).  so now i won't be allowed to fish my own land because my posted area of the stream has been designated a nursery water?  that doesn't sound right.  and i can tell you right now that the ****ing will never stop. i can hear it now, "why is that guy fishing with us when he has his own stream side property to fish?"  if other states have worked out these problems mentioned in the 6 pages of this topic, then PA needs to look to them for solutions.



 
Exactly.  There are already hundreds of streams where the DCNR believes they have enough documentation to win a navigability ruling.  They have been compiling a map of streams so that they can collect Marcellus gas royalties from anyone drilling under these streams.   Here's the map:
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/NaturalGas/publicstreambeds/index.htm
 
Elk creek in Erie is not on it.  But if 200+ streams in PA are already considered public stream beds by the DCNR and they believe they could win a navigability ruling if they need to, then I don't see the issue in creating a law declaring any stream stocked with a public funded resource a public stream bed.  You guys against a PA version of the Montana law are crazy.  Look at all the streams the DCNR already believes are public.  Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found across nearly every county in the state?  The navigability law is a joke and it's obscure, we need a clear law that opens up any stream bed within the high water marks where publicly funded resources are allocated.   Just saying! 
woodnickle
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 8446
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 11:57:06 (permalink)
Well said. And agree.

SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 13:30:29 (permalink)
Cold
SteelSlayer77
 
Elk creek in Erie is not on it.  But if 200+ streams in PA are already considered public stream beds by the DCNR and they believe they could win a navigability ruling if they need to, then I don't see the issue in creating a law declaring any stream stocked with a public funded resource a public stream bed.  You guys against a PA version of the Montana law are crazy.  Look at all the streams the DCNR already believes are public.  Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found across nearly every county in the state?  The navigability law is a joke and it's obscure, we need a clear law that opens up any stream bed within the high water marks where publicly funded resources are allocated.   Just saying! 



 
Have you ever been to Montana?
 
Your posts just show such a fantastic disregard for reality, I have a hard time deciding if you're just posting this nonsense because you're a barely competent troll trying to stir the pot, or if you just really are that dense and are posting in comical sincerity.
 
Or maybe you're one of the "Elk is comparable to the Yough" idiots.




 
I've been to Colorado and Wyoming but never Montana.  I understand your point that that MT is a lot more rural and much less populated than PA.  However did you look at the map of streams the DCNR already considers public streambed in PA?  Over 200+ streams (many smaller than Elk Creek in Erie) that the DCNR already considers public stream bed.
 
We can legally float down any body of water in the state without touching bottom.  We can legally walk streambeds within the high water mark on any small stream deemed navigable, why?  Because some farmer in the early 1800's use to float produce downstream to market.  But we can't walk within the high water mark of a stream where publicly funded resources are being allocated today.  Doesn't make sense to me. 
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/NaturalGas/publicstreambeds/index.htm
 
D-nymph
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 7056
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 13:49:55 (permalink)
SteelSlayer77
pikepredator2
Thought the same thing about kjh's post except for one thing:  say i buy a piece of property adjacent to a stream and post it for my own and my families use.  nobody else will be fishing it, no pay to fish (etc).  so now i won't be allowed to fish my own land because my posted area of the stream has been designated a nursery water?  that doesn't sound right.  and i can tell you right now that the ****ing will never stop. i can hear it now, "why is that guy fishing with us when he has his own stream side property to fish?"  if other states have worked out these problems mentioned in the 6 pages of this topic, then PA needs to look to them for solutions.



 
Exactly.  There are already hundreds of streams where the DCNR believes they have enough documentation to win a navigability ruling.  They have been compiling a map of streams so that they can collect Marcellus gas royalties from anyone drilling under these streams.   Here's the map:
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/NaturalGas/publicstreambeds/index.htm
 
Elk creek in Erie is not on it.  But if 200+ streams in PA are already considered public stream beds by the DCNR and they believe they could win a navigability ruling if they need to, then I don't see the issue in creating a law declaring any stream stocked with a public funded resource a public stream bed.  You guys against a PA version of the Montana law are crazy.  Look at all the streams the DCNR already believes are public.  Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found across nearly every county in the state?  The navigability law is a joke and it's obscure, we need a clear law that opens up any stream bed within the high water marks where publicly funded resources are allocated.   Just saying! 


Who is "against a PA version of the Montana stream access law"?
There is a very big difference between realizing that something is an impossibility & being against that same thing.
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 13:58:35 (permalink)
I guess you haven't come to the realization that the nursery waters idea would be impossible to enforce then? 
genieman77
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2409
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 14:41:22 (permalink)
SteelSlayer77Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found ac

 




 
the shear volume of anglers day in and day out on TINY creeks  for 8 months a year.
Is there anywhere else in the state with that kind of daily,  non stop,  hi-volume traffic for 8 months every year?
 
 
..L.T.A.
 
 
 
 
 
sengland
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 6
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/11/08 12:55:53
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 14:43:37 (permalink)
I checked out their Facebook page and the bait shop is getting bashed on their page as well.  But, they also posted on their website about someone apologizing for being wrong about their assumptions about their shop.  So, does anyone have absolute proof that they are indeed "leasing"  the rights to "guide" or "pay to fish" on that property.  It is not listed on their web page as having these exclusive rights.  If they did make that business move to do this it seems they would be advertising it to drum up business instead of letting everyone bash them especially on social media or at least be defending themselves if all the above is not true. 
Cold
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 7688
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 14:44:20 (permalink)
I understand your point that that MT is a lot more rural and much less populated than PA.

 
That isn't my point at all.
 
However did you look at the map of streams the DCNR already considers public streambed in PA?  Over 200+ streams (many smaller than Elk Creek in Erie) that the DCNR already considers public stream bed.

 
Most of the water on that map is a significant waterway, and while you may think that this means it's open to fishing like open water in Erie, for the water on the map I'm familiar with, I know that's not the case.  There are sections of that water that are posted, and to fish through would be trespassing.
 
We can legally float down any body of water in the state without touching bottom.

 
Passage rights only concern passage.  Even if you aren't anchoring, doing anything other than moving through can get out into trespass issues.  Fishing certainly falls under that description.
 
We can legally walk streambeds within the high water mark on any small stream deemed navigable, why?  Because some farmer in the early 1800's use to float produce downstream to market.  But we can't walk within the high water mark of a stream where publicly funded resources are being allocated today.  Doesn't make sense to me.

 
Are the Erie ditches navigable?  No.  There's your answer.  
 
You seem to have it in your head that you can just snap your fingers, declare a stream navigable, and poof, instant access for everyone.  
D-nymph
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 7056
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:04:59 (permalink)
SteelSlayer77
I guess you haven't come to the realization that the nursery waters idea would be impossible to enforce then? 


That wasn't the question.  What fishing law is easy to enforce?
You see, again, the difference between one & the other is vast. 
 
Montana style law requires amendment to the state constitution & many lawsuits.  Who pays for that?  You? Governments are just tripping over each other to amend constitutions, aren't they?

Nursery water declaration is a unilateral decision by the PFBC.  Very easily done.
Esox_Hunter
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2451
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:06:54 (permalink)
Just to be clear SteelSlayer, many of the streams listed on the DCNR website in your link have not been declared as navigable, nor is it likely that ever would be.  Many of them are simply located on state and federal lands and therefore are publicly owned. 
 
In the case of Elk Creek, in order for the streambed to be considered publicly owned, it would have to be owned by the public or it would have to be declared navigable by the courts.   
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:26:47 (permalink)
Esox_Hunter
Just to be clear SteelSlayer, many of the streams listed on the DCNR website in your link have not been declared as navigable, nor is it likely that ever would be.  Many of them are simply located on state and federal lands and therefore are publicly owned. 
 
In the case of Elk Creek, in order for the streambed to be considered publicly owned, it would have to be owned by the public or it would have to be declared navigable by the courts.   




I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 
So if anyone wants to fight in court over navigability of those streams in the map, then it's likely they have a very good chance at winning if they can dig up the documentation that the DCNR has found.  I wish an organization like TU would start taking the navigability issue to court on some of the streams in that map which have a significant amount of posted club waters, hold trout year round, and good evidence of navigability.  Once a few more cases are established then the rest will be easily won.
 
In the case of Elk creek, I'm saying the whole navigability thing is a joke.  It's unclear and just plain stupid to say a creek that was navigable 100 - 200 years ago is still navigable today.  That is exactly why I was saying the navigability law should be changed to something more similar but not exactly like the Montana law that is clear and concise.  I don't really care how likely it is to happen and don't think it is very likely, was just stating my opinion. 
Esox_Hunter
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2451
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/08/02 14:32:57
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:37:09 (permalink)
SteelSlayer77
I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 



Where did you get the bolded statement above from?  I see no mention of such a thing on the website.  The link you provided shows publicly owned streambeds, which doesn't necessarily mean that the stream is navigable or could be declared navigable if a case was pursued for that matter.  Many of the streams listed on the page are merely owned by the public (federal or state) making them publicly owned streambeds.
 
 
Cold
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 7688
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:39:38 (permalink)
Esox_Hunter
SteelSlayer77
I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 



Where did you get the bolded statement above from?  I see no mention of such a thing on the website.  The link you provided shows publicly owned streambeds, which doesn't necessarily mean that the stream is navigable or could be declared navigable if a case was pursued for that matter.  Many of the streams listed on the page are merely owned by the public (federal or state) making them publicly owned streambeds.
 
 




 
Don't let facts cloud your judgement, Esox.  Let him believe. 
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:46:18 (permalink)
Cold
Sounds like you're just a dUmaS.

 
Only a dUmaS would come to a fishing forum and advocate against ideas for increased public access to publicly funded stocked fish, no mater how likely or unlikely they are to become reality! 
Riverbum
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 315
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:46:49 (permalink)
Thanks Cold for stating what the rest of us were thinking and I was about to reply.

"Some go to church and think about fishing, others go fishing and think about God."~by Tony Blake~

"Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in. Its thin current slides away, but eternity remains."
~by Henry David Thoreau~





Riverbum
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 315
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 15:54:17 (permalink)
SS77, why don't you contact an attorney and file a suit? Or start a petition for the state to declare eminent domain?

You need to face the facts that there are laws and contracts in place with $$ behind them and a declaration by the PFBC or even a change in law won't simply open access.

"Some go to church and think about fishing, others go fishing and think about God."~by Tony Blake~

"Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in. Its thin current slides away, but eternity remains."
~by Henry David Thoreau~





SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 16:15:42 (permalink)
Riverbum
SS77, why don't you contact an attorney and file a suit? Or start a petition for the state to declare eminent domain?

You need to face the facts that there are laws and contracts in place with $$ behind them and a declaration by the PFBC or even a change in law won't simply open access.



Because I don't care enough about it to spend my own money or go through the hassle.  lol  I was just simply stating my opinion on the interweb.  I love how this fires some of you guys up so much!   Why do you care so much about a stream access law?  Are you involved in a guiding business or trout club that posts publicly stocked water somewhere? 
 
A change in law could simply open access.  If you have a contract/lease with a land owner to guide on their property and then all of a sudden the streambed becomes public then guess what your out of luck, that's essentially what happened on the Little J is it not.   Before you guys take my statements out of context, no I'm not comparing Elk to the Little J. 
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 16:27:39 (permalink)
Esox_Hunter
SteelSlayer77
I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 



Where did you get the bolded statement above from?  I see no mention of such a thing on the website.  The link you provided shows publicly owned streambeds, which doesn't necessarily mean that the stream is navigable or could be declared navigable if a case was pursued for that matter.  Many of the streams listed on the page are merely owned by the public (federal or state) making them publicly owned streambeds.
 



I see lots of streams on that map that don't flow through any state or federally owned land.  Here is a document from the DCNR that links the publicly owned streambeds in the map to the DCNR believing they are navigable:
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa....cument/dcnr_009714.pdf
 
SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT BENEATH PUBLICLY-OWNED STREAMBEDS
"Information on publicly-owned streambeds is available on DCNR’s website.   In Pennsylvania, beds of waterways such as rivers, creeks and lakes are publicly owned when such waterways are navigable.
 
......
 
During the late seventeen and eighteen hundreds, many waterways in Pennsylvania were statutorily declared to be public highways for navigation. These declarations provide evidence that these waterways were used as highways of commerce and provide a basis for asserting public ownership of the streambeds. "
post edited by SteelSlayer77 - 2013/10/15 16:56:31
Riverbum
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 315
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 16:35:20 (permalink)
Actually, I don't care that much and I'm neither a guide or a "club member". Im just at work and extremely bored...
 
 

"Some go to church and think about fishing, others go fishing and think about God."~by Tony Blake~

"Time is but the stream I go a-fishing in. Its thin current slides away, but eternity remains."
~by Henry David Thoreau~





SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 548
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 19:49:58 (permalink)
I just think that since the state already owns the water, we should be able to walk state funded stocked stream beds within the high water mark.  Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. 
Cold
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 7688
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 20:26:57 (permalink)
SteelSlayer77
I just think that since the state already owns the water, we should be able to walk state funded stocked stream beds within the high water mark.  Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me. 




I wouldn't expect it to seem unreasonable to someone like you.
steelreeling
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 8
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/10/19 17:46:22
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 20:27:44 (permalink)
As far as I see it a land owner has the right to do as he pleases with his land but if the stream access is denied to the general public and he chooses to lease access to a chosen few, the PFBC can choose to make these waters catch and release only waters, turning all posted waters into nursery waters is just plain dumb. Our license helps pay for these stockings here and all over the state
So if anyone wants to take it on let's start a petition to the
PFBC to designate all stretches of approved trout waters blocked to the general public for the purpose of fishing to designate those waters as catch and release only.
So at least these fish will live on to be able to continue their journey upstream to waters that you and I and every other fisherman have access to.
It would not be right make these waters off limits to even your other fishing brother that wants to pay a guide to help them catch a fish or two. They also pay for the same license you and I pay for which helps to stock all trout steams.
But they should be a no kill zone.
Just my take on it.
Anyone what to start that petition.
spazzer
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 14
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2013/10/13 19:46:29
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/15 20:51:29 (permalink)
So you think the people that pay this money are the meat hunting sloths that go to the project waters to rope 3?? Making those waters that are leased/posted nursery waters allows the fish to continue their journey while putting an end to the greed mentality of the Senyo/Beaver crowd of want to be's....
 
post edited by spazzer - 2013/10/15 22:15:49
steelreeling
New Angler
  • Total Posts : 8
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2010/10/19 17:46:22
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/16 04:26:18 (permalink)
Never suggested they are rope hunters most likely people like you and I that at first did not have a clue on how to fish for these critters and are just looking for some instructions before standing next to you and crossing your line and invading your space. In my real opinion make all the steelhead streams catch and release.
DarDys
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4511
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/11/13 08:46:21
  • Location: Duncansville, PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/16 05:49:13 (permalink)
So, by some of this thinking, if PGC stocked pheasants wonder onto posted property, I should be able to hunt them because I bought a hunting license, part of which went to purchase them.
 
Sounds pretty silly when one simply swaps the word steelhead for pheasant, doesn't it?
 
Posted is posted.

The poster formally known as Duncsdad

Everything I say can be fully substantiated by my own opinion.
Mr.Slickfish
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4815
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/16 05:52:48 (permalink)
After reading this thread....I hope every square inch gets posted. Better yet, start your petition....hopefully the pfbc will see these stoopid fish are not "worth it". Maybe yinz can stock the river you cried and keep it all to yourselves....preferably far south of Erie.

I don't always snag fish, but when I do...
I choose Little Cleos

I'm the best looking smartest snagging poacher alive...


Stillhead
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1931
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/12/19 23:03:01
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/16 06:00:43 (permalink)
I think we should all just keep our limit every time out,raise the limit to 10 and donate them to the needy. Lets kill all the sTEkheDs before they make it to the posted property.
Loomis
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 2785
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/09/19 09:18:47
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/16 08:35:25 (permalink)
Honestly is it even worth it to cry about this?  There are tons of open sections of Elk and other streams to fish.  Why don't you just be happy with what you have? The tubes to route 5 aren't going to help you catch more if you can't catch them to begin with, why even get upset about it?  If I had a section of a stream, i'd post it too, and nobody would fish it.  I'd fish w all the rest of the jagaloons like I always have, and like Art who owns the manchester hole does...pretty much never see him not catching fish.  Point is, where there's fish to fish for, one has a chance at catching them.  So go do it and shut up.
pikepredator2
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 978
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2009/05/14 18:11:06
  • Status: offline
Re: Elk Creek "Tubes" posted??????? 2013/10/16 10:02:27 (permalink)
dang DarDys, if you would have posted that 6 pages back, we could have ended this days ago. lol.  at least 1 voice of reason.
Page: << < ..678 > Showing page 6 of 8
Jump to: