World Famous
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2213
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2009/02/13 14:36:59
- Location: Johnstown
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 08:10:42
(permalink)
Most properties have some type of easements attached, utility easements being the most common. They can be hidden in the deeds by the line " any restrictions or conveyances of previous deeds". A version of this line is in almost every deed...WF....I wouldn't want it, though.
|
D-nymph
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 6701
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 09:26:25
(permalink)
cbeagler
The only way to go as far as who is concerned?
As far as the PFBC is concerned. Landowners don't have to agree to terms, and not all have agreed, obviously.
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 09:32:05
(permalink)
World Famous
Most properties have some type of easements attached, utility easements being the most common. They can be hidden in the deeds by the line " any restrictions or conveyances of previous deeds". A version of this line is in almost every deed...WF....I wouldn't want it, though.
I think it's pretty clear though that a fishing access easement is somewhat different (at least in practice, if not legally) than an easement for a road or utility. Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to establish these easements, just that, from what I'm reading here, a landowner would have to either be really nearsighted, or pretty hard-up to sign such an agreement, devaluing their property for a one time payment of a few grand.
|
cbeagler
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1811
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/11/08 16:03:28
- Location: Fairview, PA
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 12:10:12
(permalink)
Thinking through this again.
|
track2514
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 964
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2003/09/26 13:43:08
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 12:36:41
(permalink)
Cold
I see where you coming from with this argument, but while selling the easement may devalue the property, the landowner is getting money, more legal help and law enforcement, and a reduction in property taxes. The issue I have with this is that the PFBC should try to pay more for these easements, even though it is more than the few grand you mentioned. Over the years I have fished Erie I have seen several landowners very upset with what people are doing on their property, but it is very challenging for the PFBC and other law enforcement agencies to police private land. Also, much of this land only has a recreational value and while it can be valuable, it is not the same as a buildable lot overlooking the creek or the lake. For instance, the Asbury Woods housing development is a good example of valuable land close to Walnut Creek because of the neighborhood restrictions, natural beauty, and custom built houses.
As a final point, I have even trespassed unknowingly when I first started steelhead fishing because I saw no signs posted anywhere and it turns out that other fishermen must have ripped them down. Now that I know the area better this doesn't happen to me anymore, but I can understand how stuff like that would drive a landowner crazy. I see the positives and negatives associated with this issue and I sympathize with both the fishermen looking for public access and the landowners trying to enjoy their property in peace, but at this point the damage is done and most of this land will eventually be private pay fishing or public access, it is just a matter of time. Even if the PFBC stops stocking, I could see private fishing clubs raising the dues and stocking their own fish.
"The things you own end up owning you." ~~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 15:01:53
(permalink)
Track, you used a lot of words, but didn't really say much.
|
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 489
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 15:50:29
(permalink)
Cold
Again, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to establish these easements, just that, from what I'm reading here, a landowner would have to either be really nearsighted, or pretty hard-up to sign such an agreement, devaluing their property for a one time payment of a few grand.
I think Track already established the fact that the easement payments are more than a few grand, and that the land owners are actually being compensated with more money than their land is being devalued while also gaining other benefits at the same time. Maybe the landowners who agreed to these easements aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be Cold.
|
genieman77
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 2534
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 16:17:14
(permalink)
SteelSlayer77
Maybe the landowners who agreed to these easements aren't as dumb as you're making them out to be Cold.
or maybe they have sections of creek that are "in the woods" they don't use and/or aren't part of their "backyard" you've mentioned you'd like the state to force the land owner to allow you access to the hi-water mark. lemmie ask you and the others that support such. does that include other recreational special interests groups too? or just the recreational fishing special interest group? cause I'm thinking what's good for the goose is good for the gander , and we ought to allow 4-wheelers, snowmobile'rs , hikers and every other recreational special interest groups too cause it ain't fair that we'd get special treatment, is it?? the steelies will settle back down once the quads pass thru what'ya think? Is that cool, or just "your" special interest recreational desires you want to make "law" ? ..L.T.A.
|
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 489
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 16:28:26
(permalink)
I do think anyone should be able to pass through for any type of recreation as long as they stay within the high water mark, or possibly even stay within the water, since the state/public does own the water itself. The current law doesn't makes sense to say if a stream was navigable during the early 1800's, even if it's dried up to the point a kayak couldn't float it today, that anyone should be able to legally pass through. Yet on a stream where tax payer dollars have been allocated we can't. I'm not saying anyone should be able to walk all over the landowner's property, just pass through staying within the water that the state/public owns. If someone wants to ride a quad through, more power to them, I bet I would still catch fish. It couldn't be anymore frighting to the fish than some idiots standing over top of them in low clear water snagging them all day.
post edited by SteelSlayer77 - 2013/10/22 16:31:23
|
D-nymph
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 6701
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 16:30:12
(permalink)
genieman77
you've mentioned you'd like the state to force the land owner to allow you access to the hi-water mark.
lemmie ask you and the others that support such.
does that include other recreational special interests groups too?
or just the recreational fishing special interest group?
cause I'm thinking what's good for the goose is good for the gander , and we ought to allow 4-wheelers, snowmobile'rs , hikers and every other recreational special interest groups too
cause it ain't fair that we'd get special treatment, is it??
When you think about it, PA steEkHeAD fishermen are kind of "special", ya know? 
|
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 489
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 16:44:40
(permalink)
And your about as special as they come dbag nymph.  Or don't you fish for PA steEkHeAD? You probably only fish the DSR with the Chartist right, you do seem a little bit better than everyone else. You two would make a fabulous couple.
|
track2514
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 964
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2003/09/26 13:43:08
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 16:58:49
(permalink)
Cold
Track, you used a lot of words, but didn't really say much.
Cold, you used a few words, but said nothing. 
"The things you own end up owning you." ~~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
|
D-nymph
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 6701
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2001/09/19 08:37:37
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 17:13:48
(permalink)
SteelSlayer77
And your about as special as they come dbag nymph. Or don't you fish for PA steEkHeAD? You probably only fish the DSR with the Chartist right, you do seem a little bit better than everyone else. You two would make a fabulous couple.
I do fish PA, and live here. Thing is, I'm able to laugh at myself, you are not, apparently.
|
track2514
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 964
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2003/09/26 13:43:08
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 17:14:14
(permalink)
One thought I have for everyone in this thread:
If Erie steelhead fishing was 90% private pay fishing (maybe the main access points are still open, but that is it), would you pay? Why or why not? I get it that some of you will say who cares, drainage ditches, etc., but I am seriously wondering what most of you would do.Personally, I would not pay and I would fish Ohio and NY more often than I do now. It is interesting to think about and a friend of mine in Erie moved here from Europe and he has been asking me why there are not more pricepoints when it comes to pay fishing in Erie. Where he came from there were elite (expensive) fishing clubs, moderately priced clubs, and pay to fish access points that were affordable for pretty much everyone. He is especially confused because we have so many pay to hunt opportunities in PA so it is hard to explain to him that while hunting is similar fishing is not.
"The things you own end up owning you." ~~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
|
bingsbaits
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 5029
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 17:17:04
(permalink)
SteelSlayer77
I do think anyone should be able to pass through for any type of recreation as long as they stay within the high water mark, or possibly even stay within the water, since the state/public does own the water itself. The current law doesn't makes sense to say if a stream was navigable during the early 1800's, even if it's dried up to the point a kayak couldn't float it today, that anyone should be able to legally pass through. Yet on a stream where tax payer dollars have been allocated we can't. I'm not saying anyone should be able to walk all over the landowner's property, just pass through staying within the water that the state/public owns.
If someone wants to ride a quad through, more power to them, I bet I would still catch fish. It couldn't be anymore frighting to the fish than some idiots standing over top of them in low clear water snagging them all day.
And we have a new front runner for the stupidest post of the year........ Any MORON that thinks riding Quads in the creeks is ok is a ,,,,well,,,Moron.....
"There is a pleasure in Angling that no one knows but the Angler himself". WB
|
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 489
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 19:42:12
(permalink)
Well it's already legal to float a kayak now, why not ride a quad. Not like you could actually ride a quad within the water of most creeks very far, if you had to stay within the water, so it's really a moot point. Genie is the one who suggested it in the first place. I was just using it to as an example to say yes all recreation within the water that the state owns should be legal.
post edited by SteelSlayer77 - 2013/10/22 19:44:36
|
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 489
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 20:00:50
(permalink)
Wisconsin's stream access law: "Navigability determines whether a waterway is public or private. Navigable lakes and streams are public waterways." "A waterway is navigable if it has a bed and banks and it is possible to float a canoe or other small craft at sometime of the year—even if only during spring floods." What's good for Wisconsin is good for PA. Maybe instead of adopting a version of the Montona law, PA should just change the definition of "Navigable" to what Wisconson considers navigable. Why should PA's navigable law be based on what a stream was like 200 years ago when the stream might be completely different today? 
post edited by SteelSlayer77 - 2013/10/22 20:06:59
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 20:08:36
(permalink)
Why can't you get it that what works in one area does not necessarily work in another?
That's the whole reason we have states.
|
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 489
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 20:40:34
(permalink)
Cold
Why can't you get it that what works in one area does not necessarily work in another?
That's the whole reason we have states.
I get the idea of having states, but the reverse is also true. What works in one state sometimes also works in others. Many states adopt laws from other states all the time because the laws have already been proven to work. Streams carry fresh water which is vital to life, the water is owned by the state/public, and streams are also natural roads of navigation. If you can float a small craft down the stream even during spring floods, then that water way should be navigable. Why can't you get it.
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 21:37:33
(permalink)
What works in one state sometimes also works in others. This isn't one of those times.
|
jakesmtn123
New Angler
- Total Posts : 1
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2013/10/22 21:05:30
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 21:43:50
(permalink)
You know, I hate that this fishery has such tough issues. Even with all the craziness that is associated with this fishery, I still have a good time coming up. I have had some positive experiences and met some nice people. On the same hand, the crowding is tough and the trash/littering is unacceptable. We could all blame the boating commission for not making better arrangements, but really how were they to know how popular this would be. They are just trying to play catch up now, and I can appreciate that at least. Regardless, even if PFBC was able to implement some plan that opened up tons of access, not everyone will be happy. Someone will always complain. For my part, I will try to keep trash up as best as I can and rotate some people through a spot I may be catching some fish in. Some people may try to take advantage, but it has not been an issue so far. I hope we can work it out and everyone not be too angry about this latest property closure...
|
workcanwait....
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 729
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2013/03/01 18:56:24
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 23:20:31
(permalink)
I was out in deer stand and this subject kept bouncing arund' my mind...I was interrupted by a few does but no shots taken.
My opinion is PFBC should hire 1-3 people to deal with Erie stamp money and work for solutions, their salary coming out of stamp $$.Maybe this already being done I do not know all.
It is a lot to ask of landowners the way it is set up.
Make it 1-5 yr agreements for access.
Wave whatever amount of $ at the landowners.
One good thing that probably/should happen if its done that way is the fishepeoples and PFBC will act differently towards the landowners hoping they stay with program.It could snowball in a positive way right now it a mess.
Maybe some kind of program that also allows landowners to collect a small fee for parking so they are happy to see many come and enjoy their property instead of a litter filled pfbc lots carved into their properties.
"Cold" I agree with you this is a unique situation but it doesn't hurt to look at what has been done elsewhere.
I do think things can be turned around if the situation is changed but its obviously not headed in the right direction.
Finally...
"If Erie steelhead fishing was 90% private pay fishing (maybe the main access points are still open, but that is it), would you pay? Why or why not? I get it that some of you will say who cares, drainage ditches, etc., but I am seriously wondering what most of you would do.Personally, I would not pay and I would fish Ohio and NY more often than I do now. It is interesting to think about and a friend of mine in Erie moved here from Europe and he has been asking me why there are not more pricepoints when it comes to pay fishing in Erie. Where he came from there were elite (expensive) fishing clubs, moderately priced clubs, and pay to fish access points that were affordable for pretty much everyone. He is especially confused because we have so many pay to hunt opportunities in PA so it is hard to explain to him that while hunting is similar fishing is not."
I would fish NY more cause I can not stand the snobs these pay to fish stretches attract.
Hunting is a way different sport than fishing fur silverheads in the ditchs,I aint paying to hunt either do that on my own PRIVATE patch out my back door.
DUN NOW
|
lost sage rod sectio
Novice Angler
- Total Posts : 77
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/10/31 22:27:33
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 23:42:40
(permalink)
For real folks P.A. needs to put on a $25.00 steelhead stamp this should include seniors also. That would generate plenty of funds to repair and replace what all you Mup ears destroy when you get north of Rt. 80. This is world class Fishing and its going to take money to keep it.
|
lost sage rod sectio
Novice Angler
- Total Posts : 77
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/10/31 22:27:33
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/22 23:48:51
(permalink)
For real folks P.A. needs to put on a $25.00 steelhead stamp this should include kids and seniors This is World Cass fishing and it is going to cost money to keep it.!!!!!!!!
|
cbeagler
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 1811
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2008/11/08 16:03:28
- Location: Fairview, PA
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/23 01:02:33
(permalink)
Cold
Why can't you get it that what works in one area does not necessarily work in another?
That's the whole reason we have states.
te
Ah! Finally! Someone has studied American Civics and actually remembered something!
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/23 07:59:28
(permalink)
"Cold" I agree with you this is a unique situation but it doesn't hurt to look at what has been done elsewhere. So altering the laws so that the landowners are forced to allow access is the solution? And track, to answer your question, it's getting harder and harder every year for me to justify getting an Erie stamp. At this point, it's mostly the friends I've made in Erie that I look forward to fishing with that keep me coming back. If it went heavily private (and both the hunting and fishing here are nowhere near as privatized as Europe as far as I can tell), I'd drop the stamp in a heartbeat and never regret it. Wouldn't go to OH or NY either, I'd just stop making trips to the Erie watershed. Too many good hunting opportunities to miss fishing for slimers in a ditch in the fall.
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/23 08:10:33
(permalink)
What's good for Wisconsin is good for PA. So you're okay with absolutely no fall trout fishing? Because Wisconsin's inland trout fishing is totally prohibited (no C&R, no ALO/FFO, no nothing) from Sept. 30 through at least the beginning of March (for some waters) or the beginning of May (for the rest of the state). So 6-8 months of no trout fishing for the whole state outside Erie county because "What's good for Wisconsin is good for PA", right?
|
bigbear2012
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 725
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2006/03/17 14:10:51
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/23 08:36:19
(permalink)
the issue i have with paying for access is the same one i have in NY
if a person has to pay to access a fish provided by the state, i think the person charging that fee should have to put a large portion of those profits back into the creation of those fish....they should not be able to benefit from something that was created for the use of any person who purchases that state licence
now that being said i truely feel for those who own land on creeks because people are hogs....not just mupheres...but all people. not sure if i would allow access if i owned the land, but i know i wouldn't post it and charge fees
|
SteelSlayer77
Expert Angler
- Total Posts : 489
- Reward points: 0
- Joined: 2010/08/31 21:00:00
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/23 09:15:57
(permalink)
Cold
What's good for Wisconsin is good for PA.
So you're okay with absolutely no fall trout fishing? Because Wisconsin's inland trout fishing is totally prohibited (no C&R, no ALO/FFO, no nothing) from Sept. 30 through at least the beginning of March (for some waters) or the beginning of May (for the rest of the state). So 6-8 months of no trout fishing for the whole state outside Erie county because "What's good for Wisconsin is good for PA", right?
Nope, if you read my entire post you would see I was only talking about adopting Wisconsin's definition of the word "Navigable". Not all of their laws and regulations. You're just cherry picking one sentence I wrote and quoting it out of context. If a stream can be floated by a canoe/kayak during periods high water, is it not navigable at that time? Wisconsin's Definition of Navigable: "A waterway is navigable if it has a bed and banks and it is possible to float a canoe or other small craft at sometime of the year—even if only during spring floods."
post edited by SteelSlayer77 - 2013/10/23 09:17:43
|
Cold
Pro Angler
- Total Posts : 7358
- Reward points: 0
- Status: offline
Re: Tubes Update
2013/10/23 09:17:28
(permalink)
You're just cherry picking one sentence I wrote and quoting it out of context. Kind of like how you're just cherry picking laws from other states that would benefit you personally and trying to apply them out of context?
|