Lawmakers looking at making Erie tribs "Navigable"

Taken from http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/5723176-74/percent-idea-county
 
 
Posted land
A lot of anglers got upset last year when landowners in Erie County posted against trespassing their property along several steelhead streams.
Fishermen said it wasn't fair landowners were closing off access to waters stocked with fish they'd bought and paid for with their license dollars. A couple of lawmakers agree.
State Rep. Dan Moul of Adams County said in a recent public hearing that he's looking into writing legislation that would designate Erie's steelhead streams as “navigable” under state law, meaning landowners could not shut off access to floating or wading anglers. Rep. Marc Gergely of Allegheny County said he's interested in working with him on that.

I have a few good spots I've been itching to fish......

workcanwait....
 
OFC?-whats that stand for?
 
WCW

Of course. 

I doubt that it will, but man we can dream!

What Cold says....
 
What about personal property rights?
 
Anglers should work within the confines of the current laws.  
 

I agree with you on all counts, Bings.
 
As much as I do (did) enjoy steelhead fishing in Erie, between the current access issues and increased exploitation of a publicly funded resource, I am quickly losing interest.  My simple solution is to stop stocking steelhead in the tribs.  PFBC won't knowingly stock trout in posted sections of streams, so why stock migratory fish in the tribs when it is known that many of them will spend a considerable amount of their inland lives in posted areas off limits to the general public?   

eyesandgillz
What Cold says....
 
What about personal property rights?
 
Anglers should work within the confines of the current laws.  

Property owners have plenty of personal property rights, it's not like anglers can leave the high water mark of the stream and go anywhere they like on the property owners land with the navigability rule.  This is really no different than having a state road or even a township dirt road going through your property. 

Oh look, its this thread again.

i wouldn't really take this as much... according to the article
 
one rep from Adams (gettysburgh) county is "looking into" it
and one from Allegheny (pittsburgh) county said he's "interested"
 

SteelSlayer77
Yep, except this time there are two actual state representatives working together to draft new legislation.  Something Cold and KJH have laughed at in the past and dismissed as not even being possible in PA.  Guess it might be a little more possible than they thought, and in my opinion a better solution than designating posted land as nursery waters.

Omg!  Only 101 reps, 25 senators, and the governor to go!
 
Not only was I laughing off the idea, I was laughing off you.
 

My simple solution is to stop stocking steelhead in the tribs.  PFBC won't knowingly stock trout in posted sections of streams, so why stock migratory fish in the tribs when it is known that many of them will spend a considerable amount of their inland lives in posted areas off limits to the general public?

 
Because money.  

They should spend their time lobbying for more money for the Easement program.
 
Don't like the end around on this...
They will drop the idea when see the can of worms this would open..

i hope this passes...
but it won't pass...
are the ice jams up to route 5 yet?  

bingsbaits
They should spend their time lobbying for more money for the Easement program.
 
Don't like the end around on this...
They will drop the idea when see the can of worms this would open..

 
winner, winner, chicken dinner....

You do realize that those fishing for those fish bought a license, so in essesnce they paid for the fish, just as you did. Your license didn't cost any more. Further, the hundreds of thousands of PA license holders that NEVER fish the tribs, helped pay for those fish.

 
Except he didn't say that they shouldn't be allowed to fish there...he said the property owner shouldn't be able to profit from it.
 
The best solution is to give trib property owners an option: if you're closing the water to the licensed angling public, you're not permitted to profit from it.  If it's closed to everyone that isn't paying, it's nursery water, and even the landowner themselves aren't permitted to fish it.

Cold

You do realize that those fishing for those fish bought a license, so in essesnce they paid for the fish, just as you did. Your license didn't cost any more. Further, the hundreds of thousands of PA license holders that NEVER fish the tribs, helped pay for those fish.

 
Except he didn't say that they shouldn't be allowed to fish there...he said the property owner shouldn't be able to profit from it.
 
The best solution is to give trib property owners an option: if you're closing the water to the licensed angling public, you're not permitted to profit from it.  If it's closed to everyone that isn't paying, it's nursery water, and even the landowner themselves aren't permitted to fish it.

Okay, I can see that.
 
Now how about the landowner tell the PFBC to keep their fish our of the private water since they are tresspassing.  Don't think that can happen?  Think again.  A landowner near here high fenced his ground with the intent of starting a deer preserve.  The PGC approached him once he had the fence up and presented him with an invoice for the number of their deer they felt he trapped in his fence.  He then told them, fine, he really didn't want their inferior genetic deer on his property anyway, so remove them.  They told him they couldn't possibly do that.  He said the deer were tresspassing.  He said the options were, get them off, he would kill them, or they could stop being stupid before he filed a lawsuit.  They decided to sto being stupid. 
 
What about private gorund that deer, bears, stocked pheasants, stocked fishers, etc. wonder onto?  should everyone simply because they bought a hunting license be permitted to tresspass?  How about if they person leases their farm to hunters?  Does that now allow tresspassing since he is profiting from it?  Or should the landowner not be permitted to hunt his own property?
 
Don't tell private property owners what they can and cannot do with their land.