Here we go again....

not to be a horses ****, but what prevents the landowners from telling the comm. to get bent?most l.o. aren,t stupid, they will see this as a back door aproach to "take" their property rights. comm. may wind up with egg on their face: no fishing rights or easements at all on erie tribs. i wonder if closing streams to ALL fishing ,n, making them nursery waters would void the easements now in place ? i,m sure comm. would need to close waters for several years to avoid lawsuits from l.o., courts would maybe see this as unlawful attack on prop. rights,. after the backlash up in New Haven, when govt. took prop., not to mention john q. public, s reaction. i,d think long ,n, hard before i embraced this plan, if i was the comm. JMHO

DarDys
Just a thought -- most trout, not just steelhead, migrate. So, if trout are stocked in a stream, especially a marginal one, does that mean that all the tributaries to that stream and all the tributaries to the tributaries and so on and so forth to where water bubbles out if the ground would be open to the public because some hold over stocked trout might have migrated there?

that's exactly what I was thinking.

Mikastorm
It says"Lake Erie shoreline"....so inland does not apply.Make them nursery waters and watch Ohio license sales go up.

did you read the article posted above? “Any water in this Commonwealth stocked with fish furnished by the commission, including water areas where stocked fish may migrate into, shall be open to the public for the purpose of free, lawful fishing.”
The intention of the law is to give the angling public access to the entire length of Twentymile Creek, Elk Creek, Walnut Creek, and many other Lake Erie tributaries along Pennsylvania’s short Lake Erie coast.

This is only the beginning folks and they will not stop. This scenario does not involve Erie waters and/or tributaries alone and, will not be the first time a landowner has lost the right to keep their land private. If the water(s) running through private lands are deemed navigable (and the water will be) then, they will be opened to use for/by the public. This same battle has been fought elsewhere in PA. and the land owner lost.

Least you forget, the law of Eminent Domain. That's where your goverment can and will force you to sell your land in the interest of the public. The goverment can be nothing more then one of those township boards of supervisors consisting of three people.

This law is wide open to interpretation that can be used by a governing body to twist the arm of the courts to force the sale of private property. Now, a land owner has their right to a day in court; good luck with that, hope they can afford the legal fees.

Land owners trying to protect their waters from fishing will not be alone in this battle as those posting their lands to prevent hunting are in the sights of the game commission.

To get what the fish and game commissions want will cost a lot of money and time. Time is on their side and as for money; keep buying those trout and Erie stamps.

PS PA. hunters, keep buying those doe tags.

PSS TIME will tell..........

eyesandgillz
Simple solution, stop stocking trout.  
 
Let streams revert back to "natural states."  If current trout can holdover and reproduce, great.  If brookies can take back over, even better.  If not, oh well.  
 
Is this the PAFBC pushing this or the legislators who introduced this bill?  
 
Taking away private property rights is not the answer.  
 
 

It's several legislators, not the PFBC, who introduced the bill.
 
Then, as per usual, people here not being very good at reading and misunderstanfing the authors speculation, or, rather his idea, in the last paragraph, where he writes: 

A more successful tactic may be for the PA Fish & Boat Commission to declare all private property as “nursery waters” in the fishing regulations, and close it to all fishing

There is nothing at all in that article that says the PFBC is in favor of access change in Erie or the Commonwealth.

i don't see any "simple" solutions.  erie depends on the steelhead fisherman coming up there spending money.  the fish commission needs the money spent on trout and erie stamps.  you take the stocked fish away, where do you replace that money?

honestly if i owned stream property ide post the crap out of it. thatd be a dream come true. 
as for erie there are plenty of non posted areas to fish... lower the limit, catch and release would be nice. let some of them come back next year bigger.. now that would be fun

I am a landowner on a small stream and love to fish for steelies. I've never profited from a single person since I've owned it. I've kept it open for several years and closed it last year due to property damage, littering, and people ****ing in sight of my wife and daughter. For the most part people have been pretty good sportsmen. Problem is that my house is right on the creek. My wife is a little uncomfortable when people are walking in the creek 20 feet from the house. I hate turning people away too. It's amazing what a friendly conversation will do to calm a landowner down but it is equally amazing what people will do for these fish. I have an entire side of the creek open for parking and they will still walk through my front yard then down the driveway and along my garage to fish. Things have got so crazy. I love access to fishing as much as the next guy but I don't know what would happen if this was implemented. I know people would say just sell it but this is my home. Not everyone is out for the almighty dollar. I love seeing beginners, kids, families, military, and if could get support I would make it accessible to the handicapped. These are my big plans of profiting= better access to those who deserve it the most. So I'm gonna be punished because a select few have money? So it's either let every single person have free domain on my property or no fishing at all? I would have to agree with the gentleman that said to just stop stocking then. I guess my answer is to make access for special groups of people or special regulation sections. Well who will enforce these areas? Well the same people I'll be calling every single day who have to respond to my calls that someone stepped an inch on my protected part of my property. Thank you.

DarDys


Actually I did read it and do understand it.

 
Then you wouldn't be one of the ones I mentioned & Cold commented on.

D-nymph

DarDys


Actually I did read it and do understand it.

 
Then you wouldn't be one of the ones I mentioned & Cold commented on.

 
This exactly.
 
But for the record, since you're figuring it's okay to strawman me, I don't support this bill at all as written, specifically for the reasons you're talking about and generally because it's a big invasion of private property rights.  
 
I think it's a generally crappy thing to do to run a pay to play fish circus over state stocked fish, but a bill like this isn't the solution.

Yes i knew there was some sort of hole in my logic.  With that in mind, i guess the high water mark would still remain a restriction even if they forced the landowners to keep the waters open to the public.

Aand, it is safe to say that steelhead season is in the air...

2nd q. from me; you do know the comm. isnt getting this land for free, right?in those takings mentioned earlier, the gov,t was FORCED to pay for them. wheres the comm. coming up with the $? they have projects on hold now they can,t afford. this would be very expensive. don,t see legislature opening gen. fund to pay for this. that would open another can ,o, worms. JMHO.

I hope this bill passes i'm sick of paying trespassing fines.  

pa. has abt. 83,000 mi. of streams, so i wonder when they,ll get to me to pay for my land use? hope not too long, i,ll use the money to buy icefishing stuff. LOL