PA House Bill proposes opening all steelhead streams to public fishing

Interesting..... very....interesting.

Heard this same proposal many moon ago concerning the posting of land from hunting.

Landowners, regardless of location or reason for posting, better get on the horn to your legislator. TODAY!! Once they get their foot in the door it's, open season to stop posting.

Now if you will excuse me I have some phone calls to make.

At this point I will say I agree with PSA stance on this.
Or maybe some other ideas added ...
 
Thank you for posting this!!!
 
DarDys  if you walk the creeks and look for posted signs not just fishing club leases but posted land in general.
Last I checked- Elk from legion up to folleys campground is posted.
                     -20 mile from waterfalls above 90 to ny line is posted.
                     -Walnut from just above gun club to Mifair posted
                       and more water above that posted.
Some of these areas get fished by people with permission or the sneaky type but not open to public last I checked.
If its not 51% or more it close...just my 2 cents.WCW

Here we go agin part 2..

In all seriousness, however, I do support a position similar to the PA Steelhead association. Unfortunately, every solution will have it's advantages and disadvantages, and will leave some people happy, and others miffed. As someone who grew up on 60 acres with a stocked trout stream running through it (wet-feet law did not apply), that we mostly let anyone who asked, and acted responsibly, fish (obviously, it only saw a small percentage of the number of anglers that Erie streams see), I am all for landowner rights. Nor, do I oppose someone fishing on their own property. 

However, the big issue at hand is the selling of the rights to fish, and the loophole allowing landowners to profit off of a publicly funded resource. This is the part that should be stopped. 

Agreed. 

As for the other proposal, be careful what you ask for.

Taking the stance of if everybody can't fish, then no one including the landowner can fish may result in neighbors talking to neighbors and more and more of the streams getting posted just on "don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property" principle. And then it becomes, what percentage of closed streams dictates no more stocking, thereby ending the whole game?

workcanwait....
At this point I will say I agree with PSA stance on this.
Or maybe some other ideas added ...
 
Thank you for posting this!!!
 
DarDys  if you walk the creeks and look for posted signs not just fishing club leases but posted land in general.
Last I checked- Elk from legion up to folleys campground is posted.
                     -20 mile from waterfalls above 90 to ny line is posted.
                     -Walnut from just above gun club to Mifair posted
                       and more water above that posted.
Some of these areas get fished by people with permission or the sneaky type but not open to public last I checked.
If its not 51% or more it close...just my 2 cents.WCW

Gun club to Millfair posted?   When?

As to the posting comments. Are there any current maps depicting the most recent postings? I wasn't aware that Elk was posted from the "Legion Hole" to Folley's. I thought it was open until you reached the high wall above the "Pavillion Hole".

cbeagler

workcanwait....
At this point I will say I agree with PSA stance on this.
Or maybe some other ideas added ...
 
Thank you for posting this!!!
 
DarDys  if you walk the creeks and look for posted signs not just fishing club leases but posted land in general.
Last I checked- Elk from legion up to folleys campground is posted.
                     -20 mile from waterfalls above 90 to ny line is posted.
                     -Walnut from just above gun club to Mifair posted
                       and more water above that posted.
Some of these areas get fished by people with permission or the sneaky type but not open to public last I checked.
If its not 51% or more it close...just my 2 cents.WCW

Gun club to Millfair posted?   When?

Couple years ago I ran into posters both side of creek above gun clubI think its the golf course property and then tried walking down from Milfair bridge and saw posters their below the bridge before it turns the corner.I have not been back maybe its open but when I see Posted signs I turn around...WCW

Absolutely love the PSA stance. If you want to profit from PA stocked fish then make it open for everyone, otherwise close it to everyone and have your peace and quiet!
 
Rather than the approach taken by House Bill No. 2357, the PSA believes the legislature
should enact a law providing that if a landowner closes the stream to public fishing, then fishing
is prohibited. This would prevent landowners from selling rights to fish for fish that are paid for
by others. It does not “take” away any property rights, since landowners do not have any
protected right to fish for steelhead, which is why the Commission can set seasons and limits on
any water. A landowner can still prevent fishing, for everyone, or open it to fishing, for
everyone; they just cannot open it to fishing for a select few. The PSA believes this strikes an
appropriate balance by allowing landowners to prohibit fishing and trespassing on their property,
while preventing landowners from profiteering off a fishery that is paid for by the angling public

The flaw in swimfishieswim's post is -- What if the landowner does not want to profit (which is probably the case in many instances), but rather just fish on his property that he paid for and pays taxes on for fish that they also paid for through his purchase of a license, just like those that want access his property? Should they not be permitted to do so?

Since I asked what percentage was posted earlier, I'll ask the even deeper question -- as a subset of the whole, what is the percentage of available water, that is stocked with steelhead, that is both posted AND is being used as a for-profit entity?

DarDys
As for the other proposal, be careful what you ask for.

Taking the stance of if everybody can't fish, then no one including the landowner can fish may result in neighbors talking to neighbors and more and more of the streams getting posted just on "don't tell me what I can or cannot do with my own property" principle. And then it becomes, what percentage of closed streams dictates no more stocking, thereby ending the whole game?

My understanding is that in Pennsylvania, although a landowner can own the streambed if the stream is not considered "navigable," the state owns the water and the fish that swim in it. For this reason, even if you own the land, you cannot own the fish, and the Fish Commission can dictate what you can fish for and when. That is why, even if you own the land and there are native brook trout in it, the Commission can still close the stream to fishing, or tell you when you can fish and when you cannot.  It does this regularly, by closing particular streams, by closing parts of streams, and by setting seasons.
 
As it stands today, the Commission already tells landowners what they can do with their streams when it comes to fishing, and the Commission can stop a private landowner from fishing on a stream even on their "private property."

I agree that the PBFC can regulate whatever they want. I am just pointing out that there can be unintended very bad consequences.

As I posted in another thread on the subject, the house bill came up in conversation with one of my neighbor's who owns a section of stream above mine (200 miles from Erie). Upon hearing what he felt was overreach, he promptly posted not only his section of stream, but the rest of his property as well. The stream had been open to fishing and the rest of the farm open to hunting.

Within a few days he talked to other neighbors, farmers tend to do that, and more posters went up. In short order approximately 3 miles of stream and all the surrounding ground was posted as solid as Sears used to be.

The posting did not go unnoticed by the others in the area that were nowhere near the stream, but talked with those that were (to be clear, I was only personally involved in the very first discussion and just informed the neighbor if the then proposed bill). In less than a week much more land that was previously open to hunting was now posted. In the end there is probably over 2,000 acres that had been open to others for hunting, fishing, or both that will no longer be accessible.

Keep in mind, that this action was based on a proposal and really had no direct effect on any of these landowners other than being seen as an overreach by a government agency (and one wasn't even involved) into their property rights.

Now, fast forward to Erie and tell landowners that actually are effected because they do fish or have friends and family fish ( not-for-profit) that unless they open their property to anyone who ponies up the cost of a fishing license and an Erie stamp or no one, including themselves can fish and see what the backlash becomes.

I would predict that they talk to their neighbors about it and would not be surprised if land that was previously open gets posted because the owner doesn't fish, so they don't care if no one can, just to stand with their neighbor for what is viewed through their prism as a violation of their property rights. Sections where "some" stream is posted will turn into miles and miles out of principle.

Then what will the PFBC do with their fish (although those that buy a license think they are their fish)?

I disagree with both proposals here, but think the house bill is close and should just be reined in a little to not include tributaries of stocked streams.  There is no reason we shouldn't be able to walk streams within the high water mark considering we already currently own the water! 
 
I wish the PFBC would stop putting up parking lots and give people an area where they can walk/hike far into to get away from the masses.  It's never going to be total seclusion obviously, but currently you can't even walk very far without coming to another parking lot access area or posted signs on both sides of the creek.

fishin coyote

SwimFishieSwim
Absolutely love the PSA stance. If you want to profit from PA stocked fish then make it open for everyone, otherwise close it to everyone and have your peace and quiet!

 
So the PSA stance is all or nothing???
So if I aka the landowner close my section of stream to John Q Public but would like to fish it myself or let a few select family and or  friends fish I'm not allowed. 
 
Seems like the PSA stance is let's trample the landowners rights so that WE can keep PIMPIN the slime fishing to line our own pockets.
 
I got a better suggestion. Let sleeping dogs lie and if we can't, then stop the entire program.
Mark my words on this. This mess will divide entire communities and end up in litigation. 
Mike

It's the best solution considering what the Bill initially proposed. Unfortunately, there are always the few that screw things up for the rest of us.
The access was taken away rightfully so because the few had to take a dumps in a landowners yard etc... so none us can fish those places anymore.
The same thing is happening the other way around, the few greedy that are leasing their property for guiding and stashing cash have prompted this bill and will ruin the ability for family/friends to fish if a landowner decides to restrict it from fishing.
 
Just my 2 cents
 

SteelSlayer77
I disagree with both proposals here, but think the house bill is close and should just be reined in a little to not include tributaries of stocked streams.  There is no reason we shouldn't be able to walk streams within the high water mark considering we already currently own the water! 

There are a few flaws in this line of thought.

Firstly, the water ownership doesn't seem to apply when the stream floods and causes damage. If the PFBC claims ownership, they should be liable for the damage it causes. And they are not. Ownership should not be a sometimes thing when it is benefit

Secondly, the property owner should not have to be liable if someone gets hurt on their clearly posted property (although , through some twisted logic, they can be ) because of some activity the landowner is legally doing on their property that may present a hazard such as shooting , farming , cutting trees , running dogs, etc. Or should the landowner stop all legal activities on their property so someone else can use it ?

Thirdly, is the person fishing on the landowners property liable for any and all damages they cause. -- say a champion dog gets tangled in discarded fishing line and can no longer compete due to injury. What is the liability? Value of that dog ? Loss of revenues from stud or puppy sales?

And lastly, as current PA law is written, the landowner owns the stream bottom. If the PFBC owns the water and permits you to walk on it without touching the stream bed, knock yourself out. But if you can't pull off that trick, under current law , you are committing criminal trespassing.