Here we go again...AGAIN!
WOW!
WCW

D-nymph

DarDys
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.

Your personal rumor & fear mongering directly led, through the rumor mill, to 3 consecutive miles of posted stream in PA.  I hope you're proud of yourself.

Just talked to one neighbor about it. The rest happened on its own.

Maybe the bill should also include that one should not be permitted to talk to one's neighbor about issues that may be of a concern.

As for rumor and fear mongering, the bill is proposed,so it's not a rumor, is it, but rather a fact. With regard to fear, you have your view of government overreach and others might have a very different view. Until you understand theirs, please respect theirs.

I'll give you an example. A farmer about five miles away decided to retire. His kids had moved away and none where coming back to farm. The plan was to subdivide the farm into large lots and sell it off.

All the right paperwork with all the right agencies were obtained and some lots sold. Because of the lay of the land, some driveways had to be quite long. One in particular was a tad over 400 feet. They contractor started to excavate and someone, who was opposed to the selling off of these lots (smallest lot was10 acres and largest was 60 acres, so not cramming a neighborhood in ) called the local conservation district to complain about the amount of soil that was being disturbed. Keep in mind that this ground was actively farmed for more than 100 years, so all of it was disturbed more than once per year, not just the area that was to be the driveway. In fact, the area that was to be the driveway was a tractor road that was used all the time. It was just being widened a little and being prepared for paving.

The conservation district brought in the EPA because of the issue and the concern about the impact on the Chesapeake Bay, which is over 150 miles away by the way. The result ? The lot owner had to obtain, ready for this , a federal strip mining permit, in order to put in a driveway.

So 16 months and close to $30,000 (because of the federal mining permit this was treated as a mine site and subject to federal regulations and inspections including required mining safety equipment and mandated safety training) later, the lot owner was able to have his driveway put in.

But it does not end there. He had to complete the driveway, including paving, even though the paving would be ruined during construction by delivery trucks to the house site. Why? Because the conservation district would not permit the just shake covered driveway and the area for the house to be disturbed at the same time.

Nah, no one should fear that some government agency or, in the case of the conservation district, a quasi government sag envy because they would never overreach.

DarDys
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.

this raises an interesting question... if the landowner only owns the streambed and not the water, does that mean one can float (canoe/kayak) through any of these posted stretches without it being considered tresspassing?

H3Fisher
D-Nymph nailed it right on the head. As was stated in a previous post. I used the term our fish.. This was a figure of speech to point out the problem. Take all the Fishermen/women in PA that get the Erie, Trout and Salmon stamps. Where do these funds go? Part of the funds go to the stocking of the smolts and trout on Erie so they return as steelhead.  When you own land on a creek that these fish migrate to for spawning and you lock it down by posting it as private property. Posting it to keep people off your land is one thing. This issue comes when you post the land but lease it for profit. At this point you are taking a resource that the state has provided and selling it and I bet 9.5 times out of 10 non-taxed and under the table. This isn't fair at all for the people who pay to support the states efforts to create the fishery we have this day. The state should send all property owners on the creeks a questionnaire. If the land is posted list why and what could be done to change that. What could we do to better the relationship between the property owners and fishermen? But if the land is being leased for fishing clubs or fishing guides then they should set a Nursery water mandate from say Sept 1st till Trout opening in April. This would prevent the select few from getting the privilege of getting the benefits and profits from a resource founded/provided by the state and people's license / stamp purchases. It would also keep people off the land as the landowner likes. As for the previous post about the dogs getting tangled in fishing line... Really? What is the chance that a rattlesnake or copperhead is sitting on the edge of a rock and bites the dog and it dies? Like I stated before, I would bet that your dogs or kids have a better chance of getting hurt in the creek from scrap / glass that a neighbor up creek threw in the creek before a hook does any damage. Also if you live near a flood zone, I think it is mandatory to have flood insurance that would cover any damages. Once again not trying to cause drama, just giving my opinion as I'm entitled too. 

I guess I am missing making my point on the dog thing. Yes the hazards you describe are out there and I can do little about them other than pick up the debris as it arrives, which I do. But by posting i can control the discarded line and dropped hooks.

Think it doesn't happen or rarely happens? Want to cover the vet bills I have paid for both things?

BTW, had both happen but never a snake bite or cut from debris.

Not surprising the PA. Steelhead Association (PSA) wants to back this proposed law. Not surprising this politician is scrapping the bottom of the barrel looking for votes to get re-elected when the time comes. However, the PSA is peanuts when it comes to associations backing politicians.

Landowners have associations as well and my favorite one is the powerful and mighty PFB (PA. Farm Bureau). The PFB is state wide with members living in every township.

Should this proposal become law it will snowball from the tributaries of Lake Erie. Sooner or later the law will include all stocked fish in any PA. waters, including lakes.

This law, should it pass, will be used as a template by other legislators to gain popularity from other sportsman.

Just as there are those anglers who wish; to have access to, or prevent others benefitting from their fish, there are hunters wanting their game .

If a law preventing a person from enjoying his/her land is ever proposed I'm confident there will be a new law maker in office come next election. I dare anybody to tell farmers or a hunting club they can't hunt their posted land.

As for the PA. Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) making the said waters nursery waters, I think not. This Erie scenario has been taking place for years and the PFBC chose to take a much better route. Slow as it may be, it is working.

Now, the highwater mark boundaries have been in place as have, the navigable waters rule for quite sometime. Should a person want to walk the waters they wish to fish without fear of trespass you have the highwater boundary at your side. For those that wish to float a boat you may do so if the waters are deemed navigable. For those of you that fear the posted signs along the banks or just want easier access to a 'honey hole' IT SUCKS TO BE YOU!!

@beentheredonethat
Your statements regarding the water boundaries and being able to walk the waters without trespass are completely FALSE. If this were true in PA, this topic would have never come up. The fact that landowners can restrict access to their privately owned stream bed is THE ISSUE.

@Dardys

Under current law or this proposed bill, if you could prove culpability regarding losses (i.e. injured animals, property damage etc) you have the right to sue in civil court to recoup your losses. So your argument relative to access under this point is irrelevant.

BeenThereDoneThat.
Not surprising the PA. Steelhead Association (PSA) wants to back this proposed law. Not surprising this politician is scrapping the bottom of the barrel looking for votes to get re-elected when the time comes. However, the PSA is peanuts when it comes to associations backing politicians.

Pennsylvania Steelhead Association Position on House Bill No. 2357

It would be a dream come true if House Bill No. 2357 would be enacted, and anyone who buys a fishing license to fish the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and purchases a Lake Erie Permit in order to fish our Great Lake and its tributaries, would finally have complete access on our streams to the steelhead fishery we pay for through license fees and taxes on fishing equipment.

However, the Pennsylvania Steelhead Association (PSA) cannot support a law that appears to take away, without compensation, a private property owner's right to post his or her property to trespass.

Because none of our tributaries have ever been deemed navigable, the landowner owns the stream bed, even though the water flowing over it is considered Commonwealth domain. Therefore, we cannot fully support House Bill No. 2357 as it is currently written. A landowner has a right to lease his property for hunting, but more importantly, the State does not stock the deer that they persue. The steelhead fishery is different, because all of the steelhead are stocked by PA Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) and 3CU, a cooperative nursery. A select few should not profit from a fishery that is financed by the general angling public.

Steelhead trout are migratory, stocked as juvenile smolts in our tributaries. They then migrate downstream to Lake Erie where they grow to adulthood, returning to our streams from September through April as conditions allow, making our Lake Erie tributaries unique from a management perspective.

Recreational fishing in Erie and the surrounding counties has a huge, positive economic impact. According to the 2004 Creel Analysis and Economic Impact Study conducted by the PFBC and Pennsylvania Sea Grant, Pennsylvania tributary and shoreline fishing trips had nearly tripled in that last decade, from 72,413 trips in 1993, to 200,816 trips in 2003. Anglers spent nearly $ 9.5 million on these trips, with another $ 5.7 million in value added activity. At that time the stream and shoreline steelhead fishery supported 219 jobs. Another decade has passed that would exponentially increase these numbers.

Lately, the fishery we pay for has been privatized to the point that the general angling public is being sequestered into smaller and smaller areas creating, as one national fishing magazine put it, "a series of private fishing preserves stocked by the state of Pennsylvania...". A large portion of Elk Creek is posted to public fishing, some of it by private "fishing clubs" that benefit from a fishery we've helped create. These leases and property postings have also expanded to other tributaries.

The PSA and other stakeholders, including 3CU, were instrumental in creating a new law that resulted in Lake Erie Permit funds being used exclusively for public assess aquisition and improvement. After several years and the 2004 economic impact study, the end result was the Erie Access Improvement Grant Program which has been successful in funding more that 40 projects that acquired new or improved existing public access to Lake Erie and its tributaries. With this the PFBC has done an excellent job. But we have paid for a perpetual easement that is upstream and south of Interstate 90 on the west bank of Elk Creek that we cannot even get to because it is surrounded by posted and leased property. This privatization of tributary fishing is undermining the Erie Access Improvement Grant Program.

The PSA applaudes our state legislators who are trying to protect public access to our steelhead streams. 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,

In addition, the PSA recommends that state legislators and local municipalities offer some form of property tax relief to landowners that allow public fishing. The PSA also recommends that, in addition to purchasing permanent fishing easements, the PFBC look at other avenues to create better access, such as purchasing shorter term leases, like those being obtained by the private fishing clubs. These leases, done in a way in which landowners can still retain personal privacy, could be funded through the grant program that relies on the Lake Erie Permits that we buy.

Pennsylvania Steelhead Association Position on House Bill No. 2357

It would be a dream come true if House Bill No. 2357 would be enacted, and anyone who buys a fishing license to fish the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and purchases a Lake Erie Permit in order to fish our Great Lake and its tributaries, would finally have complete access on our streams to the steelhead fishery we pay for through license fees and taxes on fishing equipment.

However, the Pennsylvania Steelhead Association (PSA) cannot support a law that appears to take away, without compensation, a private property owner's right to post his or her property to trespass.

Because none of our tributaries have ever been deemed navigable, the landowner owns the stream bed, even though the water flowing over it is considered Commonwealth domain. Therefore, we cannot fully support House Bill No. 2357 as it is currently written. A landowner has a right to lease his property for hunting, but more importantly, the State does not stock the deer that they persue. The steelhead fishery is different, because all of the steelhead are stocked by PA Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) and 3CU, a cooperative nursery. A select few should not profit from a fishery that is financed by the general angling public.

Steelhead trout are migratory, stocked as juvenile smolts in our tributaries. They then migrate downstream to Lake Erie where they grow to adulthood, returning to our streams from September through April as conditions allow, making our Lake Erie tributaries unique from a management perspective.

Recreational fishing in Erie and the surrounding counties has a huge, positive economic impact. According to the 2004 Creel Analysis and Economic Impact Study conducted by the PFBC and Pennsylvania Sea Grant, Pennsylvania tributary and shoreline fishing trips had nearly tripled in that last decade, from 72,413 trips in 1993, to 200,816 trips in 2003. Anglers spent nearly $ 9.5 million on these trips, with another $ 5.7 million in value added activity. At that time the stream and shoreline steelhead fishery supported 219 jobs. Another decade has passed that would exponentially increase these numbers.

Lately, the fishery we pay for has been privatized to the point that the general angling public is being sequestered into smaller and smaller areas creating, as one national fishing magazine put it, "a series of private fishing preserves stocked by the state of Pennsylvania...". A large portion of Elk Creek is posted to public fishing, some of it by private "fishing clubs" that benefit from a fishery we've helped create. These leases and property postings have also expanded to other tributaries.

The PSA and other stakeholders, including 3CU, were instrumental in creating a new law that resulted in Lake Erie Permit funds being used exclusively for public assess aquisition and improvement. After several years and the 2004 economic impact study, the end result was the Erie Access Improvement Grant Program which has been successful in funding more that 40 projects that acquired new or improved existing public access to Lake Erie and its tributaries. With this the PFBC has done an excellent job. But we have paid for a perpetual easement that is upstream and south of Interstate 90 on the west bank of Elk Creek that we cannot even get to because it is surrounded by posted and leased property. This privatization of tributary fishing is undermining the Erie Access Improvement Grant Program.

The PSA applaudes our state legislators who are trying to protect public access to our steelhead streams. 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,

In addition, the PSA recommends that state legislators and local municipalities offer some form of property tax relief to landowners that allow public fishing. The PSA also recommends that, in addition to purchasing permanent fishing easements, the PFBC look at other avenues to create better access, such as purchasing shorter term leases, like those being obtained by the private fishing clubs. These leases, done in a way in which landowners can still retain personal privacy, could be funded through the grant program that relies on the Lake Erie Permits that we buy.~cbeagler


A rose by any other name is still a rose. The PSA wants a law that will prevent a landowner from fishing if the property is posted as such? Would this include the property owner that buys the license which pays for the fish? Is this not dictating what the property owner can do with their land.

In addition, should the proposed law or the wishes of PSA become reality it will set a precedence for other agencies and associations. This is why I bring hunting into the picture. As for not paying for the wildlife I seek; I payed for the license to hunt!!

Sorry and I don't want to get in a pizzin' match but, I see all the reasons given for such legislation as a crutch of pure jealously.

easy1
Fished Erie since the 70's. Seen a lot over the years. Read all the posts above and it's obvious everyone wants it their way. Their is no common ground. So the sure fix would be stop stocking the steel and the property owners will be happy. Move the program money to water that is open and the sportsmen can learn to target a different species. I'm sure this will make everyone happy??? Right???

It's long past time for someone to finally fight for the navigability of Elk Creek and maybe one or two other of the tribs.  From the Erie history I have seen, there is a legitimate case that Elk Creek has been used to float logs commercially to saw mills and tannerys back in the day.  
 
If even two of the big three tributaries in Erie could be deemed navigable, then the PFBC could just move the entire steel head program to those streams only.   Let the clubs stock other streams which are not navigable, and allow those other streams to be controlled by the property owners. 

Actually when you get right down to it there is no difference between the fish and the game. Both are owned by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ie. you and me. 
The difference lies in the fact that fish are restricted to water and the agency in charge of them feels the need to waste dollars in maintaining an unnatural fisherie under the guise of tourism.
Mike
 

BeenThereDoneThat.

A rose by any other name is still a rose. The PSA wants a law that will prevent a landowner from fishing if the property is posted as such? Would this include the property owner that buys the license which pays for the fish? Is this not dictating what the property owner can do with their land.

In addition, should the proposed law or the wishes of PSA become reality it will set a precedence for other agencies and associations. This is why I bring hunting into the picture. As for not paying for the wildlife I seek; I payed for the license to hunt!!

Sorry and I don't want to get in a pizzin' match but, I see all the reasons given for such legislation as a crutch of pure jealously.

 
No match here and no worries BTDT. A lot of questions and no easy answers. But the PSA was opposed to the Bill as it was written, and opposed in favor of landowner rights.  My concern is the same, once a door opens it becomes precedent for future laws and regulations. It is very hard to unmake a law.
 
I am not sure that the landowner would be prohibited from fishing his own land, it sounds like he just would not be able to shut others out while allowing others in for a fee.
 

Its a slippery slope messing with landowner rights.
Especially when an invasive species is the catalyst behind it.
Leave things the way they are.

Have an 120+year old copy of an Erie County Pennsylvania Map and there is a saw mill just south of Gudgeonville Rd on Elk Creek how did the logs get to mill? Very steap narrow valley in that area to use oxen to supply the mill. There were shipments of logs out of the mouth of Elk to the mills in Erie c.1810-15. Most of the lumber later 1840 was shipped down to Pittsburgh via the Erie Extension Canal. There are more mills up stream and down on feeder streams. Most of the Erie County streams had at least one mill located on it at that time. Look to the falls off of Falls Road and you can see the power of the water. Most of the tributaries to Elk have falls.
From my research the logging that took place during the 1800-1870's was milled by water power.
Just some the info I have come across doing some research on the subject. If deemed navigable there would be no taking of land owner properties/rights as the property owner never owned it in the first place.
 
From my earlier post:
 
This is from a later " History of Erie County", I do have in my possession an earlier one with more detail than this.
"
 
The chief stream of Girard is Elk Creek, which comes in from Fairview, flows nearly through the center of the township from east to northwest, and empties into the lake about a mile and a quarter beyond Miles Grove, after a length of thirty to thirty-five miles. The West Branch rises in Elk Creek Township, runs north eight or ten miles and unites with the main stream near the Fairview line. Hall's Run flows through Lockport and falls in a little south of Girard Borough. Brandy Run heads in Fairview Township, about a mile further south; and Spring Run west of Miles Grove -- each of them being of sufficient size to furnish water-power for one or two mills. The valley of the chief stream is narrow and precipitous in the eastern portion of the township, but further west it widens out, with steep, but beautiful bluffs on both sides. At the junction of the West Branch there is a high peak, resembling part of a Roman profile, with its base at the water's edge, which has received the peculiar title of "The Devil's Backbone." The West Branch runs along the base of an almost perpendicular hill for a quarter of a mile, then rounds the bluff and comes back to a point opposite the one which it left, forming a sort of a loop. At the narrowest place, the crest or backbone is not more than two feet across, and the height being over a 100 feet, it is a severe test of a person's nerves to walk along the lofty pathway. The spot is a favorite resort of the people for miles around. Not far from the "Devil's Backbone" is the fruit farm of Asa Battles, which contains 6,000 apple, 1,000 peach, 600 or 700 pear and many quince trees, besides fourteen acres of strawberries and five or six of grapes. The other streams of the township are Crooked Creek and several rivulets flowing into the lake in the northeast. Crooked Creek rises near Lockport, runs through the southwestern portion of Girard and the northeastern of Springfield, and empties into Lake Erie about three-fourths of a mile beyond the village of North Springfield. It has a course of about ten miles and there are some good lands in its valley.



The mouth of Elk Creek figured extensively in the early plans of internal improvement, as well as in the courts of the county and State. When the canal was under discussion, there was a bitter strife as to the adoption of the

 

---

eastern route by way of Waterford, or the western one by way of Girard. The Legislature, at length, by recommendation of the chief engineer in charge, adopted the western route. Next came a dispute as to whether the terminus of the canal should be at Erie or at the mouth of Elk Creek, which was finally settled in favor of the former. On the third of March, 1837, pending the discussion of the proper terminus, a contract was entered into between James Miles, of Girard, Thaddeus Stevens, then a member of Gov. Rigner's "Kitchen Cabinet," and Charles Ogle, a Congressman from this State, looking to the building of a city at the mouth of the creek. Miles was to dispose of 200 acres of land on both sides of the stream to Stevens and Ogle, in consideration of $5,000, on the 1st of August ensuing, and $95,000 from the sale of lots, while Stevens was to work for the adoption of the site as the terminus of the canal, and Ogle was to obtain an appropriation from Congress for the improvement of the harbor. The project failing, Miles sued Stevens and Ogle for the $5,000. The case was carried to the Supreme Court and decided in favor of the defendants. Some very curious testimony came out in the course of the trial. While the country was being cleared, the mouth of the creek was considerable of a shipping place for staves and lumber. A warehouse formerly stood on the lake shore for the convenience of trade. The water in the creek is probably deep enough at its mouth to float any sailing vessel, but there is a wide bar in the lake, which will effectually prevent its use as a harbor until removed, which can only be done by a heavy expenditure of money. Quite a fishery is maintained there, and hundreds of barrels of fish are put up for shipment. A limekiln has also has been maintained for some years, receiving its stone from Kelly's Island.



The mills and factories of the township -- not naming for the present those of Girard Borough, Lockport and Miles Grove -- are as follows: On Elk Creek -- Strickland & Nason's grist mill, at the mouth of Spring Run; the West Girard Grist, Saw, Cider and Plaster Mills, and a planing mill at the same place. On Spring Run, T. Thornton's woolen mill and Brown Bros.; hand rake factory and cider mill. A grist mill is said to have been established on this stream by Mr. Silverthorn, as early as 1799, being one of the first in the county. On the West Branch, Pettis' saw mill; on Brandy Run, Rossiter's tannery; on one of the lake streams, Herrick's and Godfrey's saw mills. All of the above are run by water, but in some cases steam is also employed in the dry season. Pettibone & Morehouse have a limekiln on the lake road north of Girard. The first mill on Elk Creek, within Girard Township, was built at Wet Girard in 1814, by Peter Wolverton, and was owned successively by Dr. Rufus Hills, James C. Marshall and his brother-in-law, Addison Weatherbee, George Rowley, L. S. Wright, Loomis & Horton and W. C. Culbertson. During Mr. Rowley's term, the mill burned down and was rebuilt."
History of Erie Co., Pennsylvania
Chicago: Warnerm Beers & Co., 1884
 
 
Saw mills = timber floated to mill > supply of logs and power
Tanners= Hemlock Bark > from trees
 
Harbor= shipping lumber, Fishing > shipping out fish
Hard not to fight for navigable waters for Elk Creek.

H3Fisher

BeenThereDoneThat.

Difference is that Deer reproduce without issues as well as every other game available that is hunt-able.  Fish may reproduce but the species in question (steelhead aka rainbow trout) prob have a very very low reproduction rate and this is why PA needs to stock a Million smolt each year. 

You could not be more wrong.

The PGC stocks pheasants. The reproduction rate on pheasants in the wild is probably on par with steelhead and way less than trout.

So by the philosophy of "I bought a license so I own them" as is being pushed by both proposals, hunters should be able to chase after stocked pheasants that "migrate" to private property. Right?

Last season I watched. PGC stocking truck release 8 crates of birds on a GL near Bedford. ALL, but 6 birds "migrated" out of the truck and right onto private property.

Should be able to go after them, no? My license dollars paid for them.

Understand collateral consequences before thinking only with in a limited view.

Once again.... in my opinion, what the PSA proposed is the best middle-ground.
Perhaps you, the ones completely disagreeing with this Bill, should have spent more time talking to your fellow landowners on making their land more accessible or not using it roll in the the dough, rather than relentlessly replying to every post on here and bashing the Bill. At this point it, is what it is, support the PSA at least they are fighting for you!