SwimFishieSwim
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!

None of the landowners in my case, and keep in mind, I only talked to one, "roll in the dough" from anything except farming or their day jobs. So, non argument.

They did permit access, on a free, permission only basis, but made informed (just because they are farmers doesn't mean they are dumb and don't know how to do their own research) adult decisions regarding what they saw as government overreach into their private property rights.

And no the PSA isn't fighting for me. They are setting up a scenario of precedence based on a very localized issue that could have state-wide implications for private property use.

Going back to the pheasant example, if the PSA stance is adopted, who is to say Pheasants Forever or some other sportsman group doesn't use their model as an example of "if stocked anything that license dollars helped pay for enters private property, you have the right to go after it or if the landowner denies access they cannot participate in any activity that would result in them harvesting whatever was stocked." In other words, if stocked pheasants migrate to private property, either access is granted or the landowner can't hunt their own property. That will keep access open, won't it?

As for bashing the bill, I call it expressing a counter opinion. But because that does not square with your opinion, it is somehow bashing. I think not.

If either if these proposals goes through, expect to see the amount of posted ground in the Erie area grown by 2X -- 10X, especially by those that do not fish, but did not mind granting access until they were told they had to do so.

DarDys
If either if these proposals goes through, expect to see the amount of posted ground in the Erie area grown by 2X -- 10X, especially by those that do not fish, but did not mind granting access until they were told they had to do so.

If the house bill were to go through as is (I doubt it will), then why would it matter if more ground is posted?  People would be able to access 100% of every stream within the high water marks.
 
You seem to think that non-posted private land is somehow currently open for anyone to trespass on, but that's not the case.  You can still get fined for trespassing on private property that has no posters, and need land owner permission for hunting weather it's posted or not.

..........................page2....

Gentlemen, nobody paid for anything except the privilege to partake in a given sport. The fish, birds and animals are, in fact, controlled by the commonweath and not 'owned' by anybody.

The key word with this proposal is " migration". So, I would suggest that those of you doubting this law will have nothing to do with hunting, read the definition of migrating. Then tell me deer, elk, bunny rabbits, etc. do not migrate.

End of story!

Depends on how many buddies the dude pushing the bill has. If he can generate more yay votes then his opponents can draw nay votes, he wins. Most likely the bill would go into effect the first of the year as it's nearly too late to do any good for the tourism trade this year.

I have an issue with this proposal as it will open the door for similar laws regarding hunting rights. As I do the suggestion, "I can't fish your posted property so, neither can you".

SteelSlayer77

DarDys
If either if these proposals goes through, expect to see the amount of posted ground in the Erie area grown by 2X -- 10X, especially by those that do not fish, but did not mind granting access until they were told they had to do so.

If the house bill were to go through as is (I doubt it will), then why would it matter if more ground is posted?  People would be able to access 100% of every stream within the high water marks. You seem to think that non-posted private land is somehow currently open for anyone to trespass on, but that's not the case.  You can still get fined for trespassing on private property that has no posters, and need land owner permission for hunting weather it's posted or not.

You really shouldn't strawman me to proport what I think with regard to trespass laws. I know how it works and you know that I know how it works.

As for the house bill, you are absolutely right about the high water mark.

This too, like the rest of the discussion is a double edge sword.

On one edge, who is going to pay for surveying the high water mark, if even such data exists, which it may not on non USGS monitored streams? Will it be the PFBC forced into spending their limited funds ((maybe a license increase to pay for it) or will the responsibility fall on the landowner to pay for it? If it is the landowner, I imagine that might just foster negative feelings toward anyone that exceeds the high water mark (which, by the way is the average high water mark and not flood stage, so it is not as far off most stream banks as is typically thought). With today's technology if trail cams and such, it is not out of the question that a lot of remote monitoring of the high water mark while collecting video evidence will go on as will prosecutions. So I guess the question will become, is it worth going after a fish and risk a conviction for criminal trespass?

gw2kpro
Hate to say it, but this entire mess has been created by fisherman themselves.
We have all been around the groups of "steelhead" fisherman in the PA tribs. and witnessed the complete disregard for anything resembling any kind of courteous / decent behavior or conduct by LARGE numbers of people, not just a "few" bad apples.  I'm not going into specifics because there's a million character limit but everyone has seen it and knows what the issues are.
 
It's no wonder landowners have gradually kicked us out over the years.
 
The group AS A WHOLE has conducted itself as an unwanted uncle who drinks all night, sleeps in the basement until noon, staggers to the bathroom to do something unholy, then expects someone else to clean it up and furthermore complains because the neighbor won't let him in their house to perform more of the same.
 
PA will survive without steelhead.

probably the MOST accurate post i,ve seen since getting a ,puter, ,n, discovering these forums. "we have met the enemy, and they is us" pogo

no... this mess was created by the state
 
Stocking absurd numbers of fish that creates the majority of a fishery on private property
then marketing it to the mass like it is an amusement park
For a few years it was the main feature of the PFBC website and out of state advertising campaigns... with pictures of big fish and promises of double digit days
 
go to http://www.fish.state.pa.us/ ... see how long it takes you to find the one text link