dano
I believe at one time when we discussed the nursery water option. WCO said that would not be feasible. (can't remember why). PA does use and posts certain sections of certain streams in the ANF as " fish refuge area" with no fishing or wading during a set period of time.
 

Under 58 Pa. Code §67.2 (relating to refuge areas), the Executive Director of the Fish and

Boat Commission (Commission), with the approval of the Commission, may designate waters as

refuge areas to which section 2306 of the Fish and Boat Code, 30 Pa. C.S. §2306 (relating to refuge

areas), shall apply. Section 2306 provides that the Commission may set aside, in its discretion, such

areas as it may judge best as refuge areas in which fishing or entry shall be prohibited for such

periods of time as the Commission prescribes. According to the regulation, the designation of waters

as refuge areas shall be effective upon posting of the waters after publication of a notice that the

waters have been so designated in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

Yea, WCO says it's not feasible because they don't want to **** off landowners, I'd wager.
PFBC has already declared nursery waters at Trout Run & Godfrey Run, they could do it again, but they won't.

workcanwait....
Thanks for the replies.Bad news not happy about it but not surprised either.I shop Poor Richards they are always open and run a good shop.Can anyone confirm the upstream border of this property,is it up to the tubes or including the tubes????Keep this and other access loss in mind when your fishing be courteous to landowners and neighbors pick up litter instead of dropping it..... 

Upstream limit does not include the tubes from what I was told. It ends at the downstream side of them.

KJH807

SteelSlayer77
 
 
I like the Montana stream access law better.  If a land owner wants privacy and is tired of the masses, then they should sell their land and move somewhere near by a smaller stream that doesn't get stocked.  The land value increase due to the publicly funded resource put there would more than pay for the cost of relocating. 
 

thanks for your entry in the "dumbest post of the year 2014" contest... you are the new front runner
congrats and good luck!

 
Beat me to it, KJH, but shouldn't it be 2013?
 
This close to the end of the year, with that much of a commanding lead, it'll be tough to beat.

KJH807

SteelSlayer77
 
 
I like the Montana stream access law better.  If a land owner wants privacy and is tired of the masses, then they should sell their land and move somewhere near by a smaller stream that doesn't get stocked.  The land value increase due to the publicly funded resource put there would more than pay for the cost of relocating. 
 

thanks for your entry in the "dumbest post of the year 2014" contest... you are the new front runner
congrats and good luck!

Since it's actually 2013, I believe you just took over the lead jack a$z. 
 
If it's good for Montana it's good for PA, would just need to get the PA constitution amended.  I agree your idea is much more feasible but mine was hardly the dumbest post of the year.  I did say it could be limited in some ways, not an exact replica of Montana. 

Git Ahht Landownerz! Deez R ahr cricks!  We pay fur dem steEkHeadZ ta be stahked wif ahr licinz muney!

D-nymph
Git Ahht Landownerz! Deez R ahr cricks!  We pay fur dem steEkHeadZ ta be stahked wif ahr licinz muney!

So because some stream barely holding water today was used for commercial purposes in the early 1800s and deemed navigable anyone can wade through within the high water marks, but a publicly funded recreational resource in use today shouldn't give residents of the state the same right? 

Seriously, dUUd.  
 
Your post was so dumb it might be the dumbest post of both 2013 and 2014.

As Kevin said awhile ago, the real culprit here is the state not having the foresight years ago to make better arrangements.  They stocked a million fish, and a zillion people came (some slobs, most not).  The slobs do their slobbering on other peeps property (u down with OPP?) then capitalists moved in-within their rights-and persuaded landowners to do what is within THEIR rights.  I don't like it, but there's not much we can do other than boycott these businesses if indeed this is all true.  At this point i don't see the PFBC getting many more easements.  Im sure Beaver and others have researched and contacted every possible landowner.  There will unfortunately be more shoes to drop.  
On a positive note, I heard that 3 fish made it up the 4 mile fish ladder last month.....

SteelSlayer77
 
 
If it's good for Montana it's good for PA, would just need to get the PA constitution amended.  I agree your idea is much more feasible but mine was hardly the dumbest post of the year.  I did say it could be limited in some ways, not an exact replica of Montana. 

 
don't get me started
Do you know how BIG Montana is?
more people fish the TINY area of Erie Pa tribs each year than the ENTIRE POPULATION of  Montana ...
 
but you want to force the land owner to let a million cueballs tramp around, hoot 'n  holler and hi-five when they catch a fish , all because the land owner happens to have a ditch that runs thru  his backyard
 
gimmie a break ....what a bunch of selfish sumbeeches
 
 
..L.T.A.
 

fisherofmen376
As Kevin said awhile ago, the real culprit here is the state not having the foresight years ago to make better arrangements.  They stocked a million fish, and a zillion people came (some slobs, most not).

 
even if no slobs , it's the shear volume of us in such a small area that such a heavy weight
 
 
..L.T.A.