Thought the same thing about kjh's post except for one thing:  say i buy a piece of property adjacent to a stream and post it for my own and my families use.  nobody else will be fishing it, no pay to fish (etc).  so now i won't be allowed to fish my own land because my posted area of the stream has been designated a nursery water?  that doesn't sound right.  and i can tell you right now that the ****ing will never stop. i can hear it now, "why is that guy fishing with us when he has his own stream side property to fish?"  if other states have worked out these problems mentioned in the 6 pages of this topic, then PA needs to look to them for solutions.

pikepredator2
Thought the same thing about kjh's post except for one thing:  say i buy a piece of property adjacent to a stream and post it for my own and my families use.  nobody else will be fishing it, no pay to fish (etc).  so now i won't be allowed to fish my own land because my posted area of the stream has been designated a nursery water?  that doesn't sound right.  and i can tell you right now that the ****ing will never stop. i can hear it now, "why is that guy fishing with us when he has his own stream side property to fish?"  if other states have worked out these problems mentioned in the 6 pages of this topic, then PA needs to look to them for solutions.

 
Exactly.  There are already hundreds of streams where the DCNR believes they have enough documentation to win a navigability ruling.  They have been compiling a map of streams so that they can collect Marcellus gas royalties from anyone drilling under these streams.   Here's the map:
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/NaturalGas/publicstreambeds/index.htm
 
Elk creek in Erie is not on it.  But if 200+ streams in PA are already considered public stream beds by the DCNR and they believe they could win a navigability ruling if they need to, then I don't see the issue in creating a law declaring any stream stocked with a public funded resource a public stream bed.  You guys against a PA version of the Montana law are crazy.  Look at all the streams the DCNR already believes are public.  Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found across nearly every county in the state?  The navigability law is a joke and it's obscure, we need a clear law that opens up any stream bed within the high water marks where publicly funded resources are allocated.   Just saying! 

Well said. And agree.

Cold

SteelSlayer77
 
Elk creek in Erie is not on it.  But if 200+ streams in PA are already considered public stream beds by the DCNR and they believe they could win a navigability ruling if they need to, then I don't see the issue in creating a law declaring any stream stocked with a public funded resource a public stream bed.  You guys against a PA version of the Montana law are crazy.  Look at all the streams the DCNR already believes are public.  Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found across nearly every county in the state?  The navigability law is a joke and it's obscure, we need a clear law that opens up any stream bed within the high water marks where publicly funded resources are allocated.   Just saying! 

 
Have you ever been to Montana?
 
Your posts just show such a fantastic disregard for reality, I have a hard time deciding if you're just posting this nonsense because you're a barely competent troll trying to stir the pot, or if you just really are that dense and are posting in comical sincerity.
 
Or maybe you're one of the "Elk is comparable to the Yough" idiots.

 
I've been to Colorado and Wyoming but never Montana.  I understand your point that that MT is a lot more rural and much less populated than PA.  However did you look at the map of streams the DCNR already considers public streambed in PA?  Over 200+ streams (many smaller than Elk Creek in Erie) that the DCNR already considers public stream bed.
 
We can legally float down any body of water in the state without touching bottom.  We can legally walk streambeds within the high water mark on any small stream deemed navigable, why?  Because some farmer in the early 1800's use to float produce downstream to market.  But we can't walk within the high water mark of a stream where publicly funded resources are being allocated today.  Doesn't make sense to me. 
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/NaturalGas/publicstreambeds/index.htm
 

SteelSlayer77

pikepredator2
Thought the same thing about kjh's post except for one thing:  say i buy a piece of property adjacent to a stream and post it for my own and my families use.  nobody else will be fishing it, no pay to fish (etc).  so now i won't be allowed to fish my own land because my posted area of the stream has been designated a nursery water?  that doesn't sound right.  and i can tell you right now that the ****ing will never stop. i can hear it now, "why is that guy fishing with us when he has his own stream side property to fish?"  if other states have worked out these problems mentioned in the 6 pages of this topic, then PA needs to look to them for solutions.

 
Exactly.  There are already hundreds of streams where the DCNR believes they have enough documentation to win a navigability ruling.  They have been compiling a map of streams so that they can collect Marcellus gas royalties from anyone drilling under these streams.   Here's the map:
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/NaturalGas/publicstreambeds/index.htm
 
Elk creek in Erie is not on it.  But if 200+ streams in PA are already considered public stream beds by the DCNR and they believe they could win a navigability ruling if they need to, then I don't see the issue in creating a law declaring any stream stocked with a public funded resource a public stream bed.  You guys against a PA version of the Montana law are crazy.  Look at all the streams the DCNR already believes are public.  Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found across nearly every county in the state?  The navigability law is a joke and it's obscure, we need a clear law that opens up any stream bed within the high water marks where publicly funded resources are allocated.   Just saying! 

Who is "against a PA version of the Montana stream access law"?
There is a very big difference between realizing that something is an impossibility & being against that same thing.

I guess you haven't come to the realization that the nursery waters idea would be impossible to enforce then? 

SteelSlayer77Why should it be any different for a land owner in Erie compared to a land owner on any one of these hundreds of mapped streams found ac

 

 
the shear volume of anglers day in and day out on TINY creeks  for 8 months a year.
Is there anywhere else in the state with that kind of daily,  non stop,  hi-volume traffic for 8 months every year?
 
 
..L.T.A.
 
 
 
 
 

I checked out their Facebook page and the bait shop is getting bashed on their page as well.  But, they also posted on their website about someone apologizing for being wrong about their assumptions about their shop.  So, does anyone have absolute proof that they are indeed "leasing"  the rights to "guide" or "pay to fish" on that property.  It is not listed on their web page as having these exclusive rights.  If they did make that business move to do this it seems they would be advertising it to drum up business instead of letting everyone bash them especially on social media or at least be defending themselves if all the above is not true. 

I understand your point that that MT is a lot more rural and much less populated than PA.

 
That isn't my point at all.
 

However did you look at the map of streams the DCNR already considers public streambed in PA?  Over 200+ streams (many smaller than Elk Creek in Erie) that the DCNR already considers public stream bed.

 
Most of the water on that map is a significant waterway, and while you may think that this means it's open to fishing like open water in Erie, for the water on the map I'm familiar with, I know that's not the case.  There are sections of that water that are posted, and to fish through would be trespassing.
 

We can legally float down any body of water in the state without touching bottom.

 
Passage rights only concern passage.  Even if you aren't anchoring, doing anything other than moving through can get out into trespass issues.  Fishing certainly falls under that description.
 

We can legally walk streambeds within the high water mark on any small stream deemed navigable, why?  Because some farmer in the early 1800's use to float produce downstream to market.  But we can't walk within the high water mark of a stream where publicly funded resources are being allocated today.  Doesn't make sense to me.

 
Are the Erie ditches navigable?  No.  There's your answer.  
 
You seem to have it in your head that you can just snap your fingers, declare a stream navigable, and poof, instant access for everyone.  

SteelSlayer77
I guess you haven't come to the realization that the nursery waters idea would be impossible to enforce then? 

That wasn't the question.  What fishing law is easy to enforce?
You see, again, the difference between one & the other is vast. 
 
Montana style law requires amendment to the state constitution & many lawsuits.  Who pays for that?  You? Governments are just tripping over each other to amend constitutions, aren't they?

Nursery water declaration is a unilateral decision by the PFBC.  Very easily done.