|
|
Post by melody on Mar 27, 2014 17:56:27 GMT -5
HB 2357 By Moul. Amends Title 30 (Fish) further providing for stocked waters open for fishing.* March 27, 2014 10:22 AM * Rep. Dan Moul * Proposed Legislation * In the near future, I plan to introduce legislation amending the Fish & * Boat Code to provide that any waters in which fish stocked by the PA * Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) may migrate to or be present in be open * to public fishing. Currently, this requirement only pertains to waters * directly stocked by the PFBC. * * * * Under current law, waters considered as navigable must be also open to * public fishing up to the high water mark. However, waters that are * considered non-navigable or that have never been deemed navigable may * be closed to public fishing by the posting of private land on both * sides of the water even though they are still considered Commonwealth * waters. There is great concern about the reduction in public fishing * access opportunities due to the increased posting of property bordering * waters such as these. * * * * Groups and individuals have been taking advantage of this loophole in * the law and posting lands along non-navigable waters as no public * fishing, and charging selected anglers to fish there via club dues or * use fees to gain exclusive access to the fishing area. This not only * blocks public access by licensed anglers, but fish stocked by the PFBC, * and therefore paid for by all Commonwealth sportsmen who purchase * fishing licenses or pay taxes on the purchase of fishing equipment, can * easily migrate to or settle into these areas. I believe that any waters * considered Commonwealth water that either may contain or do contain * fish paid for by our sportsmen and stocked by our state agency should * be open to public fishing by licensed anglers. * * * * Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
|
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Mar 27, 2014 18:00:04 GMT -5
I see no good in antagonizing land owners, and fishermen, either work it out or quit stocking it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 18:14:03 GMT -5
I see no good in antagonizing land owners, and fishermen, either work it out or quit stocking it. Yup. No more stocking 'private' waters unless it's like PGC co-ops. Enjoy yer bluegills. |
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 27, 2014 21:30:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by galthatfishes on Mar 27, 2014 21:42:47 GMT -5
Let me see the property tax forgivance program paid for by the General Assembly and the fair market rental paid by the General Assembly as well. Since ALL Pennsylvanian's can FISH FOR FREE a couple of days a year, I want paid based on use- and inconvenience.
If they are unwilling to do that, then I demand an electric conductor be placed in the water in front of my property so the fish can't "migrate". I don't want anything special, just those things they are using to keep the flying carp from migrating into the Great Lakes. <sigh>
While we're at it, lets make all land open to public hunting. Deer migrate from the woods to the farm lands and from farm land to the woods, right?
How dare anyone deny me; a hunter; access to a deer or a grouse!
In general I like Dan, but every once in a while he does something like this. Maybe he has a person who asked for it? I don't get it.
Brad, tell em about the guy who DROVE into the yard because of fishing; despite the PRIVATE LANE sign.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 22:00:03 GMT -5
My previous 1A concern / fear is access. All the other issues won't mean a thing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2014 22:01:50 GMT -5
Oh and hey, how will our PGC and PFBC mange wildlife when it's all locked up by private owners?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 27, 2014 22:07:54 GMT -5
Oh and hey, how will our PGC and PFBC mange wildlife when it's all locked up by private owners? They really can't. My concern is a farmer opens his land to fishing. The PFBC stocks his water and 2-3 miles upstream, but the farmer downstream, a mile, where trout COULD be present, is forced to open his land to fisherman? That isn't right. How can this even be considered by Rep Moul? |
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Mar 28, 2014 2:51:39 GMT -5
This is a case where the actions of a few, effect the actions many, and on both sides, as a fisherman I can honestly say fisherman have to be the worst offenders when it comes to littering, I don't care where you go you will find trash, from string to fire pits to Styrofoam worm tubs.
And then you have land owners that buy a camp and think they own to the headwaters, the native Indians fought over access to the best streams and waterways so I guess its natural.
For me fishing is not about controversy so I avoid any place with access issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgecommander on Mar 28, 2014 8:25:46 GMT -5
This bill stems from the Erie Tribs. Guides are leasing sections of streams from landowners so that they can guide steelhead clients on unpressured waters. Steelhead are stocked and run miles up these streams to the headwaters.
|
|
|
|
Post by bawanajim on Mar 28, 2014 9:16:09 GMT -5
The steel head stocking is done by a coop, 3-C-U trout Association. They are supported by fishermen buying a button to show your support, the buttons were 7 dollars, money well spent. And since over 90% of the land supporting steelhead fishing is private, there have been untold issues, most cause by ignorant fisherman! This will go now where. Here is a link to their web site, a great place to donate that extra beer money. www.3cu.org/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 13:07:25 GMT -5
Private land is just that--private--If most of the water runs through posted private land-- don't stock it--- why waste money raising and stocking fish to dump in water only the landowner and his kids gets to enjoy, JMO
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 28, 2014 15:08:59 GMT -5
TBO, I think this proposal suggests that pretty much any stretch of water that is stocked, has to be open to public fishing if any of those stocked fish could be on posted property.
Now, knowing how far fish will move once stocked, it means entire streams would have to be open to trespass.
I think years ago they found a rainbow stocked in PA in the Mississippi, just for reference.
If that is the intent of this, it's just plain bad legislation that tramples on property rights.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 15:24:05 GMT -5
that's what I'm sayin Dutch-- If it's private property the land owner shouldn't have to allow access if choose not to and if the fishermen can't get access then don't stock it, take that stream off the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 28, 2014 15:32:37 GMT -5
But you would have to take damned near every stream off the list because trout move like crazy.
I HAVE to be reading this proposed bill wrong. No one is that dumb, no one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2014 15:37:59 GMT -5
But you would have to take damned near every stream off the list because trout move like crazy. I HAVE to be reading this proposed bill wrong. No one is that dumb, no one. if they stop stocking enough streams and P.O enough people, maybe guys like that won't get elected--- and yes, reading this proposed bill, there are people "That Dumb" |
|
|
|
Post by whilekioti on Mar 28, 2014 16:14:20 GMT -5
But you would have to take damned near every stream off the list because trout move like crazy. I HAVE to be reading this proposed bill wrong. No one is that dumb, no one. Given the current conditions of the hatcherys and the stocking program, I think maybe that IS the purpose of this legislation. Stocking less trout in less streams and blaming access issues. |
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 28, 2014 16:38:11 GMT -5
I really wish I could understand his motivation because it makes no sense, as written.
|
|
|
|
Post by melody on Mar 30, 2014 17:52:11 GMT -5
Won't know for sure till there's actual language for the bill, but I do know Rep. Moul has been working on language to expand the navigable waters act for some time. I'm guessing this is an attempt at doing so. From what I gather from the memo, it won't be that you have to allow acces to streams via your property, but just wouldn't be able to block acess of the waterway traveling through the property. So if I can access the stream from some point, I could wade the stream even if it passes thru posted property, as long as I stayed within the waterway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 30, 2014 19:34:33 GMT -5
And right now, thats not legal, correct?
So, he wants to change a law to allow "legalized trespassing".
Taking property rights away from landowners.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Mar 31, 2014 8:02:03 GMT -5
If this is all about steelhead it should be specified in the proposal, to generalize it to include everything is ridiculous in my opinion. I could be wrong but steelhead, even the ones raised by co-ops, are provided by the license dollars of sportsmen. There is A LOT of off limits water up there and I'm not even sure if we should be wasting the money of license buyers by continuing the steelhead program as it seems too many are benefiting privately off of public money. It would suit me fine to take the money from steelhead and put it into the trout program which benefits far more people in places they can actually fish. I know this will not be a popular opinion.  |
|
|
|
Post by fleroo on Mar 31, 2014 8:17:54 GMT -5
If this is all about steelhead it should be specified in the proposal, to generalize it to include everything is ridiculous in my opinion. I could be wrong but steelhead, even the ones raised by co-ops, are provided by the license dollars of sportsmen. There is A LOT of off limits water up there and I'm not even sure if we should be wasting the money of license buyers by continuing the steelhead program as it seems too many are benefiting privately off of public money. It would suit me fine to take the money from steelhead and put it into the trout program which benefits far more people in places they can actually fish. I know this will not be a popular opinion. Your opinion is certainly popular with me. Yeah, the way I see it, this proposal is a "niche" thing. Meaning it's all about the Erie Tribs. and Steelhead. Needs to be more specific in the language to slice out the hundreds of miles of streams stocked with Trout. At one time, I remember reading, that the PFBC would consider not stocking a stream with so much percentage of Posted land. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2014 8:21:28 GMT -5
Who has the riparian rights on those steelhead streams?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2014 19:55:03 GMT -5
Rep. Moul can stick this bill where the sun doesn't shine. A bill that tramples property rights, Josef Stalin would love you comrade.
This is going to upset many people but I'm sayin it anyway. PA trout fishermen are the biggest slobs in the outdoors I've ever seen. They leave their trash, styrofoam bait containers, balls of line, cigarette butts, empty bottles, and bunch of other crap all along stream banks. If someone hooks a fish, they think nothing of jumping righ next to the angler instead of respecting the angler's space on the stream. It's been at least 15 years since I last fished for trout , and based upon my walks along the southeast's waterways, I don't miss being around all those pigs.
Who the hell wants that on their private property?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dutch on Mar 31, 2014 20:23:20 GMT -5
I have had many polite fisherman along our part of Pine Creek in Tioga County.
|
|
