1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Fly Fishing
›
3. Private vs. Public

Does anyone have a opinion about this subject. Do you like fishing on private land or public? If private do you lease land or just pay at a lodge or something like that. Thanks

I prefer to fishing on public waters and do so about 99.5% of the time. Once every decade or so I might pay for the privilege of fishing private waters. The last time I fished private water was June 30, 2011 when I spent the day on Armstrong Spring Creek near Livingston, MT. At that time a day cost $100 and it was well worth the fee. I would say I landed at least two dozen trout as shown in the picture.



Private access fishing is quite artificial in that there are usually more big fish than one would ever find in a comparable public water of the same size and character. The fish I caught were all wild and the setting was very nice. An added benefit is private water managers typically only allow a certain amount of anglers on the water on any day. I believe the number on Armstrong is 5 or 7 per day. It just happened on the day I fished it so did five of my other friends so we owned the creek for the entire day.

Another private water I fished was the lower Harpster water on Spruce Creek, PA. My wife and I booked an extended weekend there. We arrived Friday at noon and were allowed to fish it as long as we wanted through Sunday afternoon. It was fun for me to see my wife into some really nice fish.

A guide is provided for all the guests (one guide for everyone) The fishing was not stupid easy and you still needed to possess casting skills, fly knowledge, and fighting skills. There were though seemingly hundreds of 15" - 24" trout in just about 100 yards of stream. It was probably more like dozens but you know how we sometimes exaggerate! The guide was also the chef and he prepared two breakfasts, three lunches, and two dinners. I didn't count any fish less than 15" and I think the netted number was thirty-nine fish. Many were 18" - 20" browns and I think my biggest was 23". Back when we fished there it was $1000 for the two of us with meals, lodging, (my wife and I slept in the bed that Jimmy and Roselyn Carter slept in) guide, and very good fishing. I have many of pictures and if anyone wants to see them let me know.

Thank you for your answer Wbranch. I would love to see any pictures you might have, if you don't mind!

Also, do you think their is demand to fish on unused private land and access. For example if I owned a piece of land and never fished it, would you pay 50 or so dollars to have it for a day?

It depends on many factors. I assume you are referring to trout fishing? This web site is geared towards aquatic insects and trout fishing. I fish for wild trout, steelhead, and smallmouth bass. I have access to lots of public wild trout streams and very good, actually excellent, smallmouth bass fishing. While I catch good numbers of steelhead I don't have access to public water that is not crowded. If I was able to fish limited access steelhead water that was receiving good numbers of fish I would be willing to pay a daily rod fee for that opportunity.

The factors that many trout fishermen would be asking are; are the fish wild or stocked? are there good numbers of 18" - 21" trout? Are there good insect hatches? How much water is available to fish? Does the owner limit how many people can fish his water every day? Is it in a nice wooded environment? How far is it from where I live?

Spruce Creek; Harpster water

I oppose privatized waters and will not patronize them regardless of how good the fishing may be. Because they narrow the stakeholder base through means-based access, they are one of the primary dangers to the future of our sport. I will not be party to that.

Count me out..

Yep, you are 100% right. Just like some folks can't afford Mercedes so they buy Fords. It is a good example of capitalism. I'm neither for, or against, it. It is what it is. You have chosen not to partake of it. While there are others who probably do it often especially if they have the means but for whatever reason are unable to take off long periods of time to fish very good public waters.

If I could afford to get onto some of the sections of the steelhead streams Donny Beaver leases from land owners in Erie County, PA I would do it in a heart beat. The fish aren't pets, they are still swimming up from Lake Erie but since the PA streams are quite small they do get quite crowded. If I could get a season pass for say $500 I would seriously consider it.

I catch plenty of chrome from public access water but often I wind up walking over a mile to get to less pressured water. I'd rather spend that 45-60 minutes each way fishing. Besides it would be much more pleasant to not have to be looking over my shoulder every few minutes to see if some guy is going to try and sneak in on me or take my spot if I have to chase a fish.

"Just like some folks can't afford Mercedes so they buy Fords."

No. Actually, as I see the thing, it has absolutely nothing to with what I can or cannot afford. It is an ethical issue for me. I won't do it.

>>If I could afford to get onto some of the sections of the steelhead streams Donny Beaver leases from land owners in Erie County, PA I would do it in a heart beat. The fish aren't pets, they are still swimming up from Lake Erie but since the PA streams are quite small they do get quite crowded. If I could get a season pass for say $500 I would seriously consider it.>>

Well, if you're considering doing this, you should probably do it before too many more heartbeats go by... It's likely that the whole private waters on the tribs thing is going to come unraveled before long. It is a private access/for profit fishery for fish that are raised and stocked with public/angler dollars. It's only a matter of time before it blows up and that is as it should be.

I agree with you 100%. Reopening the stretches of the Erie creeks that have been closed to fishing for private club access would be fantastic as it should spread out some of the crowding conditions on the open water.

Another huge improvement would be reducing the bag limit from three fish per day to one or two and to release all brown trout. The brown trout program has only been going on about five years and while PFBC has earmarked annual stocking of 100,000 brown trout smolts they have never hit that target number. I think I read the most ever planted was 80,000. When you consider that PA stocks over one million steelhead smolts and gets a return of about 150K adult fish it is probable then the adult brown trout return is not much more than 12,000 fish. I fish Erie creeks between 6 and 8 days every fall and in seven years have only landed three browns and none were bigger than 20".

>>I agree with you 100%. Reopening the stretches of the Erie creeks that have been closed to fishing for private club access would be fantastic as it should spread out some of the crowding conditions on the open water.>>

I think something is bound to happen sooner rather than later regarding this situation. Its probably going to have to be the PA Legislature that addresses it because in the longer view, the solution is going to have to be based in changes to Pennsylvania property rights law. It'll probably end up being a big fight.

I disagree about the changes to the bag limits. Well, that's not quite right... I don't disagree with trying something like you suggest, but I am very skeptical that it would make any noticeable difference except to make a lot of fishermen feel better. They could do this and then the runs might all but completely disappear. Or they could raise the creel limit to 10 and watch the runs of both browns and steelhead quadruple and the size of the average fish go up by 5". Its a Great Lake and in fisheries management terms, it can be a real crap shoot because it is so huge and there are such a multiplicity of factors that can affect fish movement, habits and abundance. And far more profoundly than some little thing like tinkering with sportfishing bag limits in the tribs. Like I say, doesn't mean we shouldn't or couldn't try it. It would be fine with me. I just tend to think it would be mostly a feel good effort.

There's very little private trout water in Michigan because there is so damned much public trout water, and so much of the latter is so good. I never find my local waters crowded, though during the summer months I certainly avoid the weekends. There is a trout farm that I pass on the way to Alpena, and I have occasionally thought it might be fun to toss a Woolly Bugger or KBF into one of their spring-fed ponds...I can't afford much more than that, certainly no guided trips to exotic or western private locations, but if I could I think I would just go deeper into public lands where fewer care to tread and find still better fishing, I'd just travel farther from home to do so.

On a somewhat related note, however, I was once invited to fish private waters for bluegill and bass in Missouri. This was during my (not-to-be-completed) PhD research on benthic macroinvertebrates in springs as bioindicators of groundwater quality, when I was visiting a series of springs in the vicinity of Springfield, MO (a town with a very appropriate name!) on private lands. A landowner suggested that I go "harass" the fish in this pond that was fed by a series of 4 springs, with gin-clear waters and a thriving population of largemouth bass and bluegill. He told me that the pond was originally a swimming pool, then a trout pond, and finally a bass and bluegill population that was never fished to...well, the bass were just average-sized but the bluegill were the size of dinner plates, 10-inchers being almost the norm! Some actually broke me off on 6x tippet...and in the crystal-clear water you could see five or six of these fish rushing the fly, having probably never seen anything but a real insect before...

Jonathon

Like Jonathon said... In Michigan, you don't really need to pay to fish great water here. There can be some crowded streams from what I understand. This past summer was my first year fly fishing and on trout streams I have only run into a handful of other anglers (on the Boardman and the Black). I imagine the holy waters of the au sable on opening day are pretty packed.

Another factor to consider are the trespassing laws in whatever state or country you plan to fish. Michigan law allows for one to wade or float through private land as long as you stay in/on the stream that is big enough to be considered a water-way (not sure of the term off the top of my head). Access to stretches of streams surrounded by private land is fine as long as you travel there by way of the river and not on land.

I bet if you do a little research and plan ahead, you can find some good water without paying for access.

Cheers

Would you care to amplify on these comments? Firstly why would reducing the daily bag limit make the runs diminish or disappear? Secondly what factors would be present (if the creel limit was reduced) that would potentially quadruple the size of the run and increase the average fish by 5"?

I have noticed a marked decrease in the average size of the steelhead I am catching now as compared to seven years ago. When I made my first trip seven years ago almost every fish was at least 24" and many were 25" - 28". Every year, as the fishery has become more and more popular (crowded) the sizes have been going down. Now the average fish this year was 21" - 23". I attribute the smaller sizes to more of the larger fish being harvested and they not being able to spawn a second time when they would of gained length and weight.

Hey Tim, I believe the term is "navigable waterway" if I am not mistaken, which equals Waters of the State or (including the Great lakes) Waters of the United States. Which in both cases equals public land and access for the price of a state fishing license, at least by water (wading or boating) if there is a public launching point. And no shortage of opportunities thereof! Those terms come into play in my consulting job as to which agency, the DNR/DEQ or US Army Corps/Fish & wildlife we have to talk to about a project...or whose forms we have to fill out!

Jonathon

P.S. I should also confess that I did once live on what was technically a private lake as it did not have a public launch and was surrounded by private properties. On one of which I was renting a small apartment and I had access to the lake, of course. It did keep things quieter without access to the "general public", though the occasional guest still brought their damned jet-skis and scared away the loons...not a very big lake I should also mention...but the fishing was pretty good, got to fish Hex hatches over spawning bluegills!

RE: Michigan's Navigable waterway definition(s)...

To my knowledge this is based on an arcane formula from the days of logging, if a given stream can float an 8" log for a certain number of months of the year- or something like this. The whole thing appears to be subject to interpretation by one side or the other (public access vs. private property) and there have been some real court battles over stream access rights.

MI fishermen- any input or clarification here?

This is nothing compared to streams in Virginia? Maryland? where 'Crown Grants' dating to colonial times wherein a landowner owns the BOTTOM of any stream or waterway on their property- and brought up in court lately- seem to have overridden access by the public...crazy.

Roguerat

"Less is more...'

Ludwig Mies Vande Rohe

There is a situation concerning a Crown grant on the upper Delaware river. There is a section of river down near Equinox where there is a pretty good sized island (it is called Frisbee Island) in the middle of the river. The owner used to often park his vehicle on a hill overlooking the channel, island, and the main river. If you happened to float down his channel, or stop the boat, and get out on the island to fish he would start screaming epitaphs at you and saying if "you get out of that boat I'm going to shoot you". He told us he owns the island and the river bottom and he can keep everyone from standing on it.

It was bizarre and of course the one time a buddy and I floated through there we didn't want to take any chances and floated on through. Guides on the river took this issue all the way to the NY Supreme Court and lost. The landowner's relatives received a Crown grant from one of the English monarchs way back in the 1600 or 1700's and has the paper to prove it.

Rogue, that sounds about right on the "navigable waterway" definition, a bit ridiculous...I would hate to have to float the Pine River in my kayak, I would spend most of my time dragging the damned thing, not to mention heaving it over logs...

I have read about the Crown grants, hard to imagine owning waters that flow and fish that move.

Jonathon

I don't believe the Crown grants imply that you own the fish that are swimming in the area that you own but they do supersede any other water way trepass laws written after them.

>>Would you care to amplify on these comments? Firstly why would reducing the daily bag limit make the runs diminish or disappear? Secondly what factors would be present (if the creel limit was reduced) that would potentially quadruple the size of the run and increase the average fish by 5"?>>

Matt: What I’m trying to impress upon you in the paragraph above is how the size of the Lake and the myriad of factors that influence all aspects of the fishery diminish the likelihood that any tinkering with something as picayune as minor adjustments to the creel limits on the tribs will a) produce the desired result and b) produce a causal trail that tells us whether our adjustments did anything at all one way or the other.


There are so many other factors in play in a Great Lake, each of which, in terms of overall fishery impact probably on their own trumps all the sport fishing regs in place on the tribs. Here are just a few:


The effect of Lake levels, prevailing winds and seasonal climatic shifts on water temperature regimes in the various basins of Lake Erie, including precipitation in Pennsylvania’s Lake Erie Basin and its effect on tributary water levels.

The effect of these same factors along with forage fish spawning success rates on the concentrations and locations of the primary forage species that support the Lake Erie salmonid fishery. In a nutshell, if lake conditions are such that the large schools of emerald shiners, etc. are mostly off Long Point, Ontario or Sandusky when Autumn comes, what does this do to the likelihood that the Elk Creek imprinted fish will return to Elk Creek? I don’t know and to some degree, neither do the biologists.

What is the current status of the US portion of the lampricide program as administered by GLFC (Great Lakes Fishery Commission)? Has Federal funding resumed? For a while, it had lapsed and the States were left to do it on their own. As you can imagine, this effects the salmon/steelhead/brown trout populations in the Lakes.

How strong are the current populations of other higher tier predator fish in the Lakes like walleye and smallmouth bass? This is particularly an issue in a wamwater/coolwater fishery like Lake Erie because of the effect it can have on smolt survival after stocking.

What is the impact of the remaining commercial fishery on Lake Erie on salmonid survival and movement in the Lake? While none of the Lake Erie salmonids are (so my knowledge..) being commercially targeted, they do show up in the nets.

How strong is the actual imprinting of the smolts released on the tribs? After all, 99% (probably..) are not wild fish and were not born in the streams where they are released. Do we know what percentage of the effort to imprint the fish fails? How many Elk/Walnut/20 Mile “imprinted” fish end up in the Grand on Ohio or in the Catt in New York, or vice versa?

The list could go on and on and on… But that’s enough. This is supposed to be a thread about public/private access and related fishing issues and I don’t want to take it over with a windy diatribe on the Lake Erie salmonid fishery. So, here’s the point: When we talk about fishery management questions and specifically, when we try to determine the effect of regs on fish size and abundance in a single stream or smaller lake, it is difficult enough to determine the impact of our regulatory tinkering when balanced against the effect of all the other factors present in a natural system. When we try and do the same with a body of water the size and complexity of Lake Erie, the difficulty increases exponentially. Things happen and we don’t know why. Or things fail to happen and we don’t know the why of that either. Not really…

The current PA Lake Erie Brown Trout program is not the first effort to establish browns in the PA tribs. It was tried before and the fish simply disappeared. Does anyone really know why? Not really.

Maybe the earlier browns ended up in the same black hole as the 70’s/80’s PA coho/chinook program. Those fish stopped returning too and then the program dried up. We don’t really know why that happened either.

Anecdotal experiences notwithstanding, I just don’t see how in a system with this much uncertainty and this many unknowns, we can presume we can make major differences in the number and size of returning fish simply by fine tuning angler creel limits a wee bit here and there. Remember though, I’m not saying we shouldn’t try. Maybe we’ll try it and the fishery will respond exactly as we want it to. Or maybe we’ll do nothing and fish numbers will double. Or maybe I’ll put a new set of strings on my mandolin and change brands of toothpaste and the coho and chinook will come back, all the browns will double in size and the steelhead will disappear….

It’s Lake Erie. It’s big and complex.