Via Moldy Chum comes this story about privatization of once-public fishing waters on Ohio.
The owner of the private Spring Ridge Club thought he’d be able to do in Ohio what he’s being sued for doing In Pennsylvania, where he’s locked in litigation with the state over his attempt to limit access on the Little Juniata, a popular central Pennsylvania river.
Think Ohio’s happy? Read this quote from one of their top fisheries people:
“If we can’t stop it, we can certainly make it unpalatable,” said Kevin Kayle, aquatic biology supervisor for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, when he learned that Beaver was in the process of leasing two properties on Conneaut Creek for his Spring Ridge Club late last year. “Believe me, we’re taking it seriously.”
Anyone else get the impression that Ohio’s Department of Natural Resources doesn’t love Donny Beaver?
They raise an important question: given that most of the steelhead runs in the Great Lakes are supported by state-sponsored stocking programs, how much private profiteering should take place? Kayle continues with:
“We’re not going to let it get to the point in Ohio where people are so disgruntled they’re going to stop coming to fish altogether, where people are making money off the state with a public product — steelhead — while keeping general license holders out. We have a nice program and we want to keep it that way.”
Some are even talking about trying to alter Ohio’s property and water access laws to allow fishing access on any navigable river to the high water mark.
Great Lakes steelhead fishing has acquired a rabid following the last handful of years with stories of crowding at prime spots becoming legion.
Of course, with Montana under siege from an influx of wealthy new landowners, this is a nationwide issue. So what’s the Underground’s opinion? Been denied access? Concerned? Not concerned?
Source: Fishing: Pennsylvania club owner has leased properties on Ohio creek
[tags]spring ridge club, conneaut creek, steelhead, ohio, great lakes steelhead[/tags]
I have had the privilege of fishing a couple of privately owned waterways, and have changed my opinion on this issue.
In the past, I would have rabidly opposed any form of privatization with great passion.After fishing a number of privately held waterways, I have changed my opinion 180 degrees.
Private clubs and landowners keep their holdings pristine. There is no crap littering the banks, there are no drunken teenagers throwing empty beercans from rafts, and no dicarded console TV’s or old lawnmowers lining the river bottom.
In Northern California we have some examples of the esteem the Great Unwashed Public holds for a trophy watershed. Hat Creek and Fall River were both opened to the public in 1972, while both still support trout populations, they are merely a shadow of their former selves.
State and Federal agencies have both failed to control the degredation of a premier waterway, add the stress the Public inflicts, and you have a recipe for planted trout and marginal fishing.
It hurts to say as much, given my liberal democratic nature, but as no one else has demonstrated the ability to husband a fishery for the next generation, I would rather they remain off limits.
Maybe my kids will get to see what an 18″ trout looks like, rather then listen to me (in my dotage) exclaiming, “When I was a kid…”
kbarton10(Quote)
Maybe your kid won’t be able to fish because all the streams went private to raise a buck for an already wealthy landowner. Try explaining that loss to him in your dotage. Or explain to taxpayers and license holders why they are paying to stock rivers they can’t fish. Think about it a bit, or sell your kid’s legacy for nothing
Ryan(Quote)
I certainly have reservations about privatization of Ohio’s water, especially when so many of the Great Lakes fisheries are essentially taxpayer supported.
And right now, Montana’s battling over a revised stream access law (more on that soon).
It’s an issue that’s going to get more ink (or photons, as the case may be).
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Europe has been operating like this for at least 50 years or more. All of the streams and rivers are privately owned and are cared for extensively, manicured even.
I see at least two options available; a) be a landowner and reap all the benefits of exploiting my private fishery, or b) not be a landowner and be content with mostly lake and reservoir fishing.
I could be content under either scenario. But if I spent time and money grooming my fishery, it would be ME fishing it.
Show me a fishery that has been improved by exposure to the public, and I will agree with you.
Time’s up. Pencil’s down.
kbarton10(Quote)
Of course, the Great Lakes fishery in question hasn’t been “improved” by public exposure. It simply wouldn’t exist without it. No public, no public money, and no steelhead.
That’s true of more fisheries than private landowners might want to admit.
Overfishing (especially by C&R fly fishers) rarely damages fisheries. Habitat issues (including Hat and Fall Rivers) precipitate the declines, and it’s public pressure that typically results in a fix (assuming one is possible).
Tom Chandler(Quote)
“Europe has been operating like this for at least 50 years or more. All of the streams and rivers are privately owned and are cared for extensively, manicured even”
50 years? try 1000 years. I remeber that we, as Americans, fought a little skirmish to break from the traditions of titled aristocracy and form a Republic. I don’t see 250 years of public access to public water worth tossing aside because the very aristocrats we repelled from our shore seem to do a job job at pruning the banks.
“I could be content under either scenario. But if I spent time and money grooming my fishery, it would be ME fishing it.”
That’s the problem. Water, and the associated fish that live in it is a resource held in the public trust. By paying a license fee to maintain and improve that habitat, as well as stock the fish that live in it, I have as much a right to fish that river as any one else that paid their fee, regardless of who owns the banks if I stay within the high water mark on a navigable river. Just because you sweep sand out of the street in front of your house, that does not give you the right to restrict access or charge a toll. Same for navigable rivers.
“Show me a fishery that has been improved by exposure to the public, and I will agree with you.”
How about any river that doesn’t hold trout naturally but recieves regular stockings. Or river cleanup efforts, mostly driven by industrial pollution, that are paid for by license fees or from a general revenue fund. Do you (rhetorical) have the resources and cash to clean up PCBs, heavy metals, etc?
Pencil down, awaiting the Baron in Waiting’s reply
Ryan(Quote)
I’m with Ryan on this one. I’m sure there are many private stream owners who do take good care of their streams, but there are also private stream owners who have done damage to important habitat (through poor agricultural practices and whatnot). Alternately, there are lots of public waters being well taken care of. Look to the brook trout restoration projects in the Southeast as just one example. Just because certain members of the public may cause damage to a public stream doesn’t mean the stream should be taken away from the public as a whole, and most especially not when that public is paying taxes to support the stream. We just need to do a better job of educating the public about the value of these streams, enforcing existing regulations meant to protect the streams, and protecting public waters by measures like maintaining roadless wilderness areas to make access more difficult (which limits traffic from those bent on casual, senseless destruction). And it just seems to me that any navigable stream and it’s fish should belong to the public. A navigable stream is something “too big” to be owned by one man or woman. That last bit is more my feeling on the issue than a logical argument.
As for the reference to Europe, I must respectfully disagree that we should be following Europe’s lead on this. I just don’t see what Europe’s doing as being relevant.
And for my personal point of view. I don’t have the money to fish most of these private streams. Much of the fishing public can’t pay big club membership fees. If all our streams were privatized, most people simply wouldn’t be able to fly fish for trout in streams. That would not make me very happy. And one thing you sure don’t want is a bunch of angry, fishing-deprived Alabama rednecks like myself running around :) I think public water is a hugely important resource, and we must fight to protect it for ourselves and future generations.
Take care,
hawgdaddy
hawgdaddy(Quote)
Adding the Revolutionary War and Women’s Suffrage to the list of topics would like keep this thread going (much to TC’s amusement) forever.
Both sides of this debate are right. Landowners are deserved of something, license paying fishermen also are deserved of something.
I think I will agree to disagree, for the sake of brevity, and I will suggest that both parties are being done a disservice by the government agencies tasked with protection and enforcement.
While you paid your license money dutifully, they spent it on a laptop for the Chief – and bought no trout. Does that diminish what you are entitled to?
License revenue has been on the decline for many years, all of the resource agencies tasked with husbanding our remaining environment are underfunded and ineffectual.
Stocking cornfed-Twinky-enhanced-troutlike objects into a pond to mill aimlessly before being slaughtered is not desirable either. In large part, that is what your license dollars are purchasing.
My interest in this is to think outside the box. Traditional “Put and Take” fisheries are fishing, but are they the experience that you daydreamed about whilst trapped in your office last week?
Something has to be done to reduce the decline in the quality of our fisheries. Government agencies have failed, we have failed, and perhaps it is time to try something different.
Not all landowners are worthy, and it is certain many have plutoed their fisheries. Perhaps the State could use OUR license money to purchase the water rights from the landowners and hold them as piscatorial refuges. Perhaps they could even open them once every 5 years for fishing.
Somehow we have to figure out how to leave what few waterways remain, pristine, with whatever remains of their native stocks, for future anglers.
Obligatory Paris Hilton reference here.
kbarton10(Quote)
Thanks for “plutoed” and “Paris Hilton.” I’m sure the resulting flood in traffic will bouy me to the upper levels of the blogosphere, but in case we don’t, let’s give the Suffragette movement thing a try.
I appreciate everyone’s largely civil tone in this debate, and frankly, I love the thinking.
It’s Marketplace of Ideas day on the Trout Underground (paris hilton).
Tom Chandler(Quote)
Ok…so much for the rhedoric. What can we do to stop this crap?
Ray(Quote)
Get Paris Hilton to be the spokesperson for Trout Unlimited? (The fashion opportunities are endless.)
kbarton10(Quote)
Gentlemen, I live (and fish) in Michigan. It is not just the landowners or “red neck spincasters”. There is plenty of blame to go around. Unregulated run-off from farms, fishermen littering and destroying banks and beds in thier quest for fish, Industrial polution (present and sediment based). It comes down to you and I, take personal responsibility for you waterways. Help clean up even if you did not make the mess, join TU or some other organization dedicated to saving our passion. Report poachers, polluters etc. It is called stewardship.
Clay(Quote)
The beav’s spending money here in Colorado also. If your one of his rich country club types i hope you realize your “solitude” get’s you a great view of my drift boat everyday. I moved from the east to get away from access problems Don, stay in PA. I guess if i couldnt catch wild trout in public water and had the jingle i’d pay for some pellet fed stockers too. Just keep on rockin Don sooner or later every state will hate you as much as PA.
johnmuir(Quote)
Am I the only one feeling the love?
Tom Chandler(Quote)
The problem isn’t privatizations of public fishing lands, but people who think it’s another’s job to keep are fishing banks and waters clean. The next time you go fishing to your favorite stream, day dream about what you would do if you owned most of it. It’s then that you realize, if it’s public access than it’s owned by all of us via our tax dollars.
If this is so, then why don’t we keep our own banks and waters clean? We don’t need the rich buying up our land to make a buck and clean them up, and saying they mannaquer their land is no excuse to let them do this either, when the real problem is, we don’t keep clean, what we own now. No, not even the anglers who say they care.
Daniel Malone(Quote)