Hello All,

Was wondering how you all feel about it... pay $$$ to fish.

It was one of those things I started thinking about the other day while spending 3/4 of the day trying to catch a fish (any size - I wasn't being picky). The guys back home said that they were catching up to 10lb fish a short ways away on private property - but had to pay $$$ for the access.

While bathing in the rays of the overhead sun and well protected from its harm safely in the shadow of my ballcap, I pretty much came to the conclusion that for me - pay $$$ to fish - defeats the underlying purpose and enjoyment I derive from fishing, even if I am getting skunked. (Which means I fish not to catch fish - go figure!!!) I can't really pin it down why I am opposed to paying $$$ to fish but I suspect it is because a freedom* is another degree less of a freedom... and fishing, of all activities, is prey to capitalism.

CG

* Understanding that the so called freedom is already highly regulated and much less of a freedom than it was for those that came before us.

You're not alone. It's becoming a big issue here in Pennsylvania. Some guy named Donny Beaver is leasing up the better stretches of our spring creeks and selling corporate and private memberships. So, not only do the Bush's and their buddies reap big tax free profits selling oil, weapons, etc. they're buying the use of our fishing streams for their leisure with the profits!

No lack of irony in a guy named "Beaver" blocking off sections of rivers...



Pay high $$$ for exclusive fishing rights, while supporting politicians who are gutting water quality standards, environmental protections, lobbying to maintain dams that aren't needed, etc. No worries - as long as you're part of the elite, you can still pay to find "good" water, at least in the short term.

I'm reluctant to get political in this forum, but I increasingly fail to understand how you can be a commited fisher (or a number of other things) and support the current dismantling of protections and standards being put forth by this administration, regardless of where you fall on the partisan scale. It's not that they're simply doing nothing, they are actively hurting the resource that we're commited to protecting and trying to manage well.

As yet another example, though I'm assuming many of you have already heard, in Dec. Bush put forth a plan to cut by more than 80 percent the miles of rivers and streams designated as critical habitat for threatened and endangered Northwest runs of salmon and steelhead. The argument in favor of this states that only specific rivers where the fish are known to be thriving are eligible for continued protection - those which may have had historic runs, but don't presently, will not be protected with the hopes of restoration.

Also, the administration asserted that big hydroelectric dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers in the Northwest don't threaten the survival of wild fish runs and declared that it would no longer consider dam removal as an option for restoring fish populations.

And then there's the gutting of the Clean Water Act, the weakening of regs against sewage overflows from factory farms, letting gas producers off the hook from cleaning up MTBE, continuing to allow, and even ease restrictions on mining wastes and chemicals being dumped into water sources....

I know this is a tangent from the topic of this post, but frankly, I'm disgusted, and ScudDog's comment just got me fired up If anyone thinks this administration is doing anything for the benefit of the environment, including the watersheds, rivers, and fish that we're dependent
on , I'd love to hear it.

I've paid to play before, but it's not the focus of the trip. We'll go up north and fish public waters for a week, but spend one day on some private water. It's a nice break from the stocker-fests you can have on planted public waters. The biggest fish from last years NoCal vacation were caught on private waters and probably will be this year too.

Waitin for the hex hatch

Crusty

like B D i started fly fishing on the famed hot creek ranch. like alpers it private water it was one of the 1st. fly fisching ranchs and only alows dry flys and c&r only, they are some of the hardest fish to get on the line, with over 50yrs of drys and like alpers on trees or brushs. and like alpers and hot creek ranch only one better i know of the 3 forks ranch in northern co. they have 16 miles of the little snake river and did a $5,000,000 make over to make it one of the best fly fishing rivers in co. anyway i think that $$$for fishing is not bad although, it may be bad for the one's that were fishing a river before it went private. hope you all have a good summer of fishing, see ya greg

Here in England we have paid for access to fishing for years, but apart from the more exclusive Chalk Stream stretches where commercial day tickets are available, the majority of waters are controlled by clubs and syndicates.
This gives us the opportunities to be involved in the running and maintenance of the fisheries and creates a social atmosphere which can be extended into meetings and events in the close season. Most clubs offer day tickets to visitors too, but it is the members who control.
The pressure of population on non-wilderness fisheries is bound to increase, and the only way to stop the corporations controlling the fishing is to club together and sign up the rights first. Maybe the local TU chapters could provide the framework?

Regards,
Doc

I haven't thought too much about paying for fishing, but I'd liken it to hunting leases. I grew up in eastern Ohio (on the WV border), and there I'd never heard of a hunting lease. Hunting was something that country folk and folks who just liked the outdoors did. Being a steel and mining area, there were not alot of folks with scads of money - most, like me, were just simple folks.

Now, I've live in the Dallas area for nearly 20 years and I've only hunted once or twice since coming here. I guess it just seems contrived to pay to hunt; especially the price you have to pay. Although I was never a deer hunter, the guys I know that do deer hunt in TX pay around 2K for their leases and usually have to drive 4 hr to get there. It's too much work and too much money to hunt as I see it.

And I guess my main objection to all this is that it's cutting the average person out of the ability to participate; making it a sport only the more financially well healed can enjoy. I hope this isn't where fishing is headed, but I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out that way.

CG,
I just joined a modest flyfishing club in PA. and have fished some waters run by a flyshop that charges 50./day per rod and if you have 2 or more the stream is yours for the day. While I can still hump a few miles over rugged terrain if I have to (and usually do) therte's going to come a time when that's not going to be an option and if I want to get into quality fish that I have to work at ,at least a little bit, the private waters that i fish allow that to happen. Not the way I'd prefer but
glad to have the option if needed.
Best,
Steve

I belong to a club where rates run about $65 per rod per day, but usually only fish on these waters 4-5 times a year. there are a ton of public waters and I have mondays off so pressure is a lot lower. It's like a reward or something special when me and my dad go to private water and I plan on taking my son when he's a little older. anyway its nice to have the option.

Maybe some of it might depend on what part of the country (USA) you live in? I feel like in much of the West, the amount of publicly accessible water is still vast, and if you're willing to hike even just a little bit, there's enough to last several lifetimes. Can't speak for the East or Mid-West, having never fished there. That's not to say that much of the water in the West is not under various pressures/threats of overuse, pollution, etc., but having just returned from the Sierras, I was just left hoping I have the time in this life to fish a fraction of what's there on public land, and open to anyone who can walk.

From a conservation standpoint, I can appreciate the approach of an organization like the Nature Conservancy - rather than spending time and resources trying to get government to do something, they simply buy land and protect it on their own. The approach has been very succesful. Private lodges/clubs/whatever that are not just trying to provide an "exclusive" experience for their clients, but are also taking their responsibility as landowners/river caretakers seriously by protecting and helping to smartly manage resources I have no problem with.