Comments on: Posted | Club Fish | 2065

By: Domenick Swentosky

Domenick Swentosky — Tue, 03 Jan 2017 17:25:42 +0000

Nice

By: Scott Sharer

Scott Sharer — Mon, 26 Dec 2016 15:28:37 +0000

I’ve fished a good many years all over our beloved Pennsylvania. As a youngster there were always worms to dig, minnows to chase, and long bike rides up the crick! I’ve seen private waters, fished them, and came away feeling much like I do when fishing public access. I’ve encouraged partnership with organizations for just these purposes and ends. The fact that we lose a stretch of “home waters” leaves all of us feeling cheated, sometimes even truly heart broken. But private ground is just that, and if one of these fine conservation organizations works with the land owner/owners to improve stream conditions, I’m all for that! I believe the best way to keep public water accessible is to share said waters with our young cohorts so they also might someday look on another private water and FEEL…..heart broken.

It is impossible to be in nature truly and not give your heart away at the same time. It is our soul that creates the love that creates the heart break in our losses.

And….a river runs through us all…

By: rivertoprambles

rivertoprambles — Tue, 02 Aug 2016 00:18:48 +0000

Around here I see a parallel with hunting clubs. Farmlands once open to hunters near and far are purchased for the benefit of a few. I am not a hunter but I see both pros and cons to this new phase of ownership. As for fishing clubs, I’m not a fan and wouldn’t belong to one, even when they do rescue lands and waters from development. The bottom line is the question of how a change in ownership affects wild trout. Adding hatchery giants to the water isn’t good for anyone or anything other than a few paying customers.

By: Domenick Swentosky

Domenick Swentosky — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 20:36:28 +0000

In reply to Ralph Long.

Thanks for sharing your point of view, Ralph.

By: Ralph Long

Ralph Long — Sat, 30 Jul 2016 20:04:34 +0000

Would I love to see utopia? Sure. It would be great to have all the streams be open water, stream improvements would always be sensible and the fish would be wild and reproducing at supporting levels. In some places that happens. In some places folk live on water that is public and great water. In other places that is not the case. There are some clubs that form to protect water and provide fishing for it’s members. There are other clubs that charge a home mortgage so they can grow and become rich enough to build campgrounds and whatnot. Fact is, you can’t tell folks what to do with their own property, Sometimes they will do what benefits fishermen, Sometimes they will not. But I can’t demand that farmer Brown keeps his water open so that I can continue to catch my biggest hook-nosed browns out of is upper pool. His choice, for his reasons. But when farmer Brown wants to develop his land, and a group of fishermen are able to stop that development by leasing his stream access. Can I fault them? Would I join them if I could…yup.Or…I could pound my head on the floor an complain that I “USED” to be able to fish there. Been there, done that,…it gave me a headache and I still could no longer fish there.

I fish 90% public waters for all species. I am also a member of a club. A club formed by mostly locals like me who grew up fishing local water. Then it got privatized for profit, but those folks moved on. Now, fisherman formed to lease it and ensure access to that same water. I make no apologies for that. And yes it is stocked. So is the rest of the public water. I will remain a member for as long as the club is able to remain intact. To do otherwise would mean I would no longer be able to fish any of the water grew up on.

By: Jason Warner

Jason Warner — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 12:30:22 +0000

This is the topic is so important because clubs threaten the entire culture. Stocking over wild fish , watering down genetics, and destroying opportunities for future flyfishers . I’m shocked TU put that in Trout magazine which is refreshing , but on a state level here in NJ they seem to work hand and hand with clubs even advocating for them and getting grants for there stream improvements . I’m not totally against clubs some guys need them , and some clubs hold off development which is great . But advocating for them in any shape or form seems be shady business for a non for profit . But where I’m from perhaps that’s buisness as usual .

By: Domenick Swentosky

Domenick Swentosky — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 22:25:49 +0000

In reply to Bruce.

Yeah buddy. Like you said … “So far” we still have water to fish.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 21:09:14 +0000

Excellent. I live in Portage and I understand what you mean by #clubfish. Thanks God for Spring Creek, Yellow Creek and The Little Juniata River. Donny Beaver and his group own or lease parts of those creeks, too, but at least so far I have water to fish. I tell my nephews and all young people to get involved with the environment and fresh public water. If they don’t get interested, I’m afraid there will be little public water remaining for future generations to fish, or just visit.