Would you consider...........

[briansII]

...........fishing privately owned water, for a fee.

Please discuss.

briansII
PS, I had a lot more typed out, but deleted it. This should be more interesting

[Wildman]

In a heartbeat...if I could afford it. Since I can't....I don't think about it much.

[WadeK]

Yes, if I can afford it.

Having said that, I should also say I'm morally opposed to privately held moving water with public access above and/or below not allowing wading/walking/floating below the high water mark, especially if at any time in recorded history it was used for transporting goods, not to mention publicly funded stocking above and/or below.

Let the can o' worms open!

[NorcalBob]

Depends on the amount of the fee. In ARG I paid 10 pesos ($2.50) to fish a ranch. However, outside of minor "trespass" fee's (under $10), I have NEVER paid one of the commercial endeavors charging big bucks and likely never will. And yeah, I'm a lucky dog and could afford it IF I wanted to! But I don't want to!!!

[planettrout]

...for a fleeting moment...this ain't the UK...YET

PT/TB

[Bernard]

Depends what I am paying for.
There's a big difference to me between: Paying to access, for example, a private beach and fishing a trout farm.
That aside, I enjoy the challenge, on principle, of catching fish where anyone can go if they choose. I don't like feeling exclusive I guess.
B

[WanderingBlues]

Sure, why not? It's up there with paying a guide. A luxury item, but potentially a top shelf experience.

[Sasha]

No

[briansII]

Sure, why not? It's up there with paying a guide. A luxury item, but potentially a top shelf experience.

Kinda how I see it. I've used a guide a couple times, and I fish pay to play waters. As long as there isn't any controversial access issues, I have no moral problem paying to trespass/access fishy waters. Sometimes I have to pay to access "public" waters too. Not many lakes in Cali you can your boat, without first dropping some coin.

I will "treat myself" at least a couple times a year, and sometimes more. It's cheaper than a guide trip, and the fishin' is usually good. It is also cheaper than my trips to the Delta. But for the most part, it's not about the $, but more the experience. Promise of good fishing, and no crowds. I don't like crowds when I'm fishing........or pretty much any other time.

..........and yes Bob, I know you can have solitude and great fishing without paying. How about you PM me your secret spots!

briansII

[Sasha]

Dunno, maybe I'm jaded because of all the good fishing on public land out here

[Pete]

I'm with planettrout. Plus once it started it's a slippery slope, there is no turning back. Fees you can afford today, will you be able to afford them when you are on a fixed income? Or how about when the prices keep rising?

I can also see the other side. It's my property and I should be able to allow who I want on it and when. But, I do feel moving water is a different animal than still water.

[BBH]

I will be doing this very thing in 2 weeks..I paid for 3 spots on a certain sierra water for My Mom ,Dad and I to fish..Cant wait!

[briansII]

Understand about the concerns of losing access, and that's why I mentioned "controversial access issues". My goal was to get opinions on paying to fish. I realize we all spend money to fish, but to specifically pay to fish a particular body of water is what I was after.

I would not fish places where the land owners are trying to restrict access to "navigable waters". I also don't condone trespassing on someone's property, to gain access to fishing and hunting. I know of more than a few places that are now closed to the public, because they were trashed repeatedly through the years. I also know of a few private clubs in Ca. that I would never see a dime of my money, to fish. It's a great topic of discussion in itself.

I'll go ahead and throw this out there for discussion. I was involved in a small group of friends/fly fishermen, who paid the landowner a minimal fee to use his property to access fishing on a navigable waterway. Some fishermen were hiking downstream to his property, and using his land to fish from, and exiting the river to the road(deep canyon, steep walk out). Only one road access to the whole property. The caretaker was warning people to stay off the private property, and some conflict was inevitable. It made it's way to a fishing forum and was hashed out there. Both sides were dug in, and no one that I could see/read, changed their minds. BTW, this was not on newly purchased land, but owned for decades by the same family. Same rules. Same mean high water mark. Same everything. Just some folks thought they had a right to be on his property.

briansII

[beachbum]

I can without doubt say, * YES! Whether I fish said property depends on the quality and price, but I * well think about it. Some private water is better then others. The spring creeks of Montana are pretty sweet and worth every penny if you like to fish for large fish with little dry flies. I was glad to pay the fee to fish the storied English waters like the Test and Avon, and the life experience was worth every pound I spent.

It always makes sense to me to keep an open mind about fishing possibilities, especially the unique ones.

[duckdog]

I have no problem with private land owners charging a fee to fish or hunt their property. They paid for it, pay the taxes on it, they get to decide who has access to it. Now when Federal, State , or Local government tries to restrict access to public land or charges fees like the Feds did with the Adventure Pass, THAT WILL CHAP ME.
Would I pay to fish on private land ? I couldn't afford it so it is not something that I think about that much but if I had the money I might consider it...nahhh i'm too cheap.