Private Put In Fees On Private Property.

[Outside Bend]

Which portion do you own? If he owns the land at all access points I see an issue with you owning it too

The river.

[ollie]

It would all depend on the creek and IF I thought it was worth it. Private access does have an advantage in that you know your vehicle is somewhat safe. Not always, but most of the time. Now 5 to park and 5 to launch is getting more than I like to pay. If it's an area I have never been to before and didn't know all the accesses then I might see paying.

[flytyer57]

$10 to park and launch is not too much. If someone thinks that it is, tell them to go down the road and access.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Paying for two different services seems out of line. You normally don't see a fee to launch and a fee to park. I don't recall ever having to pay to park where I've paid to launch. No problem with the access fee, but the parking sounds like a little much, unless you're offering some kind of security that's costing you extra.

[RSBreth]

I can see paying a couple of bucks depending on how choice the water is, but for 10 bucks I'd expect to come back to a washed and vacuumed car.

[ozark trout fisher]

Is it a public road and and a navigable stream? If so, then it's a public access and you probably don't have any business charging folks to use it.

That said, if the bridge is on a private road (or an unnavigable stream although this stream clearly is navigable, because you said it is a "popular float stream"), then you can charge however much you please.

That's my interpretation of the law, but my personal feeling is that people shouldn't be allowed to charge for access to a resource managed by the state. Let me get this straight... You get the money for granting access, but it is the job of the MDC to manage the fishery and bust the poachers? That just ain't right.

[ColdWaterFshr]

It just dawned on me. I'm pretty sure we're talking about the Hwy 8 bridge on the lower Huzzah. He's got every right to charge what he wants. Got trash, traffic, and hoosiers to consider as part of his costs. Its a fair price. If I owned it, I would do the same.

And you wouldn't want to put a boat in using the Highway easement. I've considered it. Not worth the trouble and there isn't any place to park.

[Al Agnew]

I agree with ColdWaterFsher...the highway easement there is unusable. You have to access the stream and park on cwc's land. I believe it's well worth the money. Very convenient access, very good parking, and excellent security. As for charging a separate fee for access and parking, I can see one good reason to do so. Not everybody will leave a car there, such as if they have a friend or relative doing their shuttle. They may just drop off a boat and take the vehicle down to the take-out. In that case, it's worth a little less just to access without parking.

I don't know where some have been accessing, but there's no way the use of a private access is worth less than $5, and I don't think $10 is out of reason.

And...please get your private property facts straight. The public owns only the water in floatable streams, not the banks, not the bottom. The public has a right to USE the bottom and the banks within the normal high water mark, but must access the river at a public access or by permission. And highway right of ways where it is physically possible to access streams are getting scarcer all the time.

[joeD]

The easy answer is: YES, I would pay for private access to a stream I desired to fish. But only if that access afforded me an advantage that public accesses couldn't.

But that's not what you're asking now, is it?

You are asking an Econ 101 question of: At what price point does the supply curve(private access) meet the demand curve(potential fishermen)? In other words, if you charge too much, some will balk at the price and not go, charge too little, and you have a no-longer-private mess, where the advantage of privacy (exclusivity) is lost.

Which brings me to my next point.

What do you want? Do you want people to know and use your private land, thereby making you money. But losing "privacy." Or. Do you want exclusivity? Letting a select few know about it, charging them accordingly, thereby keeping your access, in reality, "private?"

As a privileged land owner, I trust you'll make the correct choice for your loyal serfs.

[Trout Commander]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe you should change your verbage though. If you billed it as a $10 fee, but only $5 if you didn't park it would seem as though you are cutting the launch only crowd a deal instead of sticking it to (which I don't think you are) the people that park.

Just my 2 cents.