I'm going to loan Brian 2 cents so he can give another opinion....we don't hear from him enough these days.
Since I have 3 cents remaining I will also give my opinion.... I don't mind paying to fish in some areas. When in Rome....or when in the UK....if you want to fish....you pay. I didn't scoff at having to pay from 3-15 pounds to fish a couple of different waters. Especially after Iain sent me information about some waters costing HUNDREDS of times that amount for a day of fishing. Now...the waters that I fished weren't incredibly productive...but I still caught fish....and had a great time. I would do it again. Most of the waters in California are free. Enough so that I don't ever have to worry about having to cough up money to fish. I am actually a step below Brian...I'm sub-blue collar (i.e. NO income). I have friends who gladly fork over a couple hundred dollars to fish "managed ranches" in the Sierra's with lower yields (and more pressure to perform) than public waters. Advantages of pay to fish??? Better access for those who want to pay. If the product is worth its price....why complain that some people will pay for it? Let them. They may just enjoy paying a little more to know that some guy isn't going to send his kids into the river to retrieve his Rapala that got hung up in the bushes on the other side. If the fee money goes towards the upkeep of the water/quality of the fish...even better. There is no question that some of the "blue ribbon" waters in America are becoming too expensive to fish. I do not think that the owners jack up the prices to keep certain "elements" out...they are just exercising their rights in a free market to set a price on a product. If they own the land...they can rightfully restrict access to the land (but not necessarily the water). Now....it's in the upper 70's here and quite sunny. I am going to go fish in the free ocean. Best to all. Albacore, Chris
