McCoy Spring Creek?

[ibookje]

What happened to the great fishery of McCoy Spring Creek?
Seems it was sold (https://www.landsofamerica.com/property ... na/2489468) a few years ago. Is it still pay to fish?

https://vimeo.com/36293671

[CDCdun]

Sadly it is no longer available to the public. I called a fly shop that had guide access on McCoy and they no longer have that option either.

Jake

[Oxbow]

I was at the fly shop this summer that put us on McCoys years ago and they also confirmed the same - sadly.

[ibookje]

Yeah, too bad.
Maybe ask politely to the new owner?

[Hellmtflies]

Yea, that was an awesome creek. Sad it is no longer available. The pheasant hunting there was off the charts too.

[Bitterroot1]

I fished it a couple times after they cleaned up the silt problem and before going private. Fishing was stupid silly, like a stocked trout pond! The second time I went I had to dodge the owner who drove around on a sidexside with two kids shooting prairie dogs with 410s. LOL

[snorider]

I still fish it, but is an all day affair and somewhat brutal. Multiple fence crossings, mud! and mansions, with ornery caretakers but still worth it. I can't wait for a Gnome made packable kick raft so I can float back to my truck! That would make Way easier.

[PT48]

Now there's an enticing proposition - having a trout-laden spring creek bubble up out of the ground on your own private property. Problem is, you would spend all of your time fretting about poachers and interlopers. Watch it snorider, you could end up with tail full of buckshot!!

PT48

[Flyman615]

Years ago I flew over the area in a private aircraft and was truly amazed by the number of 'private' spring creeks flowing on ranches between Bozeman and Three Forks.

And in those days you could even perhaps gain access to some of them simply by asking permission. Sadly, no more.

Scott

[Bitterroot1]

OK pickle boy, I have to weigh in on your comments. Many of the ranchers who own spring creeks spend a ton of money turning silt filled springs into restored, sustainable fisheries, including McCoys. Without their restoration investment, most are not sustainable fisheries. Now I believe in public access and Montana’s stream access laws. They have the best laws. But they are for navigable rivers that the public used, not small private springs. Those springs snake through private ranches and they were never navigable water ways. Heck you can walk a straight line faster than trying to skirt through the million S curves. They mostly are used for irrigation purposes. Not sure why you think you have the right to fish these private springs. Do you destroy the spawning beds too when tracing all over these small springs?

Why do you think they are ornery? What have you done to help the rancher improve his fishery. Sounds like you are just a taker. Next time you fence jump a private creek, why don’t you hand the owner a few hundred bucks and help him out since he is spending a lot of money so you can enjoy the first class fishery he restored.

[cregb]

Why do you think they are ornery?

Outside of one comment, it seems like most are still willing to pay to fish this stream. A rod fee would still go towards aiding in making a stream and the maintenance more affordable for the owner. As for this particular stream, I don't know the specifics or the history but it seems there are still folks willing to pay to fish it.

Best wishes to the current owner. I'd like to be in their situation.

[snorider]

Name calling? I am pretty sure that type of adolescent behavior has been banned from the civil discourse around here. Have you ever taken the time to READ the Montana Stream Access Law? My guess is NO! just judging by your complete and total ignorance of both the spirit and letter of the law. Ignorant folks like you are the reason why I carry a couple copies of a summery of the law to hand out. I like to educate people who have not bothered to read, can't read?, or who do not understand the laws of the state of MT.

Walking up streams capable of recreation, within the annual high water mark is legal, crossing man made obstructions placed across streams is also legal, including exiting the high water mark to safely do so! What is not legal is the harassment of fishermen who are following the laws. There is a law on the books that prohibits land owners from harassing sportsmen.

The name of this creek is not "Mc Coy" that is the name of the business that operated on this stream. I will continue to legally access and fish this stream in the future. There is no "poaching" nor "interloping" the citizens of the great state of Montana OWN the streams of our state. There was another ignorant new resident of our state that paid many millions of dollars to test this law and got his A$$ handed to him by the state supreme court, you might have missed that too.

I support stream access, I support fishery restoration and donate to causes that do the same. If a land owner wants to restore a stream that is their business, and they need to get permission from the state of montana to do so. Without exception every rancher I have come across on my travels knows the law and to the number they have been polite and respectful, as have I been to them. The only "ornery" folks I've met are the caretakers of muti million dollar mansions built WAY to close to sensitive water ways, again the reason I carry copies of the LAW. To the letter all of the points you made about my ass umed "trespasses" are completely without foundation, save perhaps the bit about a straight line being the shortest route between two points at least ya got that right!

Maybe you should read up a bit on the law before condemning some one for following it, that would probably be a good idea for ya in the future so you won't look like such a turkey.
Michael

[SpringCreek]

But they are for navigable rivers that the public used, not small private springs.

Without debating the merits of fishing locations such as this, it is interesting to note that the Montana Stream Access Law is not limited to navigable rivers like in some other states. The law says that, in general, all surface waters capable of recreational use may be so used by the public without regard to the ownership of the land underlying the waters. It also states that recreationists can use rivers and streams up to the ordinary high-water mark. Class I waters (under the law) are those that are "navigable", and Class II waters are all other rivers and streams. The law allows greater use of Class I waters, but does still grant access below the high water mark for Class II waters. This includes spring creeks, but not irrigation ditches.

Maybe someday the current owner will reinstate the pay fishery.

[snorider]

Springcreek,
The current owners, rumor has it, are investment banking billionaires, they have no interest in our paltry rod fees. I'll say hi next time I see em.

[Hellmtflies]

Springcreek and Snorider are ABSOLUTELY correct in regards to the Montana Stream Access Law. Read the law before one comments regarding same. If one gains legal access to a stream they have the ABSOLUTE right to go as far as they want regarding the high water mark and can exit the stream to navigate around obstacles as long as they get immediately back in. They cannot cross private property to access the water without landowners permission. Regarding McCoys if one gains access from the confluence of the Beaverhead or from a county bridge then they are good to go. This law is why Montana is still the "Last Best Place". Other states should try to correct their errors and use our law to further the commitment to fishing and outdoor sports. My humble two cents.
Mark

[Bitterroot1]

I have no problem with rivers and streams that are truly public resources. Montana has the best stream access laws but I don’t agree with the broad coverage. How is a piece of water that flows through private land and is not navigable, a public resource?

I have a nice piece of property on the Bitterroot. No issue with people fishing on my property. I’ve even pointed out where the big browns hang out to people who are respectful. I’ve had people build fires down on my dry river bank and again, no issues. I’m constantly cleaning up trash but that is another topic. What I have issue with are the springs or small tribs that are not considered a public resource (not navigable). They flow through private land, mostly ranchers land, and many of them would not be sustainable fisheries unless the land stewards who invested the huge restoration monies they do periodically to turn a silt filled, poor flowing piece of water into a viable and sustainable fishery. Without these investments, no one would care about the water because it wouldn’t be worth anything other than for irrigation. No one cared two cents about Mitchell Slough until five guys with money put a lot into the land to make it a sustainable fishery. Now what see are the 20-25 year olds trying some crazy sh*t to get access to the slough. And they walk all over the spawning beds because they can care less. That is my point. Justify all you want. It was not a fishery before they made the investment and it would not be the fishery without their continued investment. I’m happy when a rancher allows access for a fee. But I’m also respectful when they don’t because I know that water isn’t truly a public resource.

[snorider]

Well you're still just missing the intent of the MSAL: spring creeks are class 2 waters with potential for recreation, they are legal to fish under the LAW! I don't have to "jusity" any thing! Mitchell slough is owned by the STATE not the landowner. If you chose to remodel your neighbors barn you still wouldn't own it! Don't like the law try another state. This is not a new law btw the precedent reaches back to the founding our great state. Geez try reading the law it is pubic record!

[redietz]

How is a piece of water that flows through private land and is not navigable, a public resource?

Because the law defines it as that.

[oneculm]

I think one of the things that can be confusing is the word navigable. In some cases like NY the term means that a particular water was or still is used for commerce. That was to protect the rights of a person or business that might be using the water like possibly a small mill. It had nothing to do with the use of the water for the use of some type of craft. I have always felt that if the land owner did not want me there legally or not I will respect their wishes and go somewhere else. dave m

[BigTJ]

Bitterroot 1 sorry to say pal the law does not agree with your point of view. There is plenty of info available both online and in person. As a landowner it might be a good idea to get the facts to avoid being on the wrong side of the law.

I also think that private land owners are doing more damage than help to rivers by irrigation overdrafts, herbicides and pesticides, and grazing impacts. The idea that the stewardship of private land owners is the only reason there is good habitat in smallstreams, and that this stewardship somehow grants them exclusive use of non-navigable waterways, is not tenable. There’s a million miles to go before all private land owners are doing what they could be.

If somebody wants their river completely private better to buy in wyoming or CO.