It would be interesting to see what would happen at a federal level.  I could only imagine what would happen.  I believe the states that have constitutional admendments have them to counter the animal rights groups and the efforts of the anti-gun lobby.  I don't think these rights permit a person to trespess in order to hunt or fish. 
 
The bottom liine is that we all need to exercise some common sense when hunting and fishing and respect others.

ORIGINAL: griffon

our own personal / recreational needs like Mr. griffon?  I would bet NO!!

Fishing is the largest participated sport in the country.  PA has close to a million licensed hunters.  How is it that standing up for the rights of these groups is even implied as selfish.  Cr, please go back and reread my posts.  I understand private property and property rights.  I feel sorry for you witnessing someone surviving when they could have been hit by a train. Here again however, this is another RR worker sticking up for the company (I know you no longer work for them).

CR, you admit that you have crossed tracks.  Do you feel that for doing as such you should be arrested and fined?  I don't and that was my argument from the beginning when everyone was ready to serve an individual up for dinner.  Another board member mentioned that this was a highly sensitive area that the perp was on, and I admitted that I was indeed unaware of the spot (although I could see areas like staging yards being off limits).  

Griffon- Please show me factual data that shows the majority of these Pa. hunters share/support the same views as you when it comes to using RxR / any private posted property.

" I feel sorry for you witnessing someone surviving when they could have been hit by a train. "
          WTF??   Does that mean you would be glad for me if we would have killed them?



Griffon- "CR, you admit that you have crossed tracks.  Do you feel that for doing as such you should be arrested and fined? "

I supports the RxR / anyones right to post their property. If I were to get caught/arrested/fined for trespassing -so be it. I deserve what I get if I know I'm breaking the law.



As to the original post.

I live near & have fished that area for 30+ years. I also know the reasons for the enforcement for that particular area.   .  The area mentioned was finally deemed off limits after a 100+ years because ONE hunter didn't abide by a unwritten rule the RxR had about staying along the east side of the creek & out of the fenced area.  He was caught hunting WAY outside the limits that the RxR had torerated for streamside anglers.  He gets fined so he decides to fight the RxR  in the local court.  He argued that the anglers had access to fish posted property downstream of the parking lot.  I'd also like to mention this guy is a Conn.  local, a avid trib. angler,  charter capt.  & a public employee @ the time. HE KNEW THE LONG STANDING UNWRITTEN RULES & LIMITS BETTER THAN MOST!!  Long story short is the RxR decided that area would now be off limits to EVERYONE due to his court actions. On a positive note, that RxR is still not the evil villians you portray them as. They ( RxR) still  lets 1000's of anglers fish a large section of their posted property directly upstream /adjacent to the restricted /enforced area without fine. Don't walk the gage (rails) & the RxR law rides on by /waves. 

Quote: "Cr, please go back and reread my posts."

I have.   I would like to see some of that detailed data that will support your statement below.

Quote by griffon:
"

Here is a thought and I am being absolutely serious.  Since you are employed by the railroads and have been employed for them for some time, I will assume you hold a position of at least a little influence.  Why don't you do some good for sportsmen and all other outdoor people and use your influence to help build railroad easements where crossing and travel can be done.  There will no doubt be the need for more train routes in the future (no denying that), with the current legalities, the railroad will only post more and more access.  Like I said, currently the railroads cover hundreds of thousands of miles and every inch of those tracks is off limits even for the sake of crossing (obviously not referring to street crossings).   "



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_1_12/ai_68951939

Quotes from link above:

"There are currently 1,012 rail-trails in the U.S. with a total trail mileage of more than 11,000. Another 1,200 projects are underway in all 50 states, with 18,000 more miles. There's unlimited potential, given the fact that more than 160,000 miles of rail corridor have been abandoned. "But some of it has been converted to roads, some plowed up for farm land," says Burwell. "We'd be happy with a third of the total, 50,000 miles of trails opened up to public use."

I don't see the RxR's giving back 11K + miles for public access in the last 20+ years as screwing anyone out of more access. They could have easily sold it off to private enterprises.


Griffon - "There will no doubt be the need for more train routes in the future (no denying that),"

From Link above -
"Meanwhile, only half of the original rail network is still in place, and railroads continue to abandon 2,000 miles of track every year. Once old rail rights of way, or "corridors," are sold for development, they're gone forever. Recreating them is cost-prohibitive. Cities reintroducing light rail do so at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars per mile.

You sure got a woodie for RxR's & railroad workers. 

Edit problems

Maybe he's a foamer ???
 
Ronnie

Cr. My statements about becoming more dependant on railways in the future is based solely on economics and the current rising cost of fossil fuels.  My sources will remain anonymous, but I can tell you that every US manufacturer out there is currently looking for ways to keep costs on goods to consumers at a reasonable level.  Unfortunately, using trucks is becoming less of an option due to the cost of operating them. As a result, there has to be some sort of alternative mode of bringing goods to the market.  The only cost effective (although much slower) means of doing this is by rail.  As for being slower, that is a big issue and will cost suppliers billions of dollars annually due to increases in order cycles.  There is a trade off, but the rising costs of fossil fuels will outway the demands made by leadtime necessities.  To put an ending to this, the demand for railway hauling is going to increase.  With that demand will come a need for more active trains and more active lines.  This may mean that old lines are reopened and it may mean that new lines will be constructed, but it definitely means that more track will need to be made useable once again until another alternative is found.  As for Hardcore, as you said, I know nothing so I expect you should be able to figure out what I am talking about with no problems.

As for the railways giving land back,  they do that to some degree.  They also lease a lot of land which they abandon (is that considered giving back, I am not sure).  The problem with them giving back the property is that the agencies they turn it over to in many instances block hunters from accessing properties much the same way the railroad did. 

I never had a hard on for the railroads, but I do believe they are wrong on this issue.   You know, I have been reading your comments for years, much the same as I am sure you have read many of mine.  For the most part we have agreed on most subjects, we just disagree on this one.  I am just a little confused how someone that is so opposed to people like Donny Beaver can side with Railroads on this.  Although they have different motivations, the outcome is generally the same with the difference being that the railroad restricts a lot more access than the Beav.  I can guarantee you one thing, Terry would have sided with me on this.  He was all about gaining public access to all of our public lands.  We actually had discussed this one time and he was a large part of the reason that I feel the way I do today about this topic.

here is what i think because this page is stupid as it is.  no trespressing means NO trespassin  how hard is that to under stand?   and i will be the first one to tell somthing. i fish noth park/ pine creek.  i cross the train tracks EVERY time to get to the dang creek.  i have never gotton a ticket or any thing at all an never will.  now if they posted no tess signs up then i would simply find a nother place to fish WHATS THE BIG DEAL???? i had to deal with this over hunting season actually road hunters came into my property an started to hunt cuz they said it was public land, because there waz no signs up. well i put signs up this year, an at the bottom of it, clearly says violaters will be shot, an surviors will be shot again.  an just cuz you pay taxes dont mean you own everything. so go find a nother spot an stop getting on the old people for once huh?  u have no reaspect for ur self an for others.  these boards are here to help people not to mentor an watch little kids while mommy an dady are at work. show sum respect

You would have to be deaf to be struck by a train or doing something you shouldn't on the tracks.

Apparently not, go on goerie.com or www.kdka.com or post tribune and search for train accidents and see how many pedestrians were killed by trains that were not deaf, from Erie County down to Allegheny County. Quite a few are suicides, but there are quite a few others that have nothing to do with being deaf.

I have glanced through most of this and would say most people aren't supporting the railroads but more supporting the respecting of Trespassing signs. Fishing 7, 12, and 16 Mile my whole life, I never needed the railroads to access any of those. We used to ride our ATV's along the tracks in North East, and were stopped by the RR police before. It was upsetting then, but fully understand why they did now.

Re: Loomis
 
Someone gets injured on your property (you're generous enough to let them use) and the first thing they want to do is sue you because you didn't protect them from "needless" injury. Your only protection is to "post" your property against their "trespass"!
 
Maybe 90 -99.9% won't sue, but it's always that one ingrate who can cost you!

ORIGINAL: jon_e_si

Someone gets injured on your property (you're generous enough to let them use) and the first thing they want to do is sue....  Your only protection is to "post" your property against their "trespass"!

 
This is not true.  You can protect yourself by warning signs, insurance and the law:
 
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/recreate/pa_rec.htm

ORIGINAL: Dream Catcher

 Perhaps you'll see me on court TV for the supreme court case or Jerry Springer fighting with folks lacking common sense.

 
Why travel?  You're already doing that here in some cases.

I believe that that area is still OK, but I would excercise caution, as there have been numerous break in's to cars in that area the past few months. Probably BN's shooting outta the woods, smashin an' grabbin whatever they can take. They've got a real problem down there. Be careful.