High Water Mark Wading Law

I say yes, but we must all police our waters not just the fish commission.

RUBBISH!!!!

That's one thing that I would seriously concider take up arms about.  No chit.  That's a BAD idea.  I don't even own land, yet.  Move to another state if you think that we should do it just 'cause they do it over there.  If it's so great, go there!!!

Taking away private rights will start things you and I don't want to see happen down the road.  I hate eminent domain, and I would hate a wading law just as much.  Careful what you ask for...  somebody may just want to build a drycleaner where you live. 

Once again, the word is PRECEDENT.




Sorry, Jeremy, we should already be doing that.(policing)  I know I do, and I believe you do as well. 

I honestly dont see the harm. Your giving people the benefit of doubt with a wading law, which is somthing as a society that we dont do anymore. Everyone is no good untill they prove us otherwise. I believe in this simply because theres a trend happening here. And its getting bad. People have come to the conclusion that if they own a good section of stream they should make money off it. If they didnt, we wouldnt be purchasing land easments. If people really felt that strong about it, no amount of money would change that.

J..
 
We are able to wade navigable rivers.
 
It'll never happen for non-nav. because
 
1) It's likely in the deed that the streambed is owned.
 
2)  I bought my house for X amount of dollars.  Now the state took the streambed.  I just lost a ton of home value.  I also paid a pretty penny for that stream.  Will I get reimbursed or compensated for my loss?  How will it be paid for?
 
3) Most streams don't have a history of nav.
 
4) Fishing is not a necessity of life.  Most people don't fish.
 
With that said, perhaps we are headed in the direction of big money fishing, at least, if you're expecting a decent experience.

"I totally support the thoughts of making it law that if one wants to post their land "No Fishing" or "No Hunting", that those statements should be held true to ALL persons, landowner included"
 
Dude are you serious...talk about taking land owner rights away...If I was a landowner with a good fishing stream in it I would rather have fishermen wading it then post it and not even to be able to fish my own land.
 
TT, I never seen you so fired up about something

...Written Permission!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

"define for me a navigable stream, and this is to only open dialogue to make ppl think"

While there is no actual list of nav. rivers for PA, really nothing to do with what people think, it's the law.  If there is no history of to it being used, it's not nav.  Landowner owns it 100%.  Pretty simple.

""Yes, but the water flowing over it, and the fish stocked are not owned by the land owner "I know your not arguing that point""

Actually I will argue that point.  The landowner did not ask for the fish to be stocked there.

"I dont agreee with the blanket statement the state took the stream bed. Eminant domain is rarely used any more due to its negative public impact (obviously)"

Streamside property has appeal to property owners, its raises the value tremedously..  If a landowner paid a pretty penny for streamside property/ and the bed, then it turns to eminent domain, yes, it is most certainly taken away from them.


"please elaberate on how your qualifying this statement by a "ton of home value lost?"

Streamside property adds value tremedously .. as stated.

"The only thing you would own is the stream bed, which you can not touch "alter" unless you get a Army Corps engineering permit. In the bigger picture the stream did not cost you so much more unless your house fronts on it, and its like a blue ribbon trout water or something close."

Will I get reimbursed or compensated for my loss?  How will it be paid for?

"How much do you think you have to lose with others only traveling and fishing your section of water, and not traversing accross your lands to get to the water. Remember a wading law only permits the angler to fish,  and not to walk across your land to get to the river"

I possibly have alot to lose.  House value for one.  Picking up litter .. watching some duud take a **** in front of my family sitting at Thanksgiving dinner.  We can't expect all fisherman to be responsible.  The bad seed ruins it for everyone.

"it is looked at on a case by case situation, unlike MI which there wading law is written into there state Constituation"

I agree BUT ONLY major waterways are nav. in Michigan .. such as The Mans, the Joe, Dowagic, PM.  Go step foot in Brandywine, McCoy, Judy Creek .. you'll get a trespassing fine just like here.  Check out the 100+ page document on the MI DNC site.
 
 

commie's
 
For the life of me, I just can't understand how someone thinks it's fine and dandy to IMPOSE their selfish RECREATIONAL wants on a land owner.
 
This isn't about right of way, roads, power lines, public utilties etc.
 
It's about RECREATION purposes.
 
BTW Jeremy, aren't you a guide that makes MONEY off a public resourse?
 
Maybe we should porpose legislation that allows anyone to have a PICNIC in YOUR yard, Jermey.
 
 
I'll  bring a hundred clients there.
Maybe CHARGE a fee for GUIDING them to YOUR yard.
Not going to give you a darn penny either.
Just use it for PROFIT like it was my own playground
 
waddaya think?
sound like a winner?
 
..L.T.A.

You're a little extreme ("convicted sex offenders"), but I agree with your message. 

Imagine you own land that is NOT adjacent to a stream, yet contains a little pond, say a "duck" pond like the one my parents had dug when I was about 5 yrs old.  What you people are asking for could lead to the state demanding that the public be allowed access to the banks of that little pond.  Stocked or not.  Cool by you?  Not with me!!!!

The native "Indians" used to "own" all of this.  Give your property deed to the natives peoples who were driven out long ago.  It's only fair.

I have about 3/4 of a mile of brook trout stream running through the family farm. I have been doing stream improvements to try and reestablish a breeding population of natives. I think it would be outrageous if the PFBC or any other governing body could tell me I must let any and all fisherman access to the stream. We've paid taxes on this land since 1960. It has never been posted and has always been open to fishing. But as the LANDOWNER it should be my choice. Mind you this little stream is not a trib or a high profile area.

T.T.
Access to water does not infer the right to cross private property.  Your family pond is safe from the hordes.

From what I read of early law in the Commonwealth it was illegal to bar anyone access to a stream.  The reason being that by barring access to the stream you were barring access to water which is necessary for life.  In other words you could not keep a person from drinking water or giving water to his or her family members even if it meant they were on your property.  I don't think the intent of such a law was to allow people access for recreation.

Likewise, ancient Biblical laws allowed the poor and hungry to eat their fill from your crops or vineyard as long as they did not take any of the food with them.  In other words,  you own the land, you plant the crops, but you had to allow the poor to eat what they needed to survive as long as it was limited to what they ate while they were on your land.  Also, you were required to allow people to glean from your harvested fields.  Again the idea here is that you were allowing people to meet a basic need and you did not have the right to prevent that.  Also, the food they ate was not considered to be stolen.  The basic idea is if you bar people from food or water you are contributing to their death and as such you were breaking the law.

Why mention this, well jump ahead to where we are now.  Streams are not the only source of water.  In fact, I would strongly suggest not using the water in the streams, particularly the tribs as a source of drinking water.  Barring access to the streams is therefore not seen as a life or death situation.  The same is true for food.  There are avenues to find food for the poor, so allowing people onto your property so that they can find something to eat, is not an issue.

With those issues of food and drink no longer on the table, why should anyone allow another person on their property at all?  If you take the stance that you paid for the land, you therefore have absolute control over what occurs on it, you will then wish to limit access to only those whom you desire.  Fine, I don't have a basic problem with that, but that is not the reality of ownership.  There are people who can and will come onto your property whether you like it or not and you are not in absolute control of your property.  Heck you don't really own it.  Stop paying your taxes and you will see who owns your property, it won't be you.

What I am trying to put forth here is the property you inhabit is yours only for as long as you can maintain your taxes and do not forfeit your rights to it by commiting crimes on it.  There is no absolute right to ownership no matter how much you paid for the land. 

So what does this mean?  It means as we as a society determine what is and is not appropriate to do with our lands.  There are no absolutes here.  Under current PA law as I understand it, and I am no lawyer, if you own land adjancent to a stream, and the stream is not been deemed nagivitable water, you own the stream bed to half way across the stream and can bar access to the streambed if you so choose.  It is that simple.  However, as with all laws, they can change.  If society decides that it is in the best interest of the state and the people of the state that law be changed and there are enough like minded people who agree with it, then the legislature has the authority to change the law.

The bottom line is there is nothing in life that is an absolute other than death and taxes.  Everything else is negotiable.  If there is a need to change the current statis quo, it will change.  If the state and enough of its residents feel that the recreational value of the waters is more important than exclusive private landowners use, the law will change.
 
In the meantime, there are other ways to approach this.  If the will of the state and the residents is to not change the law, but there is still a strong desire to increase the recreational use of the waterways, then the state will need to negotiate a deal with the landowners for public use of the streams.  In this senario, the landowners are not be forced to open their land by law, but are encouraged to do so.  The encouragement hopefully will be beneficial to the landowners, and reward them for their generosity and community spirit.  The details of this reward have been discussed before so I won't go down the list of options again.
 
Lastly, I would like to say that we all need to take a deep breath here, focus on why we are so viscerally reacting to the issue of access and private control and see that what we are really talking about are quality of life issues and control issues.  Once we start to understand that, I believe we can take a less emotional approach to the issue of access and work to create a positive environment for most people.  If we look at the big picture, all parties have something at stake, something to loose if we fight.  If we can be calm and rational, I am sure we can find away to not "take away" anyone's land and at the same time have access to the streams.  Let's make this a win win situation.

genieman,
 
I am glad we are on the same page as you say.  It just took a little time to get there...
 
Tryanny of the masses or the will of the people?  Really depends on whether you agree with what is happening or not.  The alternative is tryanny of an individual or small group.  I don't think that is a good idea either.  What about concensus making?  Seeking to bring the majority of the parties to agreement.  It is not perfect, but at least it will try to meet the needs of most people.
 
When a group decided to be a group and function as a group, there needs to be some common vision that helps to hold the group together.  If not, the group will degenerate into a collection of individuals who may be working at cross purposes.  While this may seem like a good idea, especially if you believe you are a self sufficient individual, but eventually you will come to realize putting your own interests first may not be in your long term best interest.