World Famous
Said this before...A judge ruled.."as long as there is enough water to float a leaf, it is navigable". I read that a long time ago on a raparian rights case and should have saved it...WF...I should have saved a lot of things.

I'd really like to see that link.  While I know that some states say that any history of being used for any commercial purpose constitutes navigability (I believe it's Kansas where streams are considered navigable that were used to float cut shingles downstream from a sawmill), the wording I've always seen associated with PA states that a waterway is deemed to be navigable in deed if it is navigable in fact, which usually translates into proving that the waterway was, at some point in history, used by commercial boat traffic, even if only at certain times of the year.
 
I've never heard the leaf argument outside of a few isolated posts and comments, though, but it'd certainly change things.

D-nymph

DarDys


And unless the PBFC wants to assure me that none of their pesky pellet heads they stocked over the wild trout, which would not fall under any of these types of regs, ever touches the stream bottom, which they will, and thereby are trespassing, then don't tell me I can't fish there either.

 
I thought you said that you read & understood the article?  It's now obvious you didn't & you are one of the people I mentioned in my first post.  I suggest reading it.

Here is the quote from the article.
 
"The solution this problem may be Pennsylvania House Bill 2357 recently introduced by Representative Dan Moul which states that “Any water in this Commonwealth stocked with fish furnished by the commission, including water areas where stocked fish may migrate into, shall be open to the public for the purpose of free, lawful fishing.”
 
Those words seem pretty clear -- "any water in the Commonwealth stocked by fish furnished by the commission."  Since trout are stock a little more than a mile upstream from me, the stream is designed as "approved trout water," thereby fall under this bill.  Further, the stream that the one I own a section of runs into another "approved trout water" and since that water is marginal most of the year, that brings into play the secend part of some very clear wording -- "including water areas where stocked fish may migrate into."  So, in essence, a double whammy.  Just to finish the quote -- "shall be open to the public for the pupose of free, lawful fishing."  I really don't see what I am missing here.  Basically, any stocked water and any tributaries they might migrate to, under this bill will be forced to be open to public fishing.  Period.
 
While, as quoted, "The intention of the law is to give the angling public access to the entire length of Twentymile Creek, Elk Creek, Walnut Creek, and many other Lake Erie tributaries along Pennsylvania’s short Lake Erie coast," that isn't what it reads.  It reads "any," not "Erie."  The road to Perdition is paved with good "intentions." The unintended consequences here are not good.

I will give that the article goes on with "While the proposed bill is a good sign that state lawmakers are standing by the angling public, the reality is that a law giving public access to private property won’t stand up in court."  So if the writer is a lawyer, then why is he putzing around writing outdoor articles?  The answer is that he isn't a lawyer and while he may opine that public access to provate property won't stand up in court, keep in mind that OJ wasn't convicted either -- LOL.  In addition, even if he is correct and it won't stand up in court, there are a whole lot of dollars between fighting a government entitiy with free attorneys and winning during oyur day in court.

The article goes on to read "A more successful tactic may be for the PA Fish & Boat Commission to declare all private property as “nursery waters” in the fishing regulations, and close it to all fishing. They can do that. If the public can’t fish there, no one fishes there."  This gets to the point I made that there are also wild trout in this stream -- ones that do no fall under the "stocked fish furnished by the Commission" stipulation.  This is one of the reasons we bought this property.  However, according to the above, because the stream is a trib to "approved trout water" with the possibility of migration and because the stream itself is an "approved trout water," albeit far away from this section, if this other "tactic" is employed because the first "won't stand up in court," I can't fish water I own.
 
So what part of this don't I understand?
 
BTW, while some of use were taking last evening while examining the hous ebeing built, the neighbor from across the road, nowhere near the creek, stopped by to chit-chat.  He asked why the sudden emergance of yellow signs and when told about the above mentioned bill mumbled something about the "darn government."  This morning I noticed him signs and staple gun in hand along his front property line.  Again he is nowhere near the stream in question, but rather hase about 1,000 acres of prime hunting ground that, I suppose, was open to the public until today.
 
Ah, good intentions.





Read more: [link=http://www.flyfisherman.com/northeast/pennsylvania/game-changing-pennsylvania-legislation/#ixzz3BV8l5Cye]http://www.flyfisherman.c...slation/#ixzz3BV8l5Cye[/link]

DarDys


So what part of this don't I understand?
 

 
You referenced that the PFBC is involved, according to the article, they are not.

DarDys........ you sir.......... are...... correct!! :-).

You may as well save your breath trying to defend your opinion. There shall forever be those of us who have and there shall forever be those who will want to take away what we have.

Great pictures..........
Almost makes me want to buy a trout stamp. I said almost!!

Tid- bit on 'navigable waters''
Seems a couple out west built a small pond on their land with local and state permits, tried to do it all legal and proper.
(was featured in the news a month or so back)
Feds stepped in and said the pond gotta go- folks said NO and now face Fed fines of thousands per day.
The pond is on a very small waterway that actually disappears into the ground downstream according to the news report.
Feds say 'so what' the water eventually makes its way into the 'navagable' river some miles away and thus claim jurisdiction within the scope of their "new" regs
Hasn't been back in the news lately butt- phood for thought.
Seems navigable is a very loosely interpreted thing nowadays..
 
Makes ya scared to P in the woods anymore.

Not without approved plans and permits. In PA. one needs to be very careful as not to upset wet lands. Just like the phrase 'navigable waters' so is 'wet lands' used. Just for sh! tz and giggles, look up the definition of 'wet lands' in PA.

..Pass a law that prevents these stupid fish from trespassing on my land...
 
Don't want em' and don't want the hassle that comes with em' either....

SteelSlayer77

DarDys
BTW, while some of use were taking last evening while examining the hous ebeing built, the neighbor from across the road, nowhere near the creek, stopped by to chit-chat.  He asked why the sudden emergance of yellow signs and when told about the above mentioned bill mumbled something about the "darn government."  This morning I noticed him signs and staple gun in hand along his front property line.  Again he is nowhere near the stream in question, but rather hase about 1,000 acres of prime hunting ground that, I suppose, was open to the public until today. Ah, good intentions.

1) How does this article affect your neighbor's hunting ground that is nowhere near the creek?  2) You would be wrong to "suppose" that his private land was previously open to the public, just because he didn't have posted signs all over it.  Private land without posters doesn't mean it is open to the public in PA.  In fact you can still get arrested for trespassing even if no signs exist.  You need to have permission from the land owner either way. 3) Gaining access to private land to hunt really isn't that hard.  Stop and talk to the land owners, offer them some prime cuts of venison or turkey breast from your harvest, or offer them a day or two of free labor during the off-season.  Do that and more times than not they will allow you to hunt.  

What the creek thing has to do with the hunting posting us pretty simple -- when someone sees one government body overreach, in their opinion, then sometimes they get the inkling that another similar agency might do likewise. Add to that up until now most folks in my area felt warm and fuzzy with the PFBC while having utter contempt for the PGC, it only takes a proposed unliked action by the "good" one to get bad feelings ignited toward the seemingly more evil one.

As for how I know it was open before -- I can toss a rock off my back porch onto the property -- is that factual enough for you? Oh, and they are related to my wife.

As for ease of getting permission, some places yes, some no. Where I hunt antlerless deer, you are not gaining access even if you mow their lawn and shovel their snow while pouring them champagne as you wait for the standing rib roast to cook that you bought for them.

As for the property just mentioned, you know, even as a neighbor and somewhat relative what, "looks like every one will be hunting their own for a while" means.

Wow read this and walked away...
Came back to it after a bite to eat surely I need to read more carefully ...
I probably read it wrong I hope...
 
Dardys  Congratulations!!!
You, your opinions, and desire to spread them you have successfully gotten 2-3 properties POSTED in your neighborhood here in the great Commonwealth of PA-atta'boy!
 
Meanwhile Representative Dan Moul has INTRODEUCED House Bill 2357
which will not get approved IMO just some hot air...
If it did get passed the said land that got posted would be open to public anyways or closed for fishing completely ...
Maybe by it being posted you think it will not be stocked anymore but somewhere downstream I bet it does get stocked...
I do not know you at all I am sure you are a good guy but I am confused by your words.
If you can set me straight go ahead I will apologize but this is how I read your post.
 
I would like to add to WCW Bill 0001...Proceeds from "The Big 3  Lake ERIE Tributary  Steelhead Stamp"(has to be changed separate stamp to fish the big 3-lake stamp separate put an end to the Lake access and Trib access spending debate.)would be split up between landowners along creek according to stream footage length.
Probaly have to  pinch 10% out of it for Parking lot/Porta-potty/g-can cost.
And minus cost of raising and stocking smolts.
Stop spending money for parking lots we have enough.
 
I know I do not understand all the facts but the good intentions are there I am tired of NY have a better fishery than us PA BOYS.
They have much more H2O but we could make a statement with a heavily stocked BIG 3 -1/3 BROWNIES...
 
Navigable ??? Leaf-Canoe floating-why not skip over that entire state affecting wording gotta be another way.
 
I am ready to fish whatever water the public is still welcome on how bout you...
 
Oh boy what did I type now...ah just submit post...WCW
 
 

DarDys
As for how I know it was open before -- I can toss a rock off my back porch onto the property -- is that factual enough for you? Oh, and they are related to my wife.

As for ease of getting permission, some places yes, some no. Where I hunt antlerless deer, you are not gaining access even if you mow their lawn and shovel their snow while pouring them champagne as you wait for the standing rib roast to cook that you bought for them.

As for the property just mentioned, you know, even as a neighbor and somewhat relative what, "looks like every one will be hunting their own for a while" means.

Well if you knew it was open before;  Then to be clear you should have just said it was open and not used the words "ground that, I suppose, was open to the public".
 
Antlerless deer aren't so hard to gain access for during archery where I hunt, but antlerless rifle season is much harder to gain access for.  That's why I just shoot them on my family's farm back east, where I don't have to see orange dots all over the place.

A few  years ago while fishing steelhead I went over the wall at walnut and recognized an individual featured in the PA Angler who caught a record trout off the wall in July of all times, he was European, and we got on the subject of restricted access along Erie streams, he stated that in Europe all streams are accessible from stream bed to 3 meters of shore on each side, and anyone can access as long as on that portion, no such thing as navigable streams and non-navigable access such as here.  True or not I don’t know. Ron
 

@dardys......

Shame on you for getting allllll that land posted. (lol)

I fully support the feelings of those who wish not to have strangers walking their property at all hours of the day/night.

I fully support the feelings of those wishing to protect their cherished pets.

As a land owner that sees the army of 'orange zombies' beginning to glow at day break on opening day of buck, I understand.

As a land owner who has had to rescue his Weimaraner from a steel trap, I understand.

As a land owner who does not post his land, I understand.

However, if in support of keeping the right for land owners to post, I shall!!

Hope the zombies UNDERSTAND!!

Nice looking set of pointers.

Main Entry: zom·bie
Variant(s): also zom·bi \ˈzäm-bē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Louisiana Creole or Haitian Creole zonbi, of Bantu origin; akin to Kimbundu nzúmbe ghost
Date: circa 1871
1 usually zombi a : the supernatural power that according to voodoo belief may enter private properties with total disregard for privacy. 2 Orange zombi: those believing the license they purchased gives them that, super natural power.

Wait a week IMO...WCW