ELK CREEK

Another nail in Elk Creek's coffin. Don't know what really happened there but I think the property owner should have been given the benefit of the doubt, he has allowed people to travel his property for the 20 plus years I have fished it, again not really knowing what happened THINGS COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BETTER! Now another big piece of Elk is gone from Whiteman's Bridge to the trestle.

Its the road out of Lake City, might be Elk Park Road I only know it as Whiteman bridge

Probably no fixing it now that it is posted, hope the owner changes his mind. Still think it could have BEEN HANDLED BETTER!
 

If I owned a patch mup there Id be charging $50 to fish on my ground n $10 to park jus sayin.

In the county where I live, the creek is a public right of way. Landowners can post whatever they want, but as long as you stay in the water, or within the high-water line, you can fish anywhere you want and nobody can say jack about it. Seems to me that in a place like Erie where the PFBC is charging xtra license fees for fishing privileges, the state and/or county would've made similar laws to protect the revenue and the resource. Allowing private landowners to post property and restrict access to a public funded resource, then charge people to fish there for fish they've already paid license fees for is just outrageous. I can likely assume that back when this whole steelhead breeding and stocking program started in Pa, some of the lawyers and politicians at that time were local landowners.

Yes I'm aware of the navigable waterways laws that's what we have here where I'm at and Elk is not navigable. My point is that if the PFBC was creating a fishery in Erie and charging license fees for it they should have done more to protect public access to it, rather than leave it up to the goodwill of private landowners. Doesn't need to be the same law, new laws, ordinances etc. are made up all the time. It's too late now though, all the landowners would file lawsuits. Should've been done long ago. Poor planning.

So I guess you think that if I'm fishing here at home where the creek is public access and the adjacent landowner has their property posted, that I'm usurping the landowners rights? or is it only usurping if the landowner can charge people to fish on their posted property for an "invasive species"? BTW only Brook trout are native to Pa. All other trout are "invasive", horses are "invasive" to this country, those dogs in your pic are also "invasive". We ourselves here are "invasive". So what? Also the PFBC is not the only state stocking steelhead in the great lakes. Michigan, New York, and Ohio also stock there. Not sure if Canada does or not? And what about public rights? Do we have none of that in this state? I gave up hunting long ago for this and similar reason.

Question:  The original post states that it's posted from Whiteman's bridge to the trestle....but there's a PFBC public access right-of-way from the bridge some distance upstream.  Does this new posting begin at the end of the right-of-way and not the bridge?  Has the land owner revoked the right-of-way?  Am I at the wrong place?  Who wrote the book of love?

If the state never stocked a trout in Elk, would anyone know where Whitemans Bridge even was? Asking for a friend.

DarDys

Conococheague
So I guess you think that if I'm fishing here at home where the creek is public access and the adjacent landowner has their property posted, that I'm usurping the landowners rights? or is it only usurping if the landowner can charge people to fish on their posted property for an "invasive species"? BTW only Brook trout are native to Pa. All other trout are "invasive", horses are "invasive" to this country, those dogs in your pic are also "invasive". We ourselves here are "invasive". So what? Also the PFBC is not the only state stocking steelhead in the great lakes. Michigan, New York, and Ohio also stock there. Not sure if Canada does or not? And what about public rights? Do we have none of that in this state? I gave up hunting long ago for this and similar reason.

“Your rage unbalanced you.” — Merlin

It’s not about invasive species or an artificial environment, but had the PFC not created that situation, it would not be a question.

You do have public rights — on public land, not private. In PA, and that is the land in question, doesn’t matter where the fish come from, the law on private property ownership is very clear — unless it is one of the few navigable waterways, which have been defined through case law, the stream bottom belongs to those who own the ground the stream is on, just the same as the dry ground.

If the owner only owns one side of the stream, their land is considered to be to the center of the stream. They can control criminal trespass, because that is what it is from a legal point of view, on their dry land and out to the centerline of the stream.

If they own both sides, they own the entire stream bottom and can control criminal trespass throughout.

Buying a fishing license grants you the privilege to fish public waters, where legal, and private water, where invited. It no more grants you a “right” to fish on private property anymore than your driver’s license permits you to drive or park on private property.

Sure I understand what the law is. I am questioning why the law is? I am not disputing that the landowners have the rights they have, I am questioning why they should have it? If the state or county wants to widen the road in front of my home they do it. If they want to build a sidewalk in front of my home they do it. They take whatever they want from my yard with no leave from me whatsoever. As a property owner I have 0 authority. However when they build a steelhead fishery in Erie, they allow the adjacent landowners to have undisputed claim to be able to shut out every licensed fisherman from the public resource. What if all the Erie trib landowners got together and decided to just shut the whole thing down to everyone but paying customers? Would the state step in? How much money would they lose if all the fishermen opted not to buy an Erie stamp and spent their money on a N.Y. or Ohio license instead? Its just nonsense. Erie tribs should all be public right of ways so long as the fishermen stay in the water or within the high water mark just like here where I live. How is someone who's in the water minding their own business fishing causing a problem for the landowner? There's never been an issue about it here as far as I can remember. The only difference I see is that nobody around here would pay a landowner to fish.

Rocks and trees painted with purple paint all along east side of stream and a sign above the trestle, did not walk the west side was advised by a local both sides were posted

^^^^
I’ll agree with Pork that the situation in Erie is unique due to the length of the season; the sheer volume of anglers; and the mixture of both public and private land that can be confusing.

However, I’ll slightly disagree on that the trespassing, and that is what it is when one enters another’s property without permission, is a sometimes thing on less popular waters. Six years ago, we purchased a piece of ground, only 12.5 acres, upon which to build a home and enjoy the land which is a mix or fields and woods, and also contains a stream that is stocked about 1/2 mile upstream and is a tributary to a stream that is stocked about 3/4 of a mile downstream. The section of stream we own (both sides) and the two properties upstream and three properties downstream are NOT publicly stocked because each property is posted. Yet my trail cameras get photos every month, with the possible exception of really bad weather Februarys, of people fishing; hunting; riding ATV’s; walking; climbing into out treehouse; and drinking. Keep in mind s that with the properties around us, these trespassers had to cross 3, if not 4, posted properties to get onto ours. Each time they enter a posted property is criminal trespass.

It is 250 yards of open ground to the wood line and another 60 yards into the woods to the stream.

I have had groups of teens partying along the creek, leaving their garbage. I’ve had newly planted trees run over by ATVs. I’ve had fenced in fruit trees and the fences damaged by people trying to get apples. I’ve had people leaning against a tree that had a No Trespassing poster on it fishing when I found them in person. I’ve been confronted by 6-8 teens on my own
ground. I’ve confronted people having sex in my treehouse (they parked at the end of a private road between my neighbors’ house and mine and walked through my yard to get to the woods). Last week, I had trail camera photo of a person exiting my woods into the fields at 8:45 PM ( darn dark) with a flashlight in hand.

I cannot imagine the amount of people doing said same thing in Erie with that fishery when for basically a mile there is no stocking or public access to our stream that in the stocked section gets a whopping 300 trout for a 4-mile section once during the preseason.

In one of the posts above, it was asked what harm could a fisherman cause walking in a stream. The answer is lots.

The primary reason we bought this property was peace, quiet, and not to be bothered by people that we don’t want to be around. Having unknown people in our creek violates that reason. Our dogs go wild in the kennel when they hear or smell folks in the woods (they are bird dogs, do yes, they can both hear and smell people at that distance very easily).

I hunt deer from the treehouse, another reason for buying the property, and people just walking in the stream ruins that. They make noise; they leave scent; and they have me worrying about safe zones of fire.

They cause damage to other parts of the property.

They litter.

They leave snagged hooks and fishing line in the creek and on the banks. I’ve had my bird dogs get entangled in discarded line and go into a panic. Thankfully they were not seriously injured, but did require a vet visit. None have been impaled on a hook — yet.

We like to relax and have a picnic in the treehouse without being imposed upon by others.

We like to take peaceful walks though the paths we maintain in the woods without being imposed upon by others.

Our dogs have free rein in our property and I do not need them being hassled in their “yard” by those who are trespassing.

So there is a lot of issues with someone walking in the stream.

Lastly, I pay more in property taxes in a single year than someone who thinks they have the “right” to use my private property would in their lifetime (it would take approximately 100 years of fishing license).

The law is the law. Has been for over a hundred years. It won’t get changed. If you don’t like it, but some stream property of Hite own and see just how fun other people treating it like their own because they bought a fishing license is. The point of view will change rapidly.

Conococheague
 
 
Sure I understand what the law is. I am questioning why the law is? I am not disputing that the landowners have the rights they have, I am questioning why they should have it? If the state or county wants to widen the road in front of my home they do it. 

 
apples and oranges.
You're trying to equate public works projects to recreation opportunities 
 
specific to subject,   using an arcane commerce  law designed for right of way, not public recreation 
 
BTW, deemed navigable or not, you can't walk or wade   posted property in Ohio.
 
You can float your boat, yak or canoe down it, but if you drop anchor to loiter, you're trespassing
 
 
..L.T.A. 
 
 
 

WVDepscritch
No doubt he has the right to post, but after all those years of letting people fish why did he have to exercise that right. AGAIN things probably could have been handled better.

Agreed that it probably could have been handled better — even without knowing the specifics of the situation.

Here is how it could have been handled better — the person who was criminally trespassing, because that is what they were doing, posted signs or not in PA, unless they expressly had permission (think of someone just walking into your yard or even your house), since they had no right to be there, should have immediately and profusely apologized to the landowner, who retains all rights on their private property, for whatever sparked the incident, even if it were the landowner.

As for why the landowner decided to exercise their rights at that time and in that manner, I cannot specifically address because I am not that landowner, nor was I there. However, it is fairly easy to speculate — at some point one has enough of others using what is not theirs, they did not pay for, do not pay taxes on, do not pay liability insurance on in case a trespasser gets injured (the landowner wins the suit under PA law most of the time, but incurs attorney and legal fees, plus spends the time to defend), and are doing something that the rightful owner objects to. It doesn’t need to be a major thing, just the last thing.

Further, it is far easier to just close off access and post to all than it is to ban individuals. Banning individuals means the landowner must actively monitor who is there and if they have permission, are banned, or neither, but trespassing nonetheless. In addition, if a person with permission is seen on the property, that is an inadvertent signal to others that the property is open for use, even if in actuality it is open by permission only, thus setting up a confrontation.

What caused this specific situation is unimportant.

genieman77

Conococheague
 
 
Sure I understand what the law is. I am questioning why the law is? I am not disputing that the landowners have the rights they have, I am questioning why they should have it? If the state or county wants to widen the road in front of my home they do it. 

 
apples and oranges.
You're trying to equate public works projects to recreation opportunities 
 
specific to subject,   using an arcane commerce  law designed for right of way, not public recreation 
 
 
 
..L.T.A. 
 
Was the Steelhead program started by the Erie recreation dept?