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

Conococheague The only difference I see is that nobody around here would pay a landowner to fish.

The difference is the amount of people. The amount of people that travel to there. A stream near you may get slammed during opening day. Erie, it is opening day for 5-6 solid months. The landowners for the most part, don’t mind guys fishing. They mind guys using their trees as urinals or other side. Guys throwing their beer cans and worm/egg containers in their yards. Throwing rocks at their dogs for barking in their own yards. It is completely different than anywhere in PA. Some may mind guys fishing, but is their right. Some may just post to save their rears and don’t mind people fishing. Some drunk fool trips and dies and the ambulance chasers are suing. They paid for that property, it is theirs to allow who they want on. I personally would never buy a property with a stream like that running through.

^^^^
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.

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.

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. 
 
 
 

Drop anchor…

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.

DarDys
^^^^
The law is the law. Has been for over a hundred years.

I think this is the main point and I'll agree with that. My original post was that laws could have been made or changed regarding stream access and landowner rights back when the Steelhead program started and that was long ago and it's too late now, so all of this conversation is really a moot point. Also I think it's unfortunate about all of the stuff that has gone on with your situation. I could tell from your previous posts that you had an axe to grind about property rights. You do not live next to an Erie trib though. The fish in your creek can be caught anywhere in the state so no excuse for what's going on there. Maybe they should stop stocking fish in your creek, or at least near your area, since it sounds like most of the property around there is posted? That is totally dependent on the warden in charge when they stock.
 
As far as the original topic, yes the state created all of this by creating a fishery in Erie, advertising all the great fishing, charging xtra license fees for us to go there to fish, and then leaving a large part of the stream access up to the goodwill of local landowners. I still feel it was set up this way for the express purpose of opening the door for local landowners to post their ground and charge fees for guys to fish, which is in truth, using a public resource to make individual profit. You seem to be focused on what one individual pays for a license, but think about all of the thousands of those license sold and the huge throngs of guys going there every year. That's the bigger picture and a way bigger problem. If I was a landowner there my property would be open to public fishing and any problems I had as far as trash or vandalism I would be raising hell with the county and state to resolve it. They're the ones making gobs of money off the whole thing. Let them send the local inmates out to pick up trash 2X per year or whatever, and have the place patrolled by law enforcement. I've been going up there for years and I have never had my license checked, fish checked, or even seen a warden patrolling along any part of Elk creek. As far as landowners rights to peace and solitude it's like this: if you live next to an airport you get noise, if you live next to a farm you get stink, if you live along the Erie tribs you get fishermen.
 
 

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? 
 

Porktown

Conococheague The only difference I see is that nobody around here would pay a landowner to fish.

The difference is the amount of people. The amount of people that travel to there. A stream near you may get slammed during opening day. Erie, it is opening day for 5-6 solid months. The landowners for the most part, don’t mind guys fishing. They mind guys using their trees as urinals or other side. Guys throwing their beer cans and worm/egg containers in their yards. Throwing rocks at their dogs for barking in their own yards. It is completely different than anywhere in PA. Some may mind guys fishing, but is their right. Some may just post to save their rears and don’t mind people fishing. Some drunk fool trips and dies and the ambulance chasers are suing. They paid for that property, it is theirs to allow who they want on. I personally would never buy a property with a stream like that running through.

Agreed and it's sad that a few people ruin it for so many, but there's always at least a few idiots. As far as the liability claims, well here in my county where the whole creek is public access that law actually would solve that issue. Who can be sued if your injured on public right of way?