Just to be clear SteelSlayer, many of the streams listed on the DCNR website in your link have not been declared as navigable, nor is it likely that ever would be.  Many of them are simply located on state and federal lands and therefore are publicly owned. 
 
In the case of Elk Creek, in order for the streambed to be considered publicly owned, it would have to be owned by the public or it would have to be declared navigable by the courts.   

Esox_Hunter
Just to be clear SteelSlayer, many of the streams listed on the DCNR website in your link have not been declared as navigable, nor is it likely that ever would be.  Many of them are simply located on state and federal lands and therefore are publicly owned. 
 
In the case of Elk Creek, in order for the streambed to be considered publicly owned, it would have to be owned by the public or it would have to be declared navigable by the courts.   

I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 
So if anyone wants to fight in court over navigability of those streams in the map, then it's likely they have a very good chance at winning if they can dig up the documentation that the DCNR has found.  I wish an organization like TU would start taking the navigability issue to court on some of the streams in that map which have a significant amount of posted club waters, hold trout year round, and good evidence of navigability.  Once a few more cases are established then the rest will be easily won.
 
In the case of Elk creek, I'm saying the whole navigability thing is a joke.  It's unclear and just plain stupid to say a creek that was navigable 100 - 200 years ago is still navigable today.  That is exactly why I was saying the navigability law should be changed to something more similar but not exactly like the Montana law that is clear and concise.  I don't really care how likely it is to happen and don't think it is very likely, was just stating my opinion. 

SteelSlayer77
I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 

Where did you get the bolded statement above from?  I see no mention of such a thing on the website.  The link you provided shows publicly owned streambeds, which doesn't necessarily mean that the stream is navigable or could be declared navigable if a case was pursued for that matter.  Many of the streams listed on the page are merely owned by the public (federal or state) making them publicly owned streambeds.
 
 

Esox_Hunter

SteelSlayer77
I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 

Where did you get the bolded statement above from?  I see no mention of such a thing on the website.  The link you provided shows publicly owned streambeds, which doesn't necessarily mean that the stream is navigable or could be declared navigable if a case was pursued for that matter.  Many of the streams listed on the page are merely owned by the public (federal or state) making them publicly owned streambeds.
 
 

 
Don't let facts cloud your judgement, Esox.  Let him believe. 

Cold
Sounds like you're just a dUmaS.

 
Only a dUmaS would come to a fishing forum and advocate against ideas for increased public access to publicly funded stocked fish, no mater how likely or unlikely they are to become reality! 

Thanks Cold for stating what the rest of us were thinking and I was about to reply.

SS77, why don't you contact an attorney and file a suit? Or start a petition for the state to declare eminent domain?

You need to face the facts that there are laws and contracts in place with $$ behind them and a declaration by the PFBC or even a change in law won't simply open access.

Riverbum
SS77, why don't you contact an attorney and file a suit? Or start a petition for the state to declare eminent domain?

You need to face the facts that there are laws and contracts in place with $$ behind them and a declaration by the PFBC or even a change in law won't simply open access.

Because I don't care enough about it to spend my own money or go through the hassle.  lol  I was just simply stating my opinion on the interweb.  I love how this fires some of you guys up so much!   Why do you care so much about a stream access law?  Are you involved in a guiding business or trout club that posts publicly stocked water somewhere? 
 
A change in law could simply open access.  If you have a contract/lease with a land owner to guide on their property and then all of a sudden the streambed becomes public then guess what your out of luck, that's essentially what happened on the Little J is it not.   Before you guys take my statements out of context, no I'm not comparing Elk to the Little J. 

Esox_Hunter

SteelSlayer77
I never said all the streams in that map have been officially declared navigable, in fact there's a disclaimer stating that in the link.  However the DCNR is saying that they believe they have enough evidence to get the navigable declaration in a court of law if necessary, and are willing to go through with it if any gas companies drill under any of those streams.
 

Where did you get the bolded statement above from?  I see no mention of such a thing on the website.  The link you provided shows publicly owned streambeds, which doesn't necessarily mean that the stream is navigable or could be declared navigable if a case was pursued for that matter.  Many of the streams listed on the page are merely owned by the public (federal or state) making them publicly owned streambeds.
 

I see lots of streams on that map that don't flow through any state or federally owned land.  Here is a document from the DCNR that links the publicly owned streambeds in the map to the DCNR believing they are navigable:
 
http://www.dcnr.state.pa....cument/dcnr_009714.pdf
 
SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT BENEATH PUBLICLY-OWNED STREAMBEDS
"Information on publicly-owned streambeds is available on DCNR’s website.   In Pennsylvania, beds of waterways such as rivers, creeks and lakes are publicly owned when such waterways are navigable.
 
......
 
During the late seventeen and eighteen hundreds, many waterways in Pennsylvania were statutorily declared to be public highways for navigation. These declarations provide evidence that these waterways were used as highways of commerce and provide a basis for asserting public ownership of the streambeds. "

Actually, I don't care that much and I'm neither a guide or a "club member". Im just at work and extremely bored...