Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3) 4 »


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18798
Offline
"I think the decision sucks!"


OK, I lied. Couldn't help myself.


Posted on: 2007/1/31 8:40


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/9/9 16:33
Posts: 681
Offline
What about their property on Yellow Creek? From the map it looks like some of it is right by the resteraunt on your way back to the special regs section. Just because it is one of their "beats" does that mean that it is posted? It wasn't this summer. At least I didn't see any signs

Also, what is the opperable definition for navigable waterway? Meaning how small of a river/stream would fall into this catagory? Is it a CFS value or a historical use value.

I know under environmental law just about everything including wetlands can fall under state jurisdiction if they want it to.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 9:04


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7088
Offline
Quote:

ryanh wrote:
What about their property on Yellow Creek? From the map it looks like some of it is right by the resteraunt on your way back to the special regs section. Just because it is one of their "beats" does that mean that it is posted? It wasn't this summer. At least I didn't see any signs


The section right near the New Frontier is Loysburg gap or narrows. That stretch all the way up to the new highway bridge is open. Abover the highway bridge is where the SRC property is, in addition to below the fly area.

Quote:

Also, what is the opperable definition for navigable waterway? Meaning how small of a river/stream would fall into this catagory? Is it a CFS value or a historical use value.

I know under environmental law just about everything including wetlands can fall under state jurisdiction if they want it to.


It is largely based on historical use value. If the waterway was used for commerce in the early years of the union, the courts provided for business owners to float over or through waters over private land ownership. To eliminate the question of liability during low flows the streambed was included in the public domain.

Or so I understand it...

Maurice

Posted on: 2007/1/31 10:07
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22413
Offline
Quote:

ryanh wrote:
Also, what is the opperable definition for navigable waterway? Meaning how small of a river/stream would fall into this catagory? Is it a CFS value or a historical use value.


Quoting from the Lehigh River case, more or less:

The test of navigability early adopted by the Courts of Pennsylvania was enunciated in The Daniel Ball Opinion. 'Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible to being used, in their ordinary condition as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.'

If [a waterway] met the navigability test at any point in its history, it remains a legally navigable waterway subject to the Public Trust Doctrine.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 11:03
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
The greater need is to find a way to compensate the landowner for access, as I mentioned before EVERYONE is making money from the stream except the guy who owns it, If I remember right in Germany in the 50s you purchased a license and at the same place you bought your stream access license, issued by the same agent, in that way the stream owner got compensated without any action on his part. Another suggestion would be to let the landowner be a part of the stream management, let the fish commsision have Plan A, B or C or whatever and let the landowner select his choice and still have the commssion stock and moniter the stream!

Posted on: 2007/1/31 11:13


Re: GOOGLE AD Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
I don't see it this morning for SRC, is it gone?

Posted on: 2007/1/31 11:28


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Google ads are randomly selected from a table of links which match the content of a given page... You'll have to load it a few times to see SRC


As a libertarian who absolutely loves to fish, i don't know exactly how i should feel about this. Anyone else have that too?

I do know that, above all political views, i hold one golden rule dear.... that rule is: "don't be a/an {explicit}" Insert your favorite word... it doesn't change the meaning. I take solice in the fact that I believe the SRC violated this golden rule. There we go, I guess I answered my first problem.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:05


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6279
Offline
[/quote]

Quoting from the Lehigh River case, more or less:

The test of navigability early adopted by the Courts of Pennsylvania was enunciated in The Daniel Ball Opinion. 'Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible to being used, in their ordinary condition as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.'

If [a waterway] met the navigability test at any point in its history, it remains a legally navigable waterway subject to the Public Trust Doctrine.
[/quote]

Jack, is this document available online? And do you think the Little J decision will be available online?

In what you've read in these decisions, do the state legislature's Public Highway Declarations enter into the decisions, or are they considered irrelevant?

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:29


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18798
Offline
Quote:

littlejuniata wrote:
The greater need is to find a way to compensate the landowner for access, as I mentioned before EVERYONE is making money from the stream except the guy who owns it, If I remember right in Germany in the 50s you purchased a license and at the same place you bought your stream access license, issued by the same agent, in that way the stream owner got compensated without any action on his part. Another suggestion would be to let the landowner be a part of the stream management, let the fish commsision have Plan A, B or C or whatever and let the landowner select his choice and still have the commssion stock and moniter the stream!


Dick,

If you would like to hunt or fish on my property, and you would feel better providing some compensation, I do accept beer. Preferably beer brewed in Pottsville or some other PA brew, but I'm really not all that picky.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:30


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6279
Offline
Quote:

jayL wrote:
Google ads are randomly selected from a table of links which match the content of a given page... You'll have to load it a few times to see SRC


As a libertarian who absolutely loves to fish, i don't know exactly how i should feel about this. Anyone else have that too?

I do know that, above all political views, i hold one golden rule dear.... that rule is: "don't be a/an {explicit}" Insert your favorite word... it doesn't change the meaning. I take solice in the fact that I believe the SRC violated this golden rule. There we go, I guess I answered my first problem.


Good stuff. Maybe it's karmic law that's operating here as well as the other kind of law. SRC violated the rule of "don't be a/an {explicit}" so they got paid back.

But, it's now up to fishermen to follow the rule of "don't be a/an {explicit}"

I think we should fish that stretch, but don't make a big show out of it, just fish it to the same extent as we fish other parts of the river.

No "excessive celebrations." Isn't that what they call in football? And I believe there's a penalty for it. No unsportsmanlike conduct out on the river. Outraging the landowners isn't likely to be a productive activity.

Regarding libertarian concerns. Property rights are important. But they should only apply to what you ACTUALLY OWN. Espys never owned the river. This ruling does not change anything, it only reconfirms the status quo, that the river is still public property, just as it had been, and cannot be converted to private property.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:40


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18798
Offline
You guys are lucky that your laws are older than they are in many other states. In Ohio a landowner can own the streambed on navigable streams, and often (if not usually) the streambeds are privately owned. This is the case on all the Steelhead streams. I think they consider most of the streams in Ohio to be navigable. The way I understand it, the landowner cannot keep you from using the stream for navigation, but he can stop you from using it for other activities such as fishing. In PA, the entire (navigable) stream is held in public trust, so no part of it is "owned" by an individual. Therefore, it's use cannot be restricted by anyone except the state.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:40


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
Farmer Dave: If you come to fish the Little J yell, I will definately buy you a beer!

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:46


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18798
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:


Good stuff. Maybe it's karmic law that's operating here as well as the other kind of law. SRC violated the rule of "don't be a/an {explicit}" so they got paid back.

But, it's now up to fishermen to follow the rule of "don't be a/an {explicit}"

I think we should fish that stretch, but don't make a big show out of it, just fish it to the same extent as we fish other parts of the river.

No "excessive celebrations." Isn't that what they call in football? And I believe there's a penalty for it. No unsportsmanlike conduct out on the river. Outraging the landowners isn't likely to be a productive activity.

Regarding libertarian concerns. Property rights are important. But they should only apply to what you ACTUALLY OWN. Espys never owned the river. This ruling does not change anything, it only reconfirms the status quo, that the river is still public property, just as it had been, and cannot be converted to private property.


All good points TB. In addition, we need to respect the property on either side of the stream. That includes not tresspassing to get to the stream or to get around an obstruction to get to tne next fishing spot on the stream. The way i see it, access is still limited, and the owner can still make life difficult to "non-members" so we all need cool heads.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:47


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2007/1/31 12:37
Posts: 1
Offline
This appears to be good news for fly fishermen interested in that section of the Little J. It also appears to be a proper application of the law with respect to defining navigability. Remember, however, the reasons for the establishment of the navigability test weren’t necessarily based the body of property rights, but were largely based on public policy. The courts and, implicitly, the legislature created this test because without it recalcitrant landowners could absolutely cripple a frontier economy dependent on streams and rivers to conduct commerce. While this case was properly decided, it should be viewed in the proper context. While in a perfect world we would have all the access we could hope for, fishing access somehow doesn’t seem to rise to the critical national economic interests that supported the development of stream access law. On the other hand, a purchaser or lessor should know the state of the law going in order to organize his affairs accordingly.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:48


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18798
Offline
Quote:

littlejuniata wrote:
Farmer Dave: If you come to fish the Little J yell, I will definately buy you a beer!


No way. If i come all the way over there I'm buying because I want you to show me your bamboo rod collection.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 12:50



« 1 2 (3) 4 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes
No
Thinking about it
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll will close at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com