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:
2006/9/28 14:40
From Philadelphia
Posts: 368
Offline
Well, I'm not at all close to the Little J, but this is certainly a decision that should be applauded regardless of where we live!
Coughlin

Posted on: 2007/1/31 14:17


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/10/5 12:09
Posts: 13
Offline
[quote]
saburrell wrote:
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. ]

This case was determined at the first level, I assume there will be appeals, in which saburrell's statement that the laws were put in place to conduct commerce in a frontier economy and that fishing access will somehow pale as an argument for sweeping change.....But, then again, the Supreme Court allowed private development interests to use Eminent Domain to run rough shod over indivdual ownership.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 15:22


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 17595
Offline
Quote:

baetis wrote:

This case was determined at the first level, I assume there will be appeals, in which saburrell's statement that the laws were put in place to conduct commerce in a frontier economy and that fishing access will somehow pale as an argument for sweeping change.....But, then again, the Supreme Court allowed private development interests to use Eminent Domain to run rough shod over indivdual ownership.


First order??? Do you want fries with that?

I'm reading between the lines here, so if i am out of line, please accept my apology in advance.

That argument has been brought up many times before (about it being for navigation, not fishing) and it didn't float then and it won't float now at least not in PA. I even brought it up once and Jack M shot it down rather quickly. Sure this law was established for travel and commerce, but the way it was done, it puts the actual ownership of the navigable stream in the states hands (in public trust). It isn't a lean or even a deeded right away across private property. It is actual ownership of the stream and the land under it. In some other states, it is different, but not in PA, and probably not in the original 13. And there is established precedence (sp) that shoots down his argument, so appealing that part would be futile. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t state cases. Bottom line. If a stream is navigable, it is held in public trust and is open for any legal reason, not just travel. The intent may not have been to help fishermen, but it is certainly an added benefit to fishermen.

Like I said earlier … In Ohio, land under a navigable stream can and is often privately owned. The landowner can restrict the use of said land, but he cannot stop you from traveling through (or so I have read). There was a case on the Grand River a few years back, and that was the ruling. The landowner cannot restrict you from passing through. He can’t even stop you from portaging through areas where you can’t float, but he can restrict you from stopping to fish or hunt or anything else that is not for navigation.

They can appeal all they want, but they would still only be appealing whether or not it is navigable. In other words, they would be appealing who owns the land.

I’m not saying the PA law is better. As a property owner I have mixed feelings. In fact, I lean towards the Ohio approach being better, but the law is what it is, and the correct decision was made based on the law IMHO.

It is possible I could be wrong on some of this, but I don’t think so.

Posted on: 2007/1/31 16:43


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/10/5 12:09
Posts: 13
Offline
[quote]
.

They can appeal all they want, but they would still only be appealing whether or not it is navigable.
I’m not saying the PA law is better. As a property owner I have mixed feelings. In fact, I lean towards the Ohio approach being better, but the law is what it is, and the correct decision was made based on the law IMHO.

You are absolutely correct, the question is "navigable". I guess, I got a little ahead and assumed the courts were starting to extend the interpretation of the word. Sorry.

PS
The phrase was, first level

Posted on: 2007/2/1 8:51


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 17595
Offline
I'm guessing that is what the guy you quoted was trying to plant. He gave the impression that he is not fond of the law, but agrees that based on the law, the correct decision was made.

Sorry about the misread (P.S.). I was only joking around.

Posted on: 2007/2/1 9:21


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21704
Offline
For what it's worth, I think the notion that the Public Trust Doctrine is tied to "navigability" in terms of permitted uses is grasping. If the decision holds up on appeal, then any public use is permissible within the bounds of the law because the adjacent landowner does not have exclusive rights to the streambed.

Posted on: 2007/2/1 9:25
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

Joined:
2006/9/16 10:36
Posts: 6962
Offline
Your welcome to look Dave, but "tidy" ain't my strong suit!

Posted on: 2007/2/1 15:28



« 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
What kind of streams do you primarily fish?
Approved Trout Waters (Stocked Fish)
Class A Wild Trout Streams
Special Regulation Areas
Wilderness Trout Streams
No Preference All Trout Streams
93 total votes!
The poll will close at 2014/4/30 15:00
3 Comments
USGS Water Levels





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