dudemanspecial
Well-known member
What it actually sounds like is that the township / PFBC need to grow a set and put this guy in his place with the property lines before someone gets hurt.
East Branch Brandywine DH Landowner
- Thread starter FlyGuy9
- Start date
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
This
HopBack
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,150
He flashed his original deed once on Facebook and it shows that he at least owns half of the stream adjacent to to his property. He is claiming that the path of the river has changed now and he actually owns the whole thing. This is what needs to be challenged in court and or someone needs to bring charges against him for the harassment he is doing. Harassing someone who is legally fishing is a crime but the PFBC would have to spend a ton in court to just prove that he doesn’t actually own the property. Regardless the guy is completely off his rocker and I wouldn’t even bother with that bathtub of a trout fishing hole.
Thanks for those that provided the maps. I have been following this, but know realize exactly where this is along the creek. For those that fish there, is this where the stream butts up against a very steep rock cliff like area? Is that his property side?
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Yes
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I'm not a lawyer, but in every circumstance I have seem where a stream channel determines a boundary, even in situations when a stream bed is deliberately relocated; the "historic" stream channel is the boundary.
Like has already been said, Uwchlan Township and/or the PFBC need to take this guy to court if he is claiming the boundary moves with the stream...
This is a perfect case to challenge in court the "navigability" of the Brandywine River. I believe it is on the list of public waters/navigable by PA, but not yet proven in court. The settling of the case in the state's favor would solve the entire issue since the Brandywine would be deemed navigable and public water from the mouth to the headwaters. The PFBC and/or the DEP may foot the bill for the court case like in the Little Juniata and Lehigh River cases. Anyone want to take the time and effort to challenge in court?
Bamboozle
Well-known member
It's the East Branch of the Brandywine, not the mainstem Brandywine...
Since the days of William Penn, both branches have been used commercially for logging, mills and other uses I believe.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
It would be a complete cluster if anyone attempted to fight & win that battle on that stream in that geography and I for one hope it never happens because I live on the headwaters of a another creek used for commerce at one time as were most streams in SEPA.
My section that runs through my property is barely 3 feet wide and probably less than a foot deep in most places and there once was a mill. However, I don't want some doofus self-righteous fly angler on my property telling me they have a "right" to fish on my property because someone sailed a barge down the creek 20 river miles downstream in 1620.
THAT would get ugly!!
I get the major rivers, but IMHO when it comes to creeks that will never again be used for commerce, it is complete and utter nonsense to use 400+ year old laws that NO longer serve any purpose or have any relevance to the waterway or commerce in the 21st century.
It's like allowing someone to have a flock of 50 chickens and a couple of goats in residential sub-division just because it was previously farmland...
There are plenty of other places to fish with pi$$ing off property owners and losing them as allies for other battles where they are needed...
My section that runs through my property is barely 3 feet wide and probably less than a foot deep in most places and there once was a mill. However, I don't want some doofus self-righteous fly angler on my property telling me they have a "right" to fish on my property because someone sailed a barge down the creek 20 river miles downstream in 1620.
THAT would get ugly!!
I get the major rivers, but IMHO when it comes to creeks that will never again be used for commerce, it is complete and utter nonsense to use 400+ year old laws that NO longer serve any purpose or have any relevance to the waterway or commerce in the 21st century.
It's like allowing someone to have a flock of 50 chickens and a couple of goats in residential sub-division just because it was previously farmland...
There are plenty of other places to fish with pi$$ing off property owners and losing them as allies for other battles where they are needed...
HopBack
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,150
When it comes to making a ruling in PA on navigable waterways, the court has historically opted to not piece meal the river/streams and its branches. In this case if the navigability was proven in court, it would likely find that the stream bed was public property on the main as well as east and west branches.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
And ironically enough, it wouldn't be the doofus angler that would make it get ugly, it would be the self righteous landowner who thinks his interpretation of the law trumps the precedent that has been set for 100's of years 😂
Bamboozle
Well-known member
I see the doofi have come out of closet...
Please come on my property and spout your self righteous nonsense...
PLEASE!!!
Please come on my property and spout your self righteous nonsense...
PLEASE!!!
Last edited:
JeffP
Well-known member
Am I missing something? Why such a nasty post? Was a post taken down? This could not have been based only on the term "self-righteous" landowner. From what I can see, the last number of posts have been simply about a discussion of the law. I think we can have a debate about the navigability issue without challenging people to come on our property. You do bring up good points in your previous post.
HopBack
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2013
- Messages
- 1,150
I believe in property rights, I was just simply stating case history. I don’t have a dog in this fight. I have said in the past, just let the nut job have his 50 yards of water. It’s not worth getting shot over.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
In Pennsylvania property owners have had the luxury of the navigable waterways law. When people complain when land gets posted, they are told, "go buy your own property with a watershed."
When a navigable waterway is challenged and public is granted access and a landowner complains, I think to myself, "go buy a property on a non navigable waterway".
We can think the old law is stupid, but it is the law. When public is granted access, a nasty landowner is the self righteous one and is just harassing anglers because he believes his opinion trumps the law, similar to the doofus angler that trespasses because of his opinions.
Irony at its finest.
When a navigable waterway is challenged and public is granted access and a landowner complains, I think to myself, "go buy a property on a non navigable waterway".
We can think the old law is stupid, but it is the law. When public is granted access, a nasty landowner is the self righteous one and is just harassing anglers because he believes his opinion trumps the law, similar to the doofus angler that trespasses because of his opinions.
Irony at its finest.
Last edited:
[WR]
Member
Holy crap, did this guy move in from one of the megalopolises or something? The paranoia just oozes out of those postsI wasn't going to say anything, but I too, looked at his previous FB posts and videos last night. Mental illness is a real challenge these days. This guy is exactly the type to put a hole in you for the perceived slightest thing. Stocked trout aren't worth this BS. Grab a gander...these two are real gems:
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1LJHKaXPwq/
[/URL]
Fish and boat gets all its funding through, licensing fishing. They love ticketing the random angler but somehow go completely blind for permit... | By Matt | Facebook
Fish and boat gets all its funding through, licensing fishing. They love ticketing the random angler but somehow go completely blind for permit...www.facebook.com
