PA House Bill 2357

[FarmerDave]

montanya wrote:
The ability to fish is not a privilege. It is a right as a citizen of pa. .

Depends on what you mean by ability. I mean if you simply mean you know how, that's one thing and only a matter of opinion. But to insist that fishing is a right granted to you by citizenship, that would be factually incorrect.

Citizenship alone does not afford you the right, or even the privilege of fishing cept on fish for free days which is only a privelege.

Buying a license only affords you the privilege to fish on waters not closed to fishing. Fishing on someone else's land also reguires that privelege be either granted or implied (by not posting) by land owner. He can also kick you off if he wants to, and have you arrested if you refuse to vacate, even if he doesn't post.

Freedom of speech is a right.

4th Amendment is also a right.

Hunting however is only a privilege as is fishing.

Hunting and fishing are not protected by Constitution.

Driving is also just a privilege, not a right.

There are certain landowner rights, which I support.

Even to fish on your own land, you still are required to abide by the laws set forth by the PF&BC (privilege).

Antiquated? I don't think so. It would only be antiquated in a Socialist society and we are not there yet. No more antiquated than freedom of speech.

Best way to have more land posted is threaten landowners rights.

 

[FarmerDave]

montanya wrote:
I think it is asinine that I have the ability to restrict people access to this water and the fish in it.

You may feel differently the first time someone takes a crap in your back yard.

 

[FarmerDave]

PennKev wrote:

Proposed PA house bill will "(amend) the Fish & Boat Code to provide that any waters in which fish stocked by the PA Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) may migrate to or be present in be open to public fishing."

This is way too broad ranging to get anywhere. Taken literally, the "may migrate to" wording opens up virtually every stream in every watershed that has trout or any other fish stocked in it. In effect, the PAFBC would have the power to open up a private trout stream by stocking walleye fingerlings in a river miles away and in a different county. That is my literal interpretation.

I don't like the idea of using stocking as a weapon against posted water. This proposal does exactly that. There are too many reasons to list in one post why this is a bad idea.

I think a better strategy would be to establish a well defined and broadly applicable standard for navigable waterways and publish an official list of waters deemed to be navigable. Such a law would probably be more palatable to landowners due to a narrower scope, and would also survive a collapse/restructuring of the PAFBC stocking program or the PAFBC itself. Access law needs to be independent of PAFBC actions.

Kev

Now that sounds reasonable, but who would pay for it.

 

[laurelrun]

I own a couple dozen acres encompassing a run that empties directly into the Susquehanna. Being less than a mile from the headwaters, it is maybe six feet wide at its widest point on my property. The biggest fish you will find in it is a six inch chub.

I post my property to keep out hunters who sneak into our property and hide from me when I sweep for them during deer season. I post to keep out jerks who want to go for a run on the paths I maintain. I post to alert curious dummies who think turning down my gravel lane past my mailbox and over a private bridge is a good way to spend an afternoon. And I post to try to control the regular illegal dumping on my property.

My garage and home have both been burglarized in the time I have been there. And with the exception of my farmer neighbor and my close friends, no one had ever offered to help me maintain or improve my property.

I own it. I pay the mortgage. I pay the taxes.

I love to fish. But we have literally thousands of miles of open, public water to fish for every species, native or stocked. If you think you have the right to come toss a minnow sein on my property, then why not to shoot a deer? Or trap a muskrat?

To put it another way, how would you feel if I showed up with a picnic basket and blanket on your lawn for a fun afternoon ?

Most landowners who post either do it because of fear of liability or experience with trespassing jerks. I'm sorry we have to live life like that. But we live in a country founded on property rights.

 

[BradFromPotter]

montanya wrote:
The ability to fish is not a privilege. It is a right as a citizen of pa. Now undrer current law my ability to fish on your land is a privilege; which is wrong IMO.

If it's a right then why do we have to pay for a license?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Commonwealth

Section 1 and 10 defeat this bill. Amazingly I see no reference as fishing being a right if every Pennsylvanian.

But hey, I see # 27 gets violated daily so who knows!

 

[johnstevens5462]

This bill is an appease someone introduction because even passes it it accomplishes nothing.

Landowner rights in each State are contained in each State's constitution, and laws, ordinances, and executive orders passed by a State cannot take away or modify those rights only a constitutional change can do that.

Navigability is a Federal designation. The State of PA could pass a law declaring the following streams navigable and publish a list and that too is meaningless. Only a Federal court can declare waterways navigable in PA.

Don't get excited about this it isn't going to open up Spruce Creek for you to fish.

 

[Chaz]

Issue is, people are posting against trespass along the Erie Tribs, and then charging people to fish for stocked fish. That is a slippery slope, not forcing the opening of streams that are Commonwealth owned anyway, and stocked with trout, in this case Steelhead for everyone to catch.
I've long though that 1, streams are Commonwealth Property and thus can't be closed, 2, streams can't be posted if they are stocked by PFBC or anyone stocking fish they received from PFBC.

 

[PennKev]

johnstevens5462 wrote:

Navigability is a Federal designation. The State of PA could pass a law declaring the following streams navigable and publish a list and that too is meaningless. Only a Federal court can declare waterways navigable in PA.

It is not that cut and dry. The federal designation may supersede the lack of state law, but does not prevent states from creating their own public use/access law.

For instance, in Montana the law protects public recreational use on any "natural flowing waterway" or something to that effect.

Kev

 

[jdaddy]

RyanR wrote:
Well aren't all the waters, or at least the rivers and streams, of Pennsylvania held in the public trust (ie. Owned by the public)? On the surface, without having read the proposed bill in its entirety, I have to say I like it. I think it would be great if the public could access all the streams of the state using the same rules as the navigable waters (which is up to the high water mark, correct?) I don't think we should ever have the right to trespass over or on private land to get to the stream but as long as we access it from a public spot and "keep our feet wet" I'd love to be able legally fish many streams.

In return I'd like to see another issue addressed more forcefully, and that's trespassing. I think it's high time we strengthen our trespassing laws to give greater punishment to those slobs that degrade and destroy private property by accessing it illegally. There's a large problem with illegal ATV use in this state and it angers many landowners and causes them to not allow any legal access to their property. They're very frustrated at the lack of strength our trespassing laws have regarding fines and other punishment.

You are arguing against yourself.

 

[johnstevens5462]

PennKev,

Every State's constitution varies and what laws can be legally passed in one State (Montana) might not be legal in another State (PA) and vice versa. Montana and PA play by two different sets of rules and in my post I was specific to PA.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

laurelrun wrote:

I own it. I pay the mortgage. I pay the taxes.

I love to fish. But we have literally thousands of miles of open, public water to fish for every species, native or stocked. If you think you have the right to come toss a minnow sein on my property, then why not to shoot a deer? Or trap a muskrat?

To put it another way, how would you feel if I showed up with a picnic basket and blanket on your lawn for a fun afternoon ?

Most landowners who post either do it because of fear of liability or experience with trespassing jerks. I'm sorry we have to live life like that. But we live in a country founded on property rights.

This. Welcome to the age of entitlement when it is seen as asinine to post your land because there happens to be a stream that runs through it. Fishing is NOT a right, and you ain't entitled to whatever piece of land you want to access just 'cause there might be fish.

 

[FarmerDave]

laurelrun wrote:

Most landowners who post either do it because of fear of liability or experience with trespassing jerks. I'm sorry we have to live life like that. But we live in a country founded on property rights.

I started posting my woods last year or maybe it was the year before because I got tired of booting off people who didn't ask permission. In Ohio, you have to have written permission even when it is not posted which I think is a good idea. Fro one thing, there aren't nearly as many ugly signs.

The most common excuse was... I thought this was ____'s property.

I even once caught Mossy Oak setting up to film a goose hunt on my property without permission. But wait, it gets better. It was set up by the ODNR investigator for this county who was with them at the time.

I did let them do their hunt though.

He knew better. He's their investigator. How long would it tale to investigate where the property lines are? Later I was told he had used the same excuse with someone else who caught him on their property.

Amish were the worst.

Sad thing is, I would have let many of them hunt here if they simply had the decency to ask ... Is it to much to ask that I at least know who is on my property before the shooting starts? And as I said, it is also required by law.

People suck.

 

[RyanR]

FarmerDave wrote:

RyanR wrote:
Well aren't all the waters, or at least the rivers and streams, of Pennsylvania held in the public trust (ie. Owned by the public)?

Not exactly. If a stream passes through someone's property, the landowner technically does not own the water or the fish no matter who put them there. But he can own the land on either side and in some cases the land under the stream. Good luck trying to use that water or catch those fish while it is still on that person's property.

On the surface, without having read the proposed bill in its entirety, I have to say I like it.

The document is a joke (IMO). At best it wasn't well thought out. If it was, then it was along the lines of what Troutbert and a few others said.

IMO, a landowner should be allowed to control who can access his property whether it is wet or dry. If he happens to own the stream bottom as well as both sides, then fine. He shas the RIGHT to control access on that as well. Saying the public should have access to that land for fishing is like me saying that I should have access to your back yard to practice my chip shots.

But that is where it gets confusing. If the land is declared navigable in court, then he doesn't own the stream bed and it is held in public trust. Then the public can access between the high water marks. As a side note, navigability test isn't whether it is navigable now, but was it ever used as a highway for commerce. I'm oversimplifying that though.

Until it is decided in court for any given stream, it is a gray area what is navigable with many shades of gray.

For certain streams such as the big rivers there is no question that at one time they were used as public highways and commerce and therefore they are understood to be navigable whether a court decided or not. Likewise, tiny tributaries are usually understood to not be "navigable." One would be foolish to challenge either. Everything else is in between in the gray area.

Based on the article, the guy is apparently suggesting that all streams should be treated as navigable based solely on whether it was stocked or there is potential for stocked fish to migrate there. It's both selfish and foolish.

Fishing is not a right, it is a privilege.

No Dave, exactly, the waters of the commonwealth are owned by the people. Which is what I was getting at. I understand the bit about the land on either side or even underneath. Personally, I've always thought of the stream bed as part of the stream. I believe this bill is trying to make it that the land underneath the stream is public too. Basically putting the navigability law into effect for all streams & rivers. I don't think it's a joke at all. You can, that's your want to do and of course your free to do so, so be it. Don't much care myself.

I do agree though, for the most part people do suck.

 

[RyanR]

FarmerDave wrote:

montanya wrote:
I think it is asinine that I have the ability to restrict people access to this water and the fish in it.

You may feel differently the first time someone takes a crap in your back yard.

Umm, he's talking about stream access, not access to your backyard. But whatever works for the argument.

 

[RyanR]

PennKev wrote:

Proposed PA house bill will "(amend) the Fish & Boat Code to provide that any waters in which fish stocked by the PA Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) may migrate to or be present in be open to public fishing."

This is way too broad ranging to get anywhere. Taken literally, the "may migrate to" wording opens up virtually every stream in every watershed that has trout or any other fish stocked in it. In effect, the PAFBC would have the power to open up a private trout stream by stocking walleye fingerlings in a river miles away and in a different county. That is my literal interpretation.

I don't like the idea of using stocking as a weapon against posted water. This proposal does exactly that. There are too many reasons to list in one post why this is a bad idea.

I think a better strategy would be to establish a well defined and broadly applicable standard for navigable waterways and publish an official list of waters deemed to be navigable. Such a law would probably be more palatable to landowners due to a narrower scope, and would also survive a collapse/restructuring of the PAFBC stocking program or the PAFBC itself. Access law needs to be independent of PAFBC actions.

Kev

Very good points, Pennkev, I'd like to see that myself.

I do envy Montana's law concerning stream access and wish it were PA's too (which is how I read what this bill proposes) but I understand that's probably not going to happen, at least not at this time.

 

[krayfish2]

So if this passes, you could wade right up the middle of spruce into McMullen's property? That court battle will still be going long after I'm dead

 

[johnstevens5462]

A PA State law cannot declare streams navigable, as that falls under Federal jurisdiction.

State laws also cannot supersede the provisions of the State's constitution and this bill, if passed into law, would probably do exactly that.

State laws have to fall within the provisions of the State's constitution and the provisions of the constitution prevail in the event there is a conflict. If passed, it would immediately be challenged in court the argument being it violates constitutional rights for landowners and after several years the court may or may not uphold the law (doubtful they would).

There is nothing stopping anyone from fishing any body of water, as water is a publicly owned resource, provided you legally gain access and don't trespass on private property in the process of fishing it. Helicopter drop with a pontoon into one of FarmerDave's ponds (he does not own the airspace above his property, air is also a public resource) and fish to your hearts content. Harvest every fish that is legal and then helicopter out and give him the finger for good measure as you are departing. (Please videotape and post here). Just don't touch anything other than water or air or you've trespassed.

Declaring privately owned stream beds now "public resources" would violate PA constitutional rights. It would be no different than if the legislature passed a law taking away every person's right to vote and instead said outgoing politicians would appoint their successors. Not legal.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

RyanR wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

montanya wrote:
I think it is asinine that I have the ability to restrict people access to this water and the fish in it.

You may feel differently the first time someone takes a crap in your back yard.

Umm, he's talking about stream access, not access to your backyard. But whatever works for the argument.

If the stream goes through my back yard, it's about access to my back yard.

 

[krayfish2]

Property owner rights extend to the air above and ground underneath. You couldn't mine under farmer Dave's property nor could you tool around in some sort of hovercraft device (plus or minus eextended finger LOL)

I remember taking real estate class on that subject but had to look it up for confirmation.