Public creek "private" due to a club

Bamboozle said:
Because in PA, excluding the major rivers, navigability in fact typically trumps everything else.

Common sense & logic should make all but the delusional realize some of these ridiculous smaller streams with barely enough water to clear a spring log jam are not and SHOULD NOT be considered navigable...

Those who want to push that point will ultimately lose while further reducing access through landowner courtesy...
Click to expand...
Yeah but that didn't really answer my question.

Why is it that the state has no burden to prove a waterway isn't navigable?

I'll give a good example. Tulpehocken Creek above the Blue Marsh Lake.
It is small, couldn't clear a spring log jam, but was indeed a navigable waterway. I know because it was part of the Union Canal and many of the Locks still exist. It has private property all over it. If an angler decided to push the issue, they would be charged with trespassing and would have to prove it was navigable. What I'm saying is the burden of proof should be on the state to prove it isn't.

Ultimately in that case, the angler should win.
It was indeed navigable.
 
Fair warning this post is meant for entertainment purposes only and the rantings of an average fisherman .............Keep in mind the Hunter/ fisherman harassment laws. If you are legally fishing Water listed as navigable and are stopped/ harassed and get dragged to court. You are only facing simple trespassing charges. However the person pretending to own the water faces many very severe charges. Hunter/ fisherman harassment, posting public land/filing a false police report, misuse of 911 services, terrorist threats, brandishing a weapon etc. the list goes on. I may lose $300 sure, but the other guy may lose his gun rights and ability to hunt for life and face many thousands of dollars in fines. He may face serious charges and serious jail time and have a criminal record. If the Donny beaver jr. of the world want to take that risk fine. I’ve yet to meet anyone willing to knowingly commit three or four or five crimes to try and falsely prove I am trespassing. I have used the navigable waters map to fish dozens and dozens of streams and even made my case enough to have had a few landowners remove trespassing signs. Maybe not for the weekend warriors. But serious trout fisherman who truly care for our waters and our fish are not going to let criminals stop them from fishing public water. Educate the criminals and you might be suprised. By the way I have never been charged with trespassing or had law enforcement called on me. Not once, ever. I have however gotten land owners to remove illegitimate private property signs and opened additional access in a few streams. I guess it’s all how serious you take fishing. You wouldn’t hesitate to call the cops if someone was committing 4-5 crimes against you on public land. I guess I don’t understand the hesitation on public water. As a side note any confrontation is best met with a catch and release attitude, a bag of litter you picked up and a willingness to leave even if you are in the right. But if you try to charge me with trespassing on public water, meanwhile you are committing multiple much more serious crimes, I’m gonna throw the book at you. It’s high time the fake posters start coming down, Allowing ourselves to be bullied by criminals is the main reason so many have gone up. We all have distain for thieves. Why then, when they steal access and public water don’t we all have that same attitude? Obviously I’m playing a little devils advocate ;) But there are other ways to think than I’m always in the wrong and I’ll just hit up the same old dhalo section. Probably why they are so packed with people ?Perhaps some food for thought.........but what do I know? I’m just a fisherman. I’m sure there are experts out there on these topics.
 
troutbert said:
From the website:

"NOTE: The waterways identified herein as having publicly-owned streambeds have been compiled by the Commonwealth over time from various sources. Identification is based upon information believed to be reliable and persuasive evidence of such ownership. The identification of a waterway as having a publicly-owned streambed herein is not intended to be a final determination that the waterway is navigable under state or federal law."

What that means for French Creek is that no one (including PFBC, DCNR, state police) knows if it is navigable or not. And no one will know until if and when it is tested in court.
Click to expand...
So rather than the state have some way of making the determination a single judge gets too decide on an expensive case by case basis.
 
5footfenwick said:
Fair warning this post is meant for entertainment purposes only and the rantings of an average fisherman .............Keep in mind the Hunter/ fisherman harassment laws. If you are legally fishing Water listed as navigable and are stopped/ harassed and get dragged to court. You are only facing simple trespassing charges. However the person pretending to own the water faces many very severe charges. Hunter/ fisherman harassment, posting public land/filing a false police report, misuse of 911 services, terrorist threats, brandishing a weapon etc. the list goes on. I may lose $300 sure, but the other guy may lose his gun rights and ability to hunt for life and face many thousands of dollars in fines. He may face serious charges and serious jail time and have a criminal record. If the Donny beaver jr. of the world want to take that risk fine. I’ve yet to meet anyone willing to knowingly commit three or four or five crimes to try and falsely prove I am trespassing. I have used the navigable waters map to fish dozens and dozens of streams and even made my case enough to have had a few landowners remove trespassing signs. Maybe not for the weekend warriors. But serious trout fisherman who truly care for our waters and our fish are not going to let criminals stop them from fishing public water. Educate the criminals and you might be suprised. By the way I have never been charged with trespassing or had law enforcement called on me. Not once, ever. I have however gotten land owners to remove illegitimate private property signs and opened additional access in a few streams. I guess it’s all how serious you take fishing. You wouldn’t hesitate to call the cops if someone was committing 4-5 crimes against you on public land. I guess I don’t understand the hesitation on public water. As a side note any confrontation is best met with a catch and release attitude, a bag of litter you picked up and a willingness to leave even if you are in the right. But if you try to charge me with trespassing on public water, meanwhile you are committing multiple much more serious crimes, I’m gonna throw the book at you. It’s high time the fake posters start coming down, Allowing ourselves to be bullied by criminals is the main reason so many have gone up. We all have distain for thieves. Why then, when they steal access and public water don’t we all have that same attitude? Obviously I’m playing a little devils advocate ;) But there are other ways to think than I’m always in the wrong and I’ll just hit up the same old dhalo section. Probably why they are so packed with people ?Perhaps some food for thought.........but what do I know? I’m just a fisherman. I’m sure there are experts out there on these topics.
Click to expand...
I like this approach. It might work with a few people but If one pushed the issue I am doubtful the police would charge the landowners or non landowners as the case may be. And judges are always a crap shoot.
Still think it is worth a try. Activist for public owned streambed trout fisherman sounds like something I might enjoy. I am aware of some situations with duck hunters inside the high water mark on larger rivers that had issues with landowners. The hunters just gave up and left but might have been a good one to challenge them on.
 
Last edited:
sixfootfenwick said:
Why is it that the state has no burden to prove a waterway isn't navigable?

If an angler decided to push the issue, they would be charged with trespassing and would have to prove it was navigable. What I'm saying is the burden of proof should be on the state to prove it isn't.

Ultimately in that case, the angler should win.
It was indeed navigable.
Click to expand...
The "State" is more on the side of proving it is navigable since they will ultimately have control over the waterway. If you look at the two most recent cases of proving navigability, the Lehigh River and the Little Juniata, the State sided with the defendant accused of trespassing on what the plaintiff claimed to be "private" water.


 
afishinado said:
The "State" is more on the side of proving it is navigable since they will ultimately have control over the waterway. If you look at the two most recent cases of proving navigability, the Lehigh River and the Little Juniata, the State sided with the defendant accused of trespassing on what the plaintiff claimed to be "private" water.


Click to expand...
Edit:

Thank you. That Lehigh link answered my question. My thinking was off
 
This is hearsay because I am not an officer of the club, but a club I belong to stocks a stream for a kids' derby. The club owns both sides of the creek and it is not an established navigable waterway (although traditional use was milling). The officer that pulled the stocking permit told me that since we were stocking, we could not prohibit fishing from within the streambed. We could limit access via club property but had to let people fish if they waded or floated in.

As I said, this is second-hand info, and I tend to side with the “probably best not to put up a fight unless you are ready to lawyer up and take it to state courts” crowd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top