Broad head Analomik Access - newly posted

[troutbert]

Dave_W wrote:

afishinado wrote:

Can you share some insights and info from the paper for all of us interested in the subject?

Agree - if we could get a short version/bottom line, or the executive summary from the doc, that would be fine.

However, the original article may be protected by copyright and not available for publication on the net.

We should also start another thread should this be pursued.

Maybe Mike would be willing to tackle that.

One thing that you learn from the paper is that it is quite a complicated topic, with lots of gray areas.

I'm not sure that I'm capable of giving a good summary.

If you are really interested in learning about this topic, the first step is to get a copy of the paper and read it. There is no substitute for that.

 

[Mike]

The paper is in a paper file at my former office. I read this paper twice over the years and occasionally referenced sections as refreshers. There is no way that I would have tried to summarize it as it is a thick, technical read that does not lend itself to easy summarization.

 

[afishinado]

Troutbert wrote:
Maybe Mike would be willing to tackle that.

One thing that you learn from the paper is that it is quite a complicated topic, with lots of gray areas.

I'm not sure that I'm capable of giving a good summary.

If you are really interested in learning about this topic, the first step is to get a copy of the paper and read it. There is no substitute for that.

Mike wrote:
The paper is in a paper file at my former office. I read this paper twice over the years and occasionally referenced sections as refreshers. There is no way that I would have tried to summarize it as it is a thick, technical read that does not lend itself to easy summarization.

Understood. Thanks to both of you. No doubt a complicated subject. I guess that's why we have lawyers :roll:

My thoughts on the subject are landowners along streams insist their deed is the final word on public streambeds, and some anglers or boaters insist the DCNR list of navigable streams is the final word on public streambeds. Neither is true.

But, I neither encourage anyone to trespass on what is believed to be private property, nor tell someone to not challenge what they think is held in trust for all citizens. My only advice to both sides is to tread lightly and use good judgement.

 

[Swattie87]

The fun thing about this debate is that more than likely both the landowner and the "trespasser" get to be right...Just at differing points in the process.

Most likely than landowner is "right" initially, and gets to smile while the "trespasser" is cited. IF the "trespasser" pursues this to the final authority Supreme Court stage however, the "trespasser" probably then gets the last laugh and gets to be "right" in the end, opening up navigability for the whole stream in the process...A big risk to take to be the landowner who pushes this, and ultimately loses in the courts. Your fellow landowners probably won't be appreciative of your efforts.

For the pro navigability camp...Keep in mind too, that even on legally determined navigable waterways, that a landowner is still perfectly within their authority to post above the ordinary high water mark, and enforce trespassing above that. For example, you still can't get out of the stream, above the ordinary high water mark, to walk around a deep hole, or instream obstacle.

 

[troutbert]

Swattie87 wrote:
The fun thing about this debate is that more than likely both the landowner and the "trespasser" get to be right...Just at differing points in the process.

Most likely than landowner is "right" initially, and gets to smile while the "trespasser" is cited.

If law enforcement is willing to go out on a limb and risk false arrest by citing people for "trespassing" on waterways where the navigable status is not known.

In the Lehigh and Little Juniata cases, I don't think LEOs ever cited anyone. Even though in both cases, people regularly fished the waterways, and the landowners were very angry about it.

On the Little Juniata, a state policeman was watching from the bank as fishermen fished in the disputed stretch, while the landowners yelled angrily from the sides. But the policeman didn't arrest the fishermen or tell them to leave. (This isn't hearsay, I saw this.)

Also, PFBC law enforcement was very much aware of the dispute on the Little J, because fishermen were fishing the river and reporting harassment to PFBC law enforcement. But PFBC law enforcement also did not arrest fishermen or boaters for trespassing.

The reason LEOs would not arrest people on these rivers was because they did not know if people were actually trespassing or not.

Because the law in PA is unclear. The status of those rivers was simply not known. It took court cases to settle the matter.

 

[Millsertime]

*UPDATE*

Walked behind Rosie's Bar yesterday. The posted signs are still there between the RR tracks and the creek.

 

[Nymph-wristed]

Millsertime wrote:
*UPDATE*

Walked behind Rosie's Bar yesterday. The posted signs are still there between the RR tracks and the creek.

Thanks, Millser. That was what I was afraid of when I drove by there the last time I was up.