Dsr vs homewaters (or the senator vs the beav)

[fishbaithohaha]

Post your land. Charge to hunt your land. Build a pond, Stock it. It is yours.

Don't stop people from floating a public stream passing through your property. Don't stop people from fishing a public stream passing through your property.

It is the AG responsibility to defend the public interest. Where there exist or there is reason to believe there exist a public right to access, the AG should be first in line to defend that access. Individuals should not have to trespass to bring the issue to court.

 

[PALongbow]

The stream going through my property is 'non navigable' and up to the landowner to grant passage. Besides it would be pretty hard to stay in the creek without hitting a deep hole so once you get out of the stream you are on my property and trespassing. I suppose we can also discuss liability if someone would happen to fall in the creek and drown. Also another reason why I post my land.

Ron

 

[fishbaithohaha]

Therein lies the problem. You decided to post the property because of "problems". If you have reasonable ascertained the right to post, then fine.

But, maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Quite possibly, the stream is or was "navigable". Just assuming the right to post is as bad as assuming the public's has a right to access.

 

[pcray1231]

But, maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Quite possibly, the stream is or was "navigable". Just assuming the right to post is as bad as assuming the public's has a right to access.

Yeah, that's how I see it too. I don't know the situation with PALongbow's land, maybe there's no question about it, and that's fine if so. But there's a lot of smallish streams that likely are, or at least could be navigable, and the landowners scoff at the notion because they don't fully understand what it means to be navigable.

The DCNR list posted earlier is the best estimate out there of which streams are navigable. It is still an estimate. And any landowner who posts any stream that hasn't had its day in court is taking a risk. As is any member of the public who assumes a stream to be navigable before it's had it's day in court. All have to gauge how much of a risk it is, and the DCNR list is probably a pretty good guideline for that.

Of course not. But unless you have permission (OH), you will need to go around that private property and get them on the other side. Written permission for hunting.

FD, just so we're clear, I believe you 100% in Ohio. The law, even regarding land, is different in PA.

In PA, if you do not have posted signs up, or fencing or some other structure intended to exclude the public, then the public is not required to ask for your permission to hunt or fish on your land. The lack of exclusion is considered "implied consent".

Before you cry foul, yes, it is still a "good idea" to ask. I'm not telling anyone they shouldn't ask, out of courtesy. It's just not required by law here.

Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433 (C.P. 1995)

"Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties where hunting and outdoor activities are common."

PA, by law, is much friendlier to the public when it comes to recreational pursuits than is Ohio or NY. That's seen with "implied consent" as well as with navigable waterways carrying with them the right of the public to recreate. On the other hand, PA does a poor job at actually enforcing these laws. If a landowner decides he just doesn't like the law and wrongfully excludes the public, he generally does not get questioned, and even if he does get taken to court and lose, no real penalty exists.

 

[FarmerDave]

fishbaithohaha wrote:
Post your land. Charge to hunt your land. Build a pond, Stock it. It is yours.

Don't stop people from floating a public stream passing through your property. Don't stop people from fishing a public stream passing through your property.

It is the AG responsibility to defend the public interest. Where there exist or there is reason to believe there exist a public right to access, the AG should be first in line to defend that access. Individuals should not have to trespass to bring the issue to court.

I'm beginning to think I am being trolled with fishbaitohaha.

Just to be clear...

Do you understand that not all streams are public? Not in PA,not in NY, and not in Ohio.

The idea that all streams are public is a common misconception, but it is basically just urban legend. Some are, some aren't. The water might be public, at least in eastern states, but the stream? Not necessarily.

In PA, if a stream is navigable, the land under it and up to the ordinary high water mark is public, making it a truly public stream. (does not include flood planes). That means you can fish if you are within those boundaries. Afterall, it is public land. That is as close as you get in this country to what you are suggestion. It DOES NOT apply to non-navigable streams.

The problem is, there is no master list for navigable streams.

Ohio and NY are different. A stream is not necessarily public unless it passed through public land. If a navigable stream flows through private land, that only means the land owner cannot restrict navigation. But fishing is not navigation.

Here's an idea. You come out next summer with an innertube and fishing pole and try to float the tiny stream that flows through my land. I'll have you arrested for trespassing and then we can challenge that all the way to the supreme court, and I guarantee AT LEAST 3 of 4 things.


1. You will end up paying a fine.
2. We will both be broke.
3. SC won't even hear the case.
4. I will own your inner-tube, and fishing pole.

What kind of fishing pole do you use?

It may not be what you want to hear, but it is what it is.

If I am wrong, please provide evidence of this. Otherwise, pass the bait.

 

[pcray1231]

That is as close as you get in this country to what you are suggestion. It DOES NOT apply to non-navigable streams.

Wrong again. Fishbait said not to stop people from floating through your land.

That does apply to non-navigable streams. Even non-navigable streams have a navigation easement. i.e. you cannot stop anyone from floating through. And in a particularly shallow spot they have the right to portage as well, even above the high water mark, provide it they do so as efficiently as possible without damaging your property.

If it's non-navigable, they can't recreate while floating through, and they can't get out and wade for any purpose other than portage, but they can still float through.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

But, maybe you did, maybe you didn't. Quite possibly, the stream is or was "navigable". Just assuming the right to post is as bad as assuming the public's has a right to access.

Yeah, that's how I see it too. I don't know the situation with PALongbow's land, maybe there's no question about it, and that's fine if so. But there's a lot of smallish streams that likely are, or at least could be navigable, and the landowners scoff at the notion because they don't fully understand what it means to be navigable.

The DCNR list posted earlier is the best estimate out there of which streams are navigable. It is still an estimate. And any landowner who posts any stream that hasn't had its day in court is taking a risk. As is any member of the public who assumes a stream to be navigable before it's had it's day in court. All have to gauge how much of a risk it is, and the DCNR list is probably a pretty good guideline for that.

Of course not. But unless you have permission (OH), you will need to go around that private property and get them on the other side. Written permission for hunting.

FD, just so we're clear, I believe you 100% in Ohio. The law, even regarding land, is different in PA. ...

Yea, we are clear. I've lived more years in PA than Flatlandia. Probably nearly as long as you have.;-)

Ohio law pertaining to hunting private land? Think PA with all private land having posted signs. You can look it up yourself if you wish. I was addressing a fellow FOB at the time.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

That is as close as you get in this country to what you are suggestion. It DOES NOT apply to non-navigable streams.

Wrong again. Fishbait said not to stop people from floating through your land.

That does apply to non-navigable streams...

Of course it does. But only the floating part. Did you read his sentence immediately following that one?

In logic terms, that was an AND, not an OR. Therefore, not wrong... again.

Public mean public.

The fact that MAYBE during hurricane Agnus, you could have floated down it at a high rate of speed, does not make it public. And even if it does, it doesn't mean you can fish it if it is in Ohaha.

All I am guilty of is trying to keep it shorter than [d]you [/d]your messages.

the stream on my property? You might be able to float through during spring melt, if you can fit on a maple leaf. OK, sycamore would make it through too, but you would have to bring your own leaf.

 

[RyanR]

PALongbow wrote:
The stream going through my property is 'non navigable' and up to the landowner to grant passage. Besides it would be pretty hard to stay in the creek without hitting a deep hole so once you get out of the stream you are on my property and trespassing. I suppose we can also discuss liability if someone would happen to fall in the creek and drown. Also another reason why I post my land.

Ron

First, let me say I appreciate your willingness to grant permission to anglers to enter your property to fish the stream. I know you've invited a lot of people on here to come up & fish "your" stretch of stream. We're talking about Fishing Creek in Benton right? Are you sure it us not considered "historically commercially navigable?" It is my understanding that Benton was/is a mill and logging town. I believe I've read before, including on here, that this Fishing Creek is a historically navigable waterway going back to the logging days. It's for that reason the Fishing Creek Sportsmen Association and the Columbia- Montour Countries Visitors Bureau (to the dismay of the private club) has promoted anglers coming up to fish it and enjoy the numerous access points that the organizations have secured. If it is a navigable waterway then an angler would be able to access the stream (from a public access point or where they have permission to) and fish its length by staying within the mean high water mark. Basically if they kept their boots more or less wet within the streambank then they are not trespassing.

 

[Maurice]

PALongbow wrote:
The stream going through my property is 'non navigable' and up to the landowner to grant passage. Besides it would be pretty hard to stay in the creek without hitting a deep hole so once you get out of the stream you are on my property and trespassing. I suppose we can also discuss liability if someone would happen to fall in the creek and drown. Also another reason why I post my land.

Ron

Ron,

There is a Recreational Land Use Act (RLUA) in PA that holds no harm to a landowner who opens his property to the public for fishing or hunting, provided they are not injured on an improved structure. I E fall down steps you built, etc.

So, you can take that one off the list of why you post your land.

 

[laurelrun]

I own about a half mile stretch of a small stream that empties into the Susquehanna River. Mostly too shallow to harbor anything bigger than a 6" chub. It flows through private property from its headwaters to its mouth.

I post my property to keep out hunters that do not have my permission. Also to keep out curious onlookers who drop by at least on a monthly basis to enjoy the view, walk their dog, or generally do things that I wouldn't oppose if they merely had the courtesy to come ask first, or call the # on my posted signs.

In the decade I have owned this stream valley, I have had two breakins, chased off half a dozen hunters hiding in the woods on my approach, found atleast one dead deer a year from poor tracking after a hunt, found trash, fires or other evidence of unknown trespassing, chased off a group of hash house harriers deliberately running through posted property on some stupid fun run, dealt with illegal dumping, and also suspicious Parkin. Of both the recreational and professional type.

Don't judge a property owner for posting until you know what it's like to deal with bad actors. And don't be an arrogant, bad actor. Even if that means you believe you are within your rights.

 

[FarmerDave]

Maurice wrote:

Ron,

There is a Recreational Land Use Act (RLUA) in PA that holds no harm to a landowner who opens his property to the public for fishing or hunting, provided they are not injured on an improved structure. I E fall down steps you built, etc.

So, you can take that one off the list of why you post your land.

For the most part I agree with that, but there is stoll a lot of gray area, and with this generally sue happy society?

Would a post hole or test hole (for whatever) not properly filled in.

IMO, if you have any man made hazard on your property, or even a a dog that may or may not have developed a taste for Chinese intruders. you might be better off posting.

You could still grant permission, but inform them of any known hazards. This sign seem to be working for me. Unfortunately it wouldn't fit on a single page.

 

[FarmerDave]

laurelrun wrote:

Don't judge a property owner for posting until you know what it's like to deal with bad actors. And don't be an arrogant, bad actor. Even if that means you believe you are within your rights.

Bingo.

Ask me which is more likely to be granted permission on my property.

1. Someone asking respectfully.
2. A loudmouth insisting he has a right to be there because I don't own the wild animals and fishies.

Now excuse me while I go fish the little stream behind the Ray family camp.

 

[FGSIII]

A little reading material about the DSR court case in 1997

https://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I97_0009.htm

 

[rrt]

laurelrun has hit the nail on the head. I know a number of landowners around here, and l/r's story, unfortunately, is not that uncommon. Most property owners have posted their land around here because of bad behavior by people on the land or because of the game commission's deer decimation policy. In the second case, the landowners are trying to prevent the wholesale slaughter of deer that the game commission encourages. Around here, the only good deer hunting now exists on posted, private land. The game lands are destitute of deer.

Regarding the first instance, landowners along trout streams around here have experienced fishermen cutting their fences, fishermen's dogs chasing cattle, and littering, just to cite a few reasons that people who own streamside properties post.

 

[PALongbow]

RyanR-

I believe you are correct in regards to logging and commercial navigation otherwise I believe its non- navigable. It doesn't matter because for one to fish the stream they would have to access my property outside of the high water mark at some point to move around the deep pools. At that point it would be trespassing. I fully understand the laws according to the stream and private property. I do let people fish it with permission and certain rules assigned so there shouldn't be any issue.

If someone has issue with me posting the property then they can help me clean up all the trash left by the slobs who think my property is open for them to abuse and be entitled too.

Ron

 

[FarmerDave]

fishbait, I could be wrong on the Ohio law. I was speaking from memory. I searched the innertubes for information on it, and the only things I could find, I'd have had to pay for it.

I aint paying for it.

What little I was able to find suggested at one time it was virtually the same as NY.

I also saw indication of an attempt to change it. I just don't know the outcome.

But this is Ohio, and I kind of doubt it. Heck, it wasn't long ago that they tried to extend property lines along the lake from high water mark to somewhere off shore. I don't think that succeeded though.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Speaking of cables across creeks....Has anyone seen all the weird cables and plastic tubes etc. strung across the lower end of Spring Creek near Milesburg? Assuming it might have something to do with kayaking but not sure. It seems very strange that someone could legally place all this junk over the stream. It completely shuts that area down for fishing I can tell you that. There is no way a person could cast around all this crap.

 

[pcray1231]

Oh dear,

I post my property to keep out hunters that do not have my permission.

I don't like that you do it, but I do respect your right to do so.

Also to keep out curious onlookers who drop by at least on a monthly basis to enjoy the view, walk their dog, or generally do things that I wouldn't oppose if they merely had the courtesy to come ask first, or call the # on my posted signs.

Again, your right to require permission on your LAND. But as a landowner myself, I don't have any desire for every Tom, ****, and Harry to ask me before doing these perfectly harmless things.

chased off half a dozen hunters hiding in the woods on my approach.....chased off a group of hash house harriers deliberately running through posted property on some stupid fun run....and also suspicious Parkin.

These fall in the same category as above. Harmless recreation things. I mean, you post, so yes, it's wrong of them to ignore your wishes and do it on your property anyway. But the ONLY reason these actions are considered negative is because you do indeed post. I don't understand why you have the motive to prevent these things from occurring to begin with?

Parkin. hehe, hehe...

In the decade I have owned this stream valley, I have had two breakins....dealt with illegal dumping

Separate issues. These acts are illegal regardless of whether or not you post. And your posting in no way prevents them. Somebody who is going to break in your house or dump a load of garbage isn't going to think twice about walking past a few signs to do it.

found atleast one dead deer a year from poor tracking after a hunt

This is BECAUSE you post, not in spite of it. Hunter injures a deer on a neighboring property. Tracks it, it goes into posted property. He can't track it anymore, so he has to give up the trail. If it had been open, the hunter likely would have continued tracking and potentially recovered the deer.

found trash

In that entire post, this is the ONLY legitimate reason I see which should give you motive to post. And yes, I agree it's despicable that people litter.

 

[Midge22]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Speaking of cables across creeks....Has anyone seen all the weird cables and plastic tubes etc. strung across the lower end of Spring Creek near Milesburg? Assuming it might have something to do with kayaking but not sure. It seems very strange that someone could legally place all this junk over the stream. It completely shuts that area down for fishing I can tell you that. There is no way a person could cast around all this crap.

its a kayak course.

and no, no one cant cast in that