East Branch Brandywine DHALO access

[lestrout]

Has anyone had trouble accessing the EB Dead Man's Hole across from the wooden bridge? The landowner has kicked one of my buddies off the property.

 

[HopBack]

Havent been there in a long time and I think there is a new landowner within the past couple of years but I could be wrong. They own that entire stream section and land from just below "the wall" on shyrock brothers property all the way down to the white bridge at dowlin forge rd. If they are posting it or kicking people out, that will be the end of the DHAFLO becuase that encompasses 2/3rds of the current limits of the project.

 

[Mike]

Are you speaking about riparian land that sits between the bike path and the stream; are you speaking about riparian land on the opposite side (road side) of the stream; or are you speaking about a property that encompasses both sides of the stream?

 

[HopBack]

Mike, looking at the chester county parcel map, I can see that uchwlan twp does own the ripran buffer between struble trail and the creek. The western side of the creek is owned by a private landowner. Not sure who actually owns the stream rights. If the stream is divided between the landowner and the township then wading on their side is off limits.

 

[madifly]

If you access it from Uchlan Twp land on the trail side AND stay in the water, he cannot chase fishermen out. Have Bob B. pay him a visit to straighten his bully *** out.

 

[BradFromPotter]

madifly wrote:
If you access it from Uchlan Twp land on the trail side AND stay in the water, he cannot chase fishermen out. Have Bob B. pay him a visit to straighten his bully *** out.

and Bob WILL straighten him out!

 

[sarce]

WB is considered navigable according to the canoe rental places there, so would expect the east branch also is navigable. Really shouldn't be a problem where there's a park on one side. Landowner in the wrong.

 

[Bamboozle]

IF the ownership boundary line is in the middle the creek, you need to stay on the township side of the creek regardless of where you access the creek in that area.

Just staying in the water means squat as does what some canoe rental place says. This is PA, not Montana...

The navigability issue in Pennsylvania SO misunderstood it is ridiculous and the fact that basically only the great rivers and the Little J meet the criteria just proves the point.

If the landowner wants to pursue trespassing, they will most likely prevail IF they own that side of the creek...

 

[Mike]

The debate is really a moot point because I am certain that the PFBC is going to check the situation out. As some here can attest, AFM’s in the SE (Area 6) have always made an effort to stay on top of posting issues either through independent investigation or in response to WCO and angler observations. They are already aware of this one.

 

[pcray1231]

Just staying in the water means squat as does what some canoe rental place says. This is PA, not Montana...

The navigability issue in Pennsylvania SO misunderstood.

I don't know whether the EB is navigable or not. Not taking a side.

But regarding the "issue". If it is not navigable, yeah, you gotta stay on the side of the stream that's public, can't go on the private side. You could float it, but you can't touch the streambottom on the private side of mid-stream.

If it is navigable, then the streambottom itself is public property, up to the high water mark.

Whether or not it's navigable is the tricky part. Everyone can have their opinion. It either is or it isn't, but you can't find out until it sees it's day in court. Only a court's opinion matters, and you can't find out until you "test" it. Which means trespassing, getting caught, and fighting it, and you are out legal fees whether you win or lose.

Our laws are actually not all that different than Montana. But in Montana, they declared a bunch of their better trout streams to be navigable. Here it's piecemeal, one at a time.

 

[HopBack]

Pcray hit the nail on the head. The landower does own the properyty in question on the west side of the creek. More often than not this also means that they own half of the stream. If this is the case, you would only legally be able to wade on the eastern side of the stream.

The navigability of the East Branch of the Branywine or the Brandywine river has not be tested in court so tresspassers would be essential guilty until proven otherwise.

 

[sarce]

Although it hasn't been tested in court and I wouldn't advocate anyone going that route, I believe the test used in other court cases to determine navigability is whether the stream is currently or was at one time used for commerce. If that's true, both branches of the Brandywine would easily meet the criteria based on the history of logging, mills, splash dams etc.

 

[pcray1231]

Probably right but who knows what judge you get. And feel free to pony up the legal fees to find out, you lose whether you win or lose, lol. But could maybe do the rest of us a favor!

The thing that bugs me is that its essentially a property dispute. Prior to court nobody should have the upper hand. There's a "skin in the game" disparity. While yes, you're at risk of trespassing if you go on said land. At the same time, I think the landowner should be at risk of "posting public land" by putting signs up to begin with. If it goes to court, loser broke the law, pays all court fees for both sides plus any fines. That's how it should be, but it ain't like that.

 

[CRB]

wade from the county park to just the counties side of middle wade down through and fish the other side.