Yes and therein lies a huge difference in that Montana law makes any naturally flowing waterway that can be used for recreation, open to the public so long as they do not trespass to access the waterway itself. There is no caveat or requirement of past or present commercial use, or use as a means of transportation.
Which post was that in?
You are assuming that access and usage rights arguments are based on the presence of fish and game. While anglers advocate for public waterway usage in order to pursue their sport, the access rights they argue for are not based on the presence of fish. The arguments is that waterways are public, therefore we should be able to fish them. The argument is not, "There are fish there, so the waterway should be public."
I’m not sure about the thesis that there are too many people, too many anglers, and the properties are too small. There are not many counties with greater population densities than Delaware Co, yet there is little posting along stocked trout streams despite the abundance of private owners. This may in part be because many of the streams have woodland buffer zones, meaning that anglers are not generally fishing along riparian owners’ manacured back yards. There might be other reasons why such a degree of public access would be desirable on some waters but undesirable on other waters, as Lycoflyfisher suggested for the Loyalsock….Likewise for situations where no fisheries would exist. At the same time with so much newly accessible water, anglers would be spread out across many more stream miles. I’m betting it’s never going to happen in Pa anyway so my counterpoint is moot.
I thought the argument was that there is pristine land that could do with some litter. #privatizepennsylvania
Where is this posting?
Along the lower part of the river between the Alexandria Pike bridge and Rishel road
The Frankstown branch would have even more history of being a navigable waterway, because of the main line canal - which ran along much of it back in the day.
I disagree.
