Frankstown Branch Juniata River - Update (5/4/2017)

[SirJohnny]

All:

- As of Thursday, May 4th 2017, I have heard nothing from either the PAFBC or the PA State Police regarding the landowner vs. fisherman dispute that occurred a few weeks ago.

- Link to the original article at bottom of this post.

- Today, I ran into a second landowner as I was suiting up at the car. This gentleman was completely professional, but firm, and indicated that he does not want ANYONE fishing on his property. Unfortunately, this gentleman owns about 200 yards of property along the stream. I explained the navigability issue, and he stated, "I've heard it all before." The gentleman was extremely courteous, and we parted ways.

- I've again called the PAFBC.

- I've also written an e-mail to Senator John Eichelberger (a fellow anger) requesting clarification of the situation [see below].

-------

- Here's what I have learned in my research:

- 1. The state has declared the Frankstown Branch of the Juniata River to be a navigable waterway from Hollidaysburg to its mouth in Huntington. The Pennsylvania State Canal system linked to the Portage Railroad in Hollidaysburg, and was considered a public highway.

- 2. The state of Pennsylvania does not "piecemeal" streams with respect to navigability. Meaning, if one section of a stream/river is considered navigable, then the entire stream is considered navigable. This is whay the Little Juniata is considered a public waterway (entire course) from Altoona through Tyrone on into Huntingtown, even though the State Legislature only declared the section from Tyrone to Huntington a public/navigable waterway.

- 3. With regards to stream flows and floatability of watercraft. This has nothing to do with navigability. In the Little Juniata case, goods would be stored until the spring floods, then loaded on boats (called arks in those days), and floated to Baltimore.

------

- So right now, it seems that powers that be are ignoring the situation and hoping it blows over.

- Will post updates if/when they occur.

Sincrely,

John Coxey
(Altoona, PA)

Link to original post:

http://www.paflyfish.com/forums/Open-Forums/Fly-Fishing-Locations/Frankstown-Branch---Serious-Issue-With-Landowner---Access/30,44220,647066.html#forumpost647066

 

[SirJohnny]

All:

- Here is a copy of the e-mail I sent to John Eichelberger (Senator) this morning.

- Please excuse any formatting errors, as I am copying/pasting from an MS-Word document.

-----

Mr. Eichelberger:

My name is John Coxey, you probably know my father (Paul) from St. John's Reformed Church.

[Person 1] and [Person 2] both suggested that I write you regarding a situation we are currently experiencing on the upper Frankstown Branch of the Juniata River (between East Freedom and Claysburg).

In the past three weeks, there have been incidences with two landowners stating that they own their section of the Frankstown Branch, and do not want anyone fishing (even that person remains in the stream).

As an fellow fisherman, you are probably aware that the Frankstown Branch is a world class wild brown trout fishery (in addition to being a state stocked stream). In addition, I also assume you are concerned with angler access to the streams of Pennsylvania.

Are landowners allowed to prevent folks from fishing the Frankstown Branch (even if in the stream)?

The state legislature has declared the Frankstown Branch to be a navigable waterway (e.g., Portage Railroad and Canal System). In addition, the state does not "piecemeal" rivers with respect to navigability. Meaning, if one section is considered navigable, then the entire river is considered navigable and open to the public.

I refer to both the Little Juniata and Lehigh River cases, where courts have decided in favor of waterway navigability.

My question to you is, can you clarify the rules with regards to angler access to the upper Frankstown Branch of the Juniata River?

I certainly look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

John Coxey
(e-mail address deleted)
(phone # deleted)

 

[salmonoid]

Simple solution - pick any of the other thousands of mile of open streams in PA where someone won't harass you if you fish. Even if a court would side in your favor, I'd rather keep the time and money spent on winning such a case. Of course, everyone is free to choose their battles. If you feel this is yours to fight, by all means, fight it for the rest of us. In the meantime, I'd simply fish elsewhere.

 

[UncleShorty]

In TX we have the southern most trout fishery in North America, the Guadalupe River tail water @ Canyon Dam. 99.99% of the land on both river banks is private property. The river beds in TX are public so as long as you stay in the river you're OK. But, set one foot on the bank and you are trespassing. The landowners keep the sheriff on speed dial. And you WILL get a citation EVERY time, zero tolerance.

I never had a problem, other than being blocked from some good looking water because I would have had to walk on the bank for 6 ft to get past a down tree. Other TU members report having been shot at w/ BB guns by landowners who erroneously believe they own the river too.

 

[dryflyguy]

I agree with salmonoid - I sure wouldn't want to be spending my time and resources fighting to try to keep access for one stretch of water.
Especially when the frankstown branch has so many other sections open to the public

 

[724flyfishing]

I'm going to go against some other opinions here. I'm glad to see you're holding your ground here, respectively and legally of course. We as Anglers will lose out almost everytime on private property disputes. It usually involves money, which in some form or another leads to politics on some local level. Small cases on public waterways like this will help cement what limited resources we're entitled to.

 

[DriftingDunn]

I too salute you in your efforts. I believe you will win, though it will likely cost time and money.

I do think calling the FBJR a world-class wild brown trout fishery is a bit of a stretch, though this is not relevant.

I didn't know that John Eichelberger is an angler. Had I known I may have voted for him.

 

[Fredrick]

Keep fighting Jonny I wish there more people out there like you willing to fight for water access rights.

 

[Zak]

I support this as well. I've always said that if I won one of those huge power ball drawings one of the things I would do in the first year would be to retain a small team of lawyers vs'd in this topic and would file suite against dozens and dozens of property owners. Penns, Frankstown, Lackawaxen, you name it. I'd pursue public access for everyone on any stream I could possibly achieve it on and spare no expense in the process. I would be public enemy number one in the private sector and a hero of the public fisherman lol. I'd start with every Home Water stream that I could. I'd also buy a nice chunk of land and respectable anglers would always be welcome there. I think posting against fishing is terrible and if I had the financial wherewithall to fight it I would. Go get them SirJohnny!

 

[wjkosmer]

I'll put my two cents in here, for what little that is worth. I agree with the others about continuing the fight if you have the resolve. Allan Bright is a friend of mine, and if it wasn't for him spending over 10 years fighting for the Little J to be open, there would be a lot of private and unfishable water on that river. If everyone takes the stance of "just go somewhere else", soon there will be very few places left to go. In PA though, until it is declared navigable in court, all bets are off, no matter what "list" it may be on.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

A few usually ruin it for everyone a couple people leave trash or build a fire and that it gets posted. I've never had a dispute on being on someone's land in the 26 years I have fished.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Sir Johnny- Good for you. I would push the issue. The only worry is that one of these selfish landowners might be a gun toting nut and take things into his own hands. (Not uncommon with these types).

Public is public. You have every right by law to fish the stream if you stay in the water.


And to all of you who are suggesting he give it up and move on I hope you have a favorite stretch shut down. Bunch of sissies willing to let your public waters be taken away by tyrants.

As to the lame excuse about littering and campfires (and "security and liability") well I've heard it all before. Pure garbage talk by selfish landowners. Post your land. Fine. But don't trample on my PUBLIC Right of WAY.

Keep us updated. I and others will gladly pitch in $ to a GO Fund Me to pay any legal fees you might have.

 

[DriftingDunn]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Public is public. You have every right by law to fish the stream if you stay in the water.

Until is it deemed navigable by the court system I think you are incorrect. He'll find this out when he gets his trespassing fine in the mail.

 

[DGC]

Or when he gets his trespassing fine in the mail he will challenge same in court on the basis of navigability, and if he wins thereby establish from then fotward the same public easement that was decided on the LJ. Not saying he should or shouldn't just keeping within the framework of his legal theory. Also noting there are risks for all concerned.

 

[MD_Gene]

We have some sharp legal people on this board. I appreciate the stand your ground position too. I understand that you can legally be standing on the 100 year floor-plane. But I could be wrong on that.

 

[troutbert]

MD_Gene wrote:

I understand that you can legally be standing on the 100 year floor-plane.

No, that is not correct.

On a navigable waterway, the public has a right of access within the channel, i.e. from top of bank on one side to top of bank on the other side.

As soon as you step out of the channel and onto the floodplain you are trespassing.

 

[poopdeck]

724flyfishing wrote:
I'm going to go against some other opinions here. I'm glad to see you're holding your ground here, respectively and legally of course. We as Anglers will lose out almost everytime on private property disputes. It usually involves money, which in some form or another leads to politics on some local level. Small cases on public waterways like this will help cement what limited resources we're entitled to.

Or, if he loses, cement for landowners the right to not allow access to waterways on their properties thereby decreasing public access. Not sure why everybody believes this is a winner. Property rights are a cornerstone of this country and anybody argueing for decreased property rights is already far behind the eight ball.

I never agreed with others telling property owners what to do with their property. If you want the area kept open to the public then buy the property and do it. To dictate what others should do for your conveinance is wrong.

 

[riz]

poopdeck,

property right are good however, in this case, navigable waters do not belong to the individual, they belong to the public. and in this situation the individual is violating the property rights of the public.

 

[troutbert]

poopdeck wrote:

724flyfishing wrote:

Property rights are a cornerstone of this country and anybody argueing for decreased property rights is already far behind the eight ball.

The Little Juniata River and the Lehigh River cases did not decrease property rights.

Because the property owners along the Little Juniata and Lehigh never had the legal right to close off the river.

So they did not lose anything in the court case. They simply failed to win in their attempted taking, their attempted privatization of a public waterway.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

troutbert wrote:

poopdeck wrote:

724flyfishing wrote:

Property rights are a cornerstone of this country and anybody argueing for decreased property rights is already far behind the eight ball.

The Little Juniata River and the Lehigh River cases did not decrease property rights.

Because the property owners along the Little Juniata and Lehigh never had the legal right to close off the river.

So they did not lose anything in the court case. They simply failed to win in their attempted taking, their attempted privatization of a public waterway.

Exactly right.

There are no property rights when you don't own the property.