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

[salmonoid]

I wish the property owners who threatened the OP would get on here and post their side of the story.... Then our arm chair NLE's (Navigability Legal Experts) could really have a field day. Our Defiant Trespassers would know where to go to be defiant (while lecturing on the proper methods of releasing stockers) and the world would be aligned. Meanwhile, this sissie utilized about a third of a mile of private land, that is open to the public by a benevolent landowner and enjoyed catching a few gemmies and am watching a glorious sunset.

Cynicism aside, property rights and water access and usage in PA would be a really useful FAQ. Not the myths that get perpetuated (you can fish any steam as long as you stay in the water), but the legal basis. What is law. What is interpretation. And what needs litigated so case law is established.

 

[poopdeck]

Not saying it's a winner or a loser. I'm just pointing out the obvious about what would happen if this particular land owner won. Great for the little J and Lehigh but they don't make this case a winner. At first glance a bunch of obscure, little known and less understood laws makes this more of a loser not a slam dunk winner. Your right to pursue your angling pleasure does not necessarily trump property rights. I agree, take it to court and let's find out but The outcome may not be what everybody thinks.

 

[pcray1231]

First, legalities. The PA state legislature declaration is of a public highway, not navigability. On it's own, it holds no legal water, because navagability is rooted in federal law, and state legislatures have no legal authority. That said, it's mighty good evidence, because the declarations were generally made to protect commerce. The legal test is if it's capable of commerce. Having actually had commerce is a good indication! Though you could run into trouble on the "in its ordinary state" language, which may or may not be taken by a judge to mean without canals.

Personally, I salute anyone who is willing to bring these streams to court. I hope they are public, can accept it if they are not. But I abhor the uncertainty. And the status quo is that landowners just assume control over the public unless proven wrong in court. I think that's wrong. It's a property dispute. The landowner should have no more right to assume ownership than the public.

So anything to move these things forward and gain legal clarification is good, as long as I ain't paying for it!

 

[dryflyguy]

I'm not very familiar with the Lehigh river case.

The little juniata case was kinda unique though.
A fly shop owner there filed suit, claiming that his business had been hurt by the spring ridge club - or whatever it is that they're called now - trying to keep people off of their stretch of river.
And besides just fisherman, they were also attempting to stop people from just floating through.
That got the fish commission involved in it too.
Plus, the attorney who handled the case for was a fly fisherman.
A lot of pluses to get the case moving forward IMO.

I'm not against what Sir Johnny is attempting here. More power to him.
But it seems to me he will be fighting a one man battle.
If he has the time and resources to do it, good for him.
I just know that it's not something that I would pursue.
I have a lot of other concerns in my life right now