Frankstown Branch - Serious Issue With Landowner & Access

[PALongbow]

I think your referring to the period of when PA became a Commonwealth. There was land that was exempt from the Commonwealth laws that was owned prior to the Revolutionary War. Also the commercial highway type of laws became into existence in 1804 i.e the Mill Dam act and I think since then has been overturned in the early 1970's.

 

[troutbert]

PALongbow wrote:
None of this really matters if land ownership occurred prior to the Pre/post Revolutionary War era and prior to the establishment of the Commonwealth of PA. Mill Dam Acts or commercial highways, etc does not apply. Research has proven this....again not too many people understand this important piece of history including people who think they know what is navigable or non navigable. These lands were exempt from any of the commonwealth laws regarding navigability. It takes extensive research but can be found however not all lands/streams fall under this criteria.

Has this argument ever been used in court in PA?

And if so, what has the result been?

 

[PALongbow]

No the argument has not been used in court yet and may never get to court due to the facts contained in the research... but there are people who are reviewing the findings and have changed messaging in regards to accessing private property.

I have no idea why people think they can just access private property. Maybe its a misguided entitlement society, warped view or principal, or perhaps its just over a fish. Either way private land access is not a right...its a privilege.

Ron

 

[3oh4]

I agree Longbow to an extent, but if the state says it is legal to access the river via staying below the flood plain then it isn't private property.

I think some always put the blame on the "intruder" when a lot of the time its the land owner who is the issue and needs to understand the facts. Maybe the landowner could have came and nicely told the man it was his property and he is more than welcome to walk through before fishing again instead of pulling a gun on the guy and letting his wife go Jerry Springer on him.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Removing landowner and fishing or public access rights I will say this:

The landowner handled this going by the OP in a very bad way. Regardless if it's local people who are a problem or simply a traveling angler fishing, get aggressive and pulling weapons IS NEVER the way to handle this.
THEY should have been the first to contact state police before they encountered any anglers.

 

[PALongbow]

The state or an agency can not randomly deem a stream navigable. Only a court of law can do that so if a stream has never been deemed navigable by a court of law its best to avoid it because people who trespass could end up in court paying a huge court fee plus fines to only be found guilty. Separate issue aside...There is also liability to the landowner if something happens to fisherman while fishing. There are currently gray areas in the laws that provide liability protection to the landowner. I know this for a fact.

The problem with this whole issue is nobody wants this to end up in court. There is a lot to loose on both sides of the argument however in the meantime we will unfortunately continue to read these types of stories that lead to confrontation. There really needs to be a clear ruling on navigability of streams and a clear law enforcement definition. Best answer for now is to avoid private property and fish land that is open to fishing. I still can't understand why people have a problem with this with so many miles of stream open to fishing.

Ron

 

[afishinado]

PALongbow wrote:
No the argument has not been used in court yet and may never get to court due to the facts contained in the research... but there are people who are reviewing the findings and have changed messaging in regards to accessing private property.

I have no idea why people think they can just access private property. Maybe its a misguided entitlement society, warped view or principal, or perhaps its just over a fish. Either way private land access is not a right...its a privilege.

Ron

Private individuals have every right to not allow access to their land. But I would have to say, private land ownership rights are alive and well.

As far as changes in society; back-in-the-day just about all rural land was open to hikers, hunters and fishermen. I grew up in a rural area of PA and if one could pull safely off the road to park, access to most land, stream or river was open.

Today with urban sprawl and many middle class people able to afford second homes, rural areas have been taken over by urbanites. Many more urban people have a much different attitude and perspective than those that grew up in rural areas. The result is the loss of access to our woods and waters by posting their land.

I can drive around and find hundreds of places where access was open for hunting or fishing or hiking a decade or decades ago and is now posted. I don't dispute these landowners have every right to post their land. That's just the way it is today.

But, it would be great if one's ability to access a stream in a public or open area and float or wade the stream or river was spelled out to avoid such conflicts as the one written about by the OP.

 

[PALongbow]

I'll tell you one root cause of these issues. Back in the day both the PF&B and local sportsman club stocked a ton of trout. Fisherman were happy and they stayed within the public access points. They avoided private property and there was no issue with trespassing. Now the PF&B/local clubs doesn't stock as many fish and when the areas are fished out the 'entitlement' fisherman seek other areas to wreck havoc on the fish population which includes trespassing on private land. Saw it with hunting and now seeing it with fishing....It's not a public versus private land issue here in PA. A change is society is also an issue here but we covered that already.

Ron

 

[poopdeck]

It can be avoided now. I prefer to leave crazy people alone. Any perceived right or privilege I believe I may have to stream access is negated by gun toting lunatics. It does not matter to me what may have been when we were a British colony or what some political entity or judge thinks. Im not poking the belly of gun wankers protecting their property. Especially since they could be 100% in right.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

I would carry bear spray and spray that old jackass and his hag of a wife.

I wish this state would confiscate ALL flowing water and ten feet at least of each bank and make it public. The benefit of streamside buffers with trees and plants would be helpful to the water that we ALL use and would end all the squabbling by these selfish pricks.

 

[krayfish2]

The welcome back sunshine. Lol

 

[franklin]

PALongbow wrote:
I'll tell you one root cause of these issues. Back in the day both the PF&B and local sportsman club stocked a ton of trout. Fisherman were happy and they stayed within the public access points. They avoided private property and there was no issue with trespassing. Now the PF&B/local clubs doesn't stock as many fish and when the areas are fished out the 'entitlement' fisherman seek other areas to wreck havoc on the fish population which includes trespassing on private land. Saw it with hunting and now seeing it with fishing....It's not a public versus private land issue here in PA. A change is society is also an issue here but we covered that already.

Ron

Years ago most people asked to hunt or fish even if the land wasn't posted. And they respected the land by staying out of unharvested fields and closing gates to pastures. There were still the small minority of people who did not respect the land which led to more and more posting.

In the OP posted signs were mentioned on both sides of the stream. This is usually a tip off that a confrontation may occur. At that point one has to decide to ignore it, avoid it, or seek permission.

This is also the time of year that more of the less respectful fishermen are out. Littering the stream side with Styrofoam bait cups, miles of discarded fishing line, candy wrappers, and other trash. So land owners are less inclined to be tolerant.

 

[afishinado]

PALongbow wrote:
I'll tell you what really happened here in PA. Pretty simple...Back in the day Fish and Boat stocked a ton of trout and fisherman were happy and they stayed within the public access points. They avoided private property and there was no issue with trespassing. Now the F&B doesn't stock as many fish and when the areas are fished out the 'entitlement' fisherman seek other areas to wreck havoc on the fish population which includes trespassing on private land. Saw it with hunting and now seeing it with fishing....It's not a public versus private land issue here in PA. A change is society is also an issue here but we covered that already.

Ron

I have no doubt there are many out there (and no doubt many more today) that have no regard for anyone's private property or rights and just care about getting their game or fish.

But again, I hunted and fished since I was a kid. I can drive along any rural road I am familiar with where I live now, or back up in NE PA, and show you hundreds of places I was able to fish or hunt or hike that is now it's closed off to access. It has nothing at all to do with the the stocked streams I rarely fish. A lot of it has to do with development of rural areas and the changing attitudes of people in general. People that grew up in rural areas mostly shared access to land and streams and rarely posted it. Now posting and restricting access has become the norm.

I suppose the reason for the closing of access problem is a combination of both poor behavior and attitude by people not respecting others land, water and rights, as well as a pervasive "I", "me", "mine" mindset held by many urbanites buying land or moving from urban areas to rural areas.

 

[PALongbow]

Don't think the urban people buying rural areas is much of an issue. I see the rural population of people that have lived in upstate areas for many many years posting their land as well. I think it boils down to a change of society where entitlement is put before proper manners such as asking permission to access land. When you and I hunted properties way back then we asked permission and left the land as we found it. Times have changed for sure.

 

[PALongbow]

foxtrapper1972

So you support over reach by taking land? When can I use your property as my own?

Ron

 

[franklin]

afishinado wrote:

I have no doubt there are many out there (and no doubt many more today) that have no regard for anyone's private property or rights and just care about getting their game or fish.

But again, I hunted and fished since I was a kid. I can drive along any rural road I am familiar with where I live now, or back up in NE PA, and show you hundreds of places I was able to fish or hunt or hike that is now it's closed off to access. It has nothing at all to do with the the stocked streams I rarely fish. A lot of it has to do with development of rural areas and the changing attitudes of people in general. People that grew up in rural areas mostly shared access to land and streams and rarely posted it. Now posting and restricting access has become the norm.

I suppose the reason for the closing of access problem is a combination of both poor behavior and attitude by people not respecting others land, water and rights, as well as a pervasive "I", "me", "mine" mindset held by many urbanites buying land or moving from urban areas to rural areas.

I own property that has been in the family for 100 years and my family owned farms that are still in operation. Bot the woodland and the farms are posted today. This is due to having people doing all sorts of unauthorized things. From riding ATVs through the property to sawing down a tree to placing traps and nailing bait to buildings. I have game cameras on the woodland and I'm amazed at how many people still come across the land doing things they don't have permission for. During hunting season they park right under no trespass and no parking signs on my private road. They dump trash by the truckload on one of the farms.

The one farm that has a small wooded area next to a marginally fish able stream has trees cut down, trash strewn around, and campfire remnants.

I'd probably have more fishing problems except a landowner below me stocks some brookies and he gets most of that attention. He is posted as well.

This all in a county that's still very rural with a population smaller than many cities.

 

[franklin]

PALongbow wrote:
foxtrapper1972

So you support over reach by taking land? When can I use your property as my own?

Ron

Property rights advocates and other stream side businesses outnumber fishermen and kayakers 100 to 1. If the government attempted to take such land the legislature would shortly pass laws likely to eliminate all access on streams bordered by private land. With maybe exceptions for major rivers.

 

[PALongbow]

I think the water right act that was just recently overturned would not allow government to take waterways away from private individuals through eminent domain. Probably safe for now...

 

[rrt]

I think Franklin hits the nail on the head. Another reason properties get posted is that lawyers tell people when they purchase properties to post them because of liability issues. However, PRUA (PA Rural Uses Act) takes away much of property owners' liability if their properties are NOT posted. I do not believe this is well known.

Anyhow, the slobs Franklin cites are out there. Among the properties recently lost is what was a "honey hole" for turkeys for me. The owner politely but firmly explained to me that he was not allowing anyone outside of his family to hunt there any longer because a hunter moved in on him -- the owner -- and refused to move along. I guess I was fortunate to be young when I was.

 

[troutbert]

Thanks for the heads up. If you hear how things turn out, please let us know.

I think the landowner is going out on a limb trying to prevent people from fishing a waterway with a public highway declaration, and a long, well documented history of substantial transportation use, considering the court decisions on the Little Juniata and the Lehigh River.