Frankstown Branch - Serious Issue With Landowner & Access

[hooker-of-men]

Nymph-wristed wrote:


I feel his pain. He has to deal with high school and college students jumping off the rope swing too! Until they took out the riparian buffer, I think he was unaware of just how much activity that area gets on his side. I saw kids jumping off the cliffs on Saturday in 60 degree weather and 50 degree water....

For the Brodhead discussion - I'm not gonna try to untangle the rest of what's going on in this thread - this issue, unfortunately, seems to be a very real determining factor. I have always heard locally not to go below the bridge just because that stretch of water is completely connected to nuisance activity like teens partying and swimming. As this thread has shown, law enforcement is likely not going to be interested in an argument about navigable waterways both because they often aren't familiar with those laws and someone fishing is just another body in a section of creek they have been battling to keep people out of for years.

That stretch is railroad property on one side and the dude you're talking about on the other, right? My guess is the cops' priority would be enforcing against trespassing on those properties way before considering the nuances of if you entered the stream a quarter mile up. This might not be legally sound, but it makes a certain sense given the history of that area.

As for the Penn Hills individual, if they bought that pile of **** for the million dollar asking price, it's no wonder they're an idiot. They probably think that their fictional private stream rights will help monetize the resort once it's rebuilt, so they're antagonistic towards Forever Green. In that case, it seems worth pushing back pretty hard to make the owners realize that the public land allows access.

 

[fisherboy3]

Hooker,
I did argue with him. I told him this is a public park, he argued and said it wasnt. Sure enough he was right, but I told him guys fish through here all the time so be prepared. The town park is right next to the stream obviously, so access to the penn hills property is la stones throw away from the parking lot. I was told the owner was trying to work with the stroud township to lease that piece of property to let guys fish there. If that the case, then the *** that told me i was trespassing isnt the owner. Looked like more of a worker. I talked to my buddy whos been guiding for over 20 years in the poconos and he told me it most likely wasnt the owner. Most likely was an employee that likes to fish and since I was technically on their property, he wanted me off. After he told me to leave i watched him lock the front gate, and leave.

 

[hooker-of-men]

fisherboy3 wrote:
Hooker,
I did argue with him. I told him this is a public park, he argued and said it wasnt. Sure enough he was right, but I told him guys fish through here all the time so be prepared. The town park is right next to the stream obviously, so access to the penn hills property is la stones throw away from the parking lot. I was told the owner was trying to work with the stroud township to lease that piece of property to let guys fish there. If that the case, then the *** that told me i was trespassing isnt the owner. Looked like more of a worker. I talked to my buddy whos been guiding for over 20 years in the poconos and he told me it most likely wasnt the owner. Most likely was an employee that likes to fish and since I was technically on their property, he wanted me off. After he told me to leave i watched him lock the front gate, and leave.

I read your description a page back, but I'm still not completely clear. So the Penn Hills property actually includes land on the West side of the stream alongside the preserve? Is it the land between the parking lot and the stream and south to the nearest house? I've knocked on the door of that house (east side of Cherry Lane right before you turn into the parking lot) and they said they had no complaints about being in the creek so long as you stay out of their yard/weeds. So there is land north of theirs and south of the preserve that's owned by Penn Hills? That is... not ideal.

 

[fisherboy3]

Hooker, check your pm.

 

[fisherboy3]

Hooker,
Its like this. When you're in the parking lot of forever green, and head west to the stream, there literally a diagonal line that goes from the cherry lane bridge, that peoples house juts out into the penn hills property, and the line goes right up next to that swampy area east of the clubhouse. And then eventually it heads north east across the creek. So to be safe, from the shitty white building on the east side of the creek down, is theirs. That entire big field with the pines behind that house, is also all penn hills. Its very odd.

 

[Swattie87]

laurel,

Not trying to be a wise guy, but honestly, are we looking at the same citation? I don't see anything in there about a mother/son pot deal. Where am I missing that? I'll repost the link posted earlier to the state's website with the trespass laws below:

PA Criminal Trespass Laws

As far as laws go I think this one's actually pretty clear. If the landowner wishes to limit or control access to their property (in the case of fishing, and nothing illegal let's say) they must provide the public reasonable notice of their intention to not allow access. Once on notice, the public is guilty of trespassing if found there. You gotta have the notice, AND the physical presence on the property to have a chargeable trespass under the definition. (In the case of fishing, and nothing else illegal on the property.)

If a landowner wants to control access, it seems to me the most reasonable and effective way to provide notice to the public is to post it. That way the landowner can grant permission to a respectful sportsman who asks and they wish to allow, and it allows the landowner a course for prosecution against someone being their who they wish to not allow.

We're at page 7...It's 4th down. Time to punt and have a beer or go fishing, or both. We can pick up the discussion with the responding officer when you find me fishing legally on your unposted land. (You won't, because as mentioned, I'd ask, regardless of posting, or simply not fish there.) But understand that legally, if not on reasonable notice from you, others are under no requirement to ask you. If you want to control access, it's your responsibility to notify the public to a reasonable degree. Posted signs are what I'd go with if that was my intent...as opposed to the cost of a fence, or me sitting in a lawn chair 24/7 on the boundary.

 

[Millsertime]

To help clarify the Forevergreen property line issue and further hijack this thread...

Here are the property lines for the 2 properties in question on the Brodhead. Owner's names are listed. Definately not the norm with regards to the property line covering both sides of the stream. This is the case for both pieces of property in question.

 

[laurelrun]

> Time to punt and have a beer or go fishing, or both.

I knew we could find common ground. I vote for both!

 

[hooker-of-men]

Thanks, Millser and fisherboy! That helps, though it's a bummer.

So those people on Cherry Lane that gave me permission to fish don't even own the land bordering the stream. Bastards!

 

[fisherboy3]

Miller,

Those are the same maps I got. Really sucks though.

 

[pcray1231]

I still don't understand it....posted or not posted. Wherever I hunt or fish I know who owns the land and I ask permission to be there before accessing it.

This is not PA law. PA law says you can hunt or fish ANYWHERE until informed otherwise. Implied consent. It is the landowners duty to inform if he does not wish them to be there. Knocking on a door is more an invasion of privacy than hunting on ones land!

For hunters and fishermen.

1. No means no. If they verbally tell you or have signs it doesn't matter. They informed you. Signs don't have to be every 50 ft or any such crazy nonsense. They don't have to be signed. If you saw it, you were informed, and lay off the false technicalities.

2. Whether it is polite to ask or not is regional, and even sometimes landowner to landowner. Heck, where and when I grew up there may be 5 or 6 small game hunters on a farm PER DAY. Most of the landowners would be downright angry if people were always knocking on their door to request permission. But they welcome hunters.

That said, people who owned large tracts of land were either farmers, foresters, or involved in oil and gas (often all 3). They owned land for business, not to have their own private hunting and fishing (as you could do that anywhere with or without land). And deer and other game were typically considered pests. Yeah, hunt, and bring as many people as you can. I can only remember one smallish property in the entire area that posted. If you went north to Erie there was always some with the steelhead fishery, although I get that, with the armies of guys on a daily basis.

But here in eastern PA it seems that posting is more the norm than the extreme exception. In some cases people own land for hunting and fishing purposes. But a lot for pleasure of all sorts. Some even do food plots and stuff, and "manage" their game (which I have some issues with, as nobody owns game). But it's not just that. Even the farmers post. Different culture.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

I bait deer and turkey with my food plots and game feeders. I build elaborate tree houses and shoot deer while sitting on my rear end. My friends and I will gladly drive the deer from the State Game Lands that border our property onto our property. But will have you prosecuted for following a wounded animal on to our land.

I blame littering and poachers for closing my property but none of those things are really the problem.

If you ask about hunting or fly fishing I will angrily say "Can't you read the signs?"

I complain about young people not taking an interest in the outdoors.

I call myself a sportsman but I'm neither a sportsman or a good neighbor. The truth is I'm just a greedy jerk.

 

[troutbert]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
I bait deer and turkey with my food plots and game feeders. I build elaborate tree houses and shoot deer while sitting on my rear end. My friends and I will gladly drive the deer from the State Game Lands that border our property onto our property. But will have you prosecuted for following a wounded animal on to our land.

I blame littering and poachers for closing my property but none of those things are really the problem.

If you ask about hunting or fly fishing I will angrily say "Can't you read the signs?"

I complain about young people not taking an interest in the outdoors.

You're a busy guy.

;-)

 

[jmflyfisher]

So, just by way of an update.......what actually ended up happening with the Frankstown Branch incident? I haven't seen any update on it in this thread. I live in the general area, and just wondered how it worked out?

 

[pcray1231]

Regarding the trespass laws that Swattie posted which show that, yes, it is a valid defense to say the landowner left it open to the public, implying the landowner must inform. Here's some clearer wording from an actual court case that has been used as precedent.

Commonwealth v. Sweeley, 29 Pa. D. & C.4th 426, 433 (C.P. 1995) ("Open lands that are not posted or fenced off are presumed open for recreational use by the public, especially in rural counties where hunting and outdoor activities are common.").