Lehigh private fishing club

[ryansheehan]

fishbaithohaha wrote:
Anticipating the private club's reaction to a non-member fishing/trespassing in their stream will be negative and reactionary. A local prosecutor should step in to prevent the taking of a public right and harassment.

Remembering how Virginia commonwealth failed it responsibility to defend the privatization of public access.

A freaking men, a complete and total failure of government.

 

[FarmerDave]

fishbaithohaha wrote:
Anticipating the private club's reaction to a non-member fishing/trespassing in their stream will be negative and reactionary. A local prosecutor should step in to prevent the taking of a public right and harassment.

Remembering how Virginia commonwealth failed it responsibility to defend the privatization of public access.

So, let me get this straight.

You think you should get the prosecutor involved for what hasn't happened, but you anticipate might happen when you fish in a spot where it had already been determined in court that you can fish there as long as you stay in the channel.

If I were a prosecutor, I'd get right on that. NOT.

In fact, I smell a millennial with a fancy cellphone wanting to deliberately start a confrontation so they can film it and post on youtube ... and have the prosecutor waiting in the wings to back you up.

Good plan! :roll:

In hockey, you'd both be penalized, but you get an extra 2 minutes for instigating.

Just fish.

 

[PALongbow]

If a creek is deemed non-navigable in PA you are taking an extreme risk of being prosecuted for trespassing....plain and simple. Why people can't ask to fish is beyond me. It's just slimy to access posted property without permission.

I would advise people to avoid private property all together unless you have permission to fish. A fish isn't worth a trespassing citation or landowner/fisherman confrontation. There are plenty of creeks to fish in PA that is open to the public.

Ron

 

[FarmerDave]

PALongbow wrote:
If a creek is deemed non-navigable in PA you are taking an extreme risk of being prosecuted for trespassing....plain and simple. Why people can't ask to fish is beyond me. It's just slimy to access posted property without permission.

I would advise people to avoid private property all together unless you have permission to fish. A fish isn't worth a trespassing citation or landowner/fisherman confrontation. There are plenty of creeks to fish in PA that is open to the public.

Ron

I agree, but as far as I know, none have been deemed or ruled non-navigable. Many are assumed to be navigable or non-navigable, and you are right. Without the ruling one way or another, there is varying risk of a trespass citation sticking.

Lehigh case might have been the first case where the plaintiff was attempting to have a stream, or part of a stream ruled as non-navigable.

I think the Beaver case (LJ) was the other way around. Plaintiff may have been the state, but I could be wrong.

 

[afishinado]

FarmerDave wrote:

PALongbow wrote:
If a creek is deemed non-navigable in PA you are taking an extreme risk of being prosecuted for trespassing....plain and simple. Why people can't ask to fish is beyond me. It's just slimy to access posted property without permission.

I would advise people to avoid private property all together unless you have permission to fish. A fish isn't worth a trespassing citation or landowner/fisherman confrontation. There are plenty of creeks to fish in PA that is open to the public.

Ron

I agree, but as far as I know, none have been deemed or ruled non-navigable. Many are assumed to be navigable or non-navigable, and you are right. Without the ruling one way or another, there is varying risk of a trespass citation sticking.

Lehigh case might have been the first case where the plaintiff was attempting to have a stream, or part of a stream ruled as non-navigable.

I think the Beaver case (LJ) was the other way around. Plaintiff may have been the state, but I could be wrong.

^In the Lehigh River case originally a suit was brought by a plaintiff and it was ruled by the court, the Lehigh River was deemed a navigable river with public access. The second ruling you are referring to was the appeal to the court on that ruling by the landowner. In the appeal, the original ruling was upheld.

 

[salmonoid]

ryansheehan wrote:

troutbert wrote:

IdratherbePhishing wrote:

Or just fish it and forget what the others are implying. The water and stream bottom is owned by the public...

I was thinking the same thing about what others are implying.

They are implying that a fisherman who fishes there is doing something wrong, something aggressive, which implies that the river is private.

But it isn't private. It's public.

Since it is public, we have just as much right to go there as on state forest land or national forest land.

For those of you who are implying that it's wrong to go there, what is your basis for that?

The position you are taking is that people should not go on public property if the people on adjoining private land don't want them to.

Can you support that position?

Amen, I dont know the river but could someone please explain logically why a fisherman should not fish a public river at his pleasure?

Sometimes, even when you are in the right, it's not worth the hassle to prove and confirm you are in the right. And it's not worth being hassled by those that think you aren't in the right (i.e. private fishing club members). Given the choice of potentially being harassed while fishing a stretch that I'm legally entitled to be in, or not being harassed while fishing a different stretch that I'm also legally entitled to be in, I'll choose the latter. We're blessed with enough water in PA to do that.

If the principle of fishing a hoity toity club water on a legally navigable waterway is more important to an angler than whatever intimidation they might endure, more power to them. There's nothing wrong about doing that either.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

Concur, fishing public water adjacent to a private club as a destination, to be provocative, is not the "flyfisherman" way. Fishing the same public water as part of a trip is certainly acceptable.c

Expecting to be greeted warmly, and welcomed by a litigious management is naive. Being proactive, I am going to insure the public's interest, and my passage are congruent and will be defended. Not interested in paying lawyers for excersing the public's right to access.

Yes, using available technology to record any interference is in everyone's best interest.

 

[FarmerDave]

fishbaithohaha wrote:


Expecting to be greeted warmly, and welcomed by a litigious management is naive.

They know the rules, I know the rules. Therefore as long as I did nothing stupid or antagonistic, I wouldn't expect to be greeted at all.

 

[Swattie87]

fishbaithohaha wrote:
Concur, fishing public water adjacent to a private club as a destination, to be provocative, is not the "flyfisherman" way. Fishing the same public water as part of a trip is certainly acceptable.c

Yeah, this is definitely something a spincaster would do.

Define your distinction between "destination" and "trip." I see none, thus this makes no sense to me.

If you go somewhere, with the intention to fish a certain stretch of "public", but contested water, your intention is the same regardless of how far you travel, or how much other uncontested public adjacent water you fish while there.

Do what ya like, but I'm with most of the others...I work wayyy too much to want to worry about getting hassled on my days out fishing.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

I'm sorry you don't understand.

 

[Swattie87]

fishbaithohaha wrote:
I'm sorry you don't understand.

Apology accepted.

 

[ryansheehan]

Swattie87 wrote:

fishbaithohaha wrote:
Concur, fishing public water adjacent to a private club as a destination, to be provocative, is not the "flyfisherman" way. Fishing the same public water as part of a trip is certainly acceptable.c

Yeah, this is definitely something a spincaster would do.

Define your distinction between "destination" and "trip." I see none, thus this makes no sense to me.

If you go somewhere, with the intention to fish a certain stretch of "public", but contested water, your intention is the same regardless of how far you travel, or how much other uncontested public adjacent water you fish while there.

Do what ya like, but I'm with most of the others...I work wayyy too much to want to worry about getting hassled on my days out fishing.

It's not contested, its navigable. I wouldn't expect anyone to greet me either Dave.

 

[Swattie87]

ryansheehan wrote:
its navigable.

I know ry. Contested in the sense that someone from the club may be likely to still hassle you anyway, even though they are wrong.

I get plenty of unwanted confrontation every day at work, and most of the time I think I'm right. Sometimes, I even know I am. Don't need it on a day off while fishing. In fact, part of the allure of fishing is that generally you can avoid it, if you choose.

 

[troutbert]

I think fishing and/or boating there to maintain our rights to public waters is the citizen's way.

The court upheld the long standing right of access to Lehigh.

It is up to citizens to then make sure that right is maintained in reality, on the landscape, rather than just in legal documents.

Use it or lose it.

If the adjoining landowners choose to be provocative, that would be choosing to commit a crime.

The citizens should then report that to law enforcement.

 

[CRB]

by troutbert on 2018/5/9 17:20:43

I think fishing and/or boating there to maintain our rights to public waters is the citizen's way.

The court upheld the long standing right of access to Lehigh.

It is up to citizens to then make sure that right is maintained in REALITY, on the landscape, rather than just in legal documents.

Use it or lose it.



I agree with you.

 

[poopdeck]

Just go fishing without any thought of defending freedom or being confronted. I would just go and ignore anybody telling me I'm wrong. Don't know why anybody would go someplace to seek out confrontation or why anybody would not go because of a perceived confrontation.

 

[Reeder]

Not only is it illegal, but there is nothing more heinous or unsportsmanlike, aside from fishing with corn, than trying to deny someone the right to fish waters that we all own. If you are willing to surrender your rights due to fear of being harrassed, that is your choice, but don't act like someone who makes it a point to fish said waters is breaking some kind of moral or ethical code. Implying this is contributing to and justifying the bully tactics of those who think they can buy what is not for sale. Under no circumstance is it wrong to want to fish waters that you own, whether you just want to fish there just to prove a point or not.

 

[FarmerDave]

fishbaithohaha wrote:
I'm sorry you don't understand.

I also accept, and offer my own apology.

I apologize for your complete lack of common sense.

 

[FarmerDave]

Swattie87 wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:
its navigable.

I know ry. Contested in the sense that someone from the club may be likely to still hassle you anyway, even though they are wrong.

True, but not very likely of you don't deliberately try to instigate. They know the rules.

I get plenty of unwanted confrontation every day at work, and most of the time I think I'm right. Sometimes, I even know I am. Don't need it on a day off while fishing. In fact, part of the allure of fishing is that generally you can avoid it, if you choose.

I agree, but a millennial would whip out their celphone and post the confrontation on the innertubes. LOOK AT ME!

Welcome to the old farts club.

 

[fishbaithohaha]

I'm impressed that without opposable thumbs, you are able to read and type, Farmer.