Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

[Padraic]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
...people should have the right to post thier land. ...

I'll be tiresome and remind everyone that the Espy's do have the right to post the LAND. They don't have the right to stop people from wading or floating the river that courses through their land. So we can fish it, but don't walk across their lawn to get to it.

 

[JackM]

Padraic wrote:

I'll be tiresome and remind everyone that the Espy's do have the right to post the LAND. They don't have the right to stop people from wading or floating the river that courses through their land. So we can fish it, but don't walk across their lawn to get to it.

A very important reminder, that. Right now, I think it would be even more important to be respectfully of landowner's interests to avoid a backlash that might result in posting of land where access to the river can be attained. Now is the time for us anglers to prove ourselves worthy of the use that private owners permit in accessing navigable and non-navigable waterways. It might also be a good idea to help police your fellow anglers who might not be as courteoous as they should be.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

They don't have the right to stop people from wading or floating the river that courses through their land.

agreed. thats why i wrote:

but the law is the law and they were breaking it

i just hope landowners dont see this as an attack!

 

[Maurice]

littlejuniata wrote:
Would be great if Don Beaver lets some of his leased stretches on the River open to the public!

Fact is...so I've been told anyway, that he has as much leased open to the public as he does closed. I guess we'll see how much of that there was by the yellow signs.

I don't want to deflate the win, just be careful toward landowner relations. This decision will be played up in a huge way toward landowner rights toward non-navigable waterways. Jack M's point above is well stated.

Maurice

 

[PaulG]

Great news! Ring one up for the little guy 🙂

 

[JackM]

PaulG wrote:
Great news! Ring one up for the little guy 🙂

It's good news for Tim Murphy and Seth, too! 😛

By the way, here is the Post-Gazette's piece on the decision:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07031/758103-358.stm

 

[fly_flinger]

Jack,
When I went to the link you posted, the google ad at the bottom was for SRC. Pretty ironic.

 

[troutbert]

Their website still has the “Conditions, Rules and Expectations for Kayaks or Canoes licensed to pass through the private section of the Little Juniata River below the confluence of Spruce Creek”

http://www.springridgeclub.com/noticecanoes.html

It will be interesting to see if and when that is changed. Will DEP & PFBC have to take them back to court to force them to change their website?

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:

PaulG wrote:
Great news! Ring one up for the little guy 🙂

It's good news for Tim Murphy and Seth, too! 😛

It's all relative. :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

I think the decision sucks!

 

[FarmerDave]

"I think the decision sucks!"


OK, I lied. Couldn't help myself. 😛

:hammer:

 

[ryanh]

What about their property on Yellow Creek? From the map it looks like some of it is right by the resteraunt on your way back to the special regs section. Just because it is one of their "beats" does that mean that it is posted? It wasn't this summer. At least I didn't see any signs :lol:

Also, what is the opperable definition for navigable waterway? Meaning how small of a river/stream would fall into this catagory? Is it a CFS value or a historical use value.

I know under environmental law just about everything including wetlands can fall under state jurisdiction if they want it to.

 

[Maurice]

ryanh wrote:
What about their property on Yellow Creek? From the map it looks like some of it is right by the resteraunt on your way back to the special regs section. Just because it is one of their "beats" does that mean that it is posted? It wasn't this summer. At least I didn't see any signs :lol:

The section right near the New Frontier is Loysburg gap or narrows. That stretch all the way up to the new highway bridge is open. Abover the highway bridge is where the SRC property is, in addition to below the fly area.

Also, what is the opperable definition for navigable waterway? Meaning how small of a river/stream would fall into this catagory? Is it a CFS value or a historical use value.

I know under environmental law just about everything including wetlands can fall under state jurisdiction if they want it to.

It is largely based on historical use value. If the waterway was used for commerce in the early years of the union, the courts provided for business owners to float over or through waters over private land ownership. To eliminate the question of liability during low flows the streambed was included in the public domain.

Or so I understand it...

Maurice

 

[JackM]

ryanh wrote:
Also, what is the opperable definition for navigable waterway? Meaning how small of a river/stream would fall into this catagory? Is it a CFS value or a historical use value.

Quoting from the Lehigh River case, more or less:

The test of navigability early adopted by the Courts of Pennsylvania was enunciated in The Daniel Ball Opinion. 'Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible to being used, in their ordinary condition as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.'

If [a waterway] met the navigability test at any point in its history, it remains a legally navigable waterway subject to the Public Trust Doctrine.

 

[littlejuniata]

The greater need is to find a way to compensate the landowner for access, as I mentioned before EVERYONE is making money from the stream except the guy who owns it, If I remember right in Germany in the 50s you purchased a license and at the same place you bought your stream access license, issued by the same agent, in that way the stream owner got compensated without any action on his part. Another suggestion would be to let the landowner be a part of the stream management, let the fish commsision have Plan A, B or C or whatever and let the landowner select his choice and still have the commssion stock and moniter the stream!

 

[littlejuniata]

I don't see it this morning for SRC, is it gone?

 

[jayL]

Google ads are randomly selected from a table of links which match the content of a given page... You'll have to load it a few times to see SRC


As a libertarian who absolutely loves to fish, i don't know exactly how i should feel about this. Anyone else have that too?

I do know that, above all political views, i hold one golden rule dear.... that rule is: "don't be a/an {explicit}" Insert your favorite word... it doesn't change the meaning. I take solice in the fact that I believe the SRC violated this golden rule. There we go, I guess I answered my first problem.

 

[troutbert]

[/quote]

Quoting from the Lehigh River case, more or less:

The test of navigability early adopted by the Courts of Pennsylvania was enunciated in The Daniel Ball Opinion. 'Those rivers must be regarded as public navigable rivers in law which are navigable in fact. And they are navigable in fact when they are used, or are susceptible to being used, in their ordinary condition as highways for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.'

If [a waterway] met the navigability test at any point in its history, it remains a legally navigable waterway subject to the Public Trust Doctrine.[/quote]

Jack, is this document available online? And do you think the Little J decision will be available online?

In what you've read in these decisions, do the state legislature's Public Highway Declarations enter into the decisions, or are they considered irrelevant?

 

[FarmerDave]

littlejuniata wrote:
The greater need is to find a way to compensate the landowner for access, as I mentioned before EVERYONE is making money from the stream except the guy who owns it, If I remember right in Germany in the 50s you purchased a license and at the same place you bought your stream access license, issued by the same agent, in that way the stream owner got compensated without any action on his part. Another suggestion would be to let the landowner be a part of the stream management, let the fish commsision have Plan A, B or C or whatever and let the landowner select his choice and still have the commssion stock and moniter the stream!

****,

If you would like to hunt or fish on my property, and you would feel better providing some compensation, I do accept beer. Preferably beer brewed in Pottsville or some other PA brew, but I'm really not all that picky.

 

[troutbert]

jayL wrote:
Google ads are randomly selected from a table of links which match the content of a given page... You'll have to load it a few times to see SRC


As a libertarian who absolutely loves to fish, i don't know exactly how i should feel about this. Anyone else have that too?

I do know that, above all political views, i hold one golden rule dear.... that rule is: "don't be a/an {explicit}" Insert your favorite word... it doesn't change the meaning. I take solice in the fact that I believe the SRC violated this golden rule. There we go, I guess I answered my first problem.

Good stuff. Maybe it's karmic law that's operating here as well as the other kind of law. SRC violated the rule of "don't be a/an {explicit}" so they got paid back.

But, it's now up to fishermen to follow the rule of "don't be a/an {explicit}"

I think we should fish that stretch, but don't make a big show out of it, just fish it to the same extent as we fish other parts of the river.

No "excessive celebrations." Isn't that what they call in football? And I believe there's a penalty for it. No unsportsmanlike conduct out on the river. Outraging the landowners isn't likely to be a productive activity.

Regarding libertarian concerns. Property rights are important. But they should only apply to what you ACTUALLY OWN. Espys never owned the river. This ruling does not change anything, it only reconfirms the status quo, that the river is still public property, just as it had been, and cannot be converted to private property.