Little Juniata Declared NAVIGABLE

[FarmerDave]

You guys are lucky that your laws are older than they are in many other states. In Ohio a landowner can own the streambed on navigable streams, and often (if not usually) the streambeds are privately owned. This is the case on all the Steelhead streams. I think they consider most of the streams in Ohio to be navigable. The way I understand it, the landowner cannot keep you from using the stream for navigation, but he can stop you from using it for other activities such as fishing. In PA, the entire (navigable) stream is held in public trust, so no part of it is "owned" by an individual. Therefore, it's use cannot be restricted by anyone except the state.

 

[littlejuniata]

Farmer Dave: If you come to fish the Little J yell, I will definately buy you a beer!

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:


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.

All good points TB. In addition, we need to respect the property on either side of the stream. That includes not tresspassing to get to the stream or to get around an obstruction to get to tne next fishing spot on the stream. The way i see it, access is still limited, and the owner can still make life difficult to "non-members" so we all need cool heads.

 

[saburrell]

This appears to be good news for fly fishermen interested in that section of the Little J. It also appears to be a proper application of the law with respect to defining navigability. Remember, however, the reasons for the establishment of the navigability test weren’t necessarily based the body of property rights, but were largely based on public policy. The courts and, implicitly, the legislature created this test because without it recalcitrant landowners could absolutely cripple a frontier economy dependent on streams and rivers to conduct commerce. While this case was properly decided, it should be viewed in the proper context. While in a perfect world we would have all the access we could hope for, fishing access somehow doesn’t seem to rise to the critical national economic interests that supported the development of stream access law. On the other hand, a purchaser or lessor should know the state of the law going in order to organize his affairs accordingly.

 

[FarmerDave]

littlejuniata wrote:
Farmer Dave: If you come to fish the Little J yell, I will definately buy you a beer!

No way. If i come all the way over there I'm buying because I want you to show me your bamboo rod collection. :-D

 

[Coughlin]

Well, I'm not at all close to the Little J, but this is certainly a decision that should be applauded regardless of where we live!
Coughlin

 

[baetis]

saburrell wrote:
This appears to be good news for fly fishermen interested in that section of the Little J. It also appears to be a proper application of the law with respect to defining navigability. Remember, however, the reasons for the establishment of the navigability test weren’t necessarily based the body of property rights, but were largely based on public policy. The courts and, implicitly, the legislature created this test because without it recalcitrant landowners could absolutely cripple a frontier economy dependent on streams and rivers to conduct commerce. While this case was properly decided, it should be viewed in the proper context. While in a perfect world we would have all the access we could hope for, fishing access somehow doesn’t seem to rise to the critical national economic interests that supported the development of stream access law. ]

This case was determined at the first level, I assume there will be appeals, in which saburrell's statement that the laws were put in place to conduct commerce in a frontier economy and that fishing access will somehow pale as an argument for sweeping change.....But, then again, the Supreme Court allowed private development interests to use Eminent Domain to run rough shod over indivdual ownership.

 

[FarmerDave]

baetis wrote:

This case was determined at the first level, I assume there will be appeals, in which saburrell's statement that the laws were put in place to conduct commerce in a frontier economy and that fishing access will somehow pale as an argument for sweeping change.....But, then again, the Supreme Court allowed private development interests to use Eminent Domain to run rough shod over indivdual ownership.

First order??? Do you want fries with that?

I'm reading between the lines here, so if i am out of line, please accept my apology in advance.

That argument has been brought up many times before (about it being for navigation, not fishing) and it didn't float then and it won't float now at least not in PA. I even brought it up once and Jack M shot it down rather quickly. Sure this law was established for travel and commerce, but the way it was done, it puts the actual ownership of the navigable stream in the states hands (in public trust). It isn't a lean or even a deeded right away across private property. It is actual ownership of the stream and the land under it. In some other states, it is different, but not in PA, and probably not in the original 13. And there is established precedence (sp) that shoots down his argument, so appealing that part would be futile. I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t state cases. Bottom line. If a stream is navigable, it is held in public trust and is open for any legal reason, not just travel. The intent may not have been to help fishermen, but it is certainly an added benefit to fishermen.

Like I said earlier … In Ohio, land under a navigable stream can and is often privately owned. The landowner can restrict the use of said land, but he cannot stop you from traveling through (or so I have read). There was a case on the Grand River a few years back, and that was the ruling. The landowner cannot restrict you from passing through. He can’t even stop you from portaging through areas where you can’t float, but he can restrict you from stopping to fish or hunt or anything else that is not for navigation.

They can appeal all they want, but they would still only be appealing whether or not it is navigable. In other words, they would be appealing who owns the land.

I’m not saying the PA law is better. As a property owner I have mixed feelings. In fact, I lean towards the Ohio approach being better, but the law is what it is, and the correct decision was made based on the law IMHO.

It is possible I could be wrong on some of this, but I don’t think so.

 

[baetis]

.

They can appeal all they want, but they would still only be appealing whether or not it is navigable.
I’m not saying the PA law is better. As a property owner I have mixed feelings. In fact, I lean towards the Ohio approach being better, but the law is what it is, and the correct decision was made based on the law IMHO.

You are absolutely correct, the question is "navigable". I guess, I got a little ahead and assumed the courts were starting to extend the interpretation of the word. Sorry.

PS
The phrase was, first level

 

[FarmerDave]

I'm guessing that is what the guy you quoted was trying to plant. He gave the impression that he is not fond of the law, but agrees that based on the law, the correct decision was made.

Sorry about the misread (P.S.). I was only joking around.

 

[JackM]

For what it's worth, I think the notion that the Public Trust Doctrine is tied to "navigability" in terms of permitted uses is grasping. If the decision holds up on appeal, then any public use is permissible within the bounds of the law because the adjacent landowner does not have exclusive rights to the streambed.

 

[littlejuniata]

Your welcome to look Dave, but "tidy" ain't my strong suit!