Little Juniata POSTED signs

[evw659]

This is a real bummer, it's one my favorite and most frequently fished stretches on the lj. Even though the river is still navigable and all that and you can still fish if you stay in the water, I don't know how you could pull that off here without trespassing over the posted land. On the upstream limit of the posting (as I understand it) around the junkyard, there's a near half mile long deep pool that you would have to wade through to get downstream. Not gonna happen. The situation is similar on the downstream end of the posted area by the spruce creek trestle. Maybe one could walk the rr tracks and technically stay off her property, but if you got caught you would just make an already delicate situation even worse. Just not worth it. Seems like floating it is the only option.

 

[Mucka]

Well, that's not in the lease bit confusing. I need a lawyer that moonlights as a historian.

 

[CRB]

What about just asking permission? barter some yard work,ect.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

won't work with her, especially if you are not local. But that's not the issue. Some in the LJRA could get and have permission, but obtaining access for all, and hopefully permanently, is the goal. Calming the landowner and having her agree to the principles of access leaves it open for all and prevents the leasing access to a few.

 

[pcray1231]

I was on vacation.

For tubing/boating, it doesn't matter if it's navigable or not. The Commonwealth owns all flowing waters. And there's a public easement to float any water.

That said, if it's not navigable, boaters can't fish, stop and linger, stick their feet through and touch bottom, etc. Float through and that's it. Theoretically maybe their boat can't even scrape bottom. Because the streambed is private even if the water flowing over top is not.

Navigable means the public not only owns the water, but the streambed as well. Up to the low water mark with an easement in favor of the public to the high water mark. Public highway. Fishing allowed and any other legal activity. Just can't get out of the channel onto the floodplain.

The LJR is navigable and the issue is decided by courts. Done deal. Many other waters are also likely navigable. Have been declared as such by state legislature. 100s of them. But the state legislature declarations carry no legal water. Each waterway has to have it's day in court, and most haven't, but the LJR has. Meaning Spring, Penn's, Elk, Pine, Big Fishing, etc, are among those with state legislature declarations of public highway but no court date. The public has as much claim as landowners. If there's an issue it goes to court, a judge decides who was right, and punishes whoever was wrong retroactively, so trespass at your own risk but posters are at their own risk as well. Those declarations usually mean it was once used for commerce, and serve as evidence of such. The court definition of navigable is whether it CAN be used for commerce. If it once was, well, then most reasonable judges would conclude it can. But you never know with judges.

 

[pcray1231]

P.s. a landowner may say their deed covers the streambed. And that is probably true. But it doesn't mean it's valid. All navigable waters, even if just declared, where public property from the date the Commonwealth was established. That typically predates all deeds and thus trumps them.

The rare exceptions are the so called kings grants, which were deeded while we were still an English colony, and thus these predate the Commonwealth and trump navigability law.

 

[DanL]

Wow, i was not prepared for what I saw today! I thought all the signs were just down near where her residence is, but I see they stretch at least a mile up the river up to the one parking pull-off that I used to go to frequently. What a shame!! Hopefully things get better over the winter....

 

[DanL]

On the bright side this forced me to find new water, so I went and found the access on Pemberton that I had never gone to before...Was a beautiful day to get out...

 

[NedZeppelin]

Not much risk in posting, I don't think there would be a fine associated with posting especially given the lack of perfect clarity and the difficulties in proving proper access. There are probably no monetary penalties for even "wrongfully or intentionally" posting property if it is not yet clearly defined. The costs of prosecuting a trespass case would be the landowner cost, but wouldn't a case start with calling the police and calling it criminal trespass, thus state bears the costs?

 

[PALongbow]

The way I see it the landowner pays the taxes on the property so that would probably hold up in court if someone was arrested for trespassing. If its deemed a commercial highway the landowner should not be paying taxes on the property because that means the commonwealth accepted the property as a commercial highway. The state can't have their cake and eat it too. I am very familiar with a 'kings grant' and that is a whole separate discussion.

My advise is to either ask the landowner permission or avoid private property that is posted as such. I know there are those that just can't avoid trespassing due to the entitlement mindset we have in today's society.

Ron

 

[rrt]

I think Bill Anderson and the LJRA are working behind the scenes to try to have this property re-opened for access to the LJR. I think that the woman who owns the property is reasonable, but unreasonable people who abuse the river have caused her to post her property to try to prevent their horrid behavior.

Let's hope Bill, who works hard for the river, its fish, and for good landowner relations, can work something out.