Public creek "private" due to a club

[6xAdams(Jones)]

Even when it is "navigable", you still have to be within the "high water" mark. Challenging angling rights in "navigable" waters really can be a tricky process.

Is a licensed fisherman (or woman) trespassing, if navigable water is accessed via public property or private property w/permission, and stays "feet-wet" the whole time? I thought this topic was argued to death when Donnie Beaver blocked part of the Juniata. (If my recollection is correct about it being the Juniata.)

 

[wgmiller]

Is a licensed fisherman (or woman) trespassing, if navigable water is accessed via public property or private property w/permission, and stays "feet-wet" the whole time? I thought this topic was argued to death when Donnie Beaver blocked part of the Juniata. (If my recollection is correct about it being the Juniata.)

I'm not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV), but I'd have to think the answer to that question would be "yes". The whole Donny Beaver/SRC thing was over access, navigability, etc. and was decided a few years back, although I don't believe it established "case law".

Here's the link to a PAFF thread on legal closure of the Beaver/SRC case:

https://www.paflyfish.com/threads/little-j-case-goes-to-bed-yeah.3432/

 

[Fish Sticks]

observations

-adult fish monger/derby grandmaster threatening a minor on the stream when these people always hide behind youth fishing to defend need for these FUBAR/Bizzare events in first place.

-10lb swimming 💩/manufactured invasive trophies that cost hundreds of dollars to manufacture and causing aggressive behavior disputes on public water.

-an uncertainty or perceived right for private individuals stocking to police public water like a wco by some on the forum.

- dissuading said threatened minor from contacting PFBC to report the behavior of this person claiming to have authority to act like this via a PFBC special activities permit because it might “stirr the pot” and somehow ruin this wonderful situation where people stocking awuatic equivalent of mature bengal tigers in PA and harassing and intimidating youth on public water???



WHAT THE ACTUAL *UCK

 

[mute]

observations

-adult fish monger/derby grandmaster threatening a minor on the stream when these people always hide behind youth fishing to defend need for these FUBAR/Bizzare events in first place.

-10lb swimming 💩/manufactured invasive trophies that cost hundreds of dollars to manufacture and causing aggressive behavior disputes on public water.

-an uncertainty or perceived right for private individuals stocking to police public water like a wco by some on the forum.

- dissuading said threatened minor from contacting PFBC to report the behavior of this person claiming to have authority to act like this via a PFBC special activities permit because it might “stirr the pot” and somehow ruin this wonderful situation where people stocking awuatic equivalent of mature bengal tigers in PA and harassing and intimidating youth on public water???



WHAT THE ACTUAL *UCK

Few and far between, but there are some some organizations that hold specific events that pertain only to children with disabilities. With them being very strict(permit or not, cant tell you) about anyone besides said individuals being able to fish said sections of stream while that event is taking place for multiple days. In that scenario, its a ATW stocked water\section, with the landowner who allows everyone public access year round for said trout season. Now obviously in my case im describing here, any most likely Peytons as well, the organization has a relationship with said landowner in this specific case for their events regardless of plain old ATW access any other day of the year. Now whether or not the landowner can say the public is allowed to be on his property fishing every other day except for these 3 days that the event is taking place, I dont know? Is it all or nothing? I would imagine not. It sounds logical to me that a landowner can work with the PFBC to allow the public to fish his property\atw section during the allowed trout season time, yet then tell the public no one can fish it for 3 days every year because he has buy in\a relationship with an organization that holds a unique event there every year. My point is that not all clubs are scum bags and in Peytons scenario as its already been said, this seems to of had nothing to do with public water\access. It was all private access through allowance of the landowner. Sounds like the Landowner said yes to two different people for two different reasons and caused this conflict.

 

[mdamm318]

.

 

[mute]

Some of these statements are a little confusing to me. First, the topic of this thread which is "Public creek private, due to a club". I dont think thats whats happening here. The entire public accessibility did not go private just because someone (in the right or wrong) attempted to keep you from fishing a few hundred yard section due to some event they were trying to keep exclusive. Was it a morale and human decency thing due to the nature of the event? Or were they just being greedy or some power trip so their friends had a chance at 27lbs of fish that evening before you potentially raked them in on the spot?

Secondly, "I accessed it through a private farm, so according to the law I have to stay on the private land I was fishing from." Thats not making sense to me, since if you had been granted access through non-public private land from the land owner like you said, derby happening or not. If there's also public access\land thats alongside of it, you could obviously venture onto that as well to continue fishing, not needing to restrict yourself to only the private property.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Few and far between, but there are some some organizations that hold specific events that pertain only to children with disabilities. With them being very strict(permit or not, cant tell you) about anyone besides said individuals being able to fish said sections of stream while that event is taking place for multiple days. In that scenario, its a ATW stocked water\section, with the landowner who allows access year round for said trout season. Obviously the organization has a relationship with said landowner in this specific case for their events regardless of plain old ATW access any other day of the year. Now whether or not the landowner can say the public is allowed to be on his property fishing every other day except for these 3 days that the event is taking place, I dont know? Is it all or nothing? I would imagine not. It sounds logical to me that a landowner can work with the PFBC to allow the public to fish his property\atw section during the allowed trout season time, yet then tell the public no one can fish it for 3 days every year because he has buy in\a relationship with an organization that holds a unique event there every year. My point is that not all clubs are scum bags and in Peytons scenario as its already been said, this seems to of had nothing to do with public water\access. It was all private access through allowance of the landowner. Sounds like the Landowner said yes to two different people for two different reasons and caused this conflict.

I don’t think any one group of people are scum as a rule its just that letting any private citizen decide to effect ecosystems on huge scales by introducing large numbers of organisms with no real supervision creates ecological problems but also in this case an adult chose to imply risk of harm to a minor in water they had a right to be in should they not stop fishing. I think everyone can make their own decision, scum or not, on that individual. But I am just pointing out that this is one of the many problems that making our streams dumping grounds for exogenous domesticated animals creates.

I‘m not saying whats legal and whats not(besides threatening a minor with implying bodily harm) but who is this entire situation good for?

-Cartoonishly large invasive trout in a stream where they probably eat everything in site. What does that do for the prey base the warm water fishermen relies on when those things go belly up in summer or get caught out? French creek is not pebble mine but its still an ecosystem, what do stocking tons of those fish do to it?

-The derby, ok you take a bunch of kids fishing and with no effort they pull out enormous manufactured trophies with little to no effort that will in their eyes degrade they value of fishing for anything smaller or harder to catch. Lets set the expectations for 2foot trout and tech em this normal/ok and other species are trash because they weren’t worth fishing for and thats why we stocked the trout.

-Someone fundraised for that garbage instead of the stream itself

-the conflict, you take fishing and gather a hord of anglers in the same place with some people having entitlements to fish and acting unacceptably

-the young solo fisherman, dissuades them from exploring and fishing close to home and what does being threatened by an duly over trout teach that person about how we are supposed to act as anglers.


Without those stupid cartoonish rubber fish this whole altercation would have been prevented

 

[tomgamber]

The kid got permission to fish from the land owner, He has a history of respecting the fish and releasing them as he likes to catch big fish. Good for him. If the landowner knows this, That's probably why he gave permission. For all we know those other 5 "members" gave that jerk a hard time about bullying the kid later on. I agree with the landowner, Go have fun.

 

[caddisflyer]

All I know is I am going to be heading down to that spot in a week or so and if it is classified as a navigable waterway I am fishing it.

 

[mute]

I don’t think any one group of people are scum as a rule its just that letting any private citizen decide to effect ecosystems on huge scales by introducing large numbers of organisms with no real supervision creates ecological problems but also in this case an adult chose to imply risk of harm to a minor in water they had a right to be in should they not stop fishing. I think everyone can make their own decision, scum or not, on that individual. But I am just pointing out that this is one of the many problems that making our streams dumping grounds for exogenous domesticated animals creates.

I‘m not saying whats legal and whats not(besides threatening a minor with implying bodily harm) but who is this entire situation good for?

-Cartoonishly large invasive trout in a stream where they probably eat everything in site. What does that do for the prey base the warm water fishermen relies on when those things go belly up in summer or get caught out? French creek is not pebble mine but its still an ecosystem, what do stocking tons of those fish do to it?

-The derby, ok you take a bunch of kids fishing and with no effort they pull out enormous manufactured trophies with little to no effort that will in their eyes degrade they value of fishing for anything smaller or harder to catch. Lets set the expectations for 2foot trout and tech em this normal/ok and other species are trash because they weren’t worth fishing for and thats why we stocked the trout.

-Someone fundraised for that garbage instead of the stream itself

-the conflict, you take fishing and gather a hord of anglers in the same place with some people having entitlements to fish and acting unacceptably

-the young solo fisherman, dissuades them from exploring and fishing close to home and what does being threatened by an duly over trout teach that person about how we are supposed to act as anglers.


Without those stupid cartoonish rubber fish this whole altercation would have been prevented

I agree with your intentions and ethics, and I sense a hard stance for preventing the stocking of fish, but not any fish, just larger then normal fish?

-Cartoonishly large invasive trout in a stream where they probably eat everything in site. What does that do for the prey base the warm water fishermen relies on when those things go belly up in summer or get caught out? French creek is not pebble mine but its still an ecosystem, what do stocking tons of those fish do to it?

I don't see a difference in the outcome of an aquatic ecosystem whether its 20 trout at 24" by a private org or 2000 trout at 10-12" by the state. Its still the introduction of an over population of fish whether it be in quantity or size into a marginal watershed that wont support them long term naturally or un-naturally.

-The derby, ok you take a bunch of kids fishing and with no effort they pull out enormous manufactured trophies with little to no effort that will in their eyes degrade they value of fishing for anything smaller or harder to catch. Lets set the expectations for 2foot trout and tech em this normal/ok and other species are trash because they weren’t worth fishing for and thats why we stocked the trout.

My specific example and entire construct was very unique if you remember. So unique that said special needs individuals cant walk, some cant talk, and some not even be able to remember that with that little to no effort you mentioned that they reeled in this 2ft trout that is their now norm expectation going forward, if they are even expected to still be breathing come that next year that is. They are people who can only exhibit their emotions through grunt noises but hopefully also a magical temporary smile on their face.

-Someone fundraised for that garbage instead of the stream itself

Someone fundraised for the millions of trout stocked in the same body of water, every year. Us.

-the conflict, you take fishing and gather a hord of anglers in the same place with some people having entitlements to fish and acting unacceptably

Kind of sounds like opening day and any other stocking truck follower imo.

Without those stupid cartoonish rubber fish this whole altercation would have been prevented

Not sure why its about the size of fish for most of your stances. Quantity or "quality" has no difference in outcome when theres heresay of fish magically appearing somewhere in which presents some form of limited opportunity in some individuals brain's.


If you live in Central PA, something tells me that might have something to do with your hard stance(arguably justified) compared to others that live within the main stem of sewer run off.

 

[Bamboozle]

Anyone that thinks French Creek is navigable in fact or law is delusional. Most most of the "lists" are just that lists with no legal teeth. If you don't believe me, ask the PFBC why they no longer stock Sections 3 & 7.

But go ahead and trespass and make sure to post it on the Internet and if someone calls the cops because you are trespassing, show the cops the maps and see what happens...

...and don't be surprised if more sections that are OPEN to the public through the courtesy of the landowner are posted and never stocked by anyone.

I for one really wish an arcane bunch of laws that serve no purpose in Pennsylvania except on the lower reaches of the great rivers would go away already...

There is NO waterway commerce elsewhere that needs to be protected.

FWIW - I got a "pretend" navigable stream that runs thorough my property. If anyone comes traipsing though my land because they read somewhere that it's navigable and they show me a map or list to prove it...

...they will be getting arrested or worse and will be $#!++ing out a map or list a day later.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I agree with your intentions and ethics, and I sense a hard stance for preventing the stocking of fish, but not any fish, just larger then normal fish?

-Cartoonishly large invasive trout in a stream where they probably eat everything in site. What does that do for the prey base the warm water fishermen relies on when those things go belly up in summer or get caught out? French creek is not pebble mine but its still an ecosystem, what do stocking tons of those fish do to it?

I don't see a difference in the outcome of an aquatic ecosystem whether its 20 trout at 24" by a private org or 2000 trout at 10-12" by the state. Its still the introduction of an over population of fish whether it be in quantity or size into a marginal watershed that wont support them long term naturally or un-naturally.

-The derby, ok you take a bunch of kids fishing and with no effort they pull out enormous manufactured trophies with little to no effort that will in their eyes degrade they value of fishing for anything smaller or harder to catch. Lets set the expectations for 2foot trout and tech em this normal/ok and other species are trash because they weren’t worth fishing for and thats why we stocked the trout.

My specific example and entire construct was very unique if you remember. So unique that said special needs individuals cant walk, some cant talk, and some not even be able to remember that with that little to no effort you mentioned that they reeled in this 2ft trout that is their now norm expectation going forward, if they are even expected to still be breathing come that next year that is. They are people who can only exhibit their emotions through grunt noises but hopefully also a magical temporary smile on their face.

-Someone fundraised for that garbage instead of the stream itself

Someone fundraised for the millions of trout stocked in the same body of water, every year. Us.

-the conflict, you take fishing and gather a hord of anglers in the same place with some people having entitlements to fish and acting unacceptably

Kind of sounds like opening day and any other stocking truck follower imo.

Without those stupid cartoonish rubber fish this whole altercation would have been prevented

Not sure why its about the size of fish for most of your stances. Quantity or "quality" has no difference in outcome when theres heresay of fish magically appearing somewhere in which presents some form of limited opportunity in some individuals brain's.


If you live in Central PA, something tells me that might have something to do with your hard stance(arguably justified) compared to others that live within the main stem of sewer run off.

Stocking regular sized trout are not better and cause just as much pandemonium. But the comment about large cartoonish fish in french creek just points out its all that more ridiculous ecologically and from a sporting perspective. They mind as well put them in a bathtub because there is the same chance that ecosystem could sustain or naturally produce an organism like that

I live next to harrisburg which literally has sewer discharge right into Susquehanna. French creek offers more natural repro opportunity than many of my local
Streams. I ron’t consider streams without trout a sewer because we have so many ignored species.Trout don’t need to be unlimited in my opinion to be a passionate frequent fly fishermen

 

[krayfish2]

Get the local wco's phone number. Next time you fish and get hassled, have the wco stop by and settle it.

FWIW, if it's navigable... you access through private property with the owners permission.... you should be good to wade anywhere inside the high water mark. At the very least, you should be clear to wade out to the middle on the property you accessed it from. Each landowner should own to the middle. If they owned both sides, they could close off access just like the property owner did below Paradise

Next time, tell that guy to hold tight, the wco is in route to set things straight. Option 2 is to simply wave, continue to fish and don't engage with the clown

 

[hooker-of-men]

I'm not an attorney (nor do I play one on TV), but I'd have to think the answer to that question would be "yes". The whole Donny Beaver/SRC thing was over access, navigability, etc. and was decided a few years back, although I don't believe it established "case law".

Here's the link to a PAFF thread on legal closure of the Beaver/SRC case:

https://www.paflyfish.com/threads/little-j-case-goes-to-bed-yeah.3432/

Would anyone care to rehash the overall Homewaters/ Donny Beaver narrative (perhaps in a separate thread) or link to somewhere that traces this history?

There was talk about the bad vibes surrounding upper Brodhead / Paradise when I lived there, but it all was apocryphal. I'd be really interested in a straightforward retelling of how this went down and where.

 

[PennKev]

Would anyone care to rehash the overall Homewaters/ Donny Beaver narrative (perhaps in a separate thread) or link to somewhere that traces this history?

There was talk about the bad vibes surrounding upper Brodhead / Paradise when I lived there, but it all was apocryphal. I'd be really interested in a straightforward retelling of how this went down and where.

Here is a link to a news article with more info:

LJR Case

A quick google search will turn up all the info you could ever want to read on the matter.

 

[Peyton]

Called fish and boat and they confirmed what I thought. They have a 30 day event permit, but cannot block anyone from fishing it. Told me I was right it two ways with it being “navigable” and land owner’s permission. Shitty situation that got sorted out. The derby was for all members of the club, which is around 15 I believe. In no way was I trespassing on anyone’s property. I was just checking to see if the state have permits to private groups to close stretches of normally public creeks.

 

[poopdeck]

Having obtained many special permits to run fishing tournaments on the Delaware river I can assure you the permits do not grant the tournament exclusive fishing rights to the fish in the waterway during the event or leading up to the event. The permit simply alerts the PFBC to the activity that they may wish to monitor. It also requires a catch and mortality report be filed at the completion of the event.

You need to know that if you’re told to leave private property and you refuse you are guilty of a misdemeanor 3 crime. Granted that’s only a max of 90 days in the slammer and a $5000.00 fine but I’m still not risking arrest by arguing something I know nothing about other than what I learned on the internet from others equally as ignorant on the law as I. It would be cheaper to buy your own trout and throw them in a creek so you can catch them. that’s not my kind of fishing no matter who bought the fish. I’m sure the club thinks there’s a good chance you and your friends are going to this section because you heard about big store bought fish stocked by the club. if this kind of fishing was my thing, I would join the club instead of looking for an angle to argue and risk arrest.

I'm with Bamboozle, if you like stream access stop arguing maritime laws with landowners. My property is my property, nobody else’s. If there is a trout stream running through it, having a fishing license does not make it your property and I do not lose my right to deny access. It’s really that simple.

 

[mute]

Having obtained many special permits to run fishing tournaments on the Delaware river I can assure you the permits do not grant the tournament exclusive fishing rights to the fish in the waterway during the event or leading up to the event. The permit simply alerts the PFBC to the activity that they may wish to monitor. It also requires a catch and mortality report be filed at the completion of the event.

You need to know that if you’re told to leave private property and you refuse you are guilty of a misdemeanor 3 crime. Granted that’s only a max of 90 days in the slammer and a $5000.00 fine but I’m still not risking arrest by arguing something I know nothing about other than what I learned on the internet from others equally as ignorant on the law as I. It would be cheaper to buy your own trout and throw them in a creek so you can catch them. that’s not my kind of fishing no matter who bought the fish. I’m sure the club thinks there’s a good chance you and your friends are going to this section because you heard about big store bought fish stocked by the club. if this kind of fishing was my thing, I would join the club instead of looking for an angle to argue and risk arrest.

I'm with Bamboozle, if you like stream access stop arguing maritime laws with landowners. My property is my property, nobody else’s. If there is a trout stream running through it, having a fishing license does not make it your property and I do not lose my right to deny access. It’s really that simple.

Did you bother to even read the posts content?

 

[poopdeck]

Did you bother to even read the posts content?

we posted at the same time so I did not see his final post on communications with the PFBC. I also know of at least 2 French creeks, one of which would not be considered navigable and possibly there’s more than two.

I suppose I could edit my previous post but I won’t. if your going to stand on your knowledge of maritime law you should also be aware of other laws especially when your not sure if your right or wrong in the moment. Doing something and then determining later if your right is kind of like shooting first and asking questions second.

 

[Bamboozle]

Sorry but I'm calling bull$#!+ on the PFBC...

Somebody at the PFBC says (paraphrasing), "Told me I was right it two ways with it being “navigable” and land owner’s permission..."

OK, if they are saying it's open because it is navigable, then how come the PFBC doesn't flex their government muscles and DEMAND that the land owners in Sections 3 & 7 take down their NO TRESPASSING signs so they can resume stocking???

Trust me you CAN access these sections WITHOUT walking across dirt...

And if they are saying it's open because it is navigable, then how come the PFBC posted on their website only a few years ago that "Section 7 was taken off the stocking list because of "landowner posting?"

I mean, why don't they flex their government muscles and say, HOW DARE YOU landowners along Section 7 post a navigable stream...!!!

"Ye taketh thoseth signs downeth," to say it like they did when the stupid law was written....

They don't because they know they don't have a legal leg to stand on a steam that size in PA. They were just blowing smoke up the OP's a$$.

The only legal leg he had/has to fish was apparent landowner permission to access private property...

When 20 self righteous access yahoos show up tomorrow and over the weekend to fish there he'll probably lose that....

...then he can pursue the navigability angle...