Public or Private?

[franklin]

moon1284 wrote:
Maybe the asking about private land is an urban/rural thing. I'm from a small city with sidewalks. Kids run through my front and back yard all the time and I don't think anything of it. On the same token, if I see a stream and no posted signs I don't think twice about fishing it without asking.

I've been yelled at, threatened, etc. a few times and I apologized and usually left (Unless they told me I could stay). I've never had anything close to a physical confrontation though because I don't argue and do respect their wishes.

Personally I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with fishing a stream that runs through someone's property if there are no posted signs. I will not go out of my way to ask permission if I don't see posted signs. I do that with the understanding that unlike city slickers with small yards, people from the country who have lots of land are pretty territorial and may get pissed and kick me out.

I spent a lot of my early years in rural areas and have a different perspective. I would only fish/hunt on private land where I knew or had permission of the land owner. I would always ask if I didn't know them. Maybe only if it was common practice such as a stream access that was private but every one commonly used it.

As a rural land owner today I don't appreciate people moving across my land without permission. One of my neighbors is a church camp so I will tolerate some of them hiking along the property edge or even hiking down my road. Most others I will interface with. I wouldn't say confront unless they were more actively trespassing such as parking, trapping, or otherwise doing more than just passing through. (I also don't appreciate someone bringing their dog without asking.)

 

[troutbert]

There was a lot of littering and a lot of posting back in the 1960s. And some areas have been posted since the steam train days, particularly some of the clubs in the Poconos. But also some in central PA.

Posting has increased a lot since then, and will continue to increase, because of changes in land ownership patterns. In the past most of the land in rural areas was owned by local people who had grown up there and had a lot of connections to people in the community.

Now much of rural land is owned by people who did not grow up there.

And much of what had been rural PA is no longer rural, so the old rural traditions of social networks and of people acting out of mutual self interest have broken down.

I've heard and read over and over again the assumption that if land is posted, it must have been caused by littering or other violations. In many cases that is the case.

But in many others, people bought the land and immediately posted it. They never had the intention of keeping it open. Landowners have no obligation to keep the land open. And many simply choose not to do so.

The question of the legal rights of access is another topic. And others have already covered the situation. Many people imagine that there is, or should be, a list of "navigable" streams that are open to the public, and that all other streams are private, i.e. can be posted.

Maybe this "should" be the case, but it is not the case. On most streams in PA, whether it is legally open to the public, or can be be closed, would be a matter for the courts to decide.

You really cannot know until the judge makes a decision.

 

[PALongbow]

As a land owner...It's not for me to instruct fisherman as to where my boundary lines are for land ownership.... Its for you to ask permission and understand where my boundary lines are....otherwise you could be trespassing especially when the land is clearly marked.

Ron

 

[ColdBore]

"I believe the posting craze occurred because society got stupid. When I say stupid I mean littering, greed and land abuse/entitlement in general from ATV's and other intrusions. Land owners just got tired of all the stuff that was going on with their land. "

Correct.


"I spent a lot of my early years in rural areas and have a different perspective. I would only fish/hunt on private land where I knew or had permission of the land owner. I would always ask if I didn't know them.."

As it still should be, but unfortunately is not.


"Posting has increased a lot since then, and will continue to increase, because of changes in land ownership patterns. In the past most of the land in rural areas was owned by local people who had grown up there and had a lot of connections to people in the community. "

The inverse is also true. 'Back then', the people using the land were almost always your neighbors, and you had a mutual respect. Too often today, the user is some "city guy" who gets out to "the country" infrequently, and feels that he has to maximize the use of his time while there. That means no research into land ownership, or asking for permission, or cleaning up when finished. Basically a rape the land and move on mindset.


"Personally I don't see anything morally or ethically wrong with fishing a stream that runs through someone's property if there are no posted signs. I will not go out of my way to ask permission if I don't see posted signs."

Amazing. Do you see anything morally or ethically wrong with having a picnic in their front yard as well, even if it's not posted??


"As a land owner...It's not for me to instruct fisherman as to where my boundary lines are for land ownership.... Its for you to ask permission and understand where my boundary lines are...."

But ignorance is bliss for the entitled crowd today, who believe that they should be allowed to use anybody's property.


The number of "Well, too bad, I'm going to fish it anyway", or "It's really not my concern, they just have to catch me", or "I'll flaunt the 'law', standing a foot off of their property and fish it anyway just to p*** them off" replies are disappointing.

Maybe some of those repliers should bookmark this thread, and come back to read it the next time one of their favorite fishing/hunting/recreational properties get locked up and posted, just as a reminder of why it happened.

As a property owner of land that guys like to hunt (and former owner of two stream and riverfront properties with excellent fishing), my property is *currently* unposted, and likely to remain that way. But I will not hesitate to personally escort somebody off of my property if they even HINT at the entitlement mentality if found upon it, or if they abuse it in any way.

 

[Swattie87]

But you have entitled me to fish it by not posting it. Under PA law anyway. If you see me though and ask me to leave, I will. I drive a Mini Cooper FYI and look and act like a total tool. Shouldn't be hard to ID me. There may or may not be an entourage of NJ plated, female driven, VW Jettas with me.

As long as the opposite side from Longbow's property isn't posted I too have been entitled to fish that under PA law, provided as mentioned above that I keep my bait from hitting bottom on LB's side.

Not only should we be blaming the spincasters here, but also the Liberals in Congress for allowing such entitlement to run rampant in the FFing world.

 

[ColdBore]

"Swattie87: But you have entitled me to fish it by not posting it. Under PA law anyway. If you see me though and ask me to leave, I will. I drive a Mini Cooper FYI and look and act like a total tool. Shouldn't be hard to ID me. There may or may not be an entourage of NJ plated, female driven, VW Jettas with me.

As long as the opposite side from Longbow's property isn't posted I too have been entitled to fish that under PA law, provided as mentioned above that I keep my bait from hitting bottom on LB's side.

Not only should we be blaming the spincasters here, but also the Liberals in Congress for allowing such entitlement to run rampant in the FFing world."

Show up with that entitled arrogance, and you WILL be escorted off of my property, with a verbal warning to not return, which suffices... "under PA law anyway".

Blame spincasters and Congress?

No, blame ANY entitlement attitude, which *flyfishermen* here seem to have, in abundance.

 

[Swattie87]

Cold - Just an FYI. Any post I make mentiong me driving a Mini Cooper should be taken tongue in cheek in its entirety.

That being said, I agree. Once you verbally warn me to leave your property and not return, I would be trespassing. I would leave, and never return in those circumstances as you have informed me of your desire for me to not be there. Until then, by not posting it, under PA law you have entitled anyone to fish it, without asking permission. Don't accuse someone else of being entitled, for just following the law. Whether or not of course it is polite and in good sporting ethics to ask permission to fish any privately owned (but not posted) water is another matter. But the law is clear, it is not required.

In real life, I drive a Tacoma and fish nearly exclusively on publicly owned land. Fortunate to have lots of that in PA, where you don't need to worry about it. On the rare instance (usually only once or twice per year along a stretch of Kettle Creek) where I fish private land, it is with express landowner permission only, posted or not. (That stretch is not posted, but I have asked each cabin owner individually personally if I could fish there. They all looked at me like I was nuts for asking.)

 

[bigslackwater]

This is a good topic. On my local creeks, there are more posted areas than non-posted, yet the State continues to stock the creeks. On one creek I don't even know where the state can find access... perhaps at bridges??? Why do they waste resources on areas that the public can't access? Do they do it so the land owners that choose to post can fish with their friends and relatives in private?

 

[troutbert]

bigslackwater wrote:
This is a good topic. On my local creeks, there are more posted areas than non-posted, yet the State continues to stock the creeks. On one creek I don't even know where the state can find access... perhaps at bridges??? Why do they waste resources on areas that the public can't access? Do they do it so the land owners that choose to post can fish with their friends and relatives in private?

Which streams are you referring to?

Contact the PFBC about the problems you are seeing.

 

[somersetian]

My uncle lives on a private lake and lets kids from the neighborhood fish off his dock whose families aren't land owners on the lake, and the home owners or whatever association are giving him all kinds of grief about it. Saying the kids families don't help pay for the bluegill and perch they catch. Those kids don't even keep fish. Talk about being "Entitled"

 

[jifigz]

I'm quite clear on the legality of navigable vs non-navigable etc. The real question I think is what is the "high water mark?" I live right on the Juniata and my family owns 100 acres or so along the river. The "high water" has come up and been several feet deep in some buildings some 100 yards or more from the river during historic floods. Is this the "high water mark?" Is all of this property open to anyone.(All along the river isn't posted anyways, but you get the drift.)

 

[Swattie87]

It's the ordinary high water mark, not flood or all time high mark. Which I believe in most cases is practically applied as the stream bank. Your feet don't necessarily need to be wet, but you should be within the obvious stream margins, and not on the banks.

 

[troutbert]

Swattie87 wrote:
It's the ordinary high water mark, not flood or all time high mark. Which I believe in most cases is practically applied as the stream bank. Your feet don't necessarily need to be wet, but you should be within the obvious stream margins, and not on the banks.

That's right. The public has a right of access within the river channel. They do not have a right of access out on the floodplain.

The channel is a linear depression carved into the floodplain. The floodplain is a relatively flat surface, found on both sides of the river, at about the same elevation.

The channel is a trough-like depression eroded by the river into the floodplain. The public has a right of access inside that trough, but do not have a right of access out on the floodplain.

In most places you can see a distinct break in the land's slope where the floodplain drops off into the channel. You'll be walking along the fairly flat floodplain, then suddenly the slope of the land drops off fairly steeply. That's the boundary.

Many of the cottages I've seen along the Susque and Juniata are on the floodplain of the rivers. They are on the flat surface of the floodplain and often also have yards on that flat surface.

But as you continue walking out on those level yards, you will see the land surface suddenly break downward. Beyond that break, you are within the channel of the river. And the public has a right of access there.

 

[pcray1231]

Legally, as Troutbert described, there are a number of physical factors used to determine the ordinary high water mark.

In practice, you can think of the official flood stage height as the level where it exceeds the ordinary high water mark. I.e. at flood stage, it leaves it's banks.

 

[pcray1231]

As for entitlement mentality, I'm not denying there's plenty of it in fishermen. There is plenty in landowners too. You may own land, but you do not own water or the fish in that water, or deer running across your land

I respect posted property. I don't blame landowners who post for a number of reasons. But there are plenty who post to reserve wildlife for themselves. So nobody fishes for "their" fish or hunts for "their" deer. Or so they can lease those recreational opportunities for money. So it depends on the reason. The real reason.

 

[FarmerDave]

PennypackFlyer wrote:
FD, when i saw your "er" I thought you were talking about "Emergency Room"

Typo. I meant to say err.

 

[JackM]

Manners and common sense should control. If someone has a residence and manicured grounds along a creek, I will not cross their land for access to the creek with or without signs. However, if I entered the stream corridor legally or in an undeveloped area, I do not hesitate to "fish through" by being particularly careful to stay close to the stream and mind my own business. If I notice the landowner out and about, I try to greet them and ask if they mind that I fish through their property. If they object, I retreat peacefully.

Though these situations are rare for me, I think this accommodates their legitimate interests appropriately. I have also successfully sought permission in situations where I felt my entitlement may be misplaced. Landowners generally appreciate being asked for permission.

 

[afishinado]

JackM wrote:
Manners and common sense should control. If someone has a residence and manicured grounds along a creek, I will not cross their land for access to the creek with or without signs. However, if I entered the stream corridor legally or in an undeveloped area, I do not hesitate to "fish through" by being particularly careful to stay close to the stream and mind my own business. If I notice the landowner out and about, I try to greet them and ask if they mind that I fish through their property. If they object, I retreat peacefully.

Though these situations are rare for me, I think this accommodates their legitimate interests appropriately. I have also successfully sought permission in situations where I felt my entitlement may be misplaced. Landowners generally appreciate being asked for permission.

^ there ya go....wouldn't change a word.

That's why Jack is a great guy!

 

[FarmerDave]

jifigz wrote:
I'm quite clear on the legality of navigable vs non-navigable etc. The real question I think is what is the "high water mark?" I live right on the Juniata and my family owns 100 acres or so along the river. The "high water" has come up and been several feet deep in some buildings some 100 yards or more from the river during historic floods. Is this the "high water mark?" Is all of this property open to anyone.(All along the river isn't posted anyways, but you get the drift.)

jifigz, I won't argue with the responses you got, but a much simpler rule of thumb would be the vegetation line.

 

[FarmerDave]

somersetian wrote:
My uncle lives on a private lake and lets kids from the neighborhood fish off his dock whose families aren't land owners on the lake, and the home owners or whatever association are giving him all kinds of grief about it. Saying the kids families don't help pay for the bluegill and perch they catch. Those kids don't even keep fish. Talk about being "Entitled"

I'll bet the only reason the Homeowners Association is complaining to your uncle is because one or more of your uncles ****** neighbors are complaining to the HA because they don't have the "strength" to discuss it directly with your uncle.

I used to live in a neighborhood like that.

Never again.