When purple paint apparently ain’t

[Mike]

The “fishing permitted” signs have, at least in the past, been intentionally used in concert with landowners’ no trespassing signs. That’s why they were printed. They have historically indicated that fishing is allowed, but not other forms of entry. One version even says “fishing permitted courtesy of landowner”…”no littering.”

 

[mute]

And there it is. The common sense part. Or lack of...

My point exactly, as if that same common sense you mention that the land owner would never miss isnt part of the equation when ones to assume because theres two signs meaning two different things that the landowner knows they can\should\could take the pfbc one down to let it be clear what they expect with their property.

 

[tomgamber]

Common sense would come in handy with the whole swingset analogy. It just seemed a little extreme. Regardless of allegedly controversial signage that's been used for some time.

 

[Swattie87]

This is why I fish water on publicly owned land almost exclusively, with a few well known as being open to fishing exceptions…generally bigger STW’s or stocked Class A’s. I haven’t run out of new public water I’m interested to try yet, and don’t imagine that I ever will.

I don’t want to deal with this kind of bologna while fishing. Everyone with a youknowwhat hole has an interpretation of the whole signage/navigable/public/private thing. It’s a calculated risk (of varying degree) any time you fish on privately owned land. The only time I’ve been run off a stream it was completely unposted, and prior to the purple paint rules. I’m not 100% convinced it wasn’t a tenant, and not the owner who ran us off too. Still, that was the last time I fished anywhere I wasn’t 100% sure of. 10 years ago probably.

Fishing is fun. Having philosophical access discussions with landowners and/or law enforcement, or on a fishing forum, is not.

 

[FarmerDave]

So it's expected that every property is publicly inviting unless there's a big ole no trespassing sign?

With this logic I'm picturing walking right through someone's front yard, past their kids swingset, shimmying around their pool to get to the water body behind their house is OK because the landowner doesnt have a giant yellow sign at their mailbox saying otherwise?

I suppose that would be legal at first, but the landowner has the right to ask you to leave for any reason whether there are signs or not. Common sense tells me that what you described above would be a good reason. It would probably also result in the land being posted. There is no quicker way to convince a landowner to post than disrespecting his land, or his personal space. Common sense also tells me that is what Tom meant.

 

[PennKev]

I suppose that would be legal at first, but the landowner has the right to ask you to leave for any reason whether there are signs or not. Common sense tells me that what you described above would be a good reason. It would probably result in the land being posted. There is no quicker way to convince a landowner to post than disrespecting his land, or his personal space. Common sense also tells me that is what Tom meant.

Except this is the internet and someone will always take a discussion to the extreme limits of stupidity.

 

[caddisflyer]

Use common sense and also remember that in PA if it is not posted or fenced the law says you can enter to hunt or fish. That is the law in PA. A lot of oldtimers grew up hunting and fishing without a care in the world because almost nothing was posted, even in the 1970s and we all roamed freely and enjoyed Gods green earth. The oldtime farmers waved as we walked by carrying our game and fish.

 

[Swattie87]

Is PALongBow still around?

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

Everything you said makes sense and i agree logically with except the first sentence


That seems like a big assumption and interpretation between any humans brain. Where is the written definition of that scenario that a a PFBC sign, overrules a land owners no trespassing sign and desire to have no one on their property?

It is my understanding that the PFBC only stocks where access is permitted, so to me, a sign stating Approved Trout Waters suggests that the property owner has other intentions with the signage. No Hunting to me clearly defines the situation. As stated above, assume access is permitted unless confronted by the landowner. In that case, explain politely why you might be confused.

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

So it's expected that every property is publicly inviting unless there's a big ole no trespassing sign?

With this logic I'm picturing walking right through someone's front yard, past their kids swingset, shimmying around their pool to get to the water body behind their house is OK because the landowner doesnt have a giant yellow sign at their mailbox saying otherwise?

There is a caveat to the property not being posted, and that is, if the landowner asks you to leave, you leave. They are not obligated to post their land, but you are obligated to leave if asked by the landowner. In the case of the swing set on the suburban lawn, you lose style points for being rude.

 

[caddisflyer]

I would guess deer hunting is the number one reason land is posted around my area. It is often posted by people who lease the land. The number two reason is a change in the way the more recent types of landowners think about land and everything they own. The old family farms are gone mostly and it is now a lot of non farmers who tend to be rich city types or corporate outfits on the larger properties who post as a matter of practice. Rude behavior by fishermen would probably rank third.

 

[MBWCC]

Years ago I decided to fish on a piece of industrial property just off a Pa state route. There was no posted signage but I could see "Approved trout water" signage on the property, at the stream. from the roadside pullout. ... Anyway after fishing for awhile, a WCO approached me and asked about the fishing and then advised me that the area was private property and asked me to leave.

Did the WCO make any comment about the STW (or previous version ATW) signage? Did she/he suggest she/he should have those removed?

 

[rancid waders]

About 35 years ago I had a heated discussion with an infamous club member on a well known navigable waterway. Short story is that I now only fish where there is no question whether I'm legal or not. I wont let being pissed off ruin any more valuable fishing time.

 

[JackM]

When I find a piece of private property, not posted against fishing that holds nice wild trout, I carry purple paint for the walk back to the car.

 

[caddisflyer]

When I find a piece of private property, not posted against fishing that holds nice wild trout, I carry purple paint for the walk back to the car.

I like that idea!

 

[falcon]

I like that idea!

Its been done before and probably more prevalent than one would think.

 

[troutbert]

When I find a piece of private property, not posted against fishing that holds nice wild trout, I carry purple paint for the walk back to the car.

I've seen people use no trespassing signs in clever ways to deter people from driving on dirt and gravel roads that are open to the public. They prominently place signs on both side of the road facing the driver coming up the road.

 

[Mike]

Posting a neighboring property without the knowledge of that neighbor also occurs. Ran into that once on Penns Ck years ago.

 

[Swattie87]

I've seen people use no trespassing signs in clever ways to deter people from driving on dirt and gravel roads that are open to the public. They prominently place signs on both side of the road facing the driver coming up the road.

Is the dirt road navigable?

 

[troutbert]

Is the dirt road navigable?

Probably during the Hurricane Agnes flood.