The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Got a problem...Had a land owner call me to remove beaver out of the creek they flooded his fields and cutting his trees...The creek is about 20 feet wide and runs straight for about 100-200 yards before it starts the turns and bends...

Now on the other side is a different land owner that does not really likes trapping.Now he sees me hauling a beaver out and meets me at the truck,and tells me that he does not want the beavers trapped. I told him that Mr. Jones asked me to trap them out.He tells me we'll see about that.

Now the beaver house is on Mr. Jones land and I stayed on that side of the creek.Now the law is I got to stay 15 feet away from house and dams I figured that each owner owns half of the creek so I made mock pull outs with castor mounds on Mr. Jones side.

My question is would you trap the creek or just pack up and get out. Who owns the beaver?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,831 Posts
If it is not considered navigable, which basically means at some point it was used as a route for some type of commerce, more than likely the property line is the cl of the stream......

As long as your sets are all good and legal, and the landowner has no problem with an aggravated neighbor, I would trap them as long as you stay on the landowners side of the creek there isn't a whole lot that the neighbor can do......

even if it is considered navigable, the property line would more than likely be the mean high water mark....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
1822 is right but NO1 owns any wildlife in the state of PA. with that being said if the landowner has damage being done to his property on his side of the stream then by all means, if he wants them gone. do him a favor and do what you can. the neighbor is SOL. talk to the land owner about what the nieghbor said and see if he can talk to him about his problem.
if the landowner says tuff cr*p to his nieghbor then i'd be careful of any incidents ei being harrased by an anti and being messed with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
Thats not a fun situation and lucky for you there doesn't seem like you have alot of beavers to remove but i would talk with the land owner and tell him about being confronted by his neighbor and go by his wishes. You have the right to do what you're doing. You're on his land, not the neighbors. Trapped 71 is right on. Most likely, the land is divided down the middle of the stream. Worst case would be to ask your W.C.O. about the jist of it. Good Luck!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,204 Posts
To answer your question, I was told by a Dep CO one time that "the State" owns the wildlife.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,933 Posts
Takemrarely said:
To answer your question, I was told by a Dep CO one time that "the State" owns the wildlife.....
and the water . to the question , i say go get them .if yuo are not trespassing you have no worries
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
you no flyguy you could....next trapping season .....trap when the season opens up ,,catch all the skunks keep em alive then just chuck em on the other side of the bank since the neighbor is a treehugger LMAO and then tell him after he calls you to remove em you cant cuz you like skunks and dont want em removed. LMAO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
I would not assume that each guy owns 1/2 the creek. If you are really worried get it surveyed and see where the line is. Creek channels move. I have seen where pins located on one side of a creek are now in the main channel or even on the other side now.

The understanding I had explained to me on the navigable water is if it is nonnavigable you can be on the water but if you touch bottom you are trespassing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,037 Posts
Takemrarely said:
To answer your question, I was told by a Dep CO one time that "the State" owns the wildlife.....
It is my opinion that CO misspoke. Perhaps that is why he was just a deputy.

I do not believe that Commonwealth 'owns' the wildlife. I further believe those in authority would make that abundantly clear.

The Commonwealth regulates the harvesting of wildlife.

If the Commonwealth actually owned the wildlife they would be susceptible to damage claims for damages caused by 'their' wildlife.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,364 Posts
stay off "that guys" property and go get em.
i got the same thing over here. the guy the beavers are on doesn't want them trapped. but the guy below him with the fruit trees and the people below him where they like to put a secondary dam off and on until they tear it out from being flooded asked me to trap. so i asked the guy who didn't want me to trap to show me his line. i think he stretched it a bit but it doesn't matter because as soon as it warms up and them beavers go for a stroll i got them. just a waiting game. 330's are very patient.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
My impression was after talking to game warden about similar situation concerning a bridge i was trying to trap is the fish and game owns the waterway..land owners own up to it.. it sounds like your fine
.but it could turn into a real pain in the but situation.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
275 Posts
Ya, I don't agree with the each guy owns half the creek. I still believe that nobody can own the ground under a waterway. I was told this by a Game Warden years ago. You cannot dig in a creek legally with a backhoe if you want to make a pond. You must get DEP permission even if it's on your own land.

I still believe and would argue in Court that NOBODY owns the ground under a waterway. I know as it is written, I may be wrong, but other evidence suggests the Fish Commission is wrong.

As for the beaver, the people of the Commonwealth own the animals within it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
536 Posts
The way the law is written is landowner owns the ground under the waterway. That game warden is wrong. Commonwealth owns the water and whatever is in the water but not what is under the water.

Digging in a creek goes off on a completely differnet tangent than trapping a creek so I won't touch that here but... that is exactly why it is legal to tunnel/bore under a waterway (sewer pipes, electric cables etc...) but not trench acrossa waterway. The commonwealth doesn't own that ground under the waterway.

Waterways typically don't define property borders simply because they change. Iron pins in the ground define property borders. I've run into this "my property line is the middle of the creek" too many times to count dealing with timber sales and field plantings. The only real way to know is get a surveyor to shoot the lines for you. Then you have something that will stand up in court if needed. I've found iron pins in 4' of water 2 feet from a creek bank and also sticking 3' out of the water because a flood came, washed the creek bank away, and what used to be solid ground is now the middle of a creek. That again shows how the Commonwealth can own the water but not the soil under it. Your pins didn't change location but now you have a creek where there was not one before but you still own that "spot" on your deed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,831 Posts
Featherduster said:
The way the law is written is landowner owns the ground under the waterway. That game warden is wrong. Commonwealth owns the water and whatever is in the water but not what is under the water.

Digging in a creek goes off on a completely differnet tangent than trapping a creek so I won't touch that here but... that is exactly why it is legal to tunnel/bore under a waterway (sewer pipes, electric cables etc...) but not trench acrossa waterway. The commonwealth doesn't own that ground under the waterway.

Waterways typically don't define property borders simply because they change. Iron pins in the ground define property borders. I've run into this "my property line is the middle of the creek" too many times to count dealing with timber sales and field plantings. The only real way to know is get a surveyor to shoot the lines for you. Then you have something that will stand up in court if needed. I've found iron pins in 4' of water 2 feet from a creek bank and also sticking 3' out of the water because a flood came, washed the creek bank away, and what used to be solid ground is now the middle of a creek. That again shows how the Commonwealth can own the water but not the soil under it. Your pins didn't change location but now you have a creek where there was not one before but you still own that "spot" on your deed.
In almost all cases, the property line goes to the cl of the stream........unless it is navigable....

And the boundaries change when the stream changes........that is where that little "more or less" caveat comes into play in a deed.........almost any property that borders a decent sized stream was originally set up to make that stream the property line......

It also all depends what the deed calls.......if the deed calls the cl of the stream, then it is the call of the stream regardless of where that is........there are a lot of variables with this stuff
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top