Fishing on the channal close to someone property

[CRAPPIE]

Last Friday we fished in the channal in Jersey River and we cast on the channal which was about 10-20 feet away from somehouse(wind was blowing our cannoe close to that house) and someone came out from that house and yelled at us saying that we were fishing in someone private property and he said we did not pay the property tax in this area. We just kept quiet and said we are now leaving and this guy keep on yelled at us.

Thinking we just went out to have fun and we didn't want to argue anyway and we just left. We just hooked three big perch at the same moment and we released them in front of this guy. We just want to show him we just out for enjoy fishing and no intention to fish in their area.

[e-z-out]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that rivers that are navigable, for title purposes, are owned by the states, "held in trust" for the public. This applies in all fifty states, under the "Equal Footing Doctrine."

Rivers that do meet the federal test are automatically navigable, and therefore owned by the state. No court or government agency has to designate them as such.

The federal test of navigability is not a technical test. There are no measurements of river width, depth, flow, or steepness involved. The test is simply whether the river is usable as a route by the public, even in small craft such as canoes, kayaks, and rafts. Such a river is legally navigable even if it contains big rapids, waterfalls, and other obstructions at which boaters get out, walk around, then re-enter the water.

The states own these rivers up to the "ordinary high water mark." This is the mark that people can actually see on the ground, where the high water has left debris, sand, and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle. (Not during unusual flooding.) It is not a theoretical line requiring engineering calculations. Where the river banks are fairly flat, this mark can be quite a distance from the edge of the water during medium water flows. There is often plenty of room for standing, fishing, camping, and other visits.

States cannot sell or give away these rivers and lands up to the ordinary high water mark. Under the "Public Trust Doctrine," they must hold them in perpetuity for public use.

The three public uses that the courts have traditionally mentioned are navigation, fishing, and commerce. But the courts have ruled that any and all non-destructive activities on these land are legally protected, including picnics, camping, walking, and other activities. The public can fish, from the river or from the shore below the "ordinary high water mark." (Note that the fish and wildlife are owned by the state in any case.) The public can walk, roll a baby carriage, and other activities, according to court decisions.

States do have authority and latitude in the way they manage rivers, but their management must protect the public uses mentioned above. They can (and must) prohibit or restrict activities that conflict with the Public Trust Doctrine. "Responsible recreation" must be allowed, but activities that could be harmful, such as building fires, leaving trash, and making noise, can legally be limited, or prohibited, in various areas. Motorized trips and commercial trips can legally be limited or prohibited by state governments.

State and local restrictions on use of navigable rivers have to be legitimately related to enhancing public trust value, not reducing it. Rivers cannot be closed or partially closed to appease adjacent landowners, or to appease people who want to dedicate the river to fishing only, or to make life easier for local law enforcement agencies.

State governments (through state courts and legislatures) cannot reduce public rights to navigate and visit navigable rivers within their borders, but they can expand those rights, and some states have done so. They can create a floatage easement, a public right to navigate even on rivers that might not qualify for state ownership for some reason, even if it is assumed that the bed and banks of the river are private land. Note that this floatage easement is a matter of state law that varies from state to state, but the question of whether a river is navigable, for title purposes, and therefore owned by the state, is a matter of federal law, and does not vary from state to state. Note that a state floatage easement is something that comes and goes with the water: When the water is there, people have a right to be there on it, and when it dries up, people have no right to be there. But rivers that are navigable for title purposes are public land up to the ordinary high water mark, so that even when the river runs dry, people still have the right to walk along the bed of the river.

Only federal courts can modify the test of standards that make a river navigable for title purposes. States cannot create their own standards, either narrower or wider in scope. They can’t make definitive rulings about which rivers are navigable for title purposes, only a federal court can.

The situation gets confusing when a state agency or commission holds hearings about navigability and public use of rivers. Landowners, sheriffs, and other people tend to think that such an agency or commission can create state standards that determine which rivers are public and which are private. But these are matters of federal law which state agencies cannot change.

State agencies should make provisional determinations that various rivers meet the federal test of navigability for title purposes. These provisional determinations should be based simply on the rivers' usability by canoes, kayaks, and rafts. They should then proceed to the question of how to manage navigation and other public uses of the river. In these days of government cut-backs, the agency should look for solutions that use existing enforcement agencies rather than setting up new ones. Littering, illegal fires, offensive behavior, trespassing on private land, and numerous other offenses are all covered by existing laws, and offenders can be cited by the local police, sheriff's office or state police.

[ADB]

I hope none of my information is incorrect -

 

My grandfather was out hunting out near a tributary last spring. There was one house right beside a bridge where the river passed through. He had numerous signs posted saying "no fishing," "private property," etc. However, he wasn't just referring to fishing off the bank that was at the side of his house, but to fishing even from the bridge on the road.

 

My grandfather talked to a game warden who was in the area monitoring the hunters and he said that roads and the rivers themselves are fair game, as long as you gain access to the water through a public access or from land where permission was given by the landowner. Anyone can fish from a public road, and nobody 'owns' the river that passes through their property.

 

That being said, sometimes it's just not worth it, even if you're on the right said of the law. If the property owner is going to kick up a fuss, sometimes it's better just to move on to the next spot, or pool.

 

Again, I hope that information is accurate.

Edited April 13, 2009 by ADB

[express168]

Navigatable water ways are public and not owned by the property owners in most cases, there are a few rare exceptions but I mean rare. In the case you mentioned you are within your rights to continue fishing and that you could welcome him to contact the police if he likes about you trespassing on the river.

[tinbanger]

Crappie

you did the right thing!

 

Landowner was in the wrong but you did what was best in the situation.

We avoid fishing waterfront property ( docks ect) when there is someone on the dock , in or near the water . Have yet to have anyone give us a hard time.

Sounds like your new friend may have had a bad experience or is just an unhappy individual.

 

TB

[brifishrgy]

just took another quick run thru the regs .. I remember they used to have a section on freedom from harassment while fishing and hunting but cant seem to find it .. . your best bet is to head over to your local cop shop and find out from them what would be the best way to take care of it

[kemper]

Its kinda like fishing towards someones shoreline on a cottage lake.

 

They really cant say anything, but they often do.

[CLofchik]

It's actually a crime in Canada to harass someone otherwise legally angling.

 

I've never heard of anyone actually charged, but usually a word or two from a LEO who is actually knowledgeable in the Fish & Game Act is enough to stifle organizations like yacht clubs and overzealous cottage associations that claim to "own" water.

[Terry]

you had every right to be there.....you could call the cops and lay a compliant against the jerk.........

 

or tell us where it was and about 40 or so boats can show up at his dock and trucks ,boats and trailers at his driveway and we will harass him till he moves to sudbury to get away from the crowds

 

or could just move on

 

 

nah lets go with option 2

[BassAsin]

you had every right to be there.....you could call the cops and lay a compliant against the jerk.........

 

or tell us where it was and about 40 or so boats can show up at his dock and trucks ,boats and trailers at his driveway and we will harass him till he moves to sudbury to get away from the crowds

 

or could just move on

 

 

nah lets go with option 2

how about you send him elsewhere, i fish around sudbury and dont wanna hear him either terry! hahahha enough like him around sudbury as it is!

[Terry]

how out thunder bay....LOL

[irishfield]

I get voice full when I hear hooks banging off my airplanes tailfeathers, or the cover on my Lund, when guys are "only fishing under the dock". Learn to cast or piss off!!! 3500 miles of shoreline... there's no need to cast at occupied cottage docks. There's the other side... lol !!

[kemper]

I get voice full when I hear hooks banging off my airplanes tailfeathers, or the cover on my Lund, when guys are "only fishing under the dock". Learn to cast or piss off!!! 3500 miles of shoreline... there's no need to cast at occupied cottage docks. There's the other side... lol !!

 

 

If hooks are banging off your property then that is full excuse to bust out the 'tater gun and let em fly!

 

But if they are fishing carefully and not putting hooks into anyones cover or into the dock that you walk on barefoot then I like a simple wave from the cottage owner

[irishfield]

Exactly Kemper... it's when I see guys tuggin snagged to the swim ladder that gets me excited !

[Radnine]

3500 miles of shoreline... there's no need to cast at occupied cottage docks.

Truer words were never spoken. And same if it's 3500 feet of shoreline.

Jim

[hammercarp]

"Hey. I gotta right you know."

[cram]

I'll never fish near someone's dock....it may be legal, but not the right thing to do (IMO).

 

(the exception being if you're on a river or something where you're always near someone's dock, regardless of how far off shore you are)

Edited April 14, 2009 by cram

[hirk]

It's too bad some people have poor ediquet around water front owners docks,it gives the rest a bad name.If a person(s) is using the dock,fish around it but keep moving,if they have boats tied up don't pitch to them right in front of them.I have not once had someone yell or be rude and I fish tons of docks,if your friendly and respect thier space/property then no problems.As mentioned "IF YOU CAN'T FISH DOCKS WITHOUT DINGING BOATS" don't do it period if people are around,you just ruin it for everyone else.

Ps. unless you have done something to provoke them I would never leave becuase they rant etc.,if you are legally fishing there people like this need to be stood up too,they don't have the right to infringe on the rights of others and it sets a dangerous precident

[holdfast]

By any chance, would you be fishing around the Massasauga Park area. Lots of great fishing areas, but unfortunately between the Islands ( channels) some cottage (for me they're houses) owners look at you as if your invading they're Privacy if fishing some of those Tight Areas. Ive seen signs from property owners to slow down, but never a No Fishing allowed. Personally, I wold rather not fish in an area if you can hear their conversation or yours.