# River Fishing Permission



## furtherdownstream

1234567890


----------



## Bon3s

This refers to access to the stream not the stream itself. You nay not gain access by means of private property but you may fish the river going through a property. As for anchoring in a spot if river surrounded by private property, that is very much debatable and different people will give different answers 

Sent from my C6606 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## backlashed

furtherdownstream said:


> I was just looking at maps supplied by the ODNR and noticed this mentioned on the Ashtabula River map
> 
> "In Ohio, you can only gain access to streams flowing
> on public property. If you are on private property,
> including land that streams flow over, you must
> have landowner permission. Private landowners
> have the right to restrict stream access on their property."
> 
> http://wildlife.ohiodnr.gov/Portals/wildlife/Maps/Rivers & Streams Maps/ashtabulariver.pdf


Ought to be a sticky, the question comes up enough.


----------



## sherman51

im not sure but I believe that ohio is about the same as Indiana. you can launch your boat anyplace you have permission be it a public ramp or on private property. then the river its self is yours. as for anchoring or beaching your boat if you are on private property you are not aloud to do either one on private property. the land owner owns the land under the water and the land on both sides of the river. but it is legal to float over his land. but you really should check with the dnr to be for sure.
sherman


----------



## StuckAtHome

Search for many many threads on this, gets rehashed every winter. Btw odnr has no idea, nobody does

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## StuckAtHome

The only right we have is in a navigable river(which in itself another problem) is legally using the river to get to point A to point B. Fishing(even if you don't touch bottom) hasn't been made legal, we have the right to use the river for transportation, that's the best answer we have.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Northern1

StuckAtHome said:


> The only right we have is in a navigable river(which in itself another problem) is legally using the river to get to point A to point B. Fishing(even if you don't touch bottom) hasn't been made legal, we have the right to use the river for transportation, that's the best answer we have.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Lol, could you imagine that conversation. Uh, no sir I wasn't fishing. I was just scanning the bottom in my angling kayak with my new DSI depth finder because I needed transportation from that one random bridge out in the country to another random bridge out in the country since my truck, which was holding my kayak, couldn't transport me there well enough  haha


----------



## JohnPD

You can float through the river, but don't wade through it etc. on private property. The land owner owns the land/ground the river/stream flows over, but not the water that flows over it.


----------



## crittergitter

StuckAtHome said:


> The only right we have is in a navigable river(which in itself another problem) is legally using the river to get to point A to point B. Fishing(even if you don't touch bottom) hasn't been made legal, we have the right to use the river for transportation, that's the best answer we have.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Fishing couldn't be deemed illegal. Property owners have no claim to fish and game as property unless a property is a preserve which holds such animals in a captive space. Thus, if I am floating on a navigable water way and my lure isn't touching the bottom a property owner has no valid claim that I am trespassing or doing anything illegal.


----------



## StuckAtHome

That's not the opinion of the Ohio attorney General. I called their office, the Corp of engineers and the odnr and only thing they agreed on was we had right to float, that's it. The odnr was waiting on a ruling from the Ohio attorney General this time last year on this very issue, to my knowledge it sounds like nothing will be done, the laws in Ohio are all for the landowner. Odnr's own attorney said in his opinion the current laws fishing regardless of if you hit bottom is trespassing. I brought up places like the kokosing water trail which flows thru private property, the state posts fishing material on the route, which makes it seem legal, he did agree that is problematic and he sees only solution is a long hard expensive court battle for a person caught fishing while floating over private property

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## StuckAtHome

I put in calls to all my representatives, all where politely returned, but it seems nobody wants to take on landowners, they normally have money, and that scares the politicians.

I see this all coming to a head in the next decade with the sheer amount of boats being sold. It does scare me that it's very possible that kayak fishing in river's and creeks might be very limited if current laws are withheld.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Govbarney

I been yak fishing the rivers around Ohio for a long time , and not once did I ever run into a irate property owner who claimed I was trespassing (knock on wood). Most of the time I am just met with a polite smile, waive and "how are the fish biting" or in some cases " I didn't know there where fish in their".

I suppose if the issue ever came up I would just mention my right of navigation, and fish somewhere else. No harm no foul. 
Like with any law though (or lack there of) , it is meaningless unless its enforced.


----------



## JohnPD

I don't know why one couldn't catch a fish while floating through a section of water on private property. The land owner owns the land under the water, not the water you're floating on, or the fish that swim through it.


----------



## StuckAtHome

It sounds cut and dry to us, but the law we have doesn't make it that easy. Fishing nor recreation isn't spelled out, this law goes back to old English law, that's why we need court case's (in our favor  ) to define what's legal.
Then you get into federal and state laws, it's just a mess

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Snakecharmer

furtherdownstream said:


> Thanks, I will fish anywhere I please then. =)


Don't try the Cuyahoga going into Lake Rockwell. The city of Akron will have your bass.


----------



## M.Magis

StuckAtHome said:


> I put in calls to all my representatives, all where politely returned, but it seems nobody wants to take on landowners, they normally have money, and that scares the politicians.
> 
> I see this all coming to a head in the next decade with the sheer amount of boats being sold. It does scare me that it's very possible that kayak fishing in river's and creeks might be very limited if current laws are withheld.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app



Your theories about land owners are quite delusional. Though funny, &#8220;they normally have money&#8221;. That&#8217;s a good one.  Maybe, just maybe, find a balance of allowing people to fish while not infringing on property owners is a little tougher than you think? Far be it from me to rain on your conspiracy theory party though.


----------



## StuckAtHome

What? 

I'd love if they found a balance, but the reason these threads go on is the law is not clear, no theories here, and btw with that attitude you wouldn't be invited to my "parties"

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Bubbagon

If anyone is interested, this will be the topic of the next Smallmouth Alliance Meeting. I believe the guest speaker is from the Division of Watercraft.
I'll post more meeting details when I get them. Of maybe Crititer can jump in.


----------



## Govbarney

StuckAtHome said:


> It sounds cut and dry to us, but the law we have doesn't make it that easy. Fishing nor recreation isn't spelled out, this law goes back to old English law, that's why we need court case's (in our favor  ) to define what's legal.
> Then you get into federal and state laws, it's just a mess
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


I think a court case is the last thing we want , I prefer the status quo of ambiguity. Let me and a property owner hash out any issues and our interpretations one on one... last thing I want is for the courts to get involved. Or worse law enforcement to have a clear and cut mandate.


----------



## M.Magis

StuckAtHome said:


> What?
> 
> I'd love if they found a balance, but the reason these threads go on is the law is not clear, no theories here, and btw with that attitude you wouldn't be invited to my "parties"
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


The law IS clear. You just dont like it. 
I dont either, but I dont have any misguided animosity towards land owners because of it.


----------



## crittergitter

Govbarney said:


> I think a court case is the last thing we want , I prefer the status quo of ambiguity. Let me and a property owner hash out any issues and our interpretations one on one... last thing I want is for the courts to get involved. Or worse law enforcement to have a clear and cut mandate.


A man got shot last year over this very debate. Personally, I would be sure to leave an area if asked to do so. Though, what if a land owner chose to not ask first? Sound extreme? Yes, but when you're dead it's to late to say that wouldn't happen.


----------



## StuckAtHome

What again? Lol

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## StuckAtHome

Enlighten us with the clear law, like to know the part about if fishing is allowed or not along a stream with both sides private property, or anything that says kayak's/canoe's can or cannot be floated please

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## M.Magis

StuckAtHome said:


> Enlighten us with the clear law, like to know the part about if fishing is allowed or not along a stream with both sides private property, or anything that says kayak's/canoe's can or cannot be floated please
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


The law says its private, thats clear to me. It makes no sense what-so-ever, but thats what it says. Rather than getting irritated at land owners, as if you blame them for wanting to keep their place private, go about it in a more level headed way. Get a group of people, including some of the land owners, and make a push at some of the public meetings to get a change implemented. Whether accurate or not, you give the impression that your only interest is gaining access to private land. If the officials think thats your goal, theyll probably dismiss your requests and just ignore you.


----------



## StuckAtHome

Where did I say blame them? What isn't level headed? Isn't calling reps waiting to know a ruling HOW the law is being implemented level headed? Stop the childish remark's toward's me, don't care if you think you're right, but do not like the way you are spinning them here.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## M.Magis

I didn&#8217;t see make &#8220;childish&#8221; remarks. Like I said, my impression my not be accurate, but that&#8217;s the impression I get. If your emails/phone calls are worded in a similar way as your responses here, the recipients may get the same impression.


----------



## backlashed

The issue isn't fish, the issue is the damage, vandalism and theft that occurs when people think that purty patch of trees off the crick is theirs to ruin. 

As long this keeps up landowners will have the upper hand, the sympathy of law enforcement and the courts.


----------



## backlashed

That's OK, this is always a beer and pretzels topic.


----------



## rustyfish

You could say it is written clear but it is not enforced or interpreted clearly. It is outdated since almost none of the waterways it includes are used for actual transportation. It also refers to navigable as in it was looked at on a site by site basis and that stream was declared navigable by the state. But then the state abandoned the job of doing so leaving most streams unaddressed. Good luck even finding what streams are, are not, or even apply under navigable streams. 

Also as stated the group responsible for managing these streams openly promotes the use of them by small watercraft. They provide access maps with info on small streams for paddlers. Any use of those maps is recreational and does not fall into the guidelines of navigable streams.

I personally have no issue with it and have no fear of it ever coming back to bite me. A law that is not enforced is a flaw. If it ever does then ill just pay my fine and just keep rolling the dice. There just happen to be certain things in this world I am perfectly ok with doing even though they could possibly cost me a fine, like speeding. 

Maybe that's just a bunch of carp to justify me doing whatever I want.... if so it works for me. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## lotaluck

rustyfish said:


> You could say it is written clear but it is not enforced or interpreted clearly. It is outdated since almost none of the waterways it includes are used for actual transportation. It also refers to navigable as in it was looked at on a site by site basis and that stream was declared navigable by the state. But then the state abandoned the job of doing so leaving most streams unaddressed. Good luck even finding what streams are, are not, or even apply under navigable streams.
> 
> Also as stated the group responsible for managing these streams openly promotes the use of them by small watercraft. They provide access maps with info on small streams for paddlers. Any use of those maps is recreational and does not fall into the guidelines of navigable streams.
> 
> I personally have no issue with it and have no fear of it ever coming back to bite me. A law that is not enforced is a flaw. If it ever does then ill just pay my fine and just keep rolling the dice. There just happen to be certain things in this world I am perfectly ok with doing even though they could possibly cost me a fine, like speeding.
> 
> Maybe that's just a bunch of carp to justify me doing whatever I want.... if so it works for me.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


You and I would get along just fine. My thoughts exactly, I'm just too lazy to take the time and put it down.


----------



## lotaluck

StuckAtHome said:


> Where did I say blame them? What isn't level headed? Isn't calling reps waiting to know a ruling HOW the law is being implemented level headed? Stop the childish remark's toward's me, don't care if you think you're right, but do not like the way you are spinning them here.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


I think it is friggin great you took the time to research and call the reps, cheers to you. Most people including myself will complain but not put in the leg work as you did. And by the way I in no way think you represented yourself or paddlers in a negative way, actually I thought you came across rather educated on the subject.


----------



## shwookie

M.Magis said:


> The law IS clear. You just dont like it.
> I dont either, but I dont have any misguided animosity towards land owners because of it.


As mud...



> The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.


Buzz off.


----------



## shwookie

M.Magis said:


> I didnt see make childish remarks. Like I said, my impression my not be accurate, but thats the impression I get. If your emails/phone calls are worded in a similar way as your responses here, the recipients may get the same impression.


You have one point of view, *everyone* here has the opposite. Maybe you should go back and re read the post again as I'm sure you will see the tone you missed, instead of the tone you implied.


----------



## Bubbagon

Ohio's latest attempt to clarify the situation:

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/4158/Default.aspx


----------



## rustyfish

"In situations where there is no clear precedent to follow, it is difficult to predict how the common law may be adapted or modified. Even in situations where there is a clear precedent, it still may be modified or reversed by a new court decision and a new precedent established. Significant changes to the common law, which normally are the result of Ohio or U.S. Supreme Court decisions, occur due to changing circumstances, an expanding knowledge base, and changing attitudes in society and in the courts."

Thank for posting Bubba, although I was more than disappointed with the contents.
Yep that sure clears it up. Let me translate.... "It depends on who you talk to"

I use my spinnerbait to steer and propel my kayak therefore it aids in my navigation. 



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## SConner

Please lets stay on topic of original post and keep discussion civil.


----------



## shwookie

rustyfish said:


> "In situations where there is no clear precedent to follow, it is difficult to predict how the common law may be adapted or modified. Even in situations where there is a clear precedent, it still may be modified or reversed by a new court decision and a new precedent established. Significant changes to the common law, which normally are the result of Ohio or U.S. Supreme Court decisions, occur due to changing circumstances, an expanding knowledge base, and changing attitudes in society and in the courts."
> 
> Thank for posting Bubba, although I was more than disappointed with the contents.
> Yep that sure clears it up. Let me translate.... "It depends on who you talk to"
> 
> I use my spinnerbait to steer and propel my kayak therefore it aids in my navigation.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Yep. Thats our government at work.


----------



## Bubbagon

Sadly, that's the most concise and precise explanation the state has EVER offered. By a long shot!


----------



## OnTheFly

If it is not marked I fish it. If asked to leave and it is private I leave. Tread lightly and be respectful and you won't run in to many issues.


----------



## Sciotodarby

The problem I have with guys floating the creeks is that they often get out and wade or fish from shore on the good holes I have PERMISSION to be on. Especially places way off the beaten path where they know they won't easily get caught.


----------



## rustyfish

Maybe it is just me being a fat guy but I will do just about anything to avoid getting out of the kayak, like having an empty Gatorade bottle available.


----------



## plybon72

This is an issue that is murky at best but it should not be, the precedents are clear and Federal law supercedes State law. Law enforcement Officers ( and water front owners) need to bone up on what is and what isn't. 


http://www.nationalrivers.org/river-law/

For WV http://www.larrygeorgelaw.com/files/George.pdf


I understand the valid concerns water front owners have but they should have taken the law into consideration before they purchased land that has a right-of-way through it. 

If someone is littering and/or destroying property, there are laws that cover that. 

There is also a law that covers people threatening me with harm when I am lawfully exercising my rights.


----------



## OnTheFly

Sciotodarby said:


> The problem I have with guys floating the creeks is that they often get out and wade or fish from shore on the good holes I have PERMISSION to be on. Especially places way off the beaten path where they know they won't easily get caught.


As long as they don't fill stringers full of fish I don't see how you can be that mad. They put in work to get there. Shame if all the good holes are off limits. A couple hundred years ago no one 'owned' that land... as others have said breaking other laws on that land is another issue, but as long as they are just fishing tough to be too salty. I understand the law if they are touching your property kick them off but I hope the same happens to you.


----------



## Snakecharmer

plybon72 said:


> This is an issue that is murky at best but it should not be, the precedents are clear and *Federal law supercedes State law*. Law enforcement Officers ( and water front owners) need to bone up on what is and what isn't.


Wrong , see Tenth Ammendment.



plybon72 said:


> I* understand the valid concerns water front owners have *but they should have taken the law into consideration before they purchased land that has a right-of-way through it.


Could you state the concerns of water front owners?



plybon72 said:


> There is also a law that covers people threatening me with harm when I am lawfully exercising my rights.


Would that be the right to trespass?  I missed that part of the Constitution.


----------



## Sciotodarby

OnTheFly said:


> As long as they don't fill stringers full of fish I don't see how you can be that mad. They put in work to get there. Shame if all the good holes are off limits. A couple hundred years ago no one 'owned' that land... as others have said breaking other laws on that land is another issue, but as long as they are just fishing tough to be too salty. I understand the law if they are touching your property kick them off but I hope the same happens to you.


Be hard for me to get kicked off if I've got permission and a good relationship with the landowner. You say that they put in work to get there. What about the work I put into getting permission? Another major beef of mine with floaters is several of them must feel they're obligated to cut my legally set catfish lines, but that's off topic in this thread.


----------



## Sciotodarby

The way I see it, guys getting out of their boats to fish good holes for a while is like driving down a road and jumping out and fishing a pond right next to the road without permission. It's the same thing, in my book. They might throw back everything they catch, but they're still there without permission.


----------



## murphy13

The only thing I hate about people in boats is when they fish an area that i busted through about 25meters of rosa multiflora to reach first. At that point you can float on. 
I guess I can't see the issue of people floating through a river i live off of and fishing in it. It seems pretty dumb and petty to get the law involved or to even throw a hissy fit about it. Grow up or build a private pond for you to bogart fish on.


----------



## shwookie

Sciotodarby said:


> Be hard for me to get kicked off if I've got permission and a good relationship with the landowner. You say that they put in work to get there. What about the work I put into getting permission? Another major beef of mine with floaters is several of them must feel they're obligated to cut my legally set catfish lines, but that's off topic in this thread.


Pretty strange position to take in the canoe and kayaking section on ogf. Maybe your lost. Shame as this was one of the last bastions of reason. As for your trotlines, eh. Create a thread for it, I'm positive it would be interesting if nothing else.


----------



## Sciotodarby

shwookie said:


> Pretty strange position to take in the canoe and kayaking section on ogf. Maybe your lost. Shame as this was one of the last bastions of reason. As for your trotlines, eh. Create a thread for it, I'm positive it would be interesting if nothing else.


 You were there for those threads last summer...I added it as an afterthought and straight up said it was off topic to the thread. What more do you want? It still somewhat pertains to thread to the degree of the people who cut them don't have permission to be there. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## plybon72

Snakecharmer, 

The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled on this issue.

Concerns of those not operating some illegal enterprise are obvious and have been stated in the thread. Potential destruction of property and littering. Valid concerns but they are covered by other law. 

And finally, exercising the right to use a public right of way, to the normal high water mark in this case, does not constitute trespassing.

You do not have to like it, but it is what it is. 

BTW It has been my personal experience that this usually only becomes an "issue" when city folk purchase land in the country. ( or if there is some sort of illegal enterprise being pursued on the land) No offence to former city folk but you do love you some no trespassing signs.


----------



## lotaluck

I just returned from the division of watercraft getting my registration. While there I asked to speak to an officer. I explained to him that I like to fish small creeks and I paddle through a lot of private property. He was very firm and said there is no private property on water and as long as I don't touch bottom I am completly within my legal rights. He even said it was okay to fish the area, again as long as I don't get out of the yak. He was nice enough to give me his card and said if I have any problems on the water to give him or any one at his office a call and they will be happy to come out. This is all I needed to hear.


----------



## shwookie

Sciotodarby said:


> You were there for those threads last summer...I added it as an afterthought and straight up said it was off topic to the thread. What more do you want? It still somewhat pertains to thread to the degree of the people who cut them don't have permission to be there. I'll leave it at that.


Yes I was, good memory, or bad depending on your point of view lol.

The issue really is the fact that you don't view people floating as having a right to be on the water in spots you've been given permission to fish by landowners. The fact that you post in a canoe and kayaking section and basically state that boaters shouldn't have the same rights as you is my issue. How a mod doesn't view your posts as trolling is mind blowing. 

If someone tresspasses they get what they deserve. Feel free to check my post history, its all there, my point of view is consistent. Someone yakking gets out to wade good holes, they are trespassing and should be treated as such.

People floating DO have the right to be there. Period. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true. 

As for trotlines, if legally set, who cares? 

Now if I come across an abandoned line, or get snagged in one, or see one illegally set, yeah its coming down. In 30 years, I have NEVER seen a legally set one.

Like I said you should create a thread, i'm sure it would be interesting.


----------



## bassfisher0869

The law about this is kind of funny. The river its self the water is owned by the state. If your in a boat it is ok but once your feet hit the ground under the water then you are on privite land. So finding somewhere you can put a boat inmay be Mindanao hard but as long as you ask the land owners are pretty cool as longtime as you don't destroy their properties. But of course you ha e the bozos that messed it up once and the land owners don't let any one there


----------



## Sciotodarby

shwookie said:


> Yes I was, good memory, or bad depending on your point of view lol.
> 
> The issue really is the fact that you don't view people floating as having a right to be on the water in spots you've been given permission to fish by landowners. The fact that you post in a canoe and kayaking section and basically state that boaters shouldn't have the same rights as you is my issue. How a mod doesn't view your posts as trolling is mind blowing.
> 
> If someone tresspasses they get what they deserve. Feel free to check my post history, its all there, my point of view is consistent. Someone yakking gets out to wade good holes, they are trespassing and should be treated as such.
> 
> People floating DO have the right to be there. Period. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true.
> 
> As for trotlines, if legally set, who cares?
> 
> Now if I come across an abandoned line, or get snagged in one, or see one illegally set, yeah its coming down. In 30 years, I have NEVER seen a legally set one.
> 
> Like I said you should create a thread, i'm sure it would be interesting.


If you would read, I don't have a problem with guys floating. My problem is when they get out of their boat and start wading and fishing from shore. My lost lines are just the price to play the game I do, I guess.


----------



## shwookie

Sciotodarby said:


> If you would read,* I don't have a problem with guys floating.** My problem is when they get out of their boat and start wading and fishing from shore.* My lost lines are just the price to play the game I do, I guess.


This is the verbal equivalent of "with all due respect". Your posts in this thread actually start out the opposite, hence my confusion.

But whatever, we both agree trespassers should be prosecuted and I guess leave it at that since we both agree.


----------



## Snakecharmer

lotaluck said:


> I just returned from the division of watercraft getting my registration. While there I asked to speak to an officer. I explained to him that I like to fish small creeks and I paddle through a lot of private property. He was very firm and said there is no private property on water and as long as I don't touch bottom I am completly within my legal rights. He even said it was okay to fish the area, again as long as I don't get out of the yak. He was nice enough to give me his card and said if I have any problems on the water to give him or any one at his office a call and they will be happy to come out. This is all I needed to hear.


Yep that the way it is in OH. Launch from public land and stay in your craft and you are Ok .(Except in Lake Rockwell). The problem is some people like to get out and explore the private shoreline.


----------



## Sciotodarby

shwookie said:


> This is the verbal equivalent of "with all due respect". Your posts in this thread actually start out the opposite, hence my confusion.
> 
> But whatever, we both agree trespassers should be prosecuted and I guess leave it at that since we both agree.


Read my first post in this thread. It says the same as what I said in my last one. I've never said anything different.


----------



## plybon72

I think one thing we can all agree on is that law on this issue need to be clarified and unified for all involved.

IMO this "not touching the bottom" is unworkable. You bounce off a rock, paddle hits a sandbar, or flip the boat, and you are now breaking the law? Balderdash, that is just silly. 

Can you imagine if other "right of ways" were legally treated similar? You want to visit the graves of relatives at the cemetery you must use a right of way to access, maybe on the way you stop to photograph some wildlife and find yourself fined and/or arrested? 

IMO The only logical solution is to go with the "up to the normal high water mark" (where you may be floating if the water is up) as the limit of the public right of way. Anything else just makes a legal mess and promotes confusion for all involved.


----------



## backlashed

plybon72 said:


> IMO this "not touching the bottom" is unworkable. You bounce off a rock, paddle hits a sandbar, or flip the boat, and you are now breaking the law? Balderdash, that is just silly.


Part of law is intent. What would a judge do if you were hauled in for driving 56 in a 55mph zone?



plybon72 said:


> IMO The only logical solution is to go with the "up to the normal high watermark"


Seriously? Who the heck gets to decide what THAT is? Your solution makes it even murkier.



plybon72 said:


> BTW It has been my personal experience that this usually only becomes an "issue" when city folk purchase land in the country. ( or if there is some sort of illegal enterprise being pursued on the land) No offence to former city folk but you do love you some no trespassing signs.


"City folk"? Do these people all wear a sign so you can identify them?


----------



## backlashed

plybon72 said:


> This is an issue that is murky at best but it should not be, the precedents are clear and Federal law supercedes State law. Law enforcement Officers ( and water front owners) need to bone up on what is and what isn't.
> 
> 
> http://www.nationalrivers.org/river-law/


Your source isn't exactly unimpeachable and offers no case law to support this, only snippets that favor their view. 

Try this, I pulled this from the expert law forum. I don't know how expert it is but the guy has a lot of cases listed to support this. This is from the 2nd post.

Rights in the &#8220;Navigable Waters&#8221;: Because inland &#8220;western&#8221; rivers were not affected by the ebb and flow of the
tide, riparian landowners hold title to the middle of navigable rivers. Gavit&#8217;s Adm&#8217;rs, 3 Ohio at 497-98; Blanchard&#8217;s
Lessee, 11 Ohio at 143-44; Lamb v. Rickets, 11 Ohio 311, 315 (Ohio 1842); Walker v. Board of Public Works, 16
Ohio 540, 543-44 (Ohio 1847); Day v. Pittsburgh, Youngstown & Chicago R.R. Co., 7 N.E. 528, 534-35 (Ohio
1886); State ex rel. Anderson v. Preston, 207 N.E.2d 664, 666 (Ohio App. 1963); State ex rel. Brown v. Newport
Concrete Co., 336 N.E.2d 453, 455 (Ohio App. 1975).
Nevertheless, the public has rights in navigable rivers and lakes* even though the beds are privately owned.*

State ex rel. Brown, 336 N.E.2d at 455-457 (noting that even though beds f navigable rivers are privately owned, the
public has a right of navigation in the waters). Moreover, the public trust doctrine applies to &#8220;all legitimate uses, be
they commercial, transportational, or recreational.&#8221; Id. at 457-58; see also Thomas v. Sanders, 413 N.E.2d 1224,
1231 (Ohio App. 1979) (holding that the public has the traditional rights, including fishing and navigation, in
navigable lakes). The riparian owner&#8217;s title to the subaqueous soil under a navigable stream is subject to these
public uses. State ex rel. Brown v. Newport Concrete Co., 336 N.E.2d 453. 455 (Ohio App. 1975). However, the
public is not entitled to access the water over private land. Pollock v. Cleveland Ship Building Co., 47 N.E. 582,
583-84 (Ohio 1897). Moreover, the public has no rights to boat upon or fish in nonnavigable lakes and rivers.

Akron Canal & Hydraulic Co. v. Fontaine, 50 N.E.2d 897, 901 (Ohio App. 1943) (citing Lembeck v. Nye, 24 N.E.

From the 5th post, he includes case history too.

(1) In addition to the right of navigation, the public has the right of
bathing, fishing, taking ice, and sometimes taking soil from the bed
of navigable waters. State ex rel. Brown v. Newport Concrete Co.,
336 N.E.2d 453 (Oh. Ct. App. 1975). The public's right to use a
navigable watercourse does not include a right to use the shore
land, except for mooring necessary for the repair of vessels. The
use of lands adjacent to the watercourse is actionable in trespass.

The 6th poster quotes the ODNR position. In court, this becomes a lot of history and legal precedent to support the landowners rights.

The very last post offers some disappointing news for boaters but he offers no case numbers to support it. From his last paragraph.


For the previous poster, I would say that you would be even more upset to learn that the Ohio Supreme Court has now allowed certain areas of traditionally navigable rivers (Cuyahoga) to be declared non-navigable. No boating, floating, or fishing.


----------



## backlashed

StuckAtHome said:


> I put in calls to all my representatives, all where politely returned, but it seems nobody wants to take on landowners, they normally have money, and that scares the politicians.


Your representative in the legislature is probably the wrong person to call for an answer. The legislature writes the law, but the courts interpret it.

You are absolutely right about politicians and landowners, especially on the local level. That landowner votes in local elections and might even be a member of the local chamber or some other group, especially if agriculture is involved. The mess in Grand Lake is an example of agriculture's clout in suppressing legislative change.


----------



## Govbarney

backlashed said:


> For the previous poster, I would say that you would be even more upset to learn that the Ohio Supreme Court has now allowed certain areas of traditionally navigable rivers (Cuyahoga) to be declared non-navigable. No boating, floating, or fishing.


I believe this had more to do with safety and commerce then private property, it stemmed from a issue between a crew club, and large shipping business.


----------



## StuckAtHome

It was just one of the avenues I tried,I was told they would get back to me, but they never did. Spent a few hours tracking down the Corp of engineers stance, ended up talking to head lawyer for the regional office in west Virginia. His view is if we can reasonably float down a creek, it's legal due to federal law, but that's all we legally afforded, fishing was not an issue they look at, he said that's up to the state. The attorney General of Ohio was supposed to make a brief on this issue a year ago for the odnr, haven't heard anything on that yet.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## StuckAtHome

As far as I know the Ohio courts haven't ruled a single river navigable or non navigable, the Ohio river not included. Haven't heard about the Cuyahoga case though

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## shwookie

Sciotodarby said:


> Read my first post in this thread. It says the same as what I said in my last one. I've never said anything different.


Half of your posts begin with a negative connotation towards boaters, With all due respect, you'll have to forgive me for believing that you in fact do have a problem with boaters and are really upset because they fish "your" holes, not with land owner rights, which you are not. Thats fine, just don't expect a boater in a *boating section* of a forum to share your view.

And yes I have read what you wrote, doesn't mean I, or anyone else reading it believes it.


----------



## backlashed

Stuckey, I did find that the USCG has made determinations.

This list for Ohio (USCG 9th District)was last updated 06/09.

Edit: Upon further review I see that this is done to determine their jurisdiction. What the courts or legislature would do with this is anybody's guess.


----------



## StuckAtHome

My first thought is that's not great news for us boaters, I was referring to Ohio declaring the navigable or non navigable. If federal says it's not, then I'd bet the state would follow. And it depends what the Corp is referring to, is it for commercial use or recreation use? Imagine if the kokosing gets non navigable, then the water trail in my understanding would be illegal

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## StuckAtHome

That's better news in your update, more in line what I've been told

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Snakecharmer

Govbarney said:


> I believe this had more to do with safety and commerce then private property, it stemmed from a issue between a crew club, and large shipping business.


Also Lake Rockwell as it is in the middle of the Cuyahoga ie. the Cuyahoga flows in and exits Lake Rockwell but no boating or fishing allowed.


----------



## BuckeyeFishinNut

I have always kayaked by the idea if I can float down it, its legal. I rarely ever get out of my yak unless its too shallow or gotta stretch my legs. I don't care if someone owns both sides or not. I don't get out on their land and i dont litter, so it should be no concern.

Why would I get out to wade or fish a deeper hole if I am in a kayak? I can cover it easier and better from my yak than anyone can from shore. Trust me, I can fish a "honey hole" much more efficiently from my yak, so getting out would just be a hassle.

Sadly, this happens on more than just small creeks. I was floating the Scioto one time below O'shay and had a landowner come out and yell at me for fishing the bank by his house outta my yak. He said it was private property and I couldnt cast to it. I continued to fish it, then waved and told him to have a nice day. He had a few choice words as i left but i just smiled. I could have corrected him but whats the use. I am surprised he didn't call the cops but I was well within my rights to fish there and i wasn't anchored or on his land.

Even if things were made clearer, i still dont think it would keep properties owners from thinking everything was theirs and acting as such.


----------



## crittergitter

backlashed said:


> Stuckey, I did find that the USCG has made determinations.
> 
> This list for Ohio (USCG 9th District)was last updated 06/09.
> 
> Edit: Upon further review I see that this is done to determine their jurisdiction. What the courts or legislature would do with this is anybody's guess.


That list is incredibly limited. In fact it's only waters in northern Ohio. Are those all tribs of Erie. There's no way that's a comprehensive list for the entire state.


----------



## backlashed

crittergitter said:


> That list is incredibly limited. In fact it's only waters in northern Ohio. Are those all tribs of Erie. There's no way that's a comprehensive list for the entire state.


Did I say it was comprehensive?


----------



## Sciotodarby

BuckeyeFishinNut said:


> I have always kayaked by the idea if I can float down it, its legal. I rarely ever get out of my yak unless its too shallow or gotta stretch my legs. I don't care if someone owns both sides or not. I don't get out on their land and i dont litter, so it should be no concern.
> 
> Why would I get out to wade or fish a deeper hole if I am in a kayak? I can cover it easier and better from my yak than anyone can from shore. Trust me, I can fish a "honey hole" much more efficiently from my yak, so getting out would just be a hassle.
> 
> Sadly, this happens on more than just small creeks. I was floating the Scioto one time below O'shay and had a landowner come out and yell at me for fishing the bank by his house outta my yak. He said it was private property and I couldnt cast to it. I continued to fish it, then waved and told him to have a nice day. He had a few choice words as i left but i just smiled. I could have corrected him but whats the use. I am surprised he didn't call the cops but I was well within my rights to fish there and i wasn't anchored or on his land.
> 
> Even if things were made clearer, i still dont think it would keep properties owners from thinking everything was theirs and acting as such.


I'm talking about small holes loaded with trees and somewhat fast water. I know for a fact they can't be fished by a boat effectively. You ever get on the last stretches of a famous central OH smallmouth stream and you'd know what I mean. Stretches of Deer Creek are the same way.


----------



## plybon72

backlashed said:


> Part of law is intent. What would a judge do if you were hauled in for driving 56 in a 55mph zone?
> 
> 
> That depends on where you happen to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Who the heck gets to decide what THAT is? Your solution makes it even murkier.
> 
> 
> It is fairly simple, how high does the water get in a normal year? There is almost always evidence. Post your property at that mark.
> 
> 
> 
> "City folk"? Do these people all wear a sign so you can identify them?


LOL! Often the quickest way is too look for the new dusk to dawn lights, City Folk do not like it dark. 

Of course there are exceptions, both ways, but the majority of long time Country Folk understand that it is best not to antagonize your "neighbors" without good cause and will put far more effort into getting along than they will asserting "rights" over trivial things. ( at least that is the way it works around here, your experience may be different)

I have a piece of a neighbor's gravel road that accidentally encroached a few feet onto my land, I could make him go to the expense of moving it but I would much rather have him watching out for my property than to have him upset and watching for when I am not there. 

You do not know who that boater is, he might be a nut. Is it worth risking "revenge damage" over some foot prints and a few fish? Or is it better to have a new friend who might help watch after what is yours?


----------



## backlashed

plybon72 said:


> I have a piece of a neighbor's gravel road that accidentally encroached a few feet onto my land, I could make him go to the expense of moving it but I would much rather have him watching out for my property than to have him upset and watching for when I am not there.


Do you know you are giving your neighbor a transferable easement if you don't either challenge or document it?

Anyway, lets get the conversation back to the OP.

What is a normal year? Who decides that? The water rises and falls with the rain, what part of a year is normal? Fall, spring, November, April? Who decides?

Do you know that the 'average rainfall' stats we use are known to be in historical error, that they were collected over a period of time that we now understand was very wet?


----------



## StuckAtHome

We need better weather.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## plybon72

backlashed said:


> Your source isn't exactly unimpeachable and offers no case law to support this, only snippets that favor their view.


Where is the the "thanks button" on this forum? I guess I will have to give you an analog "thanks".

Yes that Org has discovered that they can make a bit of supporting cash by selling memberships than come with a book containing the case citations. They used to have many posted. The link for the printable "River Law Handout" still has a few.


----------



## plybon72

backlashed said:


> Do you know you are giving your neighbor a transferable easement if you don't either challenge or document it?
> 
> Yes I do. Had it been way into my property I would have had to deal with it, as it is, a few feet of dirt is not going to make me or break me, we are not talking about a small lot. I would rather have the good will. We have discussed it, he knows I am bending for him. Not to mention that if I have need to use his road to access that part of my property, he will not be complaining.
> 
> Anyway, lets get the conversation back to the OP.
> 
> What is a normal year? Who decides that? The water rises and falls with the rain, what part of a year is normal? Fall, spring, November, April? Who decides?
> 
> Do you know that the 'average rainfall' stats we use are known to be in historical error, that they were collected over a period of time that we now understand was very wet?


A normal year is not difficult to determine. Yes, this can be lawyered to death over a few feet or inches but common sense will mark about where the water normally crests in a historic, average, high flows. There will be evidence on the ground.


----------



## Sciotodarby

plybon72 said:


> A normal year is not difficult to determine. Yes, this can be lawyered to death over a few feet or inches but common sense will mark about where the water normally crests in a historic, average, high flows. There will be evidence on the ground.


Check out the issues they've had on Lake Erie on determining the high water mark. If by slight chance they do change the law, should fishing be the only thing legal to the high water mark? Or would you support hunting and trapping also? The law is best left how it is because of that can of worms.


----------



## backlashed

plybon72 said:


> A normal year is not difficult to determine. Yes, this can be lawyered to death over a few feet or inches but common sense will mark about where the water normally crests in a historic, average, high flows. There will be evidence on the ground.


But WHO determines normal? In Ohio that means it will be done in Columbus. Trust them to do this?

Evidence on the ground only indicates the last high water mark. Come around here and some years it's in my neighbors pool. A big strainer will push that higher until the strainer is gone. Chainsaws help with that. Development has also changed our little local flow.

You don't have to lawyer it to death, it's impossible to decide what it is without the help of dams to maintain a constant pool.


----------



## backlashed

StuckAtHome said:


> We need better weather.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


Yes we do!


----------



## Snakecharmer

backlashed said:


> But WHO determines normal? In Ohio that means it will be done in Columbus. Trust them to do this?
> 
> Evidence on the ground only indicates the last high water mark. Come around here and some years it's in my neighbors pool. A big strainer will push that higher until the strainer is gone. Chainsaws help with that. Development has also changed our little local flow.
> 
> You don't have to lawyer it to death, it's impossible to decide what it is without the help of dams to maintain a constant pool.


Yep....What about once in a century floods? There's parts of Lake County that the high water would be in their garage


----------



## plybon72

See? It can be lawyered to death. 

Normal high water mark gentlemen. The average crest in a normal high water event. Not a drought, not a 100 year flood. And yes that may change over time. More water, sinking or eroding land, whatever. On the river closest to me it changed back in the 1800s when a new mill dam was built and flooded a mill upstream.

And yes, there will be evidence "on the ground" meaning not necessarily on top of the ground but on/in the parcel. Lay of the land, soil layers, vegetation, plain old observation. Depending on the steepness of the banks that could mean zero, none, nada, "dry" land right of way or it could be substantial. It is unique to every parcel/part of parcel. It would be very difficult to wrap up in a one size fits all number but I suppose it could be surveyed in if someone wanted to go to the trouble and expense. 

If you do not go with the normal high water mark you open a whole new can of worms. Illegal to boat over submerged land in a normal high water event? Chase that rabbit and you might shut down nearly all waters by the time you are done.

If this bothers you, I suggest you do not buy frontage on a navigable water way. Most any water front comes with government restrictions so you are buying trouble anyway. That is what you "sign up" for when you purchase. 
I can't raise the level of some of my land, I need to secure permits to legally alter the course or clean out any part of "my" stream, I can't legally bridge it without a permitted plan. Some of it faces building and other restrictions on account of the "100 year" flood levels set by FEMA. 

I once purchased land that I did not do my "do-diligence" on and got stuck with an unmarked nat gas company ROW. It bothered me, I sold to someone it did not bother.


----------



## plybon72

Here is how Montana defines the high water mark. (Still a bit "muddy".) 

"...(9) "Ordinary high-water mark" means the line that water impresses on land by covering it for sufficient periods to cause physical characteristics that distinguish the area below the line from the area above it. Characteristics of the area below the line include, when appropriate, but are not limited to deprivation of the soil of substantially all terrestrial vegetation and destruction of its agricultural vegetative value. A flood plain adjacent to surface waters is not considered to lie within the surface waters' high-water marks. 

(12) "Surface water" means, for the purpose of determining the public's access for recreational use, a natural water body, its bed, and its banks up to the ordinary high-water mark. ..."


Kansas calls it this. (Much clearer.)

"...between the ordinary high water marks on each bank. This is the line that can be seen where high water has left debris, sand, and gravel during its ordinary annual cycle..."


----------



## Bubbagon

Well, I do know one thing for sure. NOW seems like a really good time for the state of Ohio to address this matter.
They're dumping lots of dollars into a Water Trails initiative, which is great.
But I'm pretty sure they don't want to set up every single person who uses the water trails as a law breaker. As canoes flip, paddles hit rocks, yaks need to be dragged through rapids, kids need to pee, etc...

But the political pain to legislators, to have to decide between farmers and land owner rights, over the rights of canoers....well, I don't like our chances.
So yeah, someone probably needs to get a trespassing ticket, hook up with an Isaac Walton League, or Sierra Club or the like, and challenge the ticket and law up to the State Supreme Court. 

OR....you can come to the Ohio Smallmouth Alliance meeting next Thursday. Guest speaker is from Division of Watercraft and will speak about this very subject. Very intimate forum to ask questions about how to address these issues.
3/20 at Mad River Outfitters, Bethel Road, Columbus. I THINK it's at 8pm.


----------



## crittergitter

Bubbagon said:


> Well, I do know one thing for sure. NOW seems like a really good time for the state of Ohio to address this matter.
> They're dumping lots of dollars into a Water Trails initiative, which is great.
> But I'm pretty sure they don't want to set up every single person who uses the water trails as a law breaker. As canoes flip, paddles hit rocks, yaks need to be dragged through rapids, kids need to pee, etc...
> 
> But the political pain to legislators, to have to decide between farmers and land owner rights, over the rights of canoers....well, I don't like our chances.
> So yeah, someone probably needs to get a trespassing ticket, hook up with an Isaac Walton League, or Sierra Club or the like, and challenge the ticket and law up to the State Supreme Court.
> 
> OR....you can come to the Ohio Smallmouth Alliance meeting next Thursday. Guest speaker is from Division of Watercraft and will speak about this very subject. Very intimate forum to ask questions about how to address these issues.
> 3/20 at Mad River Outfitters, Bethel Road, Columbus. I THINK it's at 8pm.


That's right! We'll have Douglas Leed from ODOW in next week. Also, for anyone that is interested in our events and current happenings, here is a link:
The Ohio Smallmouth Alliance

Hope to see some of you there!


----------



## plybon72

furtherdownstream said:


> I would really like to have some information from this meeting. Perhaps someone could record it and put it on YouTube for those living further away to see it?




That is a hot idea, I would like to see that myself.


----------



## plybon72

In some parts of the UK it is fisherfolks who are largely behind restricting floating access. 
In Scotland they have an access law that all but eliminates tresspass restrictions on unimproved land.


----------



## plybon72

Bubbagon said:


> Well, I do know one thing for sure. NOW seems like a really good time for the state of Ohio to address this matter.
> They're dumping lots of dollars into a Water Trails initiative, which is great.
> But I'm pretty sure they don't want to set up every single person who uses the water trails as a law breaker. As canoes flip, paddles hit rocks, yaks need to be dragged through rapids, kids need to pee, etc...
> 
> But the political pain to legislators, to have to decide between farmers and land owner rights, over the rights of canoers....well, I don't like our chances.
> So yeah, someone probably needs to get a trespassing ticket, hook up with an Isaac Walton League, or Sierra Club or the like, and challenge the ticket and law up to the State Supreme Court.
> 
> OR....you can come to the Ohio Smallmouth Alliance meeting next Thursday. Guest speaker is from Division of Watercraft and will speak about this very subject. Very intimate forum to ask questions about how to address these issues.
> 3/20 at Mad River Outfitters, Bethel Road, Columbus. I THINK it's at 8pm.



I wonder if you would care to "prime the pump" by sending a link to this thread to Douglas Leed?

It has been my expirence that many "officials" are not as well versed on this subject as the might be.


----------



## plybon72

I reckon some water front owners are of a mind that supporting the right of way is supporting the taking of something from them. In reality it is giving much more to them than any "loss" they may think they suffer.

They may not have exclusive control over a small section of one water but they will retain access to thousands and thousands more on many waters.

Lets be generous and say 5 miles. You own 5 miles of water front. Nice but would you have that 5 miles be your cage, the only water you can enjoy, for a lifetime? And your Children's lifetime, And their Children's lifetime? Then maybe have all waters lost to your family for all time when one of more of the kids decides to sell after your demise?

That does not sound like a good bargain to me.


----------



## backlashed

Bubbagon said:


> But I'm pretty sure they don't want to set up every single person who uses the water trails as a law breaker. As canoes flip, paddles hit rocks, yaks need to be dragged through rapids, kids need to pee, etc...


It's all about intent Andy. Did you intend to trespass by scraping that sand bar? No. 

Lets be practical too. If farmer Jones sees you dragging your canoe over some riffles and he actually bothers to call local law enforcement this isn't going to be high on their priority list. Even if it is, by the time they show up you have floated far down stream.

We have the right to portage in Ohio anyway so even that isn't an issue. 



Bubbagon said:


> But the political pain to legislators, to have to decide between farmers and land owner rights, over the rights of canoers....well, I don't like our chances.



I agree, I don't see the conservative bunch in Columbus giving away landowners rights.


----------



## plybon72

backlashed said:


> I agree, I don't see the conservative bunch in Columbus giving away landowners rights.



Ah but that is the point. They would not be giving away landowners' rights, they would be taking rights from folks who do not own the land. This issue is often framed 180 out.


The right or way, or public servitude if you will, predates the USA as a Country. 
Over the years there has been an effort to steal this right from all of us.

To be fair it is understandable, few folks can know all the laws and as people and commerce have become less " water centric" the knowledge on this issue has faded. As outdoorsfolk it behooves us to educate on this issue.

An example of this could be,,( and the issue is similar though with much less of a foundation in Common and Federal law) Here in WV (and likely many other States I am sure) a Land Surveyor needs no permission to be on your property in performance or his or her job, they already have it by law. 

Years back, I worked on a Land Survey crew. We often came up against this issue and a few times at the point of an irate Landowner's gun. 

First we would try to secure permission just to be polite, then to reason with the Landowner/Occupant. 
If we got nowhere with that we would contact local law enforcement, often having to educate the LEOs as to the law, then have them explain to the Landowner. On a couple of occasions we had to have the LEOs physically escort us until we completed that part of the job.


----------



## BigFoot158

Heres what I have been told(not by anyone of legal services). As long as your feet dont touch the ground whether it be on land or the bottom of the stream your good to fish or float it without private permission.

This would include not using the bathroom on their land or camping. If you really got to go, paddle faster .

So I wonder if your feet cant touch their land in any way then putting a sinker on their land would be the same(or anchor). 

My advice is either anchor on public land and let your float do the rest(or use bass lures that dont touch the bottom while in these locations. I have done the float over many times without a yak and no one has said anything to me about it.

I have only had my yak a year so I havnt been brave enough or found some one that could keep up with my fishing to have my back in case i got in trouble. I have heard of the yakers that died at paddle fest cuz of a eddy. So I dont do it at all. Sad because I love to bass fish these streams.


----------



## beaver

A good friend of mine happens to be a game warden. According to him, if anything of yours touches the ground, you're trespassing. I don't fish the river much but I duck hunt it a lot. He was referring to the weights on my duck decoys and my anchor. I'm sure the same law applies to fishing weights. 

However I don't think most landowners will say much if you're bouncing a jig as you float by. I also don't think the warden is going to waste his time chasing you for that either. 

I can see why the law is in place though. As a landowner, I wouldn't care if someone was floating by and fishing. I wouldn't even care if they stopped to make an extra cast or three in a good hole. However, I wouldn't want anyone that I didn't know stopping to set up and fish all day from the bank on my property. Not because I have a "mine mine mine!" Attitude, but because for every respectful fisherman out there there is one that is not. About the time I had to go pick up trash, beer cans, bait containers, or have a tree cut up for firewood, is about the time is turn into that azzhole that we all have a story about. Just my opinion.


----------



## MassillonBuckeye

beaver said:


> A good friend of mine happens to be a game warden. According to him, if anything of yours touches the ground, you're trespassing. I don't fish the river much but I duck hunt it a lot. He was referring to the weights on my duck decoys and my anchor. I'm sure the same law applies to fishing weights.
> 
> However I don't think most landowners will say much if you're bouncing a jig as you float by. I also don't think the warden is going to waste his time chasing you for that either.
> 
> I can see why the law is in place though. As a landowner, I wouldn't care if someone was floating by and fishing. I wouldn't even care if they stopped to make an extra cast or three in a good hole. However, I wouldn't want anyone that I didn't know stopping to set up and fish all day from the bank on my property. Not because I have a "mine mine mine!" Attitude, but because for every respectful fisherman out there there is one that is not. About the time I had to go pick up trash, beer cans, bait containers, or have a tree cut up for firewood, is about the time is turn into that azzhole that we all have a story about. Just my opinion.


That's right.

If I had a spot, that people constantly tied up to, got out at and generally had their way with, I'd probably be supremely annoyed because we all know what usually comes along with that. Destruction of your property, litter etc. People don't usually give a crap about something that isn't theirs. Heck, some don't even give a crap about their Own stuff enough to take care of it. These laws should ALWAYS favor the land owner in my opinion.


----------



## shwookie

MassillonBuckeye said:


> That's right.
> 
> If I had a spot, that people constantly tied up to, got out at and generally had their way with, I'd probably be supremely annoyed because we all know what usually comes along with that. Destruction of your property, litter etc. People don't usually give a crap about something that isn't theirs. Heck, some don't even give a crap about their Own stuff enough to take care of it. These laws should ALWAYS favor the land owner in my opinion.


If I owned waterfront property I'd be the first one screaming to the cops to get people off my land. Sorry, but fishermen are typically some of the worst environmental stewards around. Go to any public fishing area and take 10 steps and see if you can count all the pieces of trash you see.
The real big issues is liability though. I don't want some dumb ass' family suing me because one of their loved ones got hurt on my property.

Ultimately that's why I try to respect other peoples property.


----------



## BigFoot158

I know exactly what all mean about the trash even before i got my yak I was packing all my trash and the xtra stuff that others left behind. Now when i I float by a pop can or bait container I stop and put in the yak. This way I know I am leaving the lake or stream in better shape then when I got there.

Plus I wouldnt get out of my yak to step on someones land but it would be nice to drop anchor in a few places and stay for a hour or two.


----------



## plybon72

beaver said:


> A good friend of mine happens to be a game warden. According to him, if anything of yours touches the ground, you're trespassing.
> .



Many GW's and other LEOs think that way. However, per several SCOTUS decisions, I believe they are incorrect and I believe it is not a matter of opinion but one of long standing law.

This, as with Land Surveyor "ROW", does not render someone immune from being held accountable for damages or litter they may cause. It is not a license to run wild on/with someone else's property.


----------



## shwookie

plybon72 said:


> Many GW's and other LEOs think that way. However, per several SCOTUS decisions, *I believe they are incorrect* and I believe it is not a matter of opinion but one of long standing law.
> 
> This, as with Land Surveyor "ROW", does not render someone immune from being held accountable for damages or litter they may cause. It is not a license to run wild on/with someone else's property.


That would be a great conversation to observe.


----------



## plybon72

shwookie said:


> That would be a great conversation to observe.



I have never been shy. 

And I am an old dude now, often considerably older than the officials I end up speaking too. That helps quite a bit.


----------



## Snakecharmer

plybon72 said:


> Many GW's and other LEOs think that way. However, per several SCOTUS decisions, I believe they are incorrect and I believe it is not a matter of opinion but one of long standing law.


Could you provide us with SCOTUS decisions for Ohio that state that the river bottom is not property of the land owner?


----------



## plybon72

Snakecharmer said:


> Could you provide us with SCOTUS decisions for Ohio that state that the river bottom is not property of the land owner?


I do not know that there are any specifically for Ohio, not even sure how I would look that up,, but the ones involving cases from other States will cover it and some of this law even predates the USA itsself. 

Despite all the murk and muck this is really a simple common sense issue. 
The question is can the general public use navagable water? If the answer is yes (and it is) then it stands to reason that right should extend to the normal high water mark. (and it does) Anything else would be a mess. (2 ft off the bank OK in the summer low water, not OK in the winter high water? And how could you know where the summer bank was?)

Other possible landowner concerns ( damage, theft, litter, human waste disposal, etc) are covered by other laws same as they are with road/trail ROWs.


----------



## plybon72

Here is an interesting one that is recent. While the SCOTUS sent it back to State Courts, they also sent it back with clear guide lines.

http://legal-planet.org/2012/02/22/u-s-supreme-court-rejects-montanas-river-ownership-claims/


----------



## plybon72

This old one establishes the Federal supremacy under the Commerce clause.

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar12.html


----------



## plybon72

USACE pdf RE navigable waters
http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2..._guide/app_d_traditional_navigable_waters.pdf


----------



## plybon72

Another good read from NOR

http://www.nationalrivers.org/is-it-a-taking-of-private-property-for-the-public-to-use-rivers.html


----------



## plybon72

In my reading I came across a word that justifies the normal high water mark as the limit of the public ROW.

The word is streambed. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/568665/streambed 

I am not a Lawyer or Judge but it seems to me that wraps it all up in a nice little package and tops it with a bow.

I want to thank you all for this disscussion, it prompted me to do research that I had not done. 

As a result, I am now 100% convinced that I have the legally correct POV on this issue and an accessible record of the links that I can share with any interested parties. 

It really will be an interesting chat with the GWs.


----------



## plybon72

Snakecharmer said:


> Could you provide us with SCOTUS decisions for Ohio that state that the river bottom is not property of the land owner?


Sorry, I just reread that and realized that I had not adressed your question as fully as I might have. 

The riverbottom may indeed be private property in some cases. However, it is private property with a ROW covering the entire steambed wet or dry.

As such the public may legally come in contact with it. 
When you read the SCOTUS cases carefully it is plain that the ROW is the streambed, not just the water, and in fact there does not have to be water present. 
If the navagable water has gone dry (there has to be a better way to say that) the stream bed reamains subject to Federal Navagational Servitude.


----------



## backlashed

So explain how the Commerce Clause has anything to do with this discussion. Do you even bother to read your links?


----------



## rustyfish

I think being 100% sure of anything on this one would be a mistake because the legal point of view changes depending on where you are and who you dealing are dealing with. 

I have no problems on any of the water I float and even if a land owner did get pissed i couldn't see law enforment or the courts doing anything. People in southern Ohio have enough trouble stopping people from driving and walking onto their property so going after paddlers would be a stretch.

I'm curious if there are specific places that this is a big issue. Are there places where the landowners are ticked off about this and actually have the support of law enforcement and the courts. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## plybon72

backlashed said:


> So explain how the Commerce Clause has anything to do with this discussion. Do you even bother to read your links?


Nothing, and everything. 
The CC establishes that the Fed Gov has the right to regulate commerce and the SCOTUS has agreed. 

"..Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of a unanimous (6-0) Court siding with Gibbons. On the definition of commerce, the Court broadly declared, Commerce, undoubtedly, is traffic, but it is something more: it is intercourse. It describes the commercial intercourse between nations, and parts of nations, in all its branches, and is regulated by prescribing rules for carrying on that intercourse...."

The def of "Commerce" was later expanded to include recreation.


----------



## plybon72

rustyfish said:


> I think being 100% sure of anything on this one would be a mistake because the legal point of view changes depending on where you are and who you dealing are dealing with.


The POV may be different but the law is not. 

It is a matter of educating all the parties involved. 

I am sure "homecooking" can be an issue in some places. If Joe Landowner went to school with Jim Sheriff/GW and Jane the Magistrate then you will be starting out in a hole. Pick your battles.

Local to me this is a re-developing issue at a set of falls. Many years ago the old land owner used to run us off with a shotgun but he was on in years and would not remember you from one visit to the next. Now the property has been sold and the new owner has once again posted the property and I have reports that the local GWs are supporting. 
There we have even more ammo as the river was tagged by the State as navigable many, many years ago. 
I just recently discovered this so it is a fair bet that tag is not well known. 



I like to fly fish down around Townsend Tenn ( I recommend that area!) and in the last couple of years (as new folks have purchased water front) this has become a hot issue on the Little River. The LR was once used to float timber so it too has already met the conditions of navigability.


----------



## backlashed

plybon72 said:


> The def of "Commerce" was later expanded to include recreation.


Got a citation for that?


----------



## Sciotodarby

So "commerce" and "recreation" is all fine and dandy. But that's just one navigable waters. In my mind, the definition of navigable waters is rivers or streams that have been or could be used for interstate commerce. How do waterways in Central Ohio stand in that regard? I'm not sure that any of them have or could be used for interstate commerce. If they were, what was the point of the Ohio Erie Canal?


----------



## plybon72

The standard is,, If it is navigable in fact, then it is navigable in law. 
That means, if you can float timber down it, or if you can float a Yak, even just part of the year, then the water is legally navigable and subject to the public servitude. 

I reckon there is some wiggle room such as, a navigable stream might not be considered so all the way to its tiny headwaters. 
For instance, part of the head waters of the Mud River in WV run through someone's yard and you can actually step over it. I would imagine that part of the stream is not subject to public servitude.


----------



## Sciotodarby

So you're basically saying about anything bigger than a trickle is navigable. Good luck with that holding up in court. I know ditches that you can float a yak down 9-10 months out of the year.


----------



## plybon72

backlashed said:


> Got a citation for that?


Several. Here is one.

http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nrj/29/2/14_walston_public.pdf


----------



## plybon72

Sciotodarby said:


> So you're basically saying about anything bigger than a trickle is navigable. Good luck with that holding up in court. I know ditches that you can float a yak down 9-10 months out of the year.


No, I am not. 
And anything privately man made is exempt from public servitude anyway. 
If you were to dig a channel from the streambed into your property the public cannot use it. I forget the case but this has already been adjudicated.


----------



## rustyfish

Although I fully agree with your views on this, your idea black and white concrete law does not exist. Laws cannot be enforced without at least one person interpreting how it applies to that situation. Take into consideration that large groups who enforce these laws may be interpreting them differently that you. 

Also mixing federal and states laws paint a false picture. A federal law will get you nothing unless you take it to a federal court. The state of Ohio has declared that navigability is determined based on a site by site evaluation (most of which have not been done) not on navigable by fact. Those decisions have been sited on this thread. So bring up the federal stance of navigable by fact will will do nothing for you in the state of Ohio. Even if you could take it to federal court, you could never take it to California or any other state that has made favorable decisions therefor their decisions are irrelevant. 

I fully support and choose to follow the federal laws on this subject out of principle but I have no delusion that it will save me if I do have the misfortune of being prosecuted for it in Ohio. As i joke on an old thread on this subject, its just something good to scream out at the top of my lungs as they put me into the cruiser. 

Once again I don't expect to ever run into this situation but if I did and it went to court then I would have little expectation of getting out of it. I could call it an injustice but as the law is written in Ohio I would probably be guilty.


----------



## plybon72

rustyfish said:


> Although I fully agree with your views on this, your idea black and white concrete law does not exist. Laws cannot be enforced without at least one person interpreting how it applies to that situation. Take into consideration that large groups who enforce these laws may be interpreting them differently that you.
> 
> Also mixing federal and states laws paint a false picture. A federal law will get you nothing unless you take it to a federal court. The state of Ohio has declared that navigability is determined based on a site by site evaluation (most of which have not been done) not on navigable by fact. Those decisions have been sited on this thread. So bring up the federal stance of navigable by fact will will do nothing for you in the state of Ohio. Even if you could take it to federal court, you could never take it to California or any other state that has made favorable decisions therefor their decisions are irrelevant.
> 
> I fully support and choose to follow the federal laws on this subject out of principle but I have no delusion that it will save me if I do have the misfortune of being prosecuted for it in Ohio. As i joke on an old thread on this subject, its just something good to scream out at the top of my lungs as they put me into the cruiser.
> 
> Once again I don't expect to ever run into this situation but if I did and it went to court then I would have little expectation of getting out of it. I could call it an injustice but as the law is written in Ohio I would probably be guilty.


Here is a recent one from Ohio that tends to support your POV http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/2...n-the-scope-of-the-public-trust-doctrine.html

However, it is bad law that goes against most precedence and should be easily over turned. 

For myself, I feel very confident that I could eventually beat any charge of tresspass and not have to break a sweat doing it.


----------



## Snakecharmer

plybon72 said:


> Here is a recent one from Ohio that tends to support your POV http://www.greatlakeslaw.org/blog/2...n-the-scope-of-the-public-trust-doctrine.html
> 
> However, it is bad law that goes against most precedence and should be easily over turned.
> 
> For myself, I feel very confident that I could eventually beat any charge of tresspass and not have to break a sweat doing it.


Just for giggles, Come up to the Cuyahoga and paddle into Lake Rockwell. Have Ice Bucket John be your witness. If you get a ticket for trespassing and beat it, I'll give you $500. If not , you can pay your fine and we'll call the bet even.

Plus they are some mighty fine bass and crappie in that lake so bring you pole if you dare.


----------



## Sciotodarby

plybon72, what exactly are you trying to prove in your arguments? That you can float down any stream and fish or that you can float down the stream and get out and fish from a gravel bar?


----------



## plybon72

Sciotodarby said:


> plybon72, what exactly are you trying to prove in your arguments? That you can float down any stream and fish or that you can float down the stream and get out and fish from a gravel bar?



Yes.

But I learned years ago that, no matter how many facts you present, you cannot "prove" anything to people on an internet board so I am just enjoying a disscussion with other folks who have a vested interest in the issue. 

This is an issue that all outdoors folk should be concerned with, access to be able to do the things we love to do.


----------



## plybon72

Snakecharmer said:


> Just for giggles, Come up to the Cuyahoga and paddle into Lake Rockwell. Have Ice Bucket John be your witness. If you get a ticket for trespassing and beat it, I'll give you $500. If not , you can pay your fine and we'll call the bet even.
> 
> Plus they are some mighty fine bass and crappie in that lake so bring you pole if you dare.


Lake Rockwell is man-made, it can be posted as I understand it.


----------



## Sciotodarby

plybon72 said:


> Yes.
> 
> But I learned years ago that, no matter how many facts you present, you cannot "prove" anything to people on an internet board so I am just enjoying a disscussion with other folks who have a vested interest in the issue.
> 
> This is an issue that all outdoors folk should be concerned with, access to be able to do the things we love to do.


There's how many public lakes, metro parks and wildlife areas available to do the things you love without the worry of legal problems?


----------



## Sciotodarby

streamstalker said:


> Close to none. This thread isn't about lakes and wildlife areas. Go back and read the title.
> 
> I don't worry about it. Most of the time I have no idea if the land I am floating by is public or private. Mostly I assume it is private. If it's posted, I keep on floating.


There are opportunities to yak and canoe on streams in wildlife areas. And just so you know ground doesn't have to be posted no trespassing if it's private.


----------



## Sciotodarby

The way you said it, made me unsure what you believed on posted ground.


----------



## plybon72

Legal issues aside,,,

Treat the water with respect. If you can carry full ones down, you can darn sure carry empty ones back up. 
If you find it, pack as much out as you can. It might not be yours but who wants to recreate in a dump site?
(And there can be other benefits. Last year during a quick clean up a Bud and I found a discarded plastic bag containing some brand new fishing gear including a nice reel in an unopened package. About an $80 score) 
Very, very, few if any people want to hear your music or your shouting, keep it toned down. 

If you are a water front owner, you might want to cultivate your "regulars". They do not want "their" water trashed either and it is a fair bet most also don't want "their" water to resemble the parking lot of a law enforcement headquarters.
You can't keep watch 24/7/365. The more folks you can have "on your side", the better off you will be. 

There is no reason for this issue to be more than it needs to be, good manners on both sides go a long way.


----------



## Natejohnson561

Go fish or go home!


----------



## [email protected]

Jeeeez such nonsince with private vs public. I fish everywhere. On boat and wading past peoples back yards and below dams. I've never had anyone approach me and tell me I was doing something wrong. If that day comes someone will prob be removing a tea bale from their face cause that's freaking rediculous.


----------



## [email protected]

That was supposed to say treble hook from face lol. Auto correct


----------



## shwookie

[email protected] said:


> Jeeeez such nonsince with private vs public. I fish everywhere. On boat and wading past peoples back yards and below dams. I've never had anyone approach me and tell me I was doing something wrong. If that day comes someone will prob be removing a tea bale from their face cause that's freaking rediculous.


And this is exactly why people who do not break the law get such a hard time from land owners. Unless its clearly marked, all property should be treated as private and respected as such.
I'm not sure adding battery charges on top off trespassing is a bright idea.


----------



## [email protected]

I'm not doing anything illegal. I'm fishing. Catching fish. Throw a line it the water. Catch and release. Whatever u want to call it. It's simply fishing. No one owns that water.


----------



## Sciotodarby

[email protected] said:


> I'm not doing anything illegal. I'm fishing. Catching fish. Throw a line it the water. Catch and release. Whatever u want to call it. It's simply fishing. No one owns that water.


Did you even read this thread? Floating and fishing are totally legal. Wading or tying off are illegal without permission on private property.


----------



## plybon72

Sciotodarby said:


> Did you even read this thread? QUOTE]
> 
> Did you?
> 
> Or did you just read the parts that agreed with your POV?


----------



## plybon72

[email protected] said:


> If that day comes someone will prob be removing a tea bale from their face cause that's freaking rediculous.



I don't know about you folks,, but I am not going to mess with a guy carrying a tea bale!!


----------



## Sciotodarby

plybon72 said:


> Sciotodarby said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you even read this thread? QUOTE]
> 
> Did you?
> 
> Or did you just read the parts that agreed with your POV?
> 
> 
> 
> Ohio State law agrees with my point of view. Have fun with your interpretation of Federal Law.
Click to expand...


----------



## plybon72

Sciotodarby said:


> plybon72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohio State law agrees with my point of view. Have fun with your interpretation of Federal Law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will
> 
> You Ohio boys need to work on getting the law in line with Fed law and save us all some trouble.
Click to expand...


----------



## shwookie

> On boat and wading past peoples back yards


I.E., trespassing in most cases.


> I'm not doing anything illegal. I'm fishing. Catching fish. Throw a line it the water. Catch and release. Whatever u want to call it. It's simply fishing. No one owns that water.


No they don't own the water, its the land beneath the water thats the issue of this thread.


----------



## darkseid69

Has to do with standing on the bank I think not if youre in your boat.


----------

