# scioto river



## jeffgummy (Dec 13, 2004)

I just moved to Grove City out by 665 and 104. I cross over the Scioto every day and was was wondering if the stretch right through is any good? It looks kind of shallow but curiosity is killing me. Thanks in advance.

Jeffgummy


----------



## Danshady (Dec 14, 2006)

there is a place just up the road there on 665 that rents out canoes and then comes to pick you up somewhere. me and a buddy did that a few years ago and we caught alot of fish, small bass, rock bass, blugills and maybe even a catfish. that river is loaded with fish pretty much everywhere and every kind of fish. i havent fished down there since then though, i fish the northern part of scioto and catch some good fish.


----------



## BigChessie (Mar 12, 2005)

The whole river is good for just about anything you can imagine. Just be careful when it comes to trespassing and getting permission. If you float it you are good to go but if you wade it or anchor or get out of the boat without permission you are trespassing. The only exception in your area is rt 762 and rt 22 which is public.


----------



## jeffgummy (Dec 13, 2004)

thanks forn all the help, I think I am going to have to just get out there. If anyone feels like giving guided trips I might be able to return the favor down at AEP  Jeff


----------



## Pigsticker (Oct 18, 2006)

It's trespassing to anchor in the river?


----------



## LyleStyle (Jun 22, 2006)

If the river is bordered by houses yes. There are some old posts you can look at that go more into detail. Personally if I don't see a sign I don't worry about it, but i don't know if that protects you or not.


----------



## beatsworkin (Apr 12, 2004)

Landowners own the stream bottom to the middle of the channel. When a landowner owns both sides of the stream, then he owns the entire stream bottom as well. Notice I said landowner and not homeowner....while a landowner might not give you too much grief about anchoring in a strech of stream, your friendly ODW officer probably will. 

I believe that the only time you won't be charged with TP is when you have to portage. Even then you might want to check the division of watercraft as they have lists of portages on select streams and if you go left instead of right....


----------



## Ultralight (Jun 8, 2005)

Based on my memory from older posts and previous research, I always thought the landowner had to put up "No Trespassing" signs or somehow inform you that you are trespassing. No?


----------



## BigChessie (Mar 12, 2005)

It does not have to be posted nor does the landowner need to inform you. Not jumping on you BUT............nothing p**** me off more than having people trespass on my farm and wanna tell me they are allowed there because they did not see a sign! With that logic then anyone could go anywhere right into your back yard because you don't have a sign up? Very touchy subject when it comes to trespassers!


----------



## T-180 (Oct 18, 2005)

I'm with BC on this one !! The land absolutely does not have to be posted for you to be prosecuted for tresspassing and I too am tired of people slipping onto the back off my land and using that same excuse. It is your responsibility to know and respect the property lines and whether people allow access or not !! For fishing access , you will probably get permission most of the time ; hunting is another matter.
Tim


----------



## BigChessie (Mar 12, 2005)

One thing that struck me as odd was to hear how the law works up in Michigan. Up there you have the right to get to the water anyway that you want. Does not matter if you got to walk right through the front yard, climb the fence, walk across their deck and out the back yard. lol As long as you do not destroy property you are allowed to walk however you want to get to the water.


----------



## LyleStyle (Jun 22, 2006)

I never go on the land, but I do wade where house property runs to a river. I know this is still considered property by law, but I wouldn't be able to wade more than fifty yards without doing so. I know this is a touchy subject and the law is the law. The area I go the landowners wave to me and I try to show as much respect as possible. That said I disagree with the law. The land all the way up to the river o.k. But the fact that people can basically own a natural river is ridiculus to me. I know this is not popular with many here, but it is how I feel. Looking at old posts it seems problems occured when people went on the owners land. Whatever the case the law is definately with the landowners so you will be trespassing if you wade or anchor your boat where the river runs threw their property. In fact the landowner in many water ways has the right to even erect things that change the flow of water or remove sediment as long as the water still is flowing. Personally I don't agree with this, but it is the law.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Wisconsin has a "High Water Law" as well as Michigan but in Michigan, there are a lot of exceptions. Montana also has one which is why it is a famous trout state while Colorado/Utah and Wyoming is like Ohio where the landowners own the bottom, only difference is that in those 3 western states, you are allowed to fence the water where as in Ohio, if the owner owns a big enough stream, you can not put fencing across it. In Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, I have seen fencing across rivers the size of the Scioto, amazing really. ( this keeps the whitewater kyakers and such off the water as well, Ohio at least has not gotten to that extreme but will eventually, its just a matter of time.
Just remember that at one time,(less then 100 years ago) everyone was allowed to fish all the waters of Europe...
We will see drastic changes in our lifetime regarding public/private water issues. 

Salmonid


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Lifestyle, in Ohio, to do anything to change the stream bank, or modiffy the flow requires a Corps of Engineers 404 permit. These permits takes years to approve and are very costly as they take a model to be created and a certified Hydrologist to approve.

So, if you want to cut every tree down on the banks, you as a landowner can do that, but if you want to siphon water for irrigation, takes a permit, if you want to use a backhoe to take gravel from the stream bed, takes a permit, if you want to rechanell the stream bed, takes several permits, if you want to put any type of dam, ( even 1 foot high) takes a permit. Get the picture... If you are a landowner, who wants to do this type of stuff, youll swear the Law is not on your side.  

I understand the permitting process because without it, folks do not realize what they are doing to the upstream and downstream parts of the stream, For example, if you channelize a stream, did you know that you will effect more "Upstream" then downstream??? 

Out Trout unlimited organization has worked with ODNR and all sorts of permits to do the stream work in the Mad River for the past 20 or so years. All so that we do not effect others around us. Yeah its a pain in the butt but I do understand why it needs to be done.

Salmonid


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

T-180 said:


> I'm with BC on this one !! The land absolutely does not have to be posted for you to be prosecuted for tresspassing and I too am tired of people slipping onto the back off my land and using that same excuse. It is your responsibility to know and respect the property lines and whether people allow access or not !! For fishing access , you will probably get permission most of the time ; hunting is another matter.
> Tim


I know im going to get it...But you both are wrong..lol  

Here are two excellent threads on this topic:

Private Property 

Trespassing when standing on a streambed 



Four Weight Fanatic "Trespassing" said:


> First of all I'll say that while I am a lawyer, this opininion is just that, a legal opinion that will not necessarily prevent a trespassing charge being issued to the person trespassing......
> 
> Third - *Tresspassing* - the Ohio Revised Code Section cited below is the proper section to examine. In Ohio there is an *actual knowledge requrement * to the charge of tresspass which means that you must know that you are trespassing before you can successfully be prosecuted for the crime. Notice can be actual or constructive, that is to say that the warning to stay out can come from the owner of the property or a sign. In some jurisdictions if you see a sing and do not leave, you are tresspassing.
> 
> ...



(available @ http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishin...n-h.htm&cp=PORC)

§ 2911.21. Criminal trespass.

(A) No person, without privilege to do so, shall do any of the following: 

(1) *Knowingly* enter or remain on the land or premises of another; 

(2) *Knowingly* enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard; 

(3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, ]as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access; 
(4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either. (B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency. 
(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception. 
(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree. 
(E) As used in this section, "land or premises" includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by, or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or portion thereof. 




I might add that there is a seperate law that pertains to trespassing/ownership knowledge while hunting. It basically says that the land *doesn't* have to be marked, and you *don't* have to be told, in order to be trespassing. Again, this is for hunters only.


----------



## Boom Boom (May 31, 2005)

Salmonid, do you know if the Corp of Engineers 404 permit is needed if the city (Columbus) is conducting work on a stream? I had a log jam behind my property that the city cleared (technically the stream ran through city property). They brought in a bull dozer and a back ho & dragged these 40' - 60' downed trees out. I know it dredged the bottom. They also put boulders of limestone on the bank to prevent erosion. If they needed a permit, it sure didn't take them long to get it. From the day I got in touch with the Mayors Office (yea, that's right, the Mayor's Office  ), they had the log jam cleared and the bank restored (including grass & saplings) within a couple weeks. I know it was a hazard because people canoe & yak the stream all the time. It was un-passable. People actually took their rigs out of the water & got around the jam on land.


----------



## LyleStyle (Jun 22, 2006)

From all I've read you can put barriers or remove sediment if you do not effect the flow of the water downstream. So yes you can't build a dam, but you can do many things. Especially since the law is open to interpretation. Just like the trespassing laws on navigable rivers both these laws depend on the districts officers, judges etc., interpretation of the law. However I am definately not an expert and hopefully it isn't that easy to do anything with the river. Searching the web, which isn't always accurate, the the main thing I find is that all the laws wirtten regarding these issues are very vague.


----------



## BigChessie (Mar 12, 2005)

acklac7 Not sure why you would think your gonna get it from me  I'm a laid back kinda guy  
I can't imagine having a guy on my land, standing there telling the LEO that he did not " Knowingly" trespass. I am 20 miles from the nearest public land. All of the property that touches my land is posted. So if he is not the owner of land that touches mine but has permission from one of those guys. How is he gonna walk past the signs and end up on my side without knowing it?  Seems like the way it is written, for once ignorance is on the side of the bad guy.  Looks like you could just go ahead and go where ever you please and just play dumb.lol


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

BigChessie said:


> acklac7 Not sure why you would think your gonna get it from me  I'm a laid back kinda guy


Good to know, your a regular on here, should have known better. Most people on this site are cool/laid back, however when it comes to touchy issues, such as trespassing, people tend to lose there cool. Thats why I try to always add a smily face to let people know im trying to have a disscussion, not an arguement.



BigChessie said:


> I can't imagine having a guy on my land, standing there telling the LEO that he did not " Knowingly" trespass. I am 20 miles from the nearest public land. All of the property that touches my land is posted. So if he is not the owner of land that touches mine but has permission from one of those guys. How is he gonna walk past the signs and end up on my side without knowing it?  Seems like the way it is written, for once ignorance is on the side of the bad guy.  Looks like you could just go ahead and go where ever you please and just play dumb.lol


It seems there are two distinct sides to this disscussion. The side who believes that all land is private: Therefore if you don't own the land your walking on your trespassing, plain and simple. 

Then there is the side (which I tend to gravitate twoards) that belive that all land is public/free, unless otherwise noted. It almost seems un-American to think otherwise (IMO). I view this country as the land of the free, and I have the right to walk anywhere I wan't, at any time I wan't. Say I start walking south from Griggs dam (public), I feel I have the right as an American to just keep walking. Untill I recieve notification (of some sort) that I am on someone else's land. Or I see someones house, business, etc. To simply assume that at all times that I am on private land just does not seem right.

Now in your case, well that of course is a bit different. My guess is the law was written a long time ago. Way back in the 1700/1800's most land was not privately owned. So when you took a step off your property, you were likely on Federal/State "publicly" owned property. Backthen Ohio's trespassing law would have made perfect sense, since most of the property was considerd public. Nowadays nearly every parcel of land has been bought up, and the notion of an "un-claimed" sect of land is almost ludicrous..Which is sad

(somone PLEASE tell me who owned the "Land" around this time..Federal? State? was it all free?)


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

This topic seems to pop up every 6 months or so,lol, and if your a river/stream fishermen you most likely have been trespassing knowingly or not. Ohio riparian(SP?) laws stink, not worded right, very broad and old school-landowners have all the rights. I kayak fish exclusivly now, and what I hate the most is I'm fine to float the river(kinda) but in alot of cases, illegal to cast a line or drop anchor, both are considerd touching bottom(all lures even topwater are included) and trespassing IF the state didn't declare the river/stream navagable(my spelling sucks) and to this date not one is, only exceptions(and I'm not 100% sure why or how) are the OHIO river(national laws and commerce, maybe) Muskingum(sp?) and possible lower scioto. the whole deal could be fixed in my humble opinion if they clarify commerce, does it include recreation like canoes/yak's motor boats, then some standard on size like if a kayak can travel on it without much portaging then I think things would be better. Would have to throw the landowners a bone too, make littering/ tresspassing away from river a steep fine/jail time, I like 2 strikes your out. first time, fine- second time big fine, take away fishing lic. couple years and take equipment. third or more your an idiot, send to michigan.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

LyleStyle said:


> I never go on the land, but I do wade where house property runs to a river. I know this is still considered property by law, but I wouldn't be able to wade more than fifty yards without doing so. I know this is a touchy subject and the law is the law. The area I go the landowners wave to me and I try to show as much respect as possible.





beatsworkin said:


> Landowners own the stream bottom to the middle of the channel. When a landowner owns both sides of the stream, then he owns the entire stream bottom as well. Notice I said landowner and not homeowner.


Im glad beatsworkin brought up the whole landowner/homeowner issue. I meant to bring this up on the "middle of the river" thread but I forgot. 

Most landowners deeds will specify that they own upto/into the middle of the river. Most homeowner only own X feet infront/behind there house. Very rarely will a homeowner own 1/2 of the stream and the surrounding riparian. Most of the houses that border Scioto don't own the river bed, they only own up to the bank (if that). Now when your talking landowners south of Col., well then they probably do own 1/2 the river bed.

In addition the C.O.C has a 20ft(?) riparian coridor along the Scioto, and possibly other rivers/streams (?). Homeowners/property owners can only own land up to the start of the corridor, after that it is all COC property.



LyleStyle said:


> That said I disagree with the law. The land all the way up to the river o.k. But the fact that people can basically own a natural river is ridiculus to me. I know this is not popular with many here, but it is how I feel.


Couldn't have said it better myself..It disgusts me too..For once I envy the state of Michigan 

And I have to agree w/Salmonid on the whole stream modification issue. I don't think there is a stream/river in the Country that you can modify without approval from various Government agencies. I believe the Clean water act took care of that issue.


----------



## BuckeyeFishinNut (Feb 8, 2005)

The law is very confusing personally. I wade all the time and I know on Big Darby and Little Darby the ODNR is constantly buying up more and more land to protect those streams. Some of the ares that used to be private are now public. Alot of good fished area has gone to the way side on the Scioto because of private houses and apartments being built, especially south of Griggs. It would be great if landowners/homeowners could own up to the high water level and the rest be considered public. Then enact strict laws for trespassing or littering because there would be no reason to be on those peoples land. It will never happen though.

Personally, when I wade I rarely get out of the water, unless its too deep. Unless it is posted with big huge signs all over the place I will wade where ever I want and take it up with the law if I have to, its so vague there wouldnt be much of a problem. If I am not on land, littering, or doing anything else stupid I should be free to move on through. If I pull out to bank fish that a whole different situation, then you need to respect the landowner. I would say 99% of the time you wont run into problems if your in the water but there is always that 1%

Jake


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

I ran into my 1% below O'shan. about 15 years ago, and my 1% brought 12 friends , his name was Gauge. Needless to say his debating style beat mine by a factor of 12, and at that time I agreed that I was a piece of trespasing trash, my kids were barefoot banio players and my mouth looked pretty and we both agreed that I should walk on water the heck out of there and never come back, boy he was convincing!


----------



## Boom Boom (May 31, 2005)

The easement behind my home is city owned (on Big Walnut Creek), so, while I'm on my back deck people can freely walk right on by (or fish). I generally haven't had any problems but the people I've encountered are either kids or neighbors. It still can be a drag if I'm entertaining outdoors or something.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Stuck at Home, I have been run off of about every major watershed in the state over the last 30 years of wade fishing  and have run Into Mr 12 Gauge at least 3 times I can remember, On 7 Mile Creek, on the Little Miami Near Xenia and on Paint Creek below the dam and oh yeah, 1 more time on Scioto Brush Creek near Peebles. ( these are the ones that come to mind where a large gun was telling me to leave, and trust me, I did!!)

Salmonid


----------



## H2O Mellon (Apr 5, 2004)

I will say this w/ 100% honesty.

*There isn't a 12 gauge, or any gun as far as that goes that I am afraid of.*


----------



## neffy85 (Aug 10, 2006)

I have mixed feelings on this subject. My experience is with waterfowl hunting more than fishing, but the outcome is still the same. 
We have a very nice private access to a river. A very good friend owns the opposite bank of the same stretch of river. We (my b-i-l and I) consider ourselves very lucky to have this access and a luxury. If Ohio did not have the laws that are in place right now, our access / friendship would be almost worthless for this stretch.
However, I have hunted the river for several years and have always considered the smartest thing to do to harvest ducks was to float the PUBLIC river until you see a large # of ducks and then drop achor. Then you set a spread and hunt what returns. Under the current laws, this is ileagal. 
I can see not being allowed to tie up to the shore, or a tree on the shore, but an anchor is a different story all together. This is a public waterway, so anyone sould be able to use it.
In another situation, I would be very upset if I went to my private land that borders the river only to find a group of hunters set up right up stream on the river.
It is a bad law that is going to eventually get someone in trouble / hurt because of misinterpretation. 
How about a width of stream law? If it is less than 50 ft wide at "normal flow level" than no anchoring, tying up is allowed on private land...
Just some thoughts...


----------

