# Navigable rivers/streams and the Law



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

I was always under the impression that access to a river was legal, as long as you stayed in the boat, didn't touch the bank...or even the land under the water, because it was owned by the landowner and his ownership rights of that land prevailed.

After reading so many threads of fellow kayak/canoe enthusiasts, about floats and other fishing adventures, I wondered where the legal aspect of this activity would fall with reguard to land ownership and trespassing. 

I'd like to try some river/stream fishing, but wondered where this would fall, if an angry landowner would attempt to run off someone on the water. Well, I believe my questions have been answered after reading this article.

Link Repair: http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-public.htm

I must say that I was pleasantly suprised by the upholdings of the courts, concerning the usage of our natural water resources. 

Bowhunter57


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

link to the article didn't work.

And Ohio's laws regarding stream access are far different from Federal laws/other States laws. Haven't read the article yet but I can almost assure you it doesn't apply to Ohio.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Some of the best, longest, and most contentious OGF threads have been on this topic. If you don't get much response in the little-used kayak forum, try using the search feature to look them up.

Or Google this: "wading navigable river ohiogamefishing." You will be amazed. 


Read more: http://www.ohiogamefishing.com/community/showthread.php?t=184166#ixzz1YoYwCj3A


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

acklac7 said:


> link to the article didn't work.


acklac7,
Thank you, for letting me know. I repaired it.  I'm not sure what happened, as I previewed before posting. 




streamstalker said:


> Some of the best, longest, and most contentious OGF threads have been on this topic. If you don't get much response in the little-used kayak forum, try using the search feature to look them up.


streamstalker,
Again, thank you too and I will do some searches on this very informative fourm. I've listened to too many rumors, "fish stories", etc. over the years concerning access to fishing rivers in Ohio. I'm glad that I found this article, for a nice starting place.

Bowhunter57


----------



## dreamstalker (Sep 8, 2011)

acklac7 said:


> link to the article didn't work.
> 
> And Ohio's laws regarding stream access are far different from Federal laws/other States laws. Haven't read the article yet but I can almost assure you it doesn't apply to Ohio.


I have read to the utmost degree on this subject. It basically boiled down as follows. The state of Ohio Used to have a 10' each side of the waters edge easement for outdoor activities for public use. The advent of policing this was too much strain on law enforcement and dealing with so-called landowners. After the days of EPA and DNR busting farmers for the illegal use of DDT and polluting and dumping into rivers the clean water act was there to give power to try to stop many things like this. Ohio is a huge farm state. It is also a major campaign state. However. legislators have moved toward saving money. This means if they designate access points which are easy to police and strip your access areas to just parks..etc.. then it is more cost effective. No care whatsoever is in the public use of wild areas. Camping therefore was and still is restricted to pay areas and a few national park forest areas. Once again the money won. Now it is easier for government to controll us and our activities. You cant just hike a waterway..camp its banks..and have the freedom to teach your children true outdoor life and activites. Farmers love this as they get the power trip of harassing people. Police and judges will fine you as a criminal now unless you have enough money to line their pockets in a court case. Either way they get their money from you. That is truely what this is all about. Now Farmers get to once again destroy the waters and wildlife with little or no fear of prosecution, and file tresspassing on others to protect their illegal activities. Of course not all farmers are like that. There will always be exceptions. Yet in our age money rules us in this country through big business. 
Basically in Ohio the river must be nagivable.
The river is nagivable if it has, or has had a trade route on it.
A trade route is shipping of products.

This is the answers that you will get when you ask ODNR or local judges that will fine you. In other words look around Ohio now and see the trade routes on our rivers. Products are almost never shipped on rivers now because rail..and other means are more cost effective. once again there are exceptions in some of our bays at lake Erie etc..

All in all your rights have been stripped away to make or save money. There is only one way to get your rights back. Use money. If everyone in Ohio that purchases a liscence for recreation: fishing hunting boating etc.. boycotted buying them for 5 years and refused to do so in the future unless our rights were returned then the pockets would turn inside out and bend in our favor. This would be the greatest one time monumental impact on outdoor activity rights ever seen in our lifetime. Other states would follow suit to regain their rights back as fast as the word spread. Our government would not expend future dollars with no fee..liscence..fine..etc.. money to back up the present laws. They see revenues, not people. things would change for the better because united people would stand against tyranny. We just have to ask ourselves..Is it time to protect ourselves and our so-called right to ban together to effect change? or just keep the collar on and pay the dog fees to keep us on our leashes?...


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

dreamstalker,
You paint a very grim, but none the less very accurate picture of the workings of our legal system, sir. Just the same, your info is greatly appreciated. According to your info, the only "navigable" river is the Ohio River. I'm not aware of any other rivers being used for trade routes.

In the past I had been under the impression (in the N.W. Ohio area) that the Auglaize River was "navigable", but the Ottawa River was considered "non-navigable". However, with newer regs, "stiff-legged" landowners, etc. things may have changed.

Bowhunter57


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Good thread, dreamstalker. There are stretches of the Lower Scioto where the County Auditors still mark the actual streambed as a non-owned property. Look at Franklin and Pickaway. I was told by the GW that even though the deed may say to the river's edge, you still do not have permission to hunt the "no man's land" under the stream bed...and you could be cited. It is dealt with on a case by case basis. Basically, if a landowner has not complained, you are fine....is what he told me. This is only on the Lower Scioto in Franklin and Pickaway County, mind you. Muskingum and Maumee are marked the same way on the auditor's maps. Have not looked at other big rivers in our area, though. Boy, would a 10 or even 5 foot public use Easement be nice... Perhaps with the ability for a landowner to opt out in certain situations.


----------



## dreamstalker (Sep 8, 2011)

Bowhunter57 said:


> dreamstalker,
> You paint a very grim, but none the less very accurate picture of the workings of our legal system, sir. Just the same, your info is greatly appreciated. According to your info, the only "navigable" river is the Ohio River. I'm not aware of any other rivers being used for trade routes.
> 
> In the past I had been under the impression (in the N.W. Ohio area) that the Auglaize River was "navigable", but the Ottawa River was considered "non-navigable". However, with newer regs, "stiff-legged" landowners, etc. things may have changed.
> ...


There is a canoe route on the Auglaize. There are a few landowners that get their jollies by harassing people along the canoe route. I have never seen anyone get cited for floating the rivers or for fishing while wading. This does not mean that incidents wont happen or havent that I am unaware of. One landowner In particular I have had a run in with and so have others decided to make a pond on his property. He opened a mouth of the pond to the river. Over time it has turned into a large opening. If he sees you floating and fishing he will do all kinds of threatening type things to harass you. He gets his jollies by using your wildlife dollars to stock his property pond area and acting like a poodle that watches through his window running out to bark at people. The float fishing and such on the Auglaize seems to be ok to bend the so-called law in our area so long as you stay in the river and dont cause a scene that gets an officer called out. I for one will not bend over to any land owner that tries to harass me while fishing. I do not recognize and will never recognize anyones right to my fishing waters that prohibit me from accessing what I pay for. Every bridge is an access point. The crossing of bridges and roads do not belong to land owners. You may still have an issue of being able to park where you want to. Yet this does not mean you are tresspassing if your car breaks down along a road. So there is an easment. There is a plan right now you can google:
(Program announced to get rid of log jams in the Auglaize River ...)
This is being advertised as a plan to remove river obstructions to enhance water flow and provide better access to people to use the river for recreational purposes. There will be temporary easments along the woodlines/feilds to get the trucks in to winch out logs etc.. It will be interesting to see how the litigation goes when People will want increased access to the river as a result. I am sure landowners will be on both sides of the fence on this issue. I am not sure what the real deal is behind this move because the contracts to do this work seem to be allen county oriented. I am concerened with Allen county in their infinite dollar wisdom's ability to prevent certain things like deciding certain rock structures inhibit flow. Threreby giving them the right to channelize the auglaize witch will turn the section from trubutary to Fort jennings into a massive straight flow drainage ditch. this is the real plan I think is going on behind the scenes. Allen county has just built a new reservoir beside Bresler. The amount of water pulled from the Auglaize while pumping from the new pumphouse at Bagler lake at Agerter road out and out stops all flow over the dam. In other words, they are not getting enough pumping out of the river to meet the demand of both over -sized reservoirs. IMO this is another dollar game. Allen county has been trying to force sale water to surrounding areas for years. With the new lake and what it will demand on the watershed, just removing logs will not raise the level of water in the river. Channelizing the river will create a deeper ditch that holds more water than the stair stepping meandering stream that we grew up with. Under the guise of telling the public that this is gonna be done for greater flood control they will in their infinite wisdom destroy miles of habitat if channelization for the new reservoirs needs takes place. It will also destroy the river's ability to filter-clean the bad stuff that gets dumped in. All the plats..rocks..fallen tree-logs etc.. all play a part in helping to absorbe pollution and create O2 in the water. A channelization will make a huge sespool of devastation that that these so called wisemen who blundered the construction of the new reservoir by over demand of water will seriously profit from. Even some of the wording in the plan refers to ditch wording here and there. I think they are trying to reclassify the Augliaze as a ditch. If this goes through, and I have never seen Allen Co. stopped once the ball starts rolling, I am sure jobs..flood control..access etc will be the sugar coating to prevent any obstructions to the dollar plans. How this whole thing works out if my insight is correct will dry up certain well waters during high need times..introduce greater amounts of bad chems...and further the degradation by storm runnoff more rapidly flushing farm chems and bacteria and bad stuff which right now is held back and settles in the feilds that create the crap during the heavy rains. Allen county will not foster the idea of the new reservoir as a failure due to lack of pumping water even if it means destroying everthing along the path of their needs at the publics expense...

Onna side note: If you do not believe how ruthless Allen county is... they sell on CD to whom will buy all their court records. They are searchable by both soc sec# name or address. (scary eh?)

Allen county has also been very instrumental in allowing BP Refinery to get away with polluting through the air ground and water for years full well knowing that if they dont let them kill a few.. the jobs will leave...


----------



## dreamstalker (Sep 8, 2011)

Mushijobah said:


> Good thread, dreamstalker. There are stretches of the Lower Scioto where the County Auditors still mark the actual streambed as a non-owned property. Look at Franklin and Pickaway. I was told by the GW that even though the deed may say to the river's edge, you still do not have permission to hunt the "no man's land" under the stream bed...and you could be cited. It is dealt with on a case by case basis. Basically, if a landowner has not complained, you are fine....is what he told me. This is only on the Lower Scioto in Franklin and Pickaway County, mind you. Muskingum and Maumee are marked the same way on the auditor's maps. Have not looked at other big rivers in our area, though. Boy, would a 10 or even 5 foot public use Easement be nice... Perhaps with the ability for a landowner to opt out in certain situations.


I have been using both google earth and county auditor's to look at properties all over my neck o the woods. you may want to focuss your search to city properties and commisioner properites. I have found many relealing land ownerships that may astound you. For instance...Humain society owning many acres along the river outside of town?..commisioner properties.. many properties in trust for out of town companies. There are huge areas that are owned by companies that are out of state that would never know you were ever on their land unless someone calls a officer in. But in my so called defence, I am sending letters out to all these type of properties for landowner permission to access their land for recreational use. If I send out 1000 letters and only get permission to 3 properties I will consider it a booming success.

The easement along rivers to our so-called acces rights as far as I read now state a riprairan access to the high water mark. On this case by case scenario it will still mean your wallet will decide when you face a judge. I, in the past have utilzed the newspapers and reporters to leverage influence over contested issues. The power of mass advertizing is a scary thing to dollar mania mini governments. They want to get their bucks on the sly without the general public noticing. Once the populous gets an eye-opener they usually back down. The power of mass emails from concerned citizens hitting local and state governmets is the last thing they want. It gets on the news both local and national. This forces outside eyes to investigate things we have not the dollar to fight. The power we have in forums..websites.. email..etc.. could leverage much if we get together with some plans to reverse the stripping of our outdoor access rights. Email is free..but very very powerfull....


----------



## dreamstalker (Sep 8, 2011)

Mushijobah said:


> Boy, would a 10 or even 5 foot public use Easement be nice... Perhaps with the ability for a landowner to opt out in certain situations.


This easment thing along rivers must exist in some fashion. Otherwise no work on the banks could take place. I know I know.. dreaming again. 
A nice radical move by our government would be to eliminate the inheritance law where it appies to land ownership. If no one could inherit land then big money companies could not dictate the price of land...wages...etc.. Land is the real wealth...dollars are just currancy. let the land go back to the people through reserves and smaller farms. people could homestead... mini farm..etc...

Power to the people!! lol ok I woke up...


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

dreamstalker,
I appreciate your replies. Maybe some of the folks that would read this thread would not take it to be "gospel" and might think you're just ranting. However, I work for Allen County and your words have much more insight than the average person might suspect. 

I don't like politics, but find myself surrounded by it. 

Bowhunter57


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

There was another thread on this very subject on here not too long ago. The way it all boils down , far as anybody can tell , supreme court statute ( federal law ) says that all waterways that are or ever have been navigable , by pretty much any watercraft that exists , is basically public property and cannot be owned by the adjacent landowner. There are some states . Ohio being one , that reject that notion and continue enforce "common law" , stating that the adjacent landowner does own the river bed and if a boat passes through , as long as they dont touch the river bed they are ok but if they do then they are trespassing. Most of us sportsman see this as riduculous and flat out defiance of federal statute , but fact is the state probably just wants to continue to collect taxes on that property. The law actually says we ALL own navigable waterways and have a right to be there but the state has a reputation of siding with the adjacent landowner when there is a dispute. I did a little research and it used to be the same way in Utah , until sportsman got together with some legal help and had the state start to recognize the federal statute.


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

dreamstalker said:


> *A nice radical move by our government would be to eliminate the inheritance law where it appies to land ownership.* If no one could inherit land then big money companies could not dictate the price of land...wages...etc.. Land is the real wealth...dollars are just currancy. let the land go back to the people through reserves and smaller farms. people could homestead... mini farm..etc...
> 
> Power to the people!! lol ok I woke up...


You are kidding aren't you?


----------



## dreamstalker (Sep 8, 2011)

Snakecharmer said:


> You are kidding aren't you?


Ya kidding, but in all honesty the passing down of mega inheritances, land,,wealth..has played a great factor in old money control over this country. Since money decides who gets elected in most cases, its is a viscious circle. It appears as though most political figures target the means to further their own wealth by getting into office. Major companies that want to protect their ability to rape america before it is tapped dry make sure they invest in political figures that will sell us out. Some definite restructuring is long over due. Sorry to open that can o worms lol..


----------



## DeathFromAbove (Oct 21, 2008)

We were fishing the river run this spring across the river from Jerome Road, where the old Seminary used to be. Above it now is a rich-boy developement called I believe "The Sanctuary".One of the yuppies had been complaining to the Perrysburg Police about us being in the river and "Trespassing" on his land. The P-Burg PD came out and basically told this guy-They're standing in the river fishing. What the Hell do you want us to do about it? And quit Frickin' calling us or we'll arrest you. Was this The PPD telling this guy what the law was? Or were they just being cool, probably being river run guys themselves, being from P-burg and all.I don't know, but we were all quite relieved to know we wouldn't be hassled for being down there. It's a bout a mile walk in. We all also got a pretty big kick out of it.Anyone know the law on that one? I'm thinking that there is an easement along that river bank, as it did use to be a navigable river way back when.


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

DeathFromAbove said:


> We were fishing the river run this spring across the river from Jerome Road, where the old Seminary used to be. Above it now is a rich-boy developement called I believe "The Sanctuary".One of the yuppies had been complaining to the Perrysburg Police about us being in the river and "Trespassing" on his land. The P-Burg PD came out and basically told this guy-They're standing in the river fishing. What the Hell do you want us to do about it? And quit Frickin' calling us or we'll arrest you. Was this The PPD telling this guy what the law was? Or were they just being cool, probably being river run guys themselves, being from P-burg and all.I don't know, but we were all quite relieved to know we wouldn't be hassled for being down there. It's a bout a mile walk in. We all also got a pretty big kick out of it.Anyone know the law on that one? I'm thinking that there is an easement along that river bank, as it did use to be a navigable river way back when.


Look at the auditor's site for that area to determine where the property lines are. The Maumee area I've seen is not owned by property owners on the shoreline. Their deeds specifically state the property line being the waterline or low water mark. There's no easement on the riverbank, but if your feet are in the water on the Maumee downstream of the da, you should be good. Always double check.


----------



## dreamstalker (Sep 8, 2011)

Mushijobah said:


> Look at the auditor's site for that area to determine where the property lines are. The Maumee area I've seen is not owned by property owners on the shoreline. Their deeds specifically state the property line being the waterline or low water mark. There's no easement on the riverbank, but if your feet are in the water on the Maumee downstream of the da, you should be good. Always double check.


http://www.ferc.gov/legal/fed-sta/wsr-act.pdf
This may have something to do with certain property lines and recreational use.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/985/default.aspx
Some places on the Auglaize have a 50' easment where parks and dams are concerened. The dam in defiance which is adjacent to the girlscout camp area
Has a couple of individuals who either pose or do work for the camp that will come down to the dam and try to shoo off anyone on the girlscout camp side of the river. Even if you are wading. I have contacted the management of the camp about this and the resposnse I got was "Thank you for contacting me about this problem!, I am the Camp Ranger here at Libbey, I have talked with all staff members, and no one here has had an encounter with fishermen as you have described.

It concerns me that someone would represent them self's as camp staff if there not, other than myself, there are only two males working at Libbey, both of which are excellent employees and over 60 years old. All the men here are Caucasian, 

Our number one concern is the safety of all!

If this happens again, please call the Sheriff at 419-784-1155 than please call me at 419-784-5888





Thank you,

Jeff Baldwin

Property Manager/Camp Ranger
Girl Scouts of Western Ohio
Camp Libbey
28325 ST RT 281
Defiance, OH 43512
419-784-5888, ext 102 or 1-800-356-1447"


So even the baddies are coming out messing with fisherman. Now It is kinda weird that the two individuals were inna cart marked from the camp and had two-way radios.........Just to let ya all know incase you run into this problem you have a recourse...


----------



## Mushijobah (May 4, 2004)

Come armed with information if you are right....tends to help....especially when you're dealing with a toughguy.


----------



## armour1265 (Sep 29, 2009)

Below is a link to an article that might be of some use on this topic:

http://www.wright-law.net/publications/downloads/Hunting%20&%20Fishing%20Laws.pdf


----------



## OSU Sportsman (Sep 26, 2011)

In regards to the project in the works for the Auglaize river, the project is strictly a project to remove the log jams and down trees throughout the river. It was a project initiated by landowners along the river, not by the county or city of lima. The city of Wapak has a versted interest in the project only due to the flooding in the past few years they have experienced with the city.

The easement that is obtained for the project ONLY gives access to the contractor and those managing the project. It is NOT an easement created for any public use. It will NOT create public access points. It will still be owned by the landowners who currently own it. All it does is create a way for the contractor to get in to do the work as defined in the Ohio Revised Code.

The project will NOT involve any channelization of the stream. It will NOT be a clearing of the riparian area along the river. A project very similar to this was done a few years ago on the Ottawa River. Other than there not being any more log jams throughout the river, you would be hard pressed to see any change to the areas along the river.

You can argue whether or not the project is necessary or will help reduce flooding, but at least have your facts straight regarding the project as a whole. Feel free to contact the Allen County Soil and Water Conservation District about more details about the project. Their number is 419-223-0040.


----------



## dreamstalker (Sep 8, 2011)

OSU Sportsman said:


> In regards to the project in the works for the Auglaize river, the project is strictly a project to remove the log jams and down trees throughout the river. It was a project initiated by landowners along the river, not by the county or city of lima. The city of Wapak has a versted interest in the project only due to the flooding in the past few years they have experienced with the city.
> 
> The easement that is obtained for the project ONLY gives access to the contractor and those managing the project. It is NOT an easement created for any public use. It will NOT create public access points. It will still be owned by the landowners who currently own it. All it does is create a way for the contractor to get in to do the work as defined in the Ohio Revised Code.
> 
> ...


If you take your information from just one source you be at the mercy of the salesman.

Once this is set in stone, the ramifications of the footwork for any and all sediment..stone or whatever is deemed in the favor of the project. This wording mixed ditch and river very tactfully.

http://coengr.co.allen.oh.us/Drainage_Projects.html


It does not cost 2 mil. to remove a few logjams. The study and pictures for this project were from 2002. Many of these jams are gone and are pushed out each spring rain. 


This group had the forsight to fight back and prevented this type of proceedure. Allen Co. however, Is not putting it to a vote. You will have to get signatures to put a vote on the referrendum.


And yes This project will allow dredging... sand bar removal.. rock removal..standing live timber removal..




http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1376432/controversial_river_cleanup_stalled/index.html

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1388415/miami_river_cleanup_project_abandoned/index.html






Projects We Are Assisting to Coordinate
&#9632;Auglaize River 
Allen/Auglaize SWCD and County Engineers are coordinating a river clean up and permanent maintenance project. Rudolph # 1175 has been included as a lateral of the Auglaize River project. Dismissal of # 1175 may occur once project is completed and filed.
Ditch Maintenance of Petitioned Projects 
The Allen County Drainage Engineer is responsible for the supervision of the Ditch Maintenance Department. Listed below are the Guidelines and Operating Procedures of that Department and the responsibilities of the department as well as the citizens within the watershed.

After completion, Drainage Improvement Projects are placed on a permanent maintenance program to provide for their upkeep and repair. The Allen County Ditch Maintenance Program is administered and guided by the Allen County Engineer. For each project, a separate account is established from assessments to landowners within the Project watershed. All labor, materials, equipment, record keeping and correspondence cost are drawn from these separate Ditch accounts. It is our goal to conduct the most cost efficient maintenance on all projects.

The following guidelines will govern the operation of the ditch maintenance program. Occasional exceptions may be made, but only when it is in the best interest of the Project. The ditch maintenance program is responsible for many types of drainage projects ranging from open ditches, grassed waterways, surface drains, detention ponds, underground tile culverts, and other drainage structures. Only certain guidelines may apply to your particular project.

The Allen County Engineer Will:

1.Conduct annual inspections of all Projects to determine if any maintenance work is needed.
2.Provide manpower, equipment and supplies to perform necessary maintenance work.
3.Maintain a protective grass cover on all erosive areas on each project such as ditch banks, filter strips/berms, and waterways. Seeding will be performed when necessary.
4.Control and prevent growth of any noxious weeds, brush, and trees that could hinder the flow of water and/or hinders the adequate growth of grass.
5.Remove any obstructions within the Project such as sand or silt bars, log jams, debris, and drift that seriously hinders the hydraulic flow.
6.Repair any damages to structures such as headwalls; drop boxes, pipe inlets, culverts, tile, catch basins etc. or any other structure that was installed during the initial construction of the Project. Structures installed after construction must be approved by the Allen County Engineer before they can be included on maintenance.
7.Repair or replace tile outlet pipes, within the right of way, that are damaged or malfunctioning.
8.Arrange to have all waterways mowed at least once a year. Landowners will be encouraged to mow waterways to reduce the maintenance cost.

9.Repair areas that have become damaged due to erosion such as washouts. Note: Most erosion problems can be solved by maintaining the grassy berm installed during construction.
10.Will use caution when working or traveling along maintenance right-of-ways to prevent or limit damage to crops and property. Waterways and residential lawns will be protected from erosion. Note: A fifteen foot grassed berm should be maintained on open ditches.
11.Approve maintenance work performed and bills to be paid separately from each drainage maintenance fund. All bills will be forwarded to the Allen County Auditor for payment.
12.Study and submit assessment recommendations for each Project to the Allen County Commissioners Office to provide balances needed, in each drainage fund, for maintenance operations.
The Landowner of a Completed Project Will:

1.Perform the most effective and economical conservation practices on the land within the watershed to reduce the effects of damage or degradation to the Project.
2.Prevent the degradation of the whole drainage system including the loss of the grassed filter/berm along the top of open ditches, detention ponds, waterways, and around inlets of all physical structures. Grass Filter/berm widths are established at the time of construction and vary from 10 to 15 feet wide from the top of the bank on an open ditch. Note: Removal or damage to any established drainage system will result in assessment of replacement costs to the landowner upon which damage occurs.
3.Not hinder the flow of water by placing refuse, grass clippings, leaves, brush, timbers etc. or unapproved low water crossings or other obstructions in or around the right-of-way of each Project.
4.Obtain approval by the Allen County Engineer before performing any alterations to the Project or doing any work for which the landowner wishes to be reimbursed.
5.Be responsible for any private fences, bridges, and low water crossings. These are considered a benefit to the individual landowner and not to the project as a whole; therefore any cost associated with these will not be reimbursed from the ditch maintenance fund.
6.Mow vegetative cover on ditch filter strips/berms. We encourage this to be done on a regular basis to keep weed growth to a minimum. We ask that mowing be done on a volunteer basis only.
7.Prevent the planting of agricultural crops, trees, shrubs, and gardens or the placement of any structures [such as out buildings, sheds, farm implements, fences, firewood, manure and dirt piles, burn and scrap piles, etc.] within the Projects maintenance right-of-way [10 to 15 feet from the top of the bank] that may hinder access to the maintenance operation. Note: Access to most ditch projects is hindered due to the aforementioned. Please keep your access areas open and clear of all objects.
8.Allow the maintenance staff and equipment access to the Project [possibly by farm lane or driveway] to perform the necessary maintenance work.
Note: If you lease or rent your farm or property to others make certain they are aware of these guidelines. It is the property owner's responsibility to insure that no activity is permitted which would hinder the structural integrity of the drainage system project.

If you have any questions or problems pertaining to petitioned drainage projects or their maintenance please contact the Allen County Engineers office. Phone 419-228-3196. Contact people are:

&#9632;Douglass Degen - Drainage Engineer
&#9632;Nathan Davis - Assistant Drainage Engineer
&#9632;Brandon Brenneman - Ditch Maintenance Supervisor 
&#9632;Josh Foster - Ditch Maintenance Worker


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

armour1265 said:


> Below is a link to an article that might be of some use on this topic:
> 
> http://www.wright-law.net/publications/downloads/Hunting%20&%20Fishing%20Laws.pdf
















http://www.wright-law.net/ said:


> A common myth is that the property must be posted with No Trespassing or similar signs before a criminal trespass can occur. This is not so. A property owner is under no duty to post his property or to advise everyone that they are about to enter private property. Rather, it is the duty of the hunter or fisherman to know who owns the
> property upon which they are entering. A hunter or fisherman who enters property that he knows he does not have permission to enter is guilty of trespassing regardless of whether he knows who the actual owner of the property is. The advantage of posting one's property is that it denies a trespasser the defense of mistakenly entering the property.


Several people on here have had judges throw out the charges because the land owner/arresting officer could not prove notification of private property.

This issue has been discussed in depth here before and other Lawyers have chimed in. In addition numerous States trespassing laws read virtually identical to Ohio's, and there courts have routinely upheld the notion that you must be notified the property you are on is private (in some way-shape-or-form) before you can be found guilty of criminal trespassing.



Four Weight Fanatic 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. This is intended to be a relatively short and sweet overview of the several areas of the law encompassing the questions in this thread.
> 
> 
> First - the laws and rights governing *streambeds* (which is what everyone seems to be talking about) are called riparian rights and laws. In Ohio, it is well settled that where an individual owns the property on both sides of a streambed, that person also owns the streambed itself and may elect to exclude any person for said from property. Where there are different owners on opposing sides of a stream bed, it would seem that the general rule is that each riparian owner owns the streambed to the middle of the stream in the absecence of exact boundary lines (for instance where the stream itself is the boundary between two properties owned by two people) and therefore each owner my elect to exclude any person from said property up to their boundary or their half of the stream.
> ...


And the absolute kicker? Not once, in that entire briefing, does he actually cite the statue in order to support his arguments. He just goes rambling on about his opinion, which is exactly what that briefing is, an opinion, NOT the law.

THIS is the law:

(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.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

http://www.wright-law.net/ said:


> A property owner is under no
> duty to post his property or to advise everyone that they are about to enter private
> property5. *Rather, it is the duty of the hunter or fisherman to know who owns the
> property upon which they are entering*


And then a few paragraph's later: 



http://www.wright-law.net/ said:


> Consider the following scenarios:
> 1. Fisherman receives permission to fish in Joe's pond. While fishing, Joe notices a
> nearby pond that looks like a good fishing spot. He walks to the pond and begins
> fishing believing that he is still on Joe's property. *Fisherman is not criminal
> trespassing because he is not knowingly on someone's property.*


If it is the duty of the Sportsmen to know who's property he is on at all times then it should NEVER be an acceptable defense that he was unknowingly on someone else's property. Yet the that's exactly what this document states.


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

When I posted this thread, I had no idea that it would take off like this, but there's some great information to be had for all to read.

My thanks to those that have posted links and added the helpful information concerning this subject.  The information within this topic has been very helpful for deciding whether or not to enter a particular piece of water or not. Presently, I'm very content with fishing farm ponds, state lakes and reservoirs.

Bowhunter57


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

Bowhunter57 said:


> When I posted this thread, I had no idea that it would take off like this, but there's some great information to be had for all to read.
> 
> My thanks to those that have posted links and added the helpful information concerning this subject.  The information within this topic has been very helpful for deciding whether or not to enter a particular piece of water or not. Presently, I'm very content with fishing farm ponds, state lakes and reservoirs.
> 
> Bowhunter57


Not to turn this political but there are alot of people that have a very conservative stance on Trespassing, and alot of people that have a rather liberal stance. Judges and lawyers are no different. Makes for good conversation as alot of people are rather passionate about there viewpoints.


----------



## meathelmet (Aug 4, 2008)

This is a great thread and regardless of your stance it makes people engaged and hopefully increases their view of our great rivers and streams in Ohio. They should be there for everyone to enjoy.

My 0.05 cents worth


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

acklac7 said:


> Several people on here have had judges throw out the charges because the land owner/arresting officer could not prove notification of private property.
> 
> This issue has been discussed in depth here before and other Lawyers have chimed in. In addition numerous States trespassing laws read virtually identical to Ohio's, and there courts have routinely upheld the notion that you must be notified the property you are on is private (in some way-shape-or-form) before you can be found guilty of criminal trespassing.
> 
> ...




All property is owned by somebody , so being on privately owned property without permission , isnt that "trespassing" by default ? Does a person really have to be told they are trespassing in order to know that they are ? I dont think so , but this is in no way a legal point I am making here just stating common sense for the sake of discussion. When talking legality , and any possible legal agtion against a person being on private land without permission , its fair to point out that it depends on what area you are in and which law enforcement official handled the case , and even which judge handled it if it went that far. Technically speaking , if you can navigate said stream or river with any type of watercraft , then you are not trespassing to be there , even if wading on the stream bed....according to federal law. But state and local officials disregard that , and if they can disregard it then they can basically handle the situation any way they want , which I am told they do , even though they almost unanimously side with whatever whim the adjoining property owner has. Its hard to tell just what is "legal" and what is not , when federal law is ignored and local law enforcement does not even handle every case the same , or know the true wording of the law. The best rule to follow is just use common sense , if you dont own the property , get permission from the person who does before venturing on to it.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

yonderfishin said:


> All property is owned by somebody , so being on privately owned property without permission , isnt that "trespassing" by default ? Does a person really have to be told they are trespassing in order to know that they are ? I dont think so , but this is in no way a legal point I am making here just stating common sense for the sake of discussion. When talking lagality , and any possible legal agtion against a person being on private land without permission , its fair to point out that it depends on what area you are in and which law enforcement official handled the case , and even which judge handled it if it went that far. Technically speaking , if you can navigate said stream or river with any type of watercraft , then you are not trespassing to be there , even if wading on the stream bed....according to federal law. But state and local officials disregard that , and if they can disregard it then they can basically handle the situation any way they want , which I am told they do , even though they almost unanimously side with whatever whim the adjoining property owner has. Its hard to tell just what is "legal" and what is not , when federal law is ignored and local law enforcement does not even handle every case the same , or know the true wording of the law. The best rule to follow is just use common sense , if you dont own the property , get permission from the person who does before venturing on to it.


In my personal opinion it all comes down to whether you _*know*_ the property you are on is private. Say for example I go wading in @ 3 creeks Metro Park and start making my way downstream. At what point does the metro park property end and private property begin? Am I supposed to review maps and property lines before hand in order to determine where the the park ends and another persons property begins? It is my belief, along with numerous others (including judges lawyers etc) that it is not my duty to know exactly where your property begins. This responsibility falls on the landowner. That said any little thing that alerts me to the possibility the land may be privately owned can be (and wost likely will be) construed as notification of private property. Fences, marker flags, "No Trespassing Signs", maintained lawns, farm equipment, the list could go on and on. So back to my story, if I get in at 3 creeks metro park and start wading down stream I can wade right onto someone else's property and be well within my legal means to do so up until I encounter something that alerts me to the fact the property may be privately owned. At that point I must turn back or be in violation of the trespassing law.

The problem is alot of people (LAW ENFORCEMENT INCLUDED!) have the opinion that just because I am on your property i'm in violation of the law. This simply is not the case, and alot of well-meaning anglers routinely get harassed/arrested/cited when they had absolutely no intention, nor notification of being on private property. These anglers often end up spending $$$ on a Lawyer to get the charges dropped when they never should have been charged in the first place, if they don't get he charges dropped they wind up with a criminal charge on there record. An angler who _*mistakenly*_ wanders onto private property is NOT A CRIMINAL!


----------



## yonderfishin (Apr 9, 2006)

acklac7 said:


> In my personal opinion it all comes down to whether you _*know*_ the property you are on is private. Say for example I go wading in @ 3 creeks Metro Park and start making my way downstream. At what point does the metro park property end and private property begin? Am I supposed to review maps and property lines before hand in order to determine where the the park ends and another persons property begins? It is my belief, along with numerous others (including judges lawyers etc) that it is not my duty to know exactly where your property begins. This responsibility falls on the landowner. That said any little thing that alerts me to the possibility the land may be privately owned can be (and wost likely will be) construed as notification of private property. Fences, marker flags, "No Trespassing Signs", maintained lawns, farm equipment, the list could go on and on. So back to my story, if I get in at 3 creeks metro park and start wading down stream I can wade right onto someone else's property and be well within my legal means to do so up until I encounter something that alerts me to the fact the property may be privately owned. At that point I must turn back or be in violation of the trespassing law.
> 
> The problem is alot of people (LAW ENFORCEMENT INCLUDED!) have the opinion that just because I am on your property i'm in violation of the law. This simply is not the case, and alot of well-meaning anglers routinely get harassed/arrested/cited when they had absolutely no intention, nor notification of being on private property. These anglers often end up spending $$$ on a Lawyer to get the charges dropped when they never should have been charged in the first place, if they don't get he charges dropped they wind up with a criminal charge on there record. An angler who _*mistakenly*_ wanders onto private property is NOT A CRIMINAL!



Good point , I agree.


----------



## Redhunter1012 (Feb 6, 2006)

FYI, if the creek is frozen over, you may walk on top of the ice as far as you choose and are not trespassing. One of our neighbors shot a deer a few years agoduring Muzzeloader that managed to make it across the road onto some "No No" property. It staggered across the field and tumbled down the creek bank. After driving down the road he could see it dead, splayed across the ice about 75 yards from the road. He contacted the GW and a shortwhile later he showed. After explaing the circumstances the GW told him he could absolutely walk the ice to retrieve his deer as long as he didn't touch solid ground. Just the same as floating a kayak


----------

