# Navigable rivers 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.

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


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

Do a search, this has been covered many times. Ohio is strange, comes down to if river navigable, and the courts have to set these case by case, only ones that you'll have zero problems with are ones with commercial traffic. I think things are heading our way with state's improving access on rivers like kokosing and others, but you'll still get angry land owners at other rivers.
Sent from y htc thunderbolt from my kayak


----------



## armour1265 (Sep 29, 2009)

Below is a link to an article that addresses some of these issues:

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


----------



## Bowhunter57 (Feb 9, 2011)

armour1265,
Thank you, for the link. I will print it out, make some copies and hope that I never have to use it. 

I like the part about the RUS (Recreational User Statute) for landowners NOT being liable for injuries to hunters/fishermen, while on their property. This is a good section to add to my own landowner permission slips. 

Bowhunter57


----------



## Snakecharmer (Apr 9, 2008)

Thanks Armour! Hopefully it will stop some tresspassing and some of the arguements on this site.


----------



## streamstalker (Jul 8, 2005)

Snakecharmer said:


> Thanks Armour! Hopefully it will stop some tresspassing and some of the arguements on this site.


Amen. Thank you, Armour. It would be great if you could get the mods to bookmark that article. This one has been beaten to death many times on here...and still is in the NW forum.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)




----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

streamstalker said:


> Amen. Thank you, Armour. It would be great if you could get the mods to bookmark that article. This one has been beaten to death many times on here...and still is in the NW forum.


Finally, we've put an end to trespassing debate! We have a Lawyers legal _opinion_ on the statue and it's on some fancy .pdf...He must be right!....right?














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


> A common myth is that the property must be &#8220;posted&#8221; with &#8220;No Trespassing&#8221; or similar signs before a criminal trespass can occur. This is not so. A property owner is under no duty to &#8220;post&#8221; 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 &#8220;post&#8221; 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.


----------



## armour1265 (Sep 29, 2009)

It is impossible to cite a statute for civil trespassing as it is common law. The criminal trespassing statute is cited. The difference between civil trespassing and criminal trespassing is often confusing.

Hopefully the article will help keep someone out of trouble and perhaps provide some assurance to landowners that they can open up their land to sportsmen with little risk of liability.


----------



## acklac7 (May 31, 2004)

armour1265 said:


> It is impossible to cite a statute for civil trespassing as it is common law. The criminal trespassing statute is cited. The difference between civil trespassing and criminal trespassing is often confusing.
> 
> Hopefully the article will help keep someone out of trouble and perhaps provide some assurance to landowners that they can open up their land to sportsmen with little risk of liability.


While the article was well written and did cite case-law (and the trespassing statue) it failed to incorporate the actual wording of the law. And I know, it's not necessarily the wording of the law rather how it's interpreted...but still. Also it seemed to contradict numerous other cases that I have found regarding criminal trespassing.

That being said im extremely reluctant to use it a reference when determining property rights / sportsmen's rights.

And as I understand it there is no criminal proceeding / statue for "civil trespass". I.E. a land owner can _*sue*_ you for civil trespass but you cannot be cited for it by law enforcement.


----------

