# Property laws



## Lerxst (Jul 17, 2009)

Looking for some advice.

If you read my initial welcome, I am a newbie to Columbus post, you know I have been searching for some quality spots for smallies and eyes, especially on the Scioto.

I am still searching for some good spots. Today I was wading north of Leather lipps/Scioto park. I was perhaps 20 minutes into my wade when I started getting screamed at by an old lady with her man at her side. I was about 20 feet from the eastern side. Not wanting to cause an issue and kind of having the mood to fish shot, I apologized and returned to the park.

So now I am not only looking for some quality fishing spots but for some safe fishing!

Anyways, my question is what exactly are the laws? I have reed the land owners own their half of the river. I have also heard the law is null and void due to federal laws. Is there anything I should know and or what to expect from the local land owners? Not that I am out to cause trouble, I am not going to argue with locals. I am strickly catch and release, it's not like I am steeling their fish or their next meal, but I do want to respect the local laws and residents.

Thanks!
J.B.


----------



## ohiohunter43015 (Feb 23, 2009)

You can float anywhere as long as you don't step on private property putting in taking out or during the float. Landowners own to the middle of the river bottom. Therefore some people will not let you wade. But if your yakin or canoin there isn't a whole they can say is what I understand.


----------



## Welsh Dragon (Jun 18, 2008)

Just start swimming and don't touch the bottom until they are out of sight, then you won't be touching the bottom and won't be on their property. 
I have wadded that area plenty of times w/o a problem, however I have been waiting for someone to come out yelling since some of the homes are so close. I just don't understand why they care so much, but I am sure they have their reason.


----------



## ohiohunter43015 (Feb 23, 2009)

They yell because you are spoiling there view. Try wading naked


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

Do a search, this has been talked about alot.

Landowners own the land below the water, the state owns the water and wildlife. Touching bottom or fishing can be tressapassing, depending on who is reading the ohio law. If the river is deemed navigable by the state, then commerce is allowed free use of the river, which in recent judgments include rec uses. But the problem is besides the ohio river and lake erie, no river/stream has been deemed navigable, so its anyones guess. I've been yelled at, guns pointed at when I waded the scioto and olentangy, wonder why I stopped wading and started yakking?

I always get sucked into this topic.

Mike


----------



## bopperattacker (Sep 12, 2008)

i've had the problem a few times, nothing too bad. Generally speaking if you are polite and nice to the land owners, they will let you slide. I just say that I'm sorry, that they're correct, and that I'll move on. Being on their side is the only option, being a bad mouthed punk doesn't help the situation. 9 times out of 10 if you show respect to their land they will let you continue fishing.


----------



## DelawareAngler (Mar 19, 2009)

The law is as follows:


The landowners own the land, NO ONE owns the water. As long as you dont enter or leave the water on anyones private property you will be fine. I can give you a list of atleast 7 counties in which the judges would rule in the fishermans favor if ever charged for being in the water and someone tries to charge you for "tresspassing"

These counties include but not limited to:

Delaware, Morrow, Union, Licking, Marion, Richlad, Franklin


----------



## st.slippy (Oct 3, 2008)

Maybe they run you off, because it's their favorite fishing spot. If you had a good spot in your back yard, you might be protective too. I'm not saying they should act that way, just giving another perspective


----------



## Lerxst (Jul 17, 2009)

DelawareAngler said:


> The law is as follows:
> 
> 
> The landowners own the land, NO ONE owns the water. As long as you dont enter or leave the water on anyones private property you will be fine. I can give you a list of atleast 7 counties in which the judges would rule in the fishermans favor if ever charged for being in the water and someone tries to charge you for "tresspassing"
> ...



This sound encouraging. I wouldn't try to piss off any land owners as I demonstrated today. If I hit that stretch again I will make sure I am "on the other side" of the river.

Thanks for the replies folks.


----------



## Specktur (Jun 10, 2009)

According to the property map on the Franklin County Auditor's website, most property boundaries on the Scioto around that area stop at the river's edge, except for about five properties beginning a few hundred feet north of Scioto Park. These properties are on the east bank, and show the boundaries extending halfway into the river. That may be where you got yelled at. I also looked at the Olentangy, north of 270, which is another place that I have tried wading this year for the first time. It looks like all the property boundaries extend into the middle of the river. Along Highbanks, you are in the Metro Park if you stay along the east bank. The park owns some property on the west side, too, but not for the entire length of the park.


----------



## brhoff (Sep 28, 2006)

I know the spot you speak of..they are upset I would suppose because of the slobs that have trashed up the area and continue to cut through their property on the "game trail" along the river....they have started piling brush across the trail and dummies just cut right through, fish on the shore and leave thier trash behind.

I have seen more trash along there this year than ever in the last 4 years.

Do NOT take chances in Dublin, you will more than likely be cited.

I was checked out by the older gentleman a couple weeks back but was on the other side of the river...I said hello, he grunted and stalked off to the house...don't know why but when fly fishing you some times catch a little slack from people.


----------



## Darby Rat (Aug 8, 2005)

Maybe the landowners perceive that fly fisherman won't leave MT worm containers, snack wrappers, bottles/cans, gops of line, etc... lying around on their property. Most of non-fly fisherman don't either, but more do than fly fisherman, just due to the nature of the baits and equipment used. Just a thought.


----------



## Buckeyeheat (Jul 7, 2007)

I fish that area a lot and have never had any kind of problem. I think brhoff is probably right. I was yaking through last week & BassinBuckeye and I saw a bunch of people. He was even asking me if there was a park there & I said no, that it was weird to see so many people on both sides. I thought they might be family to one of the homeowners, but I'll bet they "snuck" in there. I hope that doesn't ruin it for the rest of us.


----------



## andyman (Jul 12, 2005)

jhietter said:


> He was even asking me if there was a park there & I said no, that it was weird to see so many people on both sides.


It's almost as if that stretch just keeps getting more, and more publicity each year, and each year more and more people show up.
Hmmmmmmmm.

To the property laws. There's some inaccuracies floating around in this thread.
The laws are vague and contradictory, no doubt. But the Scioto is indeed a navigatable river and therefore the property around it to the high water mark is to be held in the public trust.. no one owns it.
Well, no one SHOULD own it according to Federal statutes, but indeed the "land" under the river is often "sold".

My philosophy on it: know the law and be polite. 
If you DO get a tresspassing ticket, PLEASE don't pay it. Get in touch with me and I'll point you to a couple of organizations who are anxious to challenge the current river laws in Ohio.

For those who are interested. We'll probably getting ready to start a petition to begin placing pressure on our legislators to change this absurd interpretation of the law.


----------



## fid (Apr 8, 2009)

I've been fishing (wading) the Olentangy this summer and have had home owners come out to see what me and a friend are doing on numerous occassions - but nobody has ever said anything and some have even smiled and waved. Guess I've been lucky so far...


----------



## brhoff (Sep 28, 2006)

Andyman, your input is appreciated as always but in this case....I would be screaming mad if I were the PROPERTY OWNER, PERIOD!

This is not an isolated, whooops...stepped over your property line type of deal. 

There are people that are treading on the land as well as wading the area...trash is being left, trails through private property are being forged.

I figured trouble was ahead when I noted this spring that "camps" were being set up....you know, vee sticks....cigarette buts, beer cans and bait containers.

Abusers, not property owners are at fault here.

I applaude your efforts to get clarification and justification for "laws" as they pertain to these matters but I assure you I would stand up hand and hand with any of these property owners on this one.


----------



## steve b (Jun 15, 2009)

I live on the upper Grand river, above Harpersfield Dam. Here, deeds read that we own to the center of the channel. Below the dam, or maybe only to the first shallow, its open to navigation, and usable to the high water line. Which now a days, during floods, includes some of my neibhors bedrooms. A few times a summer I have to go down to the bank and tell people to quit with the profanity and yelling in my back yard. There are canoe rentals upstream. Even if its public where your going, remember its not YOURS. Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints. steve b


----------



## topwaterdevil (May 23, 2007)

Interesting piece of trivia I discovered on the state auditor's website: the large island a bit north of there (the one with the big tree house up on 12 foot metal poles) is actually a genuine parcel of real estate. It appears to be owned by a couple in Upper Arlington who does not own nearby property on either side of the river.


----------



## jholbrook (Sep 26, 2006)

DelawareAngler said:


> The law is as follows:
> 
> 
> The landowners own the land, NO ONE owns the water. As long as you dont enter or leave the water on anyones private property you will be fine. I can give you a list of atleast 7 counties in which the judges would rule in the fishermans favor if ever charged for being in the water and someone tries to charge you for "tresspassing"
> ...



This is the law in Michigan and Wisconsin - I've spent a good deal of time in both. As long as you don't walk on private dry land, you are good to go. I'm with the OP here, though, and am awfully tentative about fishing certain stretches of water. 

Has anyone ever contacted the DNR - there's a station south of Griggs - to see what they say on the matter? How do you know if a river is navigable or not?

John


----------



## F1504X4 (Mar 23, 2008)

Like it's been said many times before......If it's not posted as a park or public area and you don't own it, it's best to stay out. Anyone can float a river as long as you don't touch bottom. The reason most property owners have sour feelings about it is that past fisherman have left trash on the property and have spoiled it for everyone else. The best way to handle the situation is be polite and move on, if you get mouthy and want to argue, plan on loosing the battle.


----------



## Lerxst (Jul 17, 2009)

There are a couple different points of view here. With the trash left behind, tires and what not tossed into the water I would be a concerned land owner myself.

I won't be wading in front of this house again, just out of respect. It just gives me an opportunity to try a different stretch up the river a bit.

I guess I have come to the conclusion that what ever the laws may be, I will be moving on


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

Its all based on common law dating back to england.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs02/tabid/4158/Default.aspx


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

Its all based on common law dating back to england.

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/pubs/fs_st/stfs02/tabid/4158/Default.aspx


----------



## Scientific Angler (Jul 12, 2007)

I spoke with a city of Columbus water officer? (not sure of his official title) and he said that the city of Columbus owns the riverbed from O'shay to south of town and as long as you stay in the water you are not trespassing. I know this is contrary to most other waterways in Ohio but that's what he told me. If anyone has heard any differently from a city of Columbus employee I would like to know so I don't get busted.


----------



## FishThis (Sep 2, 2005)

I was wading the Scioto south of O'shay before when i had a land owner come out and tell me I was on his property. He said you need to get off my property or he was going to call the sherriff. I told him to go ahead and call, he just paused, didn't say anything and walked back inside. Nobody came out.


----------



## fid (Apr 8, 2009)

Okay, here's a question that maybe someone can answer...

(Map)
~~~~GG| |PPPPPP
~~~~GG| |PPPPPP
~~~~GG| |PPPPPP
~~~~GG| |PPPPPP

Water - Gravel - Road - Property

Does the person who own the property to the right of the road above also own the road and the gravel/grass pull off (maybe 5-6'' at most) adjacent to the river? I see this condition quite often along the Olentangy from well past Delaware down thru Worthington.


----------



## KDOG1976 (Jun 29, 2008)

Regardless of what is on the property records or not I would be happy to stand in front of a judge and justify my actions as legal provided i did the following: never touched private land at any time, entered and exited on public property only, legally fished, left no trace of use behind. This only applies to rivers that are public which all rivers(not creeks, probably the basis for the term navigable) are. Bottom line is if you have legal access into a body of water and never leave that body of water how can you be breaking the law. 

I have a freind that hunts and he is so frustrated with how property laws have been distorted over the years to NOT reflect the intent of our founding fathers.


----------



## Capital outdoorsman (Mar 27, 2006)

jholbrook said:


> This is the law in Michigan and Wisconsin - I've spent a good deal of time in both. As long as you don't walk on private dry land, you are good to go. I'm with the OP here, though, and am awfully tentative about fishing certain stretches of water.
> 
> Has anyone ever contacted the DNR - there's a station south of Griggs - to see what they say on the matter? How do you know if a river is navigable or not?
> 
> John


We really need that law here. I grew up in WI and never had a problem wading. I have not waded a single stream in OH and its partially because of the laws here. Not only could I wade in the stream but I could also walk the bank up to the high water mark.


----------



## ohiohunter43015 (Feb 23, 2009)

fid said:


> Okay, here's a question that maybe someone can answer...
> 
> (Map)
> ~~~~GG| |PPPPPP
> ...


Most of the time, yes, I just talked to a landowner in the same situation last week with the same layout your are describing. Like everyone said just be respectful and when in doubt ask permission.


----------



## andyman (Jul 12, 2005)

brhoff,
I know the property owner you are speaking about. I live veeeery close to right there. And you're right, he's getting the raw end of the deal. 
And unfortunately I already know what's going to happen....that Emerald Prkwy bridge access will get closed down soon enough.

For everyone else, here's a really interesting website that discusses river laws ad nauseum.
http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/us-law-menu.htm


If this is something that everyone would get behind, I'd be up for starting an effort to get the laws cleaned up in Ohio.
There are at least a couple of environmental organizations that would get behind us.
And the State of Ohio is trying to promote this "water trails" deal. I'm sure if they knew that every family who uses the "water trails" in a canoe breaks the law each time thier paddle hits the bottom or everytime a kid has to stop and pee, they would be open for an amicable compromise.


----------



## fid (Apr 8, 2009)

ohiohunter43015 said:


> Most of the time, yes, I just talked to a landowner in the same situation last week with the same layout your are describing. Like everyone said just be respectful and when in doubt ask permission.


I am always respectful and have never had any issues (yet I guess) but a lot of these little strips of land are adjacent to properties where the house is up a LONG ass drive behind a fence - and I'd hate to go knock on the door and ask permission. I just ask because recently I've seen a few professionally installed "No Parking" signs/posts go up along some of the gravel areas to the side of the river...


----------



## andesangler (Feb 21, 2009)

Those links lead to some great info, StuckAtHome and andyman. "What it's like in Ohio" and "What it's supposed to be like in Ohio" seem to explain it in a nutshell. I've always said, and will continue to say until the law is straightened out, check the property maps. If it isn't clearly public, you better ask for permission. If your county doesn't have online property data maps, you can look at hard copies (called plat maps) at the auditor's office, and some places even sell books of plats. 

Spektur, I checked that out too, but here's a twist I discovered. At the auditor's website, if you click on one of those 5 lots you noted, the particular lot you clicked on will become highlighted and property data for it will pop up. But look at the boundary of the highlighted portion--it doesn't extend beyond the bank onto the riverbed as the "unhighlighted" boundary does. So, do those folks really own it, or not? Apparently, even the auditor doesn't know, or is afraid to say!

andesangler


----------



## StuckAtHome (Apr 29, 2004)

my uncle lives along the olentangy, and has a road between him and the river with a strip of grass, the whole mile of river is the same way, and yes he does own that strip to the middle of the river, so access is trespassing. Another strange fact here in OH is not all bridges have public access to the river. Depends on the easement. I can't find the info but what I remember is a good rule of thumb is if there is guardrail on either side of the bridge, chances are you can legally enter the river, parking can be another issue.

Our laws are wacked.


----------



## brhoff (Sep 28, 2006)

Andyman and stuck' ....yup, it's clear as mud..question is, if laws were changed would anything really change?

Seriously, I believe some property owners would still threaten and some fisherman would still trash places up causing said reaction.

As a wader, I sort of kinda think about these things but really, in 20 years or so of stomping around, I have never been cited and even if so...no biggie, really....I fear jail time...not a ticket.

I was way north of the city a couple of weeks ago and was greeted on this river with a fellow riding a horse and walking a dog...right down the creek bed..I chuckled and joked that I had never seen a horse in a river before and the guy said you wouldn't have because this is my land...oh so sorry, should I go? NO, my horse has never seen anyone flyfish is what he said...no lie....

My long winded story points to attitude and action...slobs are wrecking things for us all...PERIOD!

Property owners rights have to be preserved and slobs must GO!


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

brhoff said:


> Andyman and stuck' ....yup, it's clear as mud..question is, if laws were changed would anything really change?
> 
> Seriously, I believe some property owners would still threaten and some fisherman would still trash places up causing said reaction.
> 
> ...


I saw two horses in a river today. It was kind of cool. Didn't seem to disturb the water much either.


----------



## jholbrook (Sep 26, 2006)

Sorry to rehash this thread, but after looking at the DNR link and the link andyman provided, I'm confused.

It seems as if Ohio law says that landowners own the riverbed IF specified on their deed - not always the case. If a river is "navigable," the riverbed is public and we are free to fish. But "navigable" is determined on "a case by case basis," so you're rolling the dice if the court hasn't made a ruling on the riverbed you're fishing.

National law contradicts our state law and says it's all public to the high water mark.

Do I have this about right??? 

Is there a list of rivers ruled "navigable?" What about the Kokosing, "designated the first water trail in Ohio by the state?" Does that mean - according to state law - it's navigable and you can wade it till your heart's content?

John


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

jholbrook said:


> Sorry to rehash this thread, but after looking at the DNR link and the link andyman provided, I'm confused.
> 
> It seems as if Ohio law says that landowners own the riverbed IF specified on their deed - not always the case. If a river is "navigable," the riverbed is public and we are free to fish. But "navigable" is determined on "a case by case basis," so you're rolling the dice if the court hasn't made a ruling on the riverbed you're fishing.
> 
> ...


John, I believe you have it right. It sure is confusing. As for the Kokosing river, I can't imagine you would have any problems on that river. I have waded, floated it and been out there a lot. You will see canoers, kayakers, people in inner tubes swiming and everything else. Folks along the Koko realize it is a great resource for all. Landowners along it's bank have always been friendly with me.


----------



## jholbrook (Sep 26, 2006)

crittergitter,

That's good to hear about the Kokosing - I'm gonna give it a try tomorrow. I guess what I'm asking, though, is if anyone knows if the designation of "water trail" which is like a "bikeway or hiking trail" means that the state has determined it to be navigable. (http://www.knoxcountyparks.org/kokosing river.htm)

If so, we may be making progress.

For what it's worth, one of the guys at Mad River Outfitters told me that the game warden for Clark county (I believe) went on record and said he would not issue citation for trespassing provided fisherman stayed within the banks of the Mad.

John


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

John, I browsed the ODNR site about water trails and could not find what you have specifically asked. It seems as though the water trail program is mostly about public access points to a river and maintaining them. I would assume since these rivers have publicly desigated canoe/kayak/john boat access points then they have been deemed, at least by the ODNR, as navigable. I would think that would hold up in court if it ever came to that. There appears to be only 4 other designated water trails right now(GMR, Stillwater, Mad & Ohio). Though, I thought there was one on the Muskingum? There were some trails still in progress and maybe that was on that list as I didnt look at it closely. Ohio does seem to be moving in the right direction with it's streams, with interest and iniatives to remove lowhead dams and attempts to set up more designated water trails. It's really good to see.


----------



## andyman (Jul 12, 2005)

jhlobrook,
You seem to be getting the gist. Indeed our state laws are in conflict with the federal laws, and in conflict with the state's agenda.
Yes, the Kokosing is good to go for waders. But NOT because some law has been passed, but just because it is the way it is.
If a landowner REALLY wanted to flex his proverbial muscle, he could have a kid arrested for peeing on his property.

This is why this is a PERFECT opportunity to have these laws challenged and/or changed.

By September or October I'll be ready to start getting guys together to get something going on this. I know we can leverage a lot of different groups and grwo a collective voice quickly. Start in the typical ways, and just move forward step at a time.


BTW, one of my best buddies is a Holbrook. You're not a Brooklyn transplant are you?


----------



## CptOrdnance (Jun 5, 2009)

I am going to keep an eye on this. My state rep is already alerted to the fact that I am not happy with the way things are. He wants me to, of course, write up what I know and want. That was several months ago and I got off on another tangent with him in serving on a vets advisory committee. 

I'll see where you guys go and perhaps coordinate later.

Keep up the good work.
Cpt Ordnance


----------



## CaptKC (Feb 25, 2008)

andyman said:


> jhlobrook,
> You seem to be getting the gist. Indeed our state laws are in conflict with the federal laws, and in conflict with the state's agenda.
> Yes, the Kokosing is good to go for waders. But NOT because some law has been passed, but just because it is the way it is.
> If a landowner REALLY wanted to flex his proverbial muscle, he could have a kid arrested for peeing on his property.
> ...



Don't forget to reach out to duck hunters and trappers too; you'll get a lot of support. We can't even let decoy anchors touch the bottom or a dog retrieving a dead duck.


----------



## andyman (Jul 12, 2005)

CaptKC said:


> Don't forget to reach out to duck hunters and trappers too; you'll get a lot of support. We can't even let decoy anchors touch the bottom or a dog retrieving a dead duck.


Well aware. In fact the duck regs is the first place I saw the "don't touch the bottom" thing specifically mentioned a couple years ago.
Far as I know, it's not mentioned in the fishing regs.


----------



## Lerxst (Jul 17, 2009)

And this is why I started this thread. I did search, but I never found a concrete answer and it looks like there really isn't one. Go figure.

One positive is that I found access to another spot on the scioto today that allowed me some easy wading on the other side of the river. I was a couple miles away from my trouble spot and didn't cause any trouble this time out.

It was productive as well, at least for me. And an oddity as well.

4 rock bass
3 smallies - 2 dinks and one measured 16 inches
and umm a yellow perch, yellow perch in the scioto?

I didn't know there were perch in the scioto, it was definitely a perch, 6 bands and all. I was figuring someone must have tossed him in.


----------



## jholbrook (Sep 26, 2006)

andyman said:


> jhlobrook,
> This is why this is a PERFECT opportunity to have these laws challenged and/or changed.
> 
> By September or October I'll be ready to start getting guys together to get something going on this. I know we can leverage a lot of different groups and grwo a collective voice quickly. Start in the typical ways, and just move forward step at a time.
> ...



I think the only thing your buddy and I share is a great last name. I was born and raised right here in Columbus - I've only been to New York City once. And I'm not ever going back.

If you work with hunting groups, you could also contact some angling organizations. There are quite a few fly fishing organizations in central Ohio and I'm sure that there is a BASS organization as well. A number of the fishing organizations can be found here:
http://www.madriveroutfitters.com/t-links.aspx

Good luck and please keep us posted.

John


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

Well I guess I'll have to take an opposing position, or at least somewhat of one.

I believe in personal rights. If I own the land it is mine and I have the right to control my property. This would include allowing fishing,wading, hunting, berry picking, whatever. It also allows me to restrict access, I own it

Before you go asking the legislature to enact a law to reduce individual rights, someone else's rights of course, just remember what goes around comes around.

My opinion


----------



## crittergitter (Jun 9, 2005)

Lundy said:


> Well I guess I'll have to take an opposing position, or at least somewhat of one.
> 
> I believe in personal rights. If I own the land it is mine and I have the right to control my property. This would include allowing fishing,wading, hunting, berry picking, whatever. It also allows me to restrict access, I own it
> 
> ...


So, are you suggesting the Federal law needs to be changed. The federal government says it should be one way and the state government says it should be the opposite. The crux of the problem here is that there is no consistency.


----------



## Lundy (Apr 5, 2004)

It is clear that the federal law is NOT supposed to have the authority to impose laws on states.

An example might be when the federal government imposes a ban on concealed carry in all 50 states trying to super cede state rights.

We know that is not how it always works but that was the intent a whole lot of years ago


----------

