# Sticky  Navigability and Tresspass on Streams in Michigan



## Whit1

In a thread about the White R. the quesion of tresspass, public righs and navigability came up. I knew there was plenty of information although some of it serves to muddy already turbid waters a bit more. In order to draw, possibly, more interest I am making a new thread.

The following document presents a long discussion, including the siting of applicable court cases and law, concerning the public's right to use certain waters, both rivers and lakes. The first part of the piece may be skipped if you are solely interested in tresspass on streams. Scroll down until you come to the appropriate section and there are several that follow, basically, in order.

Those of you who believe that even small streams are navigatable because they were dammed in order to float logs need to pay attention to the concept of "in their natural state". While that is not an exact quote the way that it is used would eliminate those small streams that were dammed, even temporarily, in order to float logs.

At the end of the document there is a long list of streams that, for one reason or another, have been deemed to be navigatable.

Enjoy!
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf


----------



## rwenglish1

Nice read very informative I have saved it and will print out and laminate parts of it.
rw


----------



## Sportsman In The Wild

Thanks for looking up this information. As you stated in a previous post, there are still more streams that may qualify as "navigatable" but have not come to light yet on legal documentation. I personally believe that the list will always be incomplete due to the nature of the attention that is needed in order for them to be clasified as navigatable (court cases/battles and such). When in doubt, ask permission!!!


----------



## Toga

Nice post whit. This should be made a sticky in all of the stream sections of the board.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

Toga said:


> Nice post whit. This should be made a sticky in all of the stream sections of the board.


Yes please!


----------



## Bawbeese

Sorry, but I think you have wrongly defined the concept of streams in their natural state. The criteria for being a public water has nothing to do with the dams built to float logs. It is a matter of a stream _ever_ having been used to float logs (whether dammed or not), or that ". . . even if it had never been used to float logs, if in its natural state it is capable of such use it is considered navigable. The log floatation test is still the yardstick in Michigan which determines whether any body of water except those which are privately owned is navigable."
But while the ability to float logs is the yardstick, it is not the only method of determining if a body of water is navigable.
There are seven key definitions for determining if an inland waterway is a navigable stream. If a stream meets any one of these definitions, public rights are attached.
For a comprehensive look at what fishermen's rights are on public waterways, including streams and lakes, you might try reading the book FOREVER FREE: YOUR RIGHT TO FISH MICHIGAN'S INLAND LAKES AND STREAMS by Dan Summerfield. It is available as a Kindle ebook at Amazon.com. I'm confident the book will resolve any questions one might have about a citizen's right to use the public waters in Michigan.
Why am I so confident? Because after many, many months of research I wrote that book and can vouch for its accuracy.


----------



## Drisc13

hmmm....I just thought of a reason for my kid to become a lawyer...


----------



## toto

I'll tell ya, there aren't that many attorneys who are really up on water rights. Its a very complicated field of law.


----------



## Drisc13

_Fish in private
lakes, having no connection with public waters, are considered private property and not
subject to legislative regulation which prescribes methods of fishing, closed seasons,
creel limits and minimum sizes._

that quote scares me quite a bit! many lakes i fish have no inlet or outlet and are surrounded by private ground (I access via permission). Does that mean I can keep whatever I want, whenever I want to??? I hope not...


----------



## Drisc13

okay, done reading...waaaaay too complicated!!!! I'll stick to the obvious lakes and streams!!!!


----------



## toto

I quess if you take it literally, that would be correct, not sensible, but correct.


----------



## Boardman Brookies

I see you found the site Dan. Welcome! Your book provides much insight and is full of a ton of great information for us all to use.


----------



## toto

Hey Dan, I just read your last sentence on your post. First of all, welcome to the site, and I must say, I didn't read the complete version, I did read the short version on smashwords. I must say, its very informative, and I appreciate the work that went into it. This whole issue of gear regs, and now navigalbity as a tie in is a lot of work to research. Thanks for doing it.


----------



## Bawbeese

DRISC13,

Your concerns about fish in private lakes having no connection with public waters is largely unwarranted. If a waterfront landowner has given you permission to fish the lake you have every right to catch and keep, in season, your legal limit of any fish allowed by law.

There is, however, an exception, and exceptions to that exception.

Whether or not it is connected to public waters, if the lake has ever been stocked with fish by the State "... no person can take fish from _any_ inland waters (lake or stream) within which fish are planted at taxpayer expense if the public is excluded from taking fish. If written consent was given, riparian owners on these small lakes may not take fish themselves if they exclude the public. The only exceptions are lakes of less than 250 acres with no inlet or outlet where fish have never been planted or were planted without the written consent of the riparian owners, and lakes of less than five acres without inlet or outlet."

So the waterfront owner may give you permission but by excluding the general public he cannot legally take fish from that lake and neither can you. You may fish it, you just may not _take_ or possess fish from it.

Bawbeese

When I drink beer a river runs through me.


----------



## Bawbeese

DRISC13,

Your concerns about fish in private lakes having no connection with public waters is largely unwarranted. If a waterfront landowner has given you permission to fish the lake you have every right to catch and keep, in season, your legal limit of any fish allowed by law.

There is, however, an exception, and exceptions to that exception.

Whether or not it is connected to public waters, if the lake has ever been stocked with fish by the State "... no person can take fish from _any_ inland waters (lake or stream) within which fish are planted at taxpayer expense if the public is excluded from taking fish. If written consent was given, riparian owners on these small lakes may not take fish themselves if they exclude the public. The only exceptions are lakes of less than 250 acres with no inlet or outlet where fish have never been planted or were planted without the written consent of the riparian owners, and lakes of less than five acres without inlet or outlet."

So the waterfront owner may give you permission but by excluding the general public he cannot legally take fish from that lake and neither can you. You may fish it, you just may not _take_ or possess fish from it.

Bawbeese

When I drink beer a river runs through me.


----------



## Sam22

Bawbeese said:


> DRISC13,
> 
> Your concerns about fish in private lakes having no connection with public waters is largely unwarranted. If a waterfront landowner has given you permission to fish the lake you have every right to catch and keep, in season, your legal limit of any fish allowed by law.
> 
> There is, however, an exception, and exceptions to that exception.
> 
> Whether or not it is connected to public waters, if the lake has ever been stocked with fish by the State "... no person can take fish from _any_ inland waters (lake or stream) within which fish are planted at taxpayer expense if the public is excluded from taking fish. If written consent was given, riparian owners on these small lakes may not take fish themselves if they exclude the public. The only exceptions are lakes of less than 250 acres with no inlet or outlet where fish have never been planted or were planted without the written consent of the riparian owners, and lakes of less than five acres without inlet or outlet."
> 
> So the waterfront owner may give you permission but by excluding the general public he cannot legally take fish from that lake and neither can you. You may fish it, you just may not _take_ or possess fish from it.
> 
> Bawbeese
> 
> When I drink beer a river runs through me.


Do any lakes fall into this specifically? it seems obscure.


----------



## Maxx1

It's been a few years, but when I made my pond (It's large) the DNR wanted to stock it.
I turned them down because then they wanted me to allow public access.

BTW, Welcome Dan.


----------



## Bawbeese

Yes, some lakes are specifically exempted as pointed out in the sentence: The only exceptions are lakes of less than 250 acres with no inlet or outlet where fish have never been planted or were planted without the written consent of the riparian owners, and lakes of less than five acres without inlet or outlet."

Maxx1, Turning down the MDNR on the stocking proposal keeps your pond private and open to fishing only to yourself and those you invite to fish there.


I am at that age when litigation takes the place of sex.
Gore Vidal

e at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Navigability and Tresspass on Streams in Michigan - Page 2 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=339805&page=2#ixzz1IAHN6maA


----------



## Steelman

Thank you for doing the research. We will definitely lse our rights if we don't know what they are or fail to assert them.


----------



## flytiedan

Now what about lakes that were once connected to a stream, now completely damed off and dried up. 


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Bawbeese

Well, that depends on whether the lake is dried up or the stream is dried up. Your question is unclear so I'm assuming it's the stream.

If the lake is surrounded by private property your only way in would be by the dried up stream bed, entering that way would be for a court to decide.

But, think positive. If the stream or lake was ever stocked by the state with the permission of the reparian owners, they are not allowed to fish that body of water if they refuse permission for the general public to fish it. The only exceptions are those stated in an earlier post.


----------



## bborow2501

note streams between lake superior, pine lake and Ives lake as well as the Salmon- trout river make the list
I think I might have to go exploring huron mountain club and spend a night floating around ives lake :lol:


----------



## Jones

Bawbeese said:


> Well, that depends on whether the lake is dried up or the stream is dried up. Your question is unclear so I'm assuming it's the stream.
> 
> If the lake is surrounded by private property your only way in would be by the dried up stream bed, entering that way would be for a court to decide.
> 
> But, think positive. If the stream or lake was ever stocked by the state with the permission of the reparian owners, they are not allowed to fish that body of water if they refuse permission for the general public to fish it. The only exceptions are those stated in an earlier post.


Great read Bawbeese. Thanks for putting in the time and effort to research this topic in depth. I've had quite a few questions over the years regarding the right of people to fish in "public" streams, but never found a comprehensive answer. 

Somehow I think that if the original legislators were around to see how the laws they created have been interpreted today, things would be much different, and the many of the ambiguities regarding riparian rights and the rights of fisherman would be resolved.

Now, I just have to print this off and take it wherever I go trout fishing!


----------



## fowl

"I am at that age when litigation takes the place of sex".
Wow bawbeese, hope I don't make it to that age. Anyway.....

Waterfront tends to bring out the worst in people. Like they say, instant A-hole, just add water. 

People with waterfront think they own the water. Add to that all of the misunderstanding that surrounds riparian rights vs public trust, etc. and sh&@ gets ugly. Ugh.


----------

