# Fishing Public Right of Way



## cordesr1 (Jan 17, 2014)

I went went for little stroll tonight and decided to bring a rod. I was in Montcalm county and had a run in with a local landowner. The road around the lake is 1-3 from the waters edge. Seems like the perfect situation to walk and cast. I had a landowner go ballistic on me and call the Leo on duty. The officer was a great guy and said sometimes it just easier to be the bigger man and walk away. I'm not to great at that but tonight was an exception. This was an older couple with a lot of f bombs flyin around. I was under assumption that the county owned 30' from the centerline. This would put the edge of the road easement 10' into the water. 

Am I in the wrong casting down the edge of the road?
The Leo wasn't really sure of the official ruling.


----------



## alex-v (Mar 24, 2005)

It sounds like the shoreline road edge for one of the Six Lakes area lakes. Not sure on road edges but the road endings in lakes are often public property. Sounds like a research project.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I'm just a little unclear as to whether you were at a road crossing, or were you in front of his house? If you were at the road crossing or entered the water from the crossing, don't see a problem on your part. IF you were in front of his house, and on dry land, that could present a problem. If you were in the water, and I'm assuming it is a navigable water way, the land owner was in the wrong, assuming you entered the water from a public point. Hard to really know without knowing the rest of the story. It's surprising though that the CO didn't know the answer either.


----------



## wild bill (Apr 20, 2001)

in most if not all cases the landowner owns to the center line of the road. the county has an easement on said landowners property.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

You've described it a "right of way" not as a "fishing easement". You could have the right to walk past but not the right to stop and fish. I'll bet you would get a ticket if you tried to launch a boat in the same spot. Anybody can drive past my house but if they stop and set up a picnic on my lawn, even if it's within 30' of the center line, they are still trespassing. Check out how the easement is worded, it may be specific about the limits of use. Does sound like the older couple were very grumpy, very selfish, very rude and pretty douchey.


----------



## alex-v (Mar 24, 2005)

toto said:


> Hard to really know without knowing the rest of the story. It's surprising though that the CO didn't know the answer either.


Did not read like he had a CO get involved. Rather a local LEO, who ever was on duty and in a patrol car, took the call and showed up.


----------



## cordesr1 (Jan 17, 2014)

The road follows the shoreline with homes on the other side of the road. It is a county road, the water is so close the county has their no parking signs in the water. I was walking the road, not the shoulder or their lawn. I'm very familiar with wading around lakes and dealing with homeowners. If it's to deep at the end of their dock I can walk around the shore side and reenter the water on the other side. 

I work in sight development in Kent county building neighborhoods. Here the county owned 30' from the centerline. Typically that is the far side of the sidewalk. The homeowner is responsible for maintaining that property but has no right to post or develop on it. This is why setbacks for homes are normally 40' from the road edge. 

Just seems like so much gray area but it is something so convenient after work. No waders, no driving. Just walk out the front door and make a few casts


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

This issue varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and carries a great deal of weight with who is responsible for maintaining the right of way. In most cases if it is a dead end road the land owner wins. I don't push my luck on a lake unless I am seeking shelter from a storm then everything becomes public land.


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

i think your ok,, but like he said, are the few fish you catch worth the hassle of the old geezer keeliing over with a heart attackfrom screamin at you?? sot of defetes the purpose of relxing with a few casts to have a shouting match.
you can bet he has had a few set up camp and leave a mess behind , and thats what set him off.


----------



## UplandnWaterfowl (Jan 3, 2010)

Here is the official law www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf

From the information you gave, go to page 16, "It is the opinion of this Department that it is immaterial whether the highway was established by usage or acquired by purchase for highway purposes. If the lake is a privately owned non-navigable lake, the public cannot enter thereon from a highway without owners permission."


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I don't know if this applies in your specific case. But here at higgins lake, road right of way access was determined by the Supreme Court and the ruling applies state wide. It is called Jacobs vs. Lyon. 

Know your rights, it was a long hard fought battle. This will give you an overview. https://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1840.pdf

I believe that the owner is correct, but if there is a down road( a road that intersects the shore road) you can fish or access from the end of that down road.

The ruling specifically allows fishing at roads ending at the lake as well as access to the lake. You can't sunbathe at a road end. but you can prop up a fishing pole and sit in your lawn chair watching it, in your swimsuit and tanning lotion, Good times on the lakefront, brought to you by higgins lake finest...LOL


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

alex-v said:


> Did not read like he had a CO get involved. Rather a local LEO, who ever was on duty and in a patrol car, took the call and showed up.


Does it really matter which one it was? 

Upland, you would be correct IF it's non navigable waters. however I'm not so certain that is the case here.


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

As quoted from previous linked document "https://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1840.pdf"



> [However, no decision in this state has ever held that a dedication of a road that runs parallel to the water conveys riparian rights. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of the road commission did not include riparian rights to the road at issue, precluding the road commission from granting public access to the water, as such uses are incompatible with the underlying dedication. Lateral roads may not, therefore, be used for any recreational purpose and may not be used as water-access points. Further, the owners of land adjacent to and separated from the water by lateral roads hold riparian rights in the adjacent waterfront.
> /QUOTE]


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Correct, now if there is a side street that runs into that lateral road, that would probably be ok, directly off the end of that side street. We have many of them here, and that was very specific to the case


----------



## alex-v (Mar 24, 2005)

> toto said:
> 
> 
> > Hard to really know without knowing the rest of the story. It's surprising though that the CO didn't know the answer either.
> ...





toto said:


> Does it really matter which one it was?


Yes, it really does matter. The original question deals with fishing from a road edge. A CO is more likely to know the answer than the local police officer.

If we wanted the answer to a driving law question we are more likely to get the correct response from an officer who patrols the roads and highways than we are to get from a Conservation Officer.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

It may matter in one sense, however don't think for a minute a CO can't write you a ticket for a traffic violation. These guys have more power than a typical cop. Please don't try to deflect the conversation that is really irrelevant to the OP. The simple fact is, if a guy wants to climb down the bridge abutement to fish a "navigable" piece of water, he can do so, so long as he is legally parked somewhere.

I'm not in the mood or whatever, to sit here and split hairs. What I can tell you is look up the book "Forever Free, your fishing rights in Michigan". You'll find it on Smashwords and can read a partial section of the book. Or you can buy it for a nominal fee, but either way, it's well worth your time to read it, and educate yourself, these situations aren't as cut and dried as you may believe.


----------



## UplandnWaterfowl (Jan 3, 2010)

toto said:


> Upland, you would be correct IF it's non navigable waters. however I'm not so certain that is the case here.


Since the OP only gave the County, had to make the assumption after searching the Appendix of the document I attached that has the list of Michigan waters that have been declared navigable. The only thing navigable for the county is the Flat River, since the OP said a lake, led me to believe that is was a non navigable lake he was fishing.

Either way the OP now knows that that his assumption was wrong " I was under assumption that the county owned 30' from the centerline. This would put the edge of the road easement 10' into the water." The law is clear from pg. 33 

_"Some waters are touched or bordered by public roadways, most of which have been established by public use or by easement. Ownership of the land beneath such roadways remains with the private landowner. The public has merely acquired the right to use the land for roadway purposes, but not the right to pick the fruits, nuts, or crops alongside the roadway. These remain the property of the landowner. The courts have held the public has no right to enter a non-navigable lake or stream from a public roadway any more than to enter the orchards or uplands along such roadway."_


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I'm a little confused as I don't remember seeing where the OP made reference to the lake/river being non nav. If I missed that I apologize, however, it is navigable it is usable. All one has to do at that point is determine a legal access point. BTW, that is correct in that you can't pick berries, nuts, or mushrooms on the right of way, that is considered property of the land owner from wence the right of way was purchased. Also, BTW, if a lake or stream is not on list of non nav, it would considered navigable until the federal courts deem it otherwise.

Here is a link to a small part of the book I mentioned:

http://www.smashwords.com/extreader...ht-to-fish-michigans-inland-lakes-and-streams


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

A bridge is not an access point legally. That came straight from the C.O. Private property on both sides of the bridge means it is non accessible without permission. If the water is navigable you can use it but you must get there vis an actual access point. We asked about the cars parked by our bridge and the C.O. asked if we wanted them towed for illegal parking. We didnt, cause we really didnt care we just wanted to know the law in case we had a problem with people illegally taking fish etc we would know where we stood with the law.

Ganzer


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

" Also, BTW, if a lake or stream is not on list of non nav, it would considered navigable until the federal courts deem it otherwise."

Incorrect, US compiled law, Section 8800, non-tidal is presumed non-navigable, burden of proof is on party claiming navigability.


----------



## 2508speed (Jan 6, 2011)

There are a couple places on Higgins where the lake front owners try to disguise the road end as a manicured lawn. I don't have it in me anymore to press the issue. Your side Swampbuck , and my side by Flag Pt. Between Caliente and the Pt.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I know what your talking about. I have tweaked a few of those people over the years. As of a couple years ago gerrish wouldn't enforce the lounging part of the law. Looking forward to some evening walks down Sheridan dr. This summer, should be as pleasant as grosbeak dr....lol


----------

