# riparian rights/law Hunting lakes with a public access



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

not to tell any moderators there jobs, but, it sure would be nice if this was a sticky in this waterfowl forum, so that it would put an end to all the hearsay and opinions on this VERY IMPORTANT LAW.
The navigability of inland waters has nothing to do with hunting or trapping. Hunting and trapping are exclusive rights of the riparian owner. Navagability only pertains to boating and fishing. So yes, you are required to have permission to hunt navigable waters be it a inland lake or river.
I COPIED THIS STATEMENT FROM RETIRED C.O. BOEHR IN THE LAW FORUM.
THANKS IN ADVANCE FOR ANY AND ALL CONSIDERATION.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf
ON PAGE 28 AT THE VERY TOP under G and H are the very answers

*G. Right to Take Game - Generally
The right to take game is a private property right vested solely in the property owner.
This is unlike the right to fish which arises by the establishment of public water through
its use, as well as the waters capacity for use in transportation and travel, and from the
fact that there is no private ownership in the fish or in the right to take fish from public
waters. Being a private property right, the taking of game is lawful only with the
permission of the property owner.
The picture is best summed up by example. The public has a legal right to fish from a
boat during open season on public waters, but this right would not include the shooting
of ducks from the same boat without permission of the riparian owner, even though the
shooting season was open. This violates a property right.

H. Hunting and Trapping on Submerged Lands - Riparian Rights
It has been well established in Michigan, that the owner of lands bordering on a
navigable stream or lake, with the exception of the Great Lakes, owns the submerged
lands to the thread of the stream, subject only to the easement of navigation which the
public may have thereon, and that he also owns the ice covering the surface of the water
over the submerged lands and any interference with these rights constitutes a trespass.
The right of trapping is a property interest and the riparian owner of lands has the
exclusive right to trap. In an enforcement action against a trespasser the landowner is
entitled to the remedies available under Part 731, Recreational Trespass.*


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

If you compile what is needed and I am sure the moderators will sticky it


----------



## slammer (Feb 21, 2006)

You are mostly correct. If there is State land bordering an inland lake a pie shaped area from boundry to boundry then to the center of the lake would be open to hunting. This is clear on such lakes as Pontiac Lake where there are signs posted for land owners not to harass hunters during the early goose hunt.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

slammer said:


> you are mostly correct. If there is state land bordering an inland lake a pie shaped area from boundry to boundry then to the center of the lake would be open to hunting. This is clear on such lakes as pontiac lake where there are signs posted for land owners not to harass hunters during the early goose hunt.


no i am not mostly correct ! This comes straight from our retired moderator/mdnr c.o. Boehr he is 100% correct
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf
page 28 under G and H are the answers


----------



## Newbie600rr (Jul 25, 2006)

Riparian rights for landowners extend from teh shoreline frontage out to the geographical center of teh lake in a pie shape. The landowner can control hunting, but not fishing or recreational boating. The question "Can I hunt" is looked at the same way as private non water land. If it's posted, no you can't w/o permission. If it's farmland or attached woodlot to farmland, no you can't without permission. If it's neither of those, and you've never been told by the landowner that you can't hunt there then you may until you are told otherwise. I've never run into this, but I can't imagine it being a problem unless you were huntng right outside their property, where it was clear that you were in fact in front of their property. If you're out a distance, it's darn near impossible to figure where the center of the lake is, and where the landowners "pie" is. Very difficult to enforce. Hope that helps?

this comes from Reid Roeske Conservation Officer that posts on the michigan duck hunters association forum. If you want to read his whole post go to http://www.midha.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1271


----------



## Maddog (Dec 9, 2007)

Think of a navigable body of water as a road. Navigatable water was and still is used for commerace. e.g. logging industry. The lakes and streams were "roads" to move goods. This does not grant permision to use the ajoining land.


----------



## slammer (Feb 21, 2006)

DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI said:


> no i am not mostly correct ! This comes straight from our retired moderator/mdnr c.o. Boehr he is 100% correct
> http://www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf
> page 28 under G and H are the answers


Well actually you are wrong. There are exceptions on inland lakes with public land that attaches to them. The public area extends just as the private areas do. I do not care what the retired CO says. If he says that then he does not understand the law just like many others don't.


----------



## woodie slayer (Feb 25, 2006)

how aout if the whole lake is prvatly owned by a coyuple hundred people but there is a state owned boat launch.is it just open in front of the boat launch


----------



## slammer (Feb 21, 2006)

I do not think so but the area would be so small it would not be worth it. Most people will give permission if you ask. For the most part this is a non-issue. MOST people that complain about it have never had an issue and or do not follow the rules themselves. Imagine if you were a land owner on the typical inland lake in Michigan and 1) you wanted to duck hunt and 2) you are like Mr. Z and are so worried about people using your under water land. Unless that spot right in front of your property is a duck magnet or you own hundreds of feet of shoreline a land owner is very limited on where they can hunt unless they have permission to hunt from others on the lake. I have hunted on Houghton Lake a few times. We would leave the cabin we were renting and motor out far into the lake and shoot divers all day long. Only people with other issues in life would have a complaint about that. The next thing you know they will want to divide the air space the ducks are flying in.


----------



## DogDoc (Jan 18, 2002)

slammer said:


> Well actually you are wrong. There are exceptions on inland lakes with public land that attaches to them. The public area extends just as the private areas do. I do not care what the retired CO says. If he says that then he does not understand the law just like many others don't.


Boehr understands this quite well. You are failing to undertand that the State of Michigan is also a riparian owner and controls hunting in its pie-shaped piece to the center of the body of water. The State of Michigan generally gives you the permission required to hunt their riparian property, you just don't need to ask the State for that permission. They could also take that permission away if they so choose.


----------



## chemo13 (May 10, 2006)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## slammer (Feb 21, 2006)

DogDoc said:


> Boehr understands this quite well. You are failing to undertand that the State of Michigan is also a riparian owner and controls hunting in its pie-shaped piece to the center of the body of water. The State of Michigan generally gives you the permission required to hunt their riparian property, you just don't need to ask the State for that permission. They could also take that permission away if they so choose.


I do not fail to understand that at all; I hunt Geese on Pontiac Lake. Blanket statements like you can't hunt inland lakes without permission, like what is being presented are wrong and should not be stated. It turns potential hunters away which seems to be the goal of some people.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

slammer said:


> I do not fail to understand that at all; I hunt Geese on Pontiac Lake. Blanket statements like you can't hunt inland lakes without permission, like what is being presented are wrong and should not be stated. It turns potential hunters away which seems to be the goal of some people.


first off what blanket statement? i made no such statement slammer. do yourself a big favor and click on the link i posted and get educated before you blow off what ever it is your spewing. if everyone would read it they just may get a better understanding of what the LAW IS not what they think and or want it to be. granted theres a lots of reading, and i mean lots of reading, but that goes along with the territory. private means just that private and along with that are pros and cons. i would much rather ERROR on the side of any LEOthan take your word or anyone else's. i love my freedom and would like to keep all the cash i have as little as it is without donating it to the court THANK YOU !


----------



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

calm down, please!!!!!Want to talk about something that drives people away.


----------



## slammer (Feb 21, 2006)

Your right, I need to play nice. Just crabby because I have to clean out the garden on a hunting weekend because when it is almost 80 out the dogs won't run and the ducks don't fly.


----------



## ducwackor (May 29, 2007)

Aren't we all.....


----------



## Ferris_StateHunter (Apr 24, 2006)

doesnt this have something to do with anchors...

Actually you could hunt, but since most hunting on water is duck hunting you have to throw decoys out which anchor to the bottom and that is where the issue lies. 

You can use the surface of the water as you please, but you may not use the ground as is the pie shape rule applies, so if you could figure out a way to not have your boat or your decoys anchored you could techincally hunt because you are not tresspassing on someones land. 

A local LEO told me that awhile back, but they dont always know the law in full so who knows


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

Ferris_StateHunter said:


> doesnt this have something to do with anchors...
> 
> Actually you could hunt, but since most hunting on water is duck hunting you have to throw decoys out which anchor to the bottom and that is where the issue lies.
> 
> ...


this is truely unbelievable, what part of the second paragraph of subsection G didn't you understand
well, i guess the statement: ignorance of the law is no excuse just got a new definition.
you really need to read the whole law section to get a better idea of what and where one can and cannot hunt without being in trouble as different situations have different rules. but, as far a someone owning both sides of the river subsection G is quite clear about hunting. no mention of anchors or dekes just flat out no hunting without permission.


----------



## duckhunter382 (Feb 13, 2005)

you also have to remember that some lakes have federal shipping rights and are open to hunting regardless of where you are in connection to private property as long as you obey the safety zone. I know people that tried to get a "trespasser" and were told they had no right to that spot because of shipping rights.


----------



## roger23 (Jan 14, 2001)

I did not mind people hunting in front of my place ,,until I got hit by some buck shot,,I called the Sheriff after the guy refused to leave ,,as we were walking down to the dock we had shot raining down on us ,,the guy claimed we were harassing him ,,I guess he could not see to good the Deputy was not impressed,,,he told the guy to meet him at the ramp I don't know the out come ,,but the hunter had a attitude,,,,I think some guys ruin it for everyone


----------



## lilsean95 (Mar 6, 2007)

Stop the madness start hunting somewhere that has laws you can understand!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL This state is a great state but ******** in alot of places:evilsmile


----------



## DabblerDuck (Oct 28, 2009)

Where could one find the gps coordinates for the geographic center of a lake? I would think that this would be available in order to ensure that you are following the rules.


----------



## Shlwego (Sep 13, 2006)

peaker power said:


> The reason that CO did not have any hard answers is HE was violating FEDERAL LAW.
> 
> Public rights on navigable water are a matter of Federal Preemption and in People v. Gatski 2004 the Michigan Supreme Court acknowleged this. The case is avalible on the states web site. This means, in general, that the state has NO jurisdiction.
> 
> If you check some of my earlier posts on this thred I give a list of FEDERAL court rulings that affirm this.


 
I just read the Gatski case, and there _are_ Federal Preemptions discussed. Here's the thing: The Federal Preemptions Gatski deals with are _only_ for areas licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to produce power (i.e. in this case a Consumers Power Dam on the Grand River). The ruling affirmed the Federal right of Consumers Power to limit access to areas near the dam that might be dangerous to the public, and the plaintiff was found guilty of tresspassing. The conclusion also stated this:

_"So far as is consistent with proper operations of the project, the Licensee shall allow the public free access, to a reasonable extent, to project waters and adjacent project lands owned by the Licensee for the purpose of full public utilization of such lands and waters for navigation and for outdoor recreation purposes, including fishing and hunting: Provided, that the Licensee may reserve from public access such portions of the public waters, adjacent lands, and project facilities as may be necessary for the protection of life, health, and property."_

That means *only* that on projects controlled by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, where the Licensee owns the adjacent land, the public has a presumed permission to hunt. Thus the impoundments behind the Consumers Power dams on the AuSable, and other similar places, are open to hunting. Note, however, that the ruling does not confer a "right" to hunt, and that State or local laws prohibiting hunting are still able to be enforced, i.e. like the prohibition of hunting on the Ford Lake impoundment on the Huron River in Ypsilanti. This ruling also does *NOT* intend to infer that all navigable rivers with privately owned shorelines are open to hunting, merely because they are navigable. I have yet to see a Federal Law that clearly states: "State riparian laws are contravened on all Federally recognized navigable waters." On top of that, there is no Federally enumerated "right" to hunt. The Federal Government leaves the area of hunting regulations almost completely to the States - the exception being the Migratory Bird Hunting regs (and even in those regulations, the State can choose to be more strict than the Federal regs are). The bottom line is that I have yet to see anything in Federal Law that negates the Landowner's reparian hunting rights as stated in Michigan Law.


----------

