# Paint Creek Fence



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

Fished Paint Creek two days ago, or should I say waded through brush two days ago. Just 1/3 mile up from the Cider Mill I came across a fence that crossed the creek. What is that all about? Is that legal? I guess the homeowner didn't want people in "His" creek, but that is bs. Felt like taking it down, but the area wasn't worth it.

Any info on this would be great. 

KW


----------



## TODDFATHER (Jun 5, 2002)

Kingwilly,

I came across a similar situation on the paint which was I believe about the same distance above gunn road. Seems that a landowner felt important to preserve his private trout fishing by felling a couple trees across the stream making it impossible to wade through, then, posted it as private, no trespassing! Seems that the Rip rights need to be reviewed in this state for a more pragmatic solution rather than continuing in the vein the law allows for today! With time, the DNR will be stocking and maintaining land that only landowners can fish, and therein limiting the DNR's need for existance at all. Wouldn't it be wonderful to have the USA just as it is in Europe where only the affluent can fish, or take game for that matter!



Toddfather


----------



## unregistered55 (Mar 12, 2000)

Try going upstream of Tikken rd, I think that's it...they have Cable's acroos the river with No Tresspassing signs and even tin cans on the cable's so if you rattle them the owners dogs comes running...He's a big dog but doesn't Like the water...but boy does it piss him off when ya stand there and rattle them tin cans! 

I try to visit old buster once a month or so


----------



## TODDFATHER (Jun 5, 2002)

I guess these landowners have us where they want us on the trespassing issue! My understanding is that we must not trespass on their section of the stream since paint is aparently non-navigatable! 



Toddfather


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

Is that the deal, being non-navigatable? That doesn't make sense. So if I bought a huge section of frontage I could lock everyone out? I thought all creeks, streams, rivers were accessable. I also understand that if you can't make it through a certain stretch that you had upto 10' on either side to get out and back in as soon as you can.

Like I said, that section of creek looked pretty weak. No big deal, just not right.

KW


----------



## FlyDaddy (Dec 29, 2002)

Hey kingwilly, It sounds like you seen the same fence I saw  
You bonehead, I already posted in the "Laws" forum. There are some other answers there from bohr and others...LOL was that you I hit in the back of the head with my fly?

    

FD


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

To answer your question...the landowner isn't trying to keep the trout to himself.....what he is doing is trying to keep his deer from walking down the river...I don't know if you took the time to realize that he has fallow deer on his property....also the fence flips up.....and thus makes the river navigable...and it is legal to do that...the man is very nice and I would by no means think he is keeping the paint creek to himself


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Ah, I know the exact house and place you are talking about now. That guys used to have all sorts of creatures walking around his property..... a pretty wild place.


----------



## TODDFATHER (Jun 5, 2002)

Chuckinduck,
Nice man or not, no trespassing means just that since paint is considered a non navigatable stream! The fence flipping up is of little consequence since he also has it posted. Keep out means keep out! 


Kingwilly, 
I think you are both right and wrong! Exactly right that you could buy a hunk of land with a non navigatable river or stream on it and successfully keep everyone out! Staying in the water and taking relief as you mentioned only applies if it is a navigatable stream or river, otherwise, you are in violation.

Hey Guys! Fix my thinking if i'm wrong on these two issues. I've drawn these conclusions from reading Mr Boehr's posts and take what he says as gospel. I might have misinterpeted what he was saying but I don't think so!


Toddfather


----------



## WILDCATWICK (Mar 11, 2002)

Is everyone sure this piece of water is non-navigatable? How deep and wide is it? I wish we could see a picture of the area but the old link picture doesn't seem to be working.


----------



## TODDFATHER (Jun 5, 2002)

Wildcatwick, 

Aparently the legal definition of navigatability ammounts to whether the stream or river has ever been used in logging, or for commerce. It has little else to do with the physical makeup of the stream. I think you guys need to check this out to really get mad! I'm afraid It's worse than you might have ever imagined! 




Toddfather


----------



## FlyDaddy (Dec 29, 2002)

I'm not mad about it. In all reality I did not see a sign that posted "No trespassing". I think the question is if it was legal or for what other reason might someone do that. I posted a similar topic (same scenario) in the law section of the forums. Boher brought up a point that maybe the owner has farm animals there or something to that affect. The fence was off the river about 2 feet, so there was no water restriction and kingwilly and I were not interested enough to persue the area of river in question. Just all in curiosity.  

FD


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

C'mon, I was pissed. I was just to lazy to pursue it. Maybe I am just new to fishing and have never seen somebody block access to a creek. 

KW


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Just fish with Bail Money on hand.


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

Only FlyDaddy and Gentleman Jack.

KW


----------



## FlyDaddy (Dec 29, 2002)

Even that combonation with Flydaddy and Gentelmen Jack it may be a good idea to bring bail money too. 

FD


----------



## kingwilly (Dec 18, 2002)

LOL

KW


----------



## chuckinduck (May 28, 2003)

I would like to answer the question of this so called non-navigateble river....and this river is a navigatable river....so anyone saying otherwise is wrong...I have taken several courses while I attended WMU...and just graduated with a degree in finance which required several real estate courses of which discussed riparian rights of landowners (riparian deals with water rights)..and I know this....a river is defined as navigable...if a person can float unobstructed down a flowing body of water...by unobstructed I mean...without the force of the person propelling the watercraft...so basically if you can float a tube down a river without it getting "beached" a river is considered navigable....putting a fence up does not impede a river from being non navigable...it only requires the landowner to make the fence movable...by the person going down the river....further more....easements are only entitled to the great lakes...which means a person could legally walk around the entire state of michigan without repercussion of being ticketed for tresspassing assuming they stay within a certain distance of the shoreline


----------



## TODDFATHER (Jun 5, 2002)

Chuckinduck,

I respecfully disagree! The standard that you mention to determine navigability is not quite accurate, nor complete. If you check into this a little further you'll see the shortcommings. 

As a starting point, read the following thread. To convince me otherwise, you'd have to provide a statement from the DNR that supports your position. 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=19705&highlight=riparian+rights



Toddfather


----------



## unregistered55 (Mar 12, 2000)

Here is more info on that ToddFather...

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/access/navigability/reports/MI.htm


----------

