# A River to the Lake



## Ruler (Nov 30, 2001)

I have a technical question for Mr. Ray. It's something that I've heard contradictory definitions of by DNR guys and everybody I talk to has a different idea as to what's right. This is going to get kind of long because of the examples, but I want to be clear as to what I'm asking, why I'm confused, and what guidelines I should follow.

The seasons differ from the lake to rivers. For example, it's legal to keep lakers from type 3 rivers as long as they're 2 feet right now, but they're out of season in the lake. The sizes are different for many species as well, plus other types of rivers have more stringent regulations.

A couple of falls ago, I was at the AuSable and my dad got a lake trout. A DNR guy told him he had to throw it back, as we were fishing about 20 feet past a 'No Wake' sign on the river. He said that was where the river ended and the lake began. We were well in from where the river dumps into the lake at the end of the piers, and even in from the natural shoreline, but it was only the second time we'd been fishing for big fish. My dad released it, not wanting a ticket.

Another time that same fall at the AuSable, I asked a different DNR guy about where the river ended and where the lake began because people were catching lakers all around me. (I never did get one that day though.  ) They were out of season in the lake by a few days, but legal in the river larger than 2 feet. He said that you can fish anywhere on the pier and as long as you are casting into the river, it counts as fishing in the river. However, you can't stand on the end and cast out, nor can you cast on the lake side of the pier - that would make you fishing in the lake. His logic was that you can't walk on water- as long as the pier hugs the river and you cast into the river, it counts as fishing in the river. If there's no river or the pier doesn't follow it closely (I imagine he was referring to a setup like Port Austin, where there's a river, but the wall is several hundred feet away in places), it counts as the lake.

This made sense to me, so I've used it as a guideline ever since, at the AuSable and the other places I've fished. However, I've heard that this is incorrect from different people.

For example, take the mouth of the Pigeon river at Caseville. A certain species of fish have been caught through the ice here lately that are out of season in the lake, but OK in the river as long as they're a certain size. (I know - I'm being subtle and _nobody_ can deduce what fish I'm referring to...  ) They are being caught beyond the end of the wooden docks, but before the end of the walkable pier. It's well within casting distance from the pier; in the channel of the river itself actually. The pier hugs the channel of the river there, although the pier is only on one side instead of both like at the AuSable. The people out there were of the impression that this counted as the lake, so the type 3 stream regs (for the Pigeon River) aren't in effect and the lake regs are. If one fishes in the channel of the river before the end of the walkable pier, does this count as fishing in the lake or as fishing in the river?

Further, is the guideline described above what I should use when deciding what set of regulations to follow? If not, what set of guidelines should I use? If so, are these known to and used by all DNR guys?

I want to follow the right regulations, but when one DNR guy tells me one thing and another the opposite a short time later, it's hard to get a grasp on what set of rules to follow where. I think you can see where I'd be left scratching my head about what I can keep where. The last DNR dude I talked to up at the AuSable is the only one who's offered any logic behind what he stated, so that's what I've applied when fishing other places as well. I've yet to be checked by any DNR guy, but don't want to wait until it's too late to find out what exactly constitutes the boundry between the river and the lake. I catch few enough fish the way it is (especially big fish that I have to worry about differing sets of regs like this) and would really like to eat what I catch if possible, but don't want to break the law to do so.


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

this is what i have been told by 3 officers over the last year i have asked about the caseville thing:

1. He said the entire area, river and lake was closed and that no one can keep lakers. 

2. This officer told us The river is where it dumps out of the Natural shoreline and lakers caught inside the river in from the shoreline were good to go if they were 24 inches. 

3. He said more/less the same thing officer two said, but said the shoreline ended at a certain post on the left side of the river. This is roughly 30 feet farther inland then water officer 2 told us. 

Since it is all nice and coufusing to me, i just choose to toss all the lakers i get while fishing there back. I would love to keep one or two for the smoker, so i also would like to hear what Boehr has to say on this. 

Thanks for anyone who can help.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

The river ends at the *natural* shoreline regardless of piers or breakwalls.

If you take an imaginary line from the end of the shoreline on one side of the river to the end of the shoreline on the opposite side, everything outside (lakeward) that line is in the lake, everything inside the line is in the river. A pier or breakwall as it really is in Caseville, has absoulutely no impact on were a river ends and the lake begins in Caseville or anywhere else.

Pier/breakwall is a man built structure that has a purpose of protection of wave action, not a purpose of extenting a river to a distance greater of it's natural condition.

I'm not sure if by DNR guy you mean a CO or someone else. If any CO tells you different then what I state above then I would recommend you contact the Lt. of that District so they can be taught correctly. If it was a fish tech or some other employee besides a CO then they should be directing people to a CO. Since I worked in Huron County for 11 years I can tell you that what I posted above is positively correct.


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

thanks boehr, thats what i thought. 

Do you know off hand where the river ends at caseville? as i said, i have gotten different answers as to where it ends and since each bank has man made features that jut out into the lake, i'm really not sure.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Obviously with the water level down it has changed in the last few years but the beach (sand) on the east side of the breakwall along an imaginary line to the beach across the channel west of the break wall. I don't have a current arial photo or I would post it with a line showing it.


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

Is there a way you can show me by using this pic from the net? 

http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=12&x=396&y=6085&z=17&w=1

So, if i got a laker before the east shoreline ends it would be legal or does it also have to be behind the west shoreline as well?? 

Thanks again for all the help.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

That photo, which I do have is from about 1998 prior to the water being down but using that photo there would be a portion of the breakwall you could fish off of because of the angle that the shoreline would be on. The breakwall has obviously increased the shoreline on the one side of the breakwall which has increased the angle of the line but it is still the shoreline regardless.

If you got a laker from the breakwall before the end of the shoreline next to the breakwall, it would be in the river.


----------



## jeremy L (Sep 19, 2002)

thanks for all the help.


----------



## Ruler (Nov 30, 2001)

Thanks Ray. I take it that this method of stretching a line from one shoreline to the other is valid anywhere in the state? Also, the line extends from where the water meets the land, not where the beach begins, correct? (I gathered this from your comment about the low water extending the river, but want to make sure I understand correctly.)

I'm pretty sure the second guy I talked to at the AuSable was a CO, as he wrote a ticket for a guy who hooked a laker fishing off the end, then in the process of fighting it, got it into the river. He kept it because he got it 'in the river'. (Definitely abusing the intent of the law.) Dunno about the other one that told my dad to throw it back, but that was *definitely* in the river as you describe it - the parking lot was behind us and there were trailers directly across the river from where we were fishing!   

Thanks again for the clairification Ray.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Correct Jim, that holds true for anywhere in the state unless there is a law defining a particular river which I don't know of any. I know that the Pigeon River in Caseville is governed as I have explained. You are also correct of where the water meets the land. Glad I could help.


----------

