# Following a river thru private property.



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

A river is either "navigatable" , "non-navigatable" or not yet determined by the courts. Some very small creeks would be deemed "navigatable" if it can be shown the it was used for moving logs.

Often loggers made a series of mini dams on a creek, filled it with logs and removed the dam until the logs got to the next dam and repeated the process. If one could prove that in court it would probably be deemed "navigatable" .

If your stream is "nonnavigatable" he was clearly traspassing. If it were a "navigatable" stream he was not. For all practical purposes depth of water does not matter. If I think it is to deep or that it would be dangerous to my person I can walk the bank. I cannot stand on your property and fish no matter how deep the water.

You cannot shoot a deer even one standing in the water if the property on both sides of the stream is private but you can keep the fish you catch.

If the "navigatability" of a stream has not been determined by the courts and you press charges, you take the risk of proving the stream "navigatable" in which case once proven you will not be able to keep the public from walking the banks on your private property.


----------



## Magnet (Mar 2, 2001)

If the stream is non-navigatable and running through private land, the river bottom is considered private and anyone standing in it is trespassing.


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

I see this misspelling too often. Its "navigable"; no 't'.

Courts deal with "finding of fact". Trespasser may find himself trying to prove navigability. And you cannot just "walk along banks", there better be an obstruction/deep hole. Video is your friend.

yzman


----------



## Stix (Oct 10, 2008)

well in certain areas its only 4" deep for a good long strech cannot get a log or kayak thru it


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

YZman,

That will teach me from copying someone elses spelling.

On your second point, one can walk along the bank.
I happen to live on a navigable river and have had this explained by several COs. It may not be deep, but I may think it is quicksand.


----------



## Wishn I was fishn (Mar 4, 2001)

My bad stix if I knew that was you that stopped me along the river I would have introduced myself


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

We all know this law is poorly written, what I would like to know is, what is a better way of writing this law. As it stands, it seems so confusing, there must a better way. Boehr, what would you suggest? Not trying to be argumentative here, just wondering if there is a better way.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Splitshot said:


> YZman,
> 
> That will teach me from copying someone elses spelling.
> 
> ...


What you think it may be and what it is might be two completely different things.

No you can't walk along the bank just because you think there might be quicksand, there had better be quicksand or you better be in the water on a navigable stream. That's why they don't call it navigable upland.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

boehr, BTW, I like your saying at the bottom of your posts. Its the way we have to look at things now.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

boehr said:


> What you think it may be and what it is might be two completely different things.
> 
> No you can't walk along the bank just because you think there might be quicksand, there had better be quicksand or you better be in the water on a navigable stream. That's why they don't call it navigable upland.


I agree, they might be two completely different things. If I am getting different opinions from two different COs it points out the dilemma. The law is so unclear that law enforcement doesnt have the answer so the problem must be in how law is written.

I think that makes your statement I can't walk along the bank if I think there is danger, questionable.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Splitshot said:


> I agree, they might be two completely different things. If I am getting different opinions from two different COs it points out the dilemma. The law is so unclear that law enforcement doesnt have the answer so the problem must be in how law is written.
> 
> I think that makes your statement I can't walk along the bank if I think there is danger, questionable.


The danger will be to the trespasser. Of course you can question it all you wish because who makes the final decision will be a judge. By the way, what two COs because I would love to contact them and hear what they supposedly told you for myself. Second, as I stated before, there is no law written, the trespassing on rivers, navigable or non-navigable is dependant on Supreme Court Decisions. Of course if you know of a written law, feel free to post it or a link to it so we can all read it. Then you won't need the opinions of two COs or a retired one either.


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

Boehr,

Just curious, how does Florida riparian/littoral rights work?

PS: Jim G. says hi! Worked with you in Saginaw area I believe.

yzman


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

YZman said:


> Boehr,
> 
> Just curious, how does Florida riparian/littoral rights work?
> 
> ...


Don't know how in works in Florida because I have never been in the situation to find out. Fishing in the ocean from a public beach or pier, one doesn't even need a license in Florida.

I suspect you are talking about Sergeant Jim G now, tell him hi. If it is him, Sergeant Jim G., tell him I still have a picture of him and another CO getting a new badge, hell will know what picture I'm talking about.:lol:


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Mmmm...I guess it all comes down to the CO and common sense....we have a few areas that are private on both sides that we frequent waterfowl jump shooting....having your gun unloaded is considered not hunting...maybe not technically but it is to a few local co when asked. 

Now if the guy is walking the river and passes through ones property, pending there is either stateland or property he can hunt up or downtream of your property...having your bow not notched up walking through your property would be reasonable to me and I bet most CO's. 

Any chance that guy had some permission on other properties or there might be stateland in his walking that stretch of river??

the other technicallity is whether you have your property marked correctly on both sides of the river?


----------

