# Riparian rights clarification for duck hunting



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

#1:

http://www.varnumlaw.com/purchase-checklist-things-to-consider-when-buying-waterfront-property/


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

There is nothing in there that pertains to bottomlands. What you will notice is if your property does not abut the water, you are not a riparian. This link you posted explains nothing pertinent to our discussion.

From the same website as you referenced, this goes back to the original op's question:

http://www.varnumlaw.com/riparian-rights-primer/


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

From both your own links:

1st link excerpt:



> (which is _*almost always*_ the adjoining lakefront property owner)


2nd link excerpt:



> Thus, to reserve or exclude ownership of the submerged land, the conveyance must explicitly reserve that interest.


Bottom line is, I was acknowledging a previous posters comment that _in some cases, the house on the beach, may not be the owner of said bottomlands_. (my verbiage)


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

YZman said:


> From both your own links:
> 
> 1st link excerpt:
> 
> ...


That may be IF the property does not touch the water, in other words there is a strip of land between the owners property and the water, that beach house mentioned is not riparian.

From the Varnum website again:

http://www.varnumlaw.com/blogs/riparian-rights/is-your-neighbors-dock-on-your-bottomlands/

Read paragraph two, or maybe 3, notice it doesn't say could own, or may own, or in certain cases or the like. It states you DO own the bottomlands IF your property is riparian.


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

Want to get the attention if a c o in a hurry? I hunted lake macatawa as best I could in the wedge from the channel to lake Michigan. The bottoms of the great lakes are federally owned, so I didn't need permission. I didn't even fire a shot before I was summoned to shore for a chat.

1. Said wedge is very narrow and can I insure all my cripples can be contained in it
2. There are lots of houses around with lots of eyes and lots of phones. And while more than 450' away, they are close enough to hit with shot
3. Anchoring in a shipping lane may constitute a hazard to navigation. Or in plain English, freighter don't care.

So this was an example of legal but not worth it.

My parent's lake up north has two public accesses but layout hunters hunt the middle, kind of like Houghton lake, and no one cares. That's a case of not totally legal but not an issue. I don't like that though as I don't want to leave it up to a c o to interpret. I did get called to shore by a sheriff while on that lake, and he wanted to know how the flights had been. Amazing the difference 100 miles north can make.


----------



## 2508speed (Jan 6, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> Lake St. Helen is a very specific case. I believe the only public lake in Michigan where hunting rights are privately owned.
> 
> And there's a big difference between owning bottomland and Riparian rights.


You are right about Lake St. Helen. I even called in one time to PBS asking about it on Ask the DNR. They din't have an answer. Goes back to the lumbering barons who sold rights to guys. CharltonHeston maybe?


----------



## 2508speed (Jan 6, 2011)

Far Beyond Driven said:


> Want to get the attention if a c o in a hurry? I hunted lake macatawa as best I could in the wedge from the channel to lake Michigan. The bottoms of the great lakes are federally owned, so I didn't need permission. I didn't even fire a shot before I was summoned to shore for a chat.
> 
> 1. Said wedge is very narrow and can I insure all my cripples can be contained in it
> 2. There are lots of houses around with lots of eyes and lots of phones. And while more than 450' away, they are close enough to hit with shot
> ...


How can you get summoned to shore while hunting?


----------



## Far Beyond Driven (Jan 23, 2006)

"Hey you, come here" from a sheriff works pretty well, even when you're a 1/4 mile offshore. I think he used the hailer on his radio.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

It sure is nice to live in a place where there is too much public land. I can do most of my hunting and fishing within 15 minutes of home. You don't run into the people who own 5 feet of land that think it extends 50 miles. I grew up in West Branch when I was younger if you just asked you could hunt, trap, and fish pretty much anywhere. Things changed in a hurry down there.


----------



## kzoofisher (Mar 6, 2011)

New book out on river rights from the National Organization for Rivers. Specifically mentions rights to duck hunt rivers. I haven't read this and can't vouch for it but information is never a bad thing.

"NEW: Your rights on rivers, in a concise, inexpensive book! Explains federal law, the history of river uses nationwide, and why state law, in any state, cannot lawfully deny the public easement on rivers that are physically navigable by canoes, kayaks, or shingle bolts. Explains how river users can restore the public easement in any state. Also explains public rights to run rivers through federal lands without having to pay a concessionaire in order to gain access in a timely manner, and suggests how river users can obtain river permits to which they are lawfully entitled. 72 pages, with illustrations of historic and current uses of rivers nationwide. Every river user should have this book" - See more at:http://www.nationalrivers.org/products-and-resources/#sthash.dBTfVHlq.dpuf


----------



## CHARLES RONK (Nov 8, 2020)

Omg people make things so difficult. If you have lake frontage you own the riparian right pie shaped to the center of the lake. It is an assumed ownership. Just like when you buy a new care the title doesn't identify the tires on the car are yours it is assumed that they are as part of the car. It only states in the deed that the riparian rights belong to someone else when they actually belong to someone else. Your deed will be stated as such.


----------

