# Riparian Rights on Streams and Lakes



## J-Boy (Oct 5, 2005)

I agree with respecting property owner's rights. My only concern is to protect the recreational resource of stream and lake fishing for my grandchildren. I also agree, if you can navigate with a canoe on a stream it is my understanding according to MI law that the stream is navigable.

Take for example the Rogue River in Kent county. This is a protected natural river just like the Betsie River in Benzie county. I have been confronted downstream of Rockford by private property owners while I was trout fishing in the summer months. I would many times walk on the bank travelling from hole to hole. It is my understanding that the bank is fair game up to the high water mark which leaves a GREAT AMOUNT of bank access in the summer.


----------



## J-Boy (Oct 5, 2005)

casscityalum said:


> Id love to fish for them gills with you. Far as my reading(new to these laws) from what you've posted I think we should give it a shot. If the stream is deemed navigable and access is from the highway far as what Ive read it can be legit to fish. I wont anchor or step on land, but I got a canoe to give it a shot. Lol but thanks for the post. Im learning a lot. Interesting thoughts. Thanks again.
> -dan


If you test with your canoe the access of that lake, and you don't get run off, I can only imagine the slabs of gills you will gather all spring and summer. To the best of my knowledge this is a virtually virgin lake that is not fished at all.

PS> If you do decide to try this, enter Reeds lake at the public launch which is only a hundred yards from where the connecting stream to Fisk lake starts to the north. You will have to paddle through reeds and lily pads to find the stream, but it is there.


----------



## DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI (Sep 23, 2002)

8nchuck said:


> I have always entered the stream from a public road that crossed the stream. I have never had any problems with property owners. One guy did tell me to stay in the creek in so many words and I'd be fine. Again, I conducted myself with respect to the owners and if they were fishing I'd stayed back until they told me it was ok to pass. I did not just run down the stream. I was told if you could get a canoe down it then it was navigable. I never entered a stream that would not fit this requirement. Sucker Creek in Alcona Co. is one that comes to mind I fished allot years ago.


SUCKER CREEK IN ALCONA COUNTY is mostly if not all bordered by private land owners and hunt clubs. it is almost impassible with all the dead falls in it from past years. great creek for spearing suckers i can remember spearing suckers with the BYCES many a moon ago (60's)


----------



## 8nchuck (Apr 20, 2006)

J-Boy said:


> I agree with respecting property owner's rights. My only concern is to protect the recreational resource of stream and lake fishing for my grandchildren. I also agree, if you can navigate with a canoe on a stream it is my understanding according to MI law that the stream is navigable.
> 
> Take for example the Rogue River in Kent county. This is a protected natural river just like the Betsie River in Benzie county. I have been confronted downstream of Rockford by private property owners while I was trout fishing in the summer months. I would many times walk on the bank travelling from hole to hole. It is my understanding that the bank is fair game up to the high water mark which leaves a GREAT AMOUNT of bank access in the summer.


Yea, see I don't know about the bank. I never got out and I was told not to.

I was also told that according to Lumberman's rights you were allowed 20' to camp on at night. Don't knows I try that one though.


----------



## 8nchuck (Apr 20, 2006)

DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI said:


> SUCKER CREEK IN ALCONA COUNTY is mostly if not all bordered by private land owners and hunt clubs. it is almost impassible with all the dead falls in it from past years. great creek for spearing suckers i can remember spearing suckers with the BYCES many a moon ago (60's)


Yep, Rooney's owned to the east of Sucker Creek road and Walter Genso and Jack Dumas owned most of it to the west. All were friends of my dad and grandpa so I guess I would have had a "get out of jail card". LOL


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

You can not enter a non-navigable stream from a road crossing. There are no such things as "lumbermen rights". Most riparian law is based on "common law". I think you need to read the DNR's "PUBLIC RIGHTS ON WATERWAYS" for a primer.
Hopefully Ray will get this thread straightened out to facts only.

YZman


----------



## 8nchuck (Apr 20, 2006)

Yes I figure there was no such thing as Lumbermans rights.
here is an quote from the Michigan fishing booklet 2006-2007

*Angler Rights On Public Streams​*On fenced or posted property or farm property, a fisherman wading or floating a navigable public
stream may, without written or oral consent, enter upon property within the clearly defined banks of
the stream or, without damaging farm products, walk a route as closely proximate to the clearly
defined bank as possible when necessary to avoid a natural or artificial hazard or obstruction,
including, but not limited to, a dam, deep hole, or a fence or other exercise of ownership by the
riparian owner.​


----------



## ih772 (Jan 28, 2003)

YZman said:


> You can not enter a non-navigable stream from a road crossing. There are no such things as "lumbermen rights". Most riparian law is based on "common law". I think you need to read the DNR's "PUBLIC RIGHTS ON WATERWAYS" for a primer.
> Hopefully Ray will get this thread straightened out to facts only.
> 
> YZman


Yesh, I'm waiting for Boehr to show up as well and correct some of the misconceptions he's spreading.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I just got home and I am closing this until I have the chance to read it all. There seems to be so much incorrect information in the thread it is pathetic and the first post doesn't even seem to be a question. I would caution anyone to take much of this thread seriously at this time.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I have deleted much wrong information along with leaving some information that in questionable especially when all circumstances are not implied or stated in the discusssion.

I really see no need it leaving this open however if there is a specific questions I would be more than happy to attempt to answer if one would like to start a new thread with the question.

Just to clear up a few things, there is no such thing as lumberman's rights.

Most lakes are public but many do no allow the general public access.

Navigable lakes and stream are much different that public lakes or streams. One might be public but not navigable or one might be public and navaigable but the term is no synonomous.

The DNR does not make detirminations on navigable lakes or streams, the courts do that. There is a list of navigable inland lakes and streams that the DNR has which that book has been posted within the last few days. These lakes and stream again have been ruled on by the courts or the Army Corps of Engineers.

I will again encourage readers to take much of this thread with a grain of salt.


----------

