# How many feet off a lake does the state own



## WHITE-DEER-SLAYER (Oct 12, 2009)

I have this lake by my cottage and there is this old b**** that thinks she owns the whole lake. I bought a 2011 plot map and there is a corner of the lake that is conclusively on state and there is a trail that runs right into that corner. She kicked us off in the summer, but now that i have this plot map, there is now way that she owns it all. From my knowledge i have heard that the state owns a certain amount of feet off of every lake or bank on a river. Was this just a myth that i heard or what because this lake is stocked with monster's in all species. She has owned it for 60 years and lets no one fish it.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

WHITE-DEER-SLAYER said:


> I have this lake by my cottage and there is this old b**** that thinks she owns the whole lake. I bought a 2011 *plot map *and there is a corner of the lake that is conclusively on state and there is a trail that runs right into that corner. She kicked us off in the summer, but now that i have this plot map, there is now way that she owns it all. From my knowledge i have heard that the state owns a certain amount of feet off of every lake or bank on a river. Was this just a myth that i heard or what because this lake is stocked with monster's in all species. She has owned it for 60 years and lets no one fish it.


 It doesn't matter. If there are public lands that border the lake, or if the lake is planted with fish from public funds, the lake is not private and she cannot kick you off, as long as you access it from the public land or with permission from another land owner. I would bring the PLAT map with you, or leave it in the car, incase she tries to take things a step further. 
FYI, the rules of public access on lakes and rivers are much different.


----------



## blackghost (Oct 2, 2010)

From what I've read and heard:

1. There are some lakes that are completely private.

2. Many lakes do have a small section that is state land

Some questions:

Is the "owner" who kicked you off the only land owner on the lake?

Does the state land you talked about near an outlet or an inlet?

Some questions for others:

I own land on a private lake with about 15 other properties. We were fishing in front of someone's property and they came out and told us we couldn't fish there, but could only fish in front of our my own property. I think as long as we are not touching the bottom of the lake (landowners property) then we are fine. Is this right?


----------



## Mac423 (Jan 31, 2011)

i know the rule on streams in "navigability" basically, if you can float a canoe in it, you can stand in the water, even if it runs thru someones property, and you are not trespassing. Now, im sure the law is different for lakes. If you are launching off of state land, and not touching the private land owners dock or seawall, i believe there is very little the person can do. Common sense would state that for a lake to be "private" the landowner must complete landlock the body of water with THEIR land. Ive seen mention of a few CO's that post on this site, and this question is a perfect one for their expertise, lets hope they weigh in. Also, in afterthought, if you are allowed to fish there, and they are telling you that you are not, and that you must leave, This could be a case of Harassment of a Sportfisher. I know up on the Au Sable, they take that VERY seriously.


----------



## jimbo (Dec 29, 2007)

how many feet off a lake does the state own?
there's no land along shore that the state owns. But as long as the lake is not totally private, you access it legally & you stay on the water or ice, you're fine.
(as far as i know)


----------



## Putman Lake Campground (Oct 4, 2010)

WHITE-DEER-SLAYER said:


> I have this lake by my cottage and there is this old b**** that thinks she owns the whole lake. I bought a 2011 plot map and there is a corner of the lake that is conclusively on state and there is a trail that runs right into that corner. She kicked us off in the summer, but now that i have this plot map, there is now way that she owns it all. From my knowledge i have heard that the state owns a certain amount of feet off of every lake or bank on a river. Was this just a myth that i heard or what because this lake is stocked with monster's in all species. She has owned it for 60 years and lets no one fish it.


If there is public access you can fish it, as long as you use the public access. on lakes, property owners typically own to the "waters edge" and technically own to the center (pie type concept) but with access you can fish the entire lake as long as you are not on their shoreline.

Fortunately anytime the gov't has spend dollars keeping or improving a lake public access is granted to the public. 

Unfortunately the maps no longer actively show these un improved public access points.

Unfortunately the DNR normally only publishes the "improved public access points"

Unfortunately most law enforcement officers don't understand this either.

Unfortunately folks build garages across public access point, gardens, gates, and anything you can imagine to keep the public from using our public accesses. 

Unfortunately the DNR is not helping us, unless it's an improved access.

To go through all the Public records to prove what lake does and doesn't have public access would be a lot of work.

A freedom of information act letter to the DNR should answer the question. Pulling the abstract (assuming the county i willing to do that) at the local county building on all of the properties on a given lake should answer the questions.

Finding an old map is the easiest answer, if you find a map, they have to prove you wrong. Without a map you have to prove your rights to be there or be considered trespassing.

last I've seen a map published showing un-improved public access to supposedly private lakes.


----------



## boomstick (Aug 31, 2010)

"Unfortunately most law enforcement officers don't understand this either."

Fishing a Tourny on Cass Lake a land owner raced out on there dock to tell me that I couldnt fish there. After a short verbel conversation and a call to the Sheriff, the Sheriff on Cass Lake told the land owner she cant HARASS fishermen. Laws are in place for such cases.


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

Plot maps are great but, are not 100% correct and info changes all the time. I would go to the county office where the lake is located. Check with them to see who owns to the waters edge in the section you are talking about. Some counties have this on-line.

I have seen some were a private owner owns the 1' edge round the lake. This could be the case in your situation ?

Another way would be to contact the DNR district office for the area of that lake. They would or should know the answer . Use link below to locate a District office... 


http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-42199-24666--,00.html


----------



## Putman Lake Campground (Oct 4, 2010)

boomstick said:


> "Unfortunately most law enforcement officers don't understand this either."
> 
> Fishing a Tourny on Cass Lake a land owner raced out on there dock to tell me that I couldnt fish there. After a short verbel conversation and a call to the Sheriff, the Sheriff on Cass Lake told the land owner she cant HARASS fishermen. Laws are in place for such cases.


the problem is when it's NOT a published Improved access point and the officer doesn't understand that it's a public access if it doesn't have an improved launch ramp/access point.

I one time was harassed and eventually called in.

I went as far as to chat with the gentlman after he calmed down and complimenting the bridge that his association built and how nice of a driveway they had, etc. 

He went on to laugh.. oh no.. the state paid for this, this is a state road, our own private state road, and on and on he went.

So then I informed him that if the state built the road and bridge the property under it was state so I could fish under that bridge.

The DNR showed up and she endorsed him.. Eventually she changed her story and actually told me were I could put in at different points without upsetting folks and politely asked me to ignore my map since it would just upset people, etc. She was decent. but I had to educate her. She followed the pattern of "it's posted private it must be private"

I don't want to slight her. She is a darned good DNR officer and a compliment to our sports.


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Putman Lake Campground said:


> So then I informed him that if the state built the road and bridge the property under it was state so I could fish under that bridge.


 If you read the rules, that isn't always the case either. If the river is non-navigatable, and private on both sides of the river and bridge, then may not have legal access to fish under the bridge. While the state may control the right of way for the road and bridge, the land is still the property of the landowner. The laws are a mess, and there seems to be alot left to interpretation


----------



## Putman Lake Campground (Oct 4, 2010)

wartfroggy said:


> If you read the rules, that isn't always the case either. If the river is non-navigatable, and private on both sides of the river and bridge, then may not have legal access to fish under the bridge. While the state may control the right of way for the road and bridge, the land is still the property of the landowner. The laws are a mess, and there seems to be alot left to interpretation


In this case the road was an access to Fed property and the easement included the river beneath that bridge and the land locked Great lakes frontage that the association built around and then gated so we couldn't access that particular 40.

the MO is a great example. it has a hand full of land locked gov't 40 acre parcels on the river that we have an easement too, and land owners around it gate the easement. 

You are right. there is a lot to be interpreted. and there are huge lawsuits going on taking our rights away and some trying to protect our rights to our water ways and the like. It's a mess. The problem is folks buy property with water front and then decide nobody else is allowed on that body of water anymore. and with lack of use our access get abandoned and then owners start blocking us. Illegally of course, but with lack of documentation we can't prove it.

I don't think there's a law that says a public access point is no longer a public access point if it's not used for X period of time.


----------



## shawnfire (Nov 5, 2005)

also if there is a road way you have 10 ft access. this does suck i know there is a private lake by me and it is a cannel that runs under a road with a bridge and they lost in court because ppl would fish off the bridge now we have 5 ft or 10 ft access and there is nothing they can do. so right at the line they put up a sign no tressp or else funny... 

also on rivers to have access it refers back to the logging busn and if they could put logs down it you can walk it or something like that..... i can't remember the specks on that but had a CO tell me once..... 

for the guy on the pr lk they can not tell you you can not fish there you have access to the lake as well


----------



## johnboy (Dec 26, 2005)

My momma didn't raise no lawyers but I've seen some on TV.:coolgleam

Here is what I've learned from licensed surveyors and the like. I'm sure if there is a Licensed Professional Surveyor out there they can correct anything I screwup but here's my best shot.:help:

The State owns most inland lake bottom lands. Some are either the result of flooding over private property (dams) and some (very few) were never picked up in the original survey of the state and the bottom lands are also privately owned. 

Except for those two oddball cases, if all the property around a lake is private you could still legally access it by helicopter or teleporter... in theory.
http://www.mlswa.org/legal/Articles/LWR_309194_v1_LWR_Attorney_Writes_Debunking_Myths.pdf 


Streams are complicated too, but different. If there is evidence of prior commercial use (floating logs) then the stream is open to the public and you can even go up on the bank as needed to get around an obstruction. There was a big court case about a private club closing of a section of the AuSable.

Great Lakes bottom lands are all State owned.

How far out of the water the bottomlands extend is also complicated. Most are to something called "The Ordinary High Water Mark". Great Lakes and some inland lakes have legal lake levels that are based on a specific elevation that may at some time be above or below the waterline by a bit.

Clear as mud now?


----------



## TK81 (Mar 28, 2009)

shawnfire said:


> also if there is a road way you have 10 ft access.
> 
> So you are saying if a road runs right next to the lake, one can use the road edge as an access point?
> 
> ...


----------



## WHITE-DEER-SLAYER (Oct 12, 2009)

Alright! I have two things that i want to cover now.

1. This first lake that i stated in the original post with the lady. She owns all of the property around the whole lake, but there is a bay of the lake that is state property and has a trail that goes right into it. If i take that trail down and access the lake from state property to the lake, then there should be nothing she can do Right?

2. Now that we are talking about bridge accesses. My brother and i went to three lakes that are all completely private and connected by streams with bridges. If we were to take the state road to the bridge and set our buckets over the edge of the bridge and accessed the water from the stream ice, (not touching anyones property) could we not fish it legally? 

This is really starting to piss me off because people (not the state) are putting up no parking signs that also say no trespassing on them and trying to stop us when i think it is totally legit to access ANY private lake from a STATE BRIDGE or STATE LAND when you do not touch anyones PROPERTY OR LAND!

Does this not sound right or what????


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

Since there seems to be alot of "I think", "I heard", and "It should be" floating around in this thread...........read the rules for yourself. Read the ENTIRE thing, because it isn't as black and white as some people seem to believe. River access is much different than private lakes, so read all of it. 

*PUBLIC RIGHTS ON MICHIGAN WATERS*
*www.michigan.gov*/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf


----------



## wartfroggy (Jan 25, 2007)

shawnfire said:


> also if there is a road way you have 10 ft access. this does suck i know there is a private lake by me and it is a cannel that runs under a road with a bridge and they lost in court because ppl would fish off the bridge now we have 5 ft or 10 ft access and there is nothing they can do. so right at the line they put up a sign no tressp or else funny...


 
c. Assuming that a lake has been meandered or is touched or bordered by a
public highway, is this situation any different where property is acquired by
the state or local government for highway purposes by deed through
purchase, gift or exchange but not established by public usage? Would the
public have the right to enter upon the bordering waters as one of the
riparian owners?
In the case of Bawd v Willetts, 197 Mich. 512; 163 NW 993 (1917), a lake of 100 acres
was entirely surrounded by a public highway so that the public could step into the waters
of the lake or into a boat upon the surface of the lake from the highway, but inasmuch as
the lake was not a public, navigable body of water, it was held that the public could be
excluded therefrom. The court said:
"They can no more enter without permission the portions of the premises covered by
water than they can invade the uplands of the riparian owners."
This doctrine was approved in Putnam v Kinney, 248 Mich. 410; 227 NW 741 (1929). It is
the opinion of this Department that it is immaterial whether the highway was established
by usage or acquired by purchase for highway purposes. If the lake is a privately owned
non-navigable lake, the public cannot enter thereon from a highway without owners​permission.
d. Referring to MCL 324.45301 et seq.; MSA 13A.45301et seq. (ACT 451, PA
1994) [Fishing With Hook and Line] is the test of navigability as applied in
Putnam v Kinney, supra, applicable to all the lakes of the state where the
only navigation is solely by small boats engaged in fishing or other
pleasure on such waters?
The test of navigability is the same in all cases. The definition followed in Putnam v
Kinney, Collins v Gerhardt, Giddings v Rogalewski, Tyler v People, and Moore v
Sanborne, supra, is the law of this State and has universal application. Lakes must afford
a common passage for transportation and travel by the usual and ordinary modes of
navigation. The fact that small boats can be used for fishing or other pleasure on an
inland lake does not make that lake navigable in fact or law. It must be capable of being​17​used for commerce of some kind. The test of navigability as applied to the Pine River in
Collins v Gerhardt, supra, applies to inland lakes also.
e. Has the public a right to enter upon inland lakes from tributary streams
against the wishes of the riparian owner or owners, if such a stream is
navigable as applied in the Collins v Gerhardt case?
The public would have the right to enter the inland lake if the tributary and lake are
navigable under this decision.
(i) What are the publics' rights if the stream is not navigable as applied in Collins v
Gerhardt, but is navigable for row boat or canoe?
Then the public would not have the right to enter an inland lake if only navigable by row
boat or canoe. It would have to be navigable in fact and law under the definitions and
decisions heretofore cited.
(ii) By wading either side of the stream?
If the stream is navigable, the public may wade up the stream and fish but cannot
trespass on the uplands. The Recreational Trespass Act does allow access to the upland
in the event passage in the stream is obstructed. If the stream is not navigable, the
public can not wade up the stream, nor may they access by boat.
f. Do riparian owners hold rights to the subsoil of the center of the lake, to
water's edge at established or high water level, or within their property
lines?
In Bauman v Barendregt, 251 Mich. 67; 231 NW 70 (1930), the court stated the rules as
to this question as follows:
"A grant of land 'along the shore of' or by equivalent words or other description, bounded
by a natural water course carries title to the middle line of the lake or stream . . . ." (citing
Hartz v Railway, 153 Mich. 337 (1908)).
In Hardin v Jordan, 140 U.S. 371, 391, 11 S.Ct 808, 35 L.Ed 428 (1890), the court said:
When land is bounded by lake or pond, the water, equally as in the case of
a river, is appurtenant to it; it constitutes one of the advantages of its
situation, and a material part of its value, and enters largely into the
consideration for acquiring it. Hence the presumption is that a grant of land
thus bounded is intended to include the contiguous land covered by water.
Besides, a lake or pond, like a river, is a concrete object, a unit, and when
named as a boundary, the natural inference is that the middle line of it is
intended, that is, the line equidistant from the land on either side.
Under these decisions, the riparian owners own the subsoil of an inland lake to the​center of the lake.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

It would probably be best to contact your local C.O.

Personally, If that bay is connected to the lake and permanent(not a result of flooding) And those public land boundary's in the plat book meet the shoreline of that bay at 2 points. And you could float a canoe in there during the summer......I would throw that plat book in my fishin bucket and go fishing.


----------



## Coldwater Charters (Sep 17, 2000)

WHITE-DEER-SLAYER said:


> Alright! I have two things that i want to cover now.
> 
> 1. This first lake that i stated in the original post with the lady. She owns all of the property around the whole lake, but there is a bay of the lake that is state property and has a trail that goes right into it. If i take that trail down and access the lake from state property to the lake, then there should be nothing she can do Right?
> 
> ...


This statement doesn't make sense that you made.

"She owns all of the property around the whole lake, but there is a bay of the lake that is state property and has a trail that goes right into it". 

How can she own around the whole lake and then the state own part of a bay or the frontage of the bay?

Also is the State property deemed recreational? Not all State owned property is for public use.


----------



## WHITE-DEER-SLAYER (Oct 12, 2009)

I meant to say except this small bay that a state road runs to. Im taking my plot book and fishing. When comes and yells at us im going to have her call the CO's and i will go from there.


----------

