# Something to watch



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

toto said:


> They are called riparian rights and that means that the person that owns it also owns to the high water mark, on a navigable body of water. It can also be said that on a navigable lake the property owner owns a pie shaped piece of ground underwater. If it's a naviagable stream said property owner owns to center thread of the stream. Now, if it's non-navigable lake or stream those do not apply. In your scenario using Pleasant Lake, that lake states that this lake is a non-navigable lake therefore non of this applies. There is no public access what so ever.
> 
> I think your confusion is just what I stated above, we are comparing non-nav rules with navigable rules and they don't equate. If it's a navigable lake you may access it by using a road end that ends at the lake, but not necessarily a road that runs parallel to the lake, unless it has been established to have been used for an extended period of time by the public, that would known as adverse possession.
> 
> ...


Winans Lake Road at the Huron River Bridge. Good luck, as the situation you claim has been met with "NO PARKING" signs East and West of the bridge.
Again: "Public Access v PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY" in a public Right of Way, the public has rights ONLY TO THE ESTABLISHED ROADWAY. Outside of that, the ROW is solely for municipal use.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

No parking signs have been discussed before, no you can't park there, however you could have someone drop you off, access the river and wade to the next take out spot. Did you call the attorney in TC that I told you to, I'm guessing not. Look this is the problem with these arguements. To set the record straight I have no problem with you, you've been around long enough on this site, and we've had no problems that I know of. What does get to me is using a false argument for personal gain. I get it, you want to protect your own property, but this case is something that either you are getting it, I'm not explaining it well enough, or you just don't care to believe me. If you don't want to call who I told you to call, then call the DNR themselves. As for me, I'll continue to access rivers/streams from a bridge right of way (unless there is no parking signs), til I die, or just can't fish anymore, which is probably one and the same.

379 Mich 667, 686 (1967), stated that:
We hold that riparian rights are not alienable, severable, divisible, or
assignable apart from the land which includes therein, or is bounded, by a
natural water course. While riparian rights may not be conveyed or
reserved—nor do they exist by virtue of being bounded by an artificial water
course—easements, licenses, and the like for a right-of-way for access to a
water course do exist and oft times are granted to nonriparian owners.

Please do me the favor of reading this very slowly, and very carefully. Within this article it says that the laws of this state say you can access a navigable stream/river via a bridge right of way. Don't know what to say, but if that wasn't so, why would this club spend thousands of dollars to stop it?

https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/2012/05/battle-public-access-salmon-trout-river/


----------



## Wyandotte (Feb 15, 2016)

Toto:
I read the link from Outdoor Life about the Huron Mountain Club. I'm curious if you know enough about this to answer what the deal is with the road? The club is saying they owned the road at one time? And now they want it back? Has the public been driving up and down this road for more than 15 years?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

It is either that, or it was platted road in the first place.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

toto said:


> It is either that, or it was platted road in the first place.


Played roads remain the property owners described deeded
Property. And are taxed for it. Hence the term "Public Right of Way"


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

toto said:


> No parking signs have been discussed before, no you can't park there, however you could have someone drop you off, access the river and wade to the next take out spot. Did you call the attorney in TC that I told you to, I'm guessing not. Look this is the problem with these arguements. To set the record straight I have no problem with you, you've been around long enough on this site, and we've had no problems that I know of. What does get to me is using a false argument for personal gain. I get it, you want to protect your own property, but this case is something that either you are getting it, I'm not explaining it well enough, or you just don't care to believe me. If you don't want to call who I told you to call, then call the DNR themselves. As for me, I'll continue to access rivers/streams from a bridge right of way (unless there is no parking signs), til I die, or just can't fish anymore, which is probably one and the same.
> 
> 379 Mich 667, 686 (1967), stated that:
> We hold that riparian rights are not alienable, severable, divisible, or
> ...


I have not read that article as yet. I'm prefer to read acutul court records. People have argued the Riparian issue on Winans. However, the case stands. Though properties go to the High Water Mark, those property owners can not use the water/pond/lake for anything other than household/farm use.

And again, this was argued in the case I mention. The Court has ruled that PRoW
are NOT Public Access's.
PA's demand a said/certain safety and capacity outline. The State typically does NOT put itself in an offending position with such standards. A property owner has the rights to their property. A municipality may at some time utilize the easement for road improvement/utility. Public has no rights outside the established path of travel. Otherwise they could park and picnic on one private property that is lawn area or similar.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Look, I'm really getting tired of the fact you won't do your research. You refuse to call the attorney that I mentioned. Olsen is his name. Let your fingers do the walking then if you want to read court records. You could also call Troy Zorn at the Marquette DNR field office and talk to him about it too, but you won't. You are constantly using cases that concern non-navigable waters when I'm referring navigable, and this is a problem as others are trying to figure this out too. Did you read the citation I quoted above? Probably not. Until you do your research, I'm done with this debate except to say, let me know where these bridge ROW's are you won't fish, I'd love to fish these waters, undisturbed fish ya know.

I do notice you keep mentioning parking, that has nothing to do with access. One could park elsewhere and access river from Row. I've been doing this for and have even talked to LEO's and CO's while doing so. I've done it enough times that you would think one of them would have said something, but never have, hmm wonder why?


----------



## Wyandotte (Feb 15, 2016)

METTLEFISH said:


> I have not read that article as yet. I'm prefer to read acutul court records. People have argued the Riparian issue on Winans. However, the case stands. Though properties go to the High Water Mark, those property owners can not use the water/pond/lake for anything other than household/farm use.
> 
> And again, this was argued in the case I mention. The Court has ruled that PRoW
> are NOT Public Access's.
> PA's demand a said/certain safety and capacity outline. The State typically does NOT put itself in an offending position with such standards. A property owner has the rights to their property. A municipality may at some time utilize the easement for road improvement/utility. Public has no rights outside the established path of travel. Otherwise they could park and picnic on one private property that is lawn area or similar.





METTLEFISH said:


> I have not read that article as yet. I'm prefer to read acutul court records ...


When you get a moment, read the article. Or if you prefer, read the actual court record about this case. I read it. Good example of the points toto is making.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well, I could be wrong here, but unless there is a twin running around somewhere, this question has been asked before, and answered by attorneys but even then the answer wasn't agreed to. Is this you mettle? https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139105&highlight=accessing+river+from+bridge.

Part of me wonders if you aren't getting the idea that in reality the right of way is under the control of the county in question. Just to be clear we are not talking about highways like I-75 or something, we are talking basically county roads, etc. This right of way cannot happen except in one of two ways: It can be purchased by the county at fair market value therefore making it property of the county, or it can be condemned and used under the law of adverse possession. Either way it then becomes the control of the county. It is correct that one can use this right of way to enter a navigable stream but they cannot pick nuts, berries, or mushrooms because oddly enough those are the property of the original property owner which seems contrary to what I'm saying, but that's the way it is.


----------



## METTLEFISH (Jan 31, 2009)

toto said:


> Well, I could be wrong here, but unless there is a twin running around somewhere, this question has been asked before, and answered by attorneys but even then the answer wasn't agreed to. Is this you mettle? https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139105&highlight=accessing+river+from+bridge.
> 
> Part of me wonders if you aren't getting the idea that in reality the right of way is under the control of the county in question. Just to be clear we are not talking about highways like I-75 or something, we are talking basically county roads, etc. This right of way cannot happen except in one of two ways: It can be purchased by the county at fair market value therefore making it property of the county, or it can be condemned and used under the law of adverse possession. Either way it then becomes the control of the county. It is correct that one can use this right of way to enter a navigable stream but they cannot pick nuts, berries, or mushrooms because oddly enough those are the property of the original property owner which seems contrary to what I'm saying, but that's the way it is.


Absolutely WRONG. However, in National
Forest land/State Land, some LEO's will look past it. On the Little Manistee they've placed no parking signs at the culverts neer Stronach I believe? (As I recall it was creating erosion and a hazard to the public. As I've stated, and I'm stating actual Case Law. A Public Right of Way is NOT a Public Access. PA's require bathrooms, handicap parking, trash receptacles and a qualified surface to park upon, an area not creating a Public/driving hazard, aleviating the property owner (the State Etc.) of liability in certain situations. And again, the purpose of a ROW is to travel along. Not Access. Those require a study, a plan by a recognized Civil Engineer, an approval and construction of such a place. I know for fact that the Park Manager at Brighton Recreation Area has requested action against shoulder parkers because it circumvents the parking rules of the park(s). That is entirely within State Lands.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Apparently you have your mind made up and no one, even an attorney can't change your mind. I'm assuming you called an attorney that I mentioned so therefore you have absolute answers to your questions.....I doubt it. You keep referring to parking, well parking is not incident to access to fishing. It is a small piece of land that is controlled for public use, by a public entity that is paid by the public; therefore one way or another the public is in control of that property. I can show you several spots that are exactly as I say, in fact I've even chatted with the property that the right of way abuts. I'm not sure why it is you can't get it. You keep referring to parking, as stated earlier, parking has no bearing on the discussion. Look, as I said earlier, I've supplied with plenty of evidence to support my stance, and it has also been supported in my research in the past by 2 different attorneys who are well versed on water law. For some reason you just refuse to listen, and it appears you refuse to read the evidence supplied. Therefore you just do what do, and I'll do what I do. Sorry that you may be missing out on some fantastic trout fishing, but I certainly won't be.


----------

