# Wading a shoreline



## TODDFATHER (Jun 5, 2002)

Mr. Boehr,

I would like to wade the shorline of a small lake (bluegill fishing) that is owned entirely by the city of troy adjcent to Sylvan Glen Golf course. There is no private land adjcent to this small lake. Fishing is allowed, but boats are not. I can gain access from the city park. There is a fence that goes down to the water to prohibit people from straying on to the golf course. The golf course is owned by the city also. I suppose a quick call to the city would give me an answer, but all too often, on weird requests, no-one knows, or the answer is automaticly no. No means no, and I would certainly respect that regardless from where that answer (if should be the case) might come from. I have a pretty good understanding of limitations regarding fishing on trout streams but have no idea what privledges one might have on a lake. Notwithstanding a possible request by the city for me to not fish past the fence, would it generally be legal to stay in a lake and fish via wading? 


Thank You: Toddfather


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Unfortunately, navigable lakes are not thought of the same way as navigable streams. You need the riparian owners permission to be wading on a lake, in this case the owner being the city, so again unfortuantely, the city is the only one that can say yes or no.

I can think of a number of different ways to pose a question to the city to attempt to get an anwer you want. Since a complaint or enforement action would be with the local police department, you might want to ask there fisrt, especially if you know any of the cops that might be fishermen.


----------



## Zofchak (Jan 10, 2003)

Boehr, 
Do you know if the riparian rights apply to great lakes shoreline as well? I dont believe they do, but I've never been quite sure about it.


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

As for the golf course, you could fish the shoreline with a float tube, and avoid breaking any laws.


----------



## WALLEYE MIKE (Jan 7, 2001)

Zofchak, I believe the answer to your ques. is that thier rights stop at the normal waterline. I think. They do not have the riparian right as do inland lakes. Stops at the shoreline.


----------



## duckman#1 (Sep 22, 2002)

Mr. Boehr, 
I wasn't aware that I couldn't wade waist deep past a house on a lake. I realize water rights are different for hunting, but for wading to fish?
I would like to learn more about some of these laws in regards to fishing rights. Where can I find the written laws regarding inland lakes/ land owners and fishing. Is it available somewhere on the internet?
I didn't realize you can anchor your boat in 4 feet of water in front of a cottage, but its illegal to stand in that same 4 feet of water.


----------



## malainse (Sep 2, 2002)

Duckman,
The below link should answer any questions you might have on 
this subject. Its long but answers the questions.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/publicrights_22525_7.htm


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

duckman#1...malainse provided the site information for your question.

Zofchak...the Great Lakes are different than inland lakes. The State of Michigan owns the bottomlands for the Great Lakes however, for trespass purposes, the adjacent property owner controls the land all the way to the waters edge where ever the waters edge may be. So on the Great Lakes, as long as your feet are wet, you can be there without worrying about trespassing regardless of walking along the beach or surf fishing (in/from the water).


----------



## TODDFATHER (Jun 5, 2002)

All's well that ends well! Right you were Mr Boehr! I talked to one of the "boys in blue" and explained my wants. The response was quite favorable. Unofficially, the city's concern was to minimize their liability by posting no boats, and no swimming. Regarding the fence, it's only there to discourage encroachment onto the golf course and common sense would prevent any of this from becoming an issue. The advise was simple, there's nothing posted disallowing it so, go ahead and do it. Worst case scenario would be if someone complained but it's not likely to happen. It was mentioned that using a float tube might be pushing the envolope a bit, and suggested splitting hairs on a floatable device would certainly draw an unfavorable response. . They said it's not like anyone would show up with a citation book and/or handcuffs, but more likely I'd be asked to cease that action. On the whole it's almost more trouble than it's worth but it's nice to know it could be done without ruffling anyone's feathers! 



Toddfather


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I just received an email from Mark Tonello, and Tom Rozich concerning this issue.

I will paraphrase Marks words,"as long as you enter a public lake through a public access point, or through private land with permission from the owner, you may wade and fish wherever you want, including in front of a private residence." Mark and Tom both asked the Lt. of the DNR officers for his take, and thats his take. Not my words, this is, in a round about way, the words of a Lt. of the DNR officers.

What can I say?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

toto, I am a Luietenant for District 12 and also for the time being District 9, all 17 counties, 34 CO's and 4 sergeants right now. If you don't want to believe me fine. I'm done arguing this point with you. You can e-mail Fish Division people all you wish, they are not the ones that you will get into trouble with.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

First of all, post your email address and I'll forward it to you. Secondly, it will prove my point, that not even the DNR can agree with themselves on what is the law. Post your email so I can send it to you. Don't be so beligerant and think you are ALWAYS right, perhaps you should fight it out with your superiors not me.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

I sure don't understand this law.

If a river or lake is accessible without tresspassing, why would it be against the law to wade the shoreline? 
Maybe I'm naive or missed something. 
Does the Lakefront property owner also own the bottom of the lake? In that case it would be illegal to even anchor on such property????

I don't get it  

Hey guys, be nice. It's just a confusing issue


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I'm trying to be ralf, I'm just relaying the fact that others in the DNR have a totally different opinion. In fact, I received two emails one from Tom Rozich which was short and sweet, and an add on to the one Mark sent me. His simply stated, that if a land owner interferes with you or gives you a hard enough time, than thats fisherman harrassment. So what really gives here?


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

No, I hear ya.

Like I said it's just very confusing. I can understand a PRIVATE lake, but not one with access.

Say, do you have a link to Mark's study on rip rights?

Maybe Mark, who btw is a member, can copy and paste the research article


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

It was an article on Riparian Zone Management and can be found in the MiDNR website.

Ralf, I emailed you the emails from Mark and Tom, I don't know how to cut and paste an email, if you would so kindly do so for me, I would appreciate it. Thanks.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

> Tom Rozich
> Fisheries Biologist Supervisor
> Central Lake Michigan Management Unit
> 8015 Mackinaw Trail
> Cadillac, MI 49601
> 231/775-9727 ext 6070
> FAX 231/775-9671
>
> "It is difficult to talk to people who
> are not particularly interested in the
> value of a river!"
>
> >>> Mark Tonello 06/19/03 12:36PM >>>
> Bill,
> As long as you access the water from public property or private
> property where you have permission, you may wade anywhere in the lake,
> including in front of private property. I just discussed it with the
> Conservation Officer Lt. and he confirmed. Hope that helps!
>

____________________________

> .........and if the riparian owner harasses you, they are in volation
> of the fisherman harassment law and can be prosecuted!
>
> Tom Rozich


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Thanks Ralf. It seems as though the problem isn't me, but rather in the courts, and even to a degree withing the DNR themselves. I am out of this discussion, as I think my point of view is now understood.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Two years ago I was out doing some spring Piking on Lake St. Clair. I took the boat into L'anse Creuse Bay, anchored and jumped out, proceeding to wade along the south shore of Metropolitan Beach. A Ranger pulled up on shore and told me over the bullhorn that swimming or wading wasn't allowed there. I went to talk to him and he insisted that I had to stay in the boat. I ignored the moron, he called the Sheriff, they came down in their boat, after a short discussion, they told the Ranger to go away. To this day I still don't understand why the Ranger was even concerned about what I was doing, he must have been sitting on his seat belt buckle or something.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 24, 2001)

It's unfortunate that some DNR employees rather than admit they are not sure of an answer to the public's question will give an incorrect answer rather than take the time to find the right answer. Boer does NOT do this. He thinks he is right because he HAS to be right and IS right. He take the time to make sure his answers are correct to preclude the possibility of someone getting in trouble by getting the wrong information. On the other hand, some people will keep asking a question till they get the answer they want, not the RIGHT answer. It is wrong to criticize Boer because the service he provides this forum in over and above his duties as a Supervisor for Law Division. Law Division is the enforcement arm of the DNR and therefore the only place to get a reliable answer to LAW questions in the DNR.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I didn't seek around until I found the answer I wanted. It isn't like I emailed Mark and Tom, and they emailed 2 minutes later. It took about a week to get back to me. I have the utmost confidence that they took the time to ask who they felt would give them an answer. As I said before, it isn't about proving someone right or wrong, its about proving that even those in the DNR disagree with what the law says. Boehr is right most all the time, and he may even be right here, it unfortunate that we now have 2 Lts. in the DNR with two opposing views. So guys don't blame me, as much as you may want to. The simple fact is, we now have an opinion from someone in the DNR saying is okay to do so, and if you were in a situation where you got a ticket for trespassing, you would have ammo to fight it. Thats the truth, and nothing more.

Furthermore, if this is a law, which I believe there is a law, then it shouldn't be subjected to personal opinion, it is either a law, or it isn't. Either way you look at it, one of these two people is interjecting their opinion on the law, and unless I'm missing something, neither one is an attorney or judge. This is what I have been talking about all along, no two attorneys agree with a law, and obviously not even 2 different Lts, in the Dnr agree with this. Apparently its not so black and white, now is it?


----------



## Patriot (Jan 24, 2001)

The mystery Lt. is wrong and the real Lt. is right. It is the law, not an opinion. You don't need ammo if you get the right answer and believe it. You can fish anywhere you can FLOAT. BUT not anchor or walk..............Hunting and trapping rights however are even more restrictive for the non-riparian owner even if you were air lifted to the location. You can't put a trap stake in their bottomlands and that could also apply to dropping a boat anchor. Bottom line, don't call a plumber with a question about your car..............The other bottomline is that rarely is what you describe (wading to fish) a problem for most riparian owners. If and when it is, simply honor their request to move on.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well I quess I'll just to disagree with you and leave it at that. Its too bad you seem to be brainwashed here, but you really need to read the laws. You are very much allowed to anchor a boat in a public lake, and that is indisputable, period. Even boehr would have to agree with that. No you can't anchor indefinitely, but you can to swim or fish.

Obviously, I'll have to step aside, and respectfully tell you that you and I will have agree to disagree.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 24, 2001)

Brainwashed might not be the proper term. Unless dealing with the public for 30 years as a Conservation Officer does that to you...........
I don't have to read the law anymore. Retirement takes care of that. Thanks for agreeing to disagree.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

No problem, It really is too bad that it couldn't be more black and white. But I've seen and heard other DNR officers give erroneaus (sic?) information. But I won't get into that, thats all water under the bridge now. But somehow, somewhere, there has to be a more definitive answer, as of right now, you have to admit we have two oppossing opinions, and thats all, opinions. I try to think of this logically, of course we all know that sometimes there is no logic when it comes to law. But if you are an invitee to a public lake, i.e. boat launch, then it seems as though it would stand that you would be invited to use the lake in any way, well not to pee in it, but to swim, boat, and fish, including in waders. Geez what a mess.


----------



## Bucktail Butch (Jan 5, 2003)

www.mwai.org/WATER LAW.htm


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

And there you have it. Item #5 says it all. A riparian controls any temporarily or periodically exposed bottomland from the waters edge to the high water mark against trespass.

Obviously if the you have a waters edge, then it isn't the high water mark, the high water mark is normally something higher than that. So again, my point seems to be made. If I am in the water in waders, I am not trespassing. Also, the key word in there is exposed, as in above the water line.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

For the Great Lakes and streams yes, which is what I said. For inland lakes you have a different situation.

For example, the site listed above which you so choose to say makes your point also states, " "Bottomland", as defined in Act 346, P.A. of 1972, "means the land area of an inland lake or stream which lies below the ordinary high-water mark which *may or may not be covered by water"*. Court cases which have established and confirmed the ownership of the bottomland by the adjacent property owner include the following:
Patterson vs. Dost (1916), 
Johnson vs. Bughorn (1920), 
Hilt vs. Weber (1930), 
Croucher vs. Wooster (1935), 
Burt vs. Monger (1946), 
Hall vs Wantz (1953) 
Thompson vs Enz (1967) 
Sheridan Drive Association vs. Woodlawn Back Property Owners Assoc. (1970),
Theis vs. Howland (1985). 

*These cases also affirmed that the use of bottomland of lakes by other persons without their permission of the property owner was an act of trespass, and, therefore, an infraction of riparian property rights."* 

Enough is enough. Everyone may believe what they wish.


----------

