# PSA - Trespass Tickets on PM



## cookchris

stockrex said:


> contest it, tell the judge the truth and see what he does, that is if the city attorney does not plead you out before that.
> 
> get a copy of your report and see what the CO put on it. you should tape you interaction with a CO so challenge an discrepancies in statements made.
> 
> Make sure you ask for the ticket/misd to be set aside if you don't get any tickets for 90 days, if they are not willing to plead you out.


Good advice. I've talked to a few other folks, and I think this is the route I'm going to take. I didn't think to tape the interaction. The CO was just doing his job. He seemed set on ticketing us from the get-go. 

My buddy has written permission from the HHH guy. Unfortunately, that property was a 100 yards upriver from where we were stopped.


----------



## cookchris

stockrex said:


> a conviction will be on your record for good, it is misdemeanor, correct?
> work out a deal.


Yes, it was written as a misdemeanor. Like others have suggested, I think I will at least request a hearing. The CO was just doing his job. Completely understandable. My buddy had written permission for the HHH property, but unfortunately, we were still 100 yards or so downstream from that stretch.


----------



## Robert Holmes

The CO knew that there would be plenty of fishermen on the river when he had the property under surveillance. You trespassed and he wrote a ticket, he is doing his job if there is a complaint from the property owner. 
I feel very strongly that he will not be there enforcing the law on July 4 when there is tubers, kayaks, and canoes by the thousands going down the river. I would bet a couple of paychecks that he could be writing tickets then also. It is possible that the original complaint was about the other people using the trail and not fishermen. 
If you got on the trail to go around obstructions in the water or a deep hole you are legal. If the water is a foot deep and you were in waders not so legal.


----------



## MIfishslayer91

Sucks that all you slob fly fisherman have to make all fisherman look bad. Sad thing is when September comes around the fly guys will leave the flies only section and come trash all the rivers with salmon runs. I can see it now orvis waders walking all over private property, salmon with 100 flies and leaders hanging off em, trash, fires on the banks. Luckily there's those nice guys with saltwater rods that cast out big hooks and weights tryin to snag all the garbage you guys throw in the rivers.


----------



## MERGANZER

My family has property on the PM and the thing here that bothers me is the quotes like "we were just walking the trail" There shouldn't be a "trail" that's the problem. We don't really care if people fish or not but in the spring and fall it looks like a cow path along the river. Worm containers, wads of fishing line, cigarette butts etc. Make it worse every year where we have been close to asking a C.O. to come out. Haven't yet though. Be respectful is the key.

Ganzer


----------



## liberator

chromer101 said:


> If you are worried about a ticket. Fish late fall early winter. You probably won't see anyone up there, and the fish will fight and not look like a worn out leather boot.


Hahaha. chromer 101 you are the man. That's exactly what I wanted to say but I bit my tongue. Thanks man.


----------



## Quack Addict

stockrex said:


> a conviction will be on your record for good, it is misdemeanor, correct?
> work out a deal.


Or he could just call this guy. Problem solved!


----------



## RML

Glad to see people care .....Rent a canoe, buy a watercraft it's way cheaper than a $300 ticket... It's the RIGHT WAY to access private lands and see this great river system, kinda fun too...Then stay in the water and everyone is happy, happy, happy.... Be glad it's not like out West where the private property owners own the river bottom...Could be worse.. 

Agreed the "Trail" and Trespassing is the problem..Only place there should be a "Trail" is State and Federal land. That said "Trail" really should be 15'-20' back, the erosion is getting really bad near the banks..

Effen Worm :rant: containers were horrible on Sundays float from Upper Branch to Walhalla casting lures for dropbacks...I would have had to drop my anchor 20-30 times to pick up crap and beer cans too ...If I wasn't working I would have just to take a picture of the pile of worm containers and have a real count  JUST STUPIDITY.. 

Anyone ever visit Coopers Landing, AK ?? I have once and they have there **** together..I think it's a Federal Park?? They have a 4'-5' tall green snow fence going back 10'-20' along all the banks and groomed access sites into the river on the Russian River AK..The banks are beautiful and solid brush ..The access into the stream are done well with timbers filled with gravel, sides were rip-rapped..Cudos to AK for the thought and effort going into protecting the banks...We could learn from them !!

The hills/ high banks at Clay banks and Gleasons need to be permanently closed and fenced off..They are getting really, really bad...I really need to start going to some meetings again... But Why ?? nobody listens and they do even less, so I gave up... The politics are crazy and slow...More action less talking, I'd be interested in that.. No group like that to be found now sad, sad ... 

Clint


----------



## 19rabbit52

One thing to remember about trespass tickets is that multiple ones can turn into a felony with prison time. I know a rabbit hunter that judge told next ticket, one year.


----------



## Fishndude

19rabbit52 said:


> One thing to remember about trespass tickets is that multiple ones can turn into a felony with prison time. I know a rabbit hunter that judge told next ticket, one year.


Slow learner, eh? :lol:


----------



## Robert Holmes

If the fishing is that good and the trespassing problem is that bad being out there writing a few tickets will not benefit anyone. It is a temporary fix and that is all. The DNR should work with the land owners and purchase a right of way. Put in a nice groomed trail and trash cans. This would solve most of the problem. 
I know that the DNR has $$$$$$ because they can spend millions of dollars on wolves and kirtland warblers both of which are pretty useless. If I was the land owner I would much rather give in a little than fight a never ending battle. This should be brought up in court.
As I type thousands of acres of right of way are being bought up by the state for bicycle trails and they don't pay $26 per year for a license. The last I knew they don't issue a jogger license either. I think that it is time that you speak up and ask for your moneys worth. Raise a little hell talk to the local sportsmans clubs and politicians. 
Tell the judge if he/she will dismiss the charge you will do community service to work with the respective parties to get an easement. It is not a good investment of the Conservation Officers time or our money to have them playing security guard for a private property owner. My opinion but the DNR has no business protecting private property owners. If they have a problem they should contact a private security company.


----------



## MERGANZER

Robert Holmes said:


> If the fishing is that good and the trespassing problem is that bad being out there writing a few tickets will not benefit anyone. It is a temporary fix and that is all. The DNR should work with the land owners and purchase a right of way. Put in a nice groomed trail and trash cans. This would solve most of the problem.
> I know that the DNR has $$$$$$ because they can spend millions of dollars on wolves and kirtland warblers both of which are pretty useless. If I was the land owner I would much rather give in a little than fight a never ending battle. This should be brought up in court.
> As I type thousands of acres of right of way are being bought up by the state for bicycle trails and they don't pay $26 per year for a license. The last I knew they don't issue a jogger license either. I think that it is time that you speak up and ask for your moneys worth. Raise a little hell talk to the local sportsmans clubs and politicians.
> Tell the judge if he/she will dismiss the charge you will do community service to work with the respective parties to get an easement. It is not a good investment of the Conservation Officers time or our money to have them playing security guard for a private property owner. My opinion but the DNR has no business protecting private property owners. If they have a problem they should contact a private security company.


That's not the point here. Private property owners don't want people on their property.

Ganzer


----------



## liberator

MERGANZER said:


> That's not the point here. Private property owners don't want people on their property.
> 
> Ganzer


Especially the idiots that arrive for spring steelhead and fall salmon.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I am sure that every property owner throughout the state would like a conservation officer to patrol their property. Due to limited resources that cannot happen. I hate seeing my license dollars wasted so that police officers and conservation officers can be private security guards. It is not their job to protect private interests. They would be far better off to work with landowners who have a complaint and in this case purchase an easement. Now you have a landowner who thinks that every time some person steps foot on his land he can call the DNR. I bet the landowner does not purchase a license of any kind further wasting our money. Probably a PETA or HSUS tree hugger. 
To add a little salt look at all of the easements the joggers and bicycle riders are getting in Michigan. I have been buying licenses for about 40 years, my license money alone is more money than 99% of the joggers and bicyclists are contributing. Is Michigan about to have a special tax on bicycle tires and jock straps that I don't know about to fund these trails?


----------



## MERGANZER

Robert Holmes said:


> I am sure that every property owner throughout the state would like a conservation officer to patrol their property. Due to limited resources that cannot happen. I hate seeing my license dollars wasted so that police officers and conservation officers can be private security guards. It is not their job to protect private interests. They would be far better off to work with landowners who have a complaint and in this case purchase an easement. Now you have a landowner who thinks that every time some person steps foot on his land he can call the DNR. I bet the landowner does not purchase a license of any kind further wasting our money. Probably a PETA or HSUS tree hugger.
> To add a little salt look at all of the easements the joggers and bicycle riders are getting in Michigan. I have been buying licenses for about 40 years, my license money alone is more money than 99% of the joggers and bicyclists are contributing. Is Michigan about to have a special tax on bicycle tires and jock straps that I don't know about to fund these trails?


Because property owners don't want people trespassing on their property they are from PETA or HSUS???? And yes, it is the job of C.O.'s to help deter trespassers. Property owners bought it, insure it and pay taxes on it. The DNR is there to enforce the laws plain and simple.

Ganzer


----------



## triplelunger

Robert Holmes said:


> I am sure that every property owner throughout the state would like a conservation officer to patrol their property. Due to limited resources that cannot happen. I hate seeing my license dollars wasted so that police officers and conservation officers can be private security guards. It is not their job to protect private interests. They would be far better off to work with landowners who have a complaint and in this case purchase an easement. Now you have a landowner who thinks that every time some person steps foot on his land he can call the DNR. I bet the landowner does not purchase a license of any kind further wasting our money. Probably a PETA or HSUS tree hugger.
> To add a little salt look at all of the easements the joggers and bicycle riders are getting in Michigan. I have been buying licenses for about 40 years, my license money alone is more money than 99% of the joggers and bicyclists are contributing. Is Michigan about to have a special tax on bicycle tires and jock straps that I don't know about to fund these trails?


Wow, dude, you are losing it...
If someone breaks into your house, I expect you to forgo the 911 call, and contact a private security company.


----------



## Robert Holmes

liberator said:


> Especially the idiots that arrive for spring steelhead and fall salmon.


I will say that fishermen contribute to the problem. When I fished on the Rifle River the canoes, kayaks, and tubers were the biggest litter bugs that a person can imagine. Just because they had a water craft of sorts does not mean that they did not trespass either. There were months in the summer that I never bought a can of beer as there were plenty of full ones that I salvaged from the river. I was also able to load up a few tackle boxes with lures returning cans that I picked up from private property. Yes I did have written permission to go onto the property. Picking up litter and donating a few fish dinners was a small price to pay.


----------



## wdf73

MERGANZER said:


> That's not the point here. Private property owners don't want people on their property.
> 
> Ganzer


Correct me if I am missing something, but I think Robert suggested that the DNR purchase a small amount of property from the landowners. If that is done then people won't be on "your" property any more.
Both sides need to clean up their act. There is no excuse for the massive littering that has been addressed. On the other hand, I am one of the people who love to fish, but cannot afford to buy a million dollar piece of property along a river. To be honest, the aforementioned canoe would strain my budget. So I am somewhat less than sympathetic to the landowners who whine about people fishing "their" river. At this point, the law is fairly clear. If you stay inside the defined banks of the river or walk a path closely parallel to avoid an obstacle , you are good. There are some anglers who, either willfully or ignorantly choose to ignore this, and there are some landowners who are not content with owning a piece of dream property, but have to continually harass legal anglers and try to drive them away so they can sip their margaritas on their deck without being subjected to the indignity of having to view some fisherman in their back yard. If this is what you want, then don't buy land on a popular river.
I think Robert's suggestion is the best I've heard in a while.


----------



## Robert Holmes

If someone breaks into my house I grab the gun, call 911 and order a pizza. I shoot the culprit and enjoy the pizza while I wait for the cops to arrive.


----------



## triplelunger

wdf73 said:


> Correct me if I am missing something, but I think Robert suggested that the DNR purchase a small amount of property from the landowners. If that is done then people won't be on "your" property any more.
> Both sides need to clean up their act. There is no excuse for the massive littering that has been addressed. On the other hand, I am one of the people who love to fish, but cannot afford to buy a million dollar piece of property along a river. To be honest, the aforementioned canoe would strain my budget. So I am somewhat less than sympathetic to the landowners who whine about people fishing "their" river. At this point, the law is fairly clear. If you stay inside the defined banks of the river or walk a path closely parallel to avoid an obstacle , you are good. There are some anglers who, either willfully or ignorantly choose to ignore this, and there are some landowners who are not content with owning a piece of dream property, but have to continually harass legal anglers and try to drive them away so they can sip their margaritas on their deck without being subjected to the indignity of having to view some fisherman in their back yard. If this is what you want, then don't buy land on a popular river.
> I think Robert's suggestion is the best I've heard in a while.


You could buy a used canoe for less than what you paid for the mount in your avatar...
I fish the PM a couple times a year, and have never crossed onto private property.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Robert Holmes said:


> Repeat, How many private property owners are there in Michigan and how many Conservation Officers are there? Conservation Officers are not private security guards. There are people out there that will expect them to be there every time that they pick up the phone. If a majority of Conservation Officers are protecting property owners it makes it pretty easy for the violators. You can rest assured that the Conservation Officer that wrote the tickets will be on speed dial by the property owner. Precisely why Conservation Officers should not be private property police.


City, County, and State police are also able to enforce trespass violations.:idea:


----------



## zig

MERGANZER said:


> First, where we are is non nav. so they have no right to be there for one. Second, we don't tell anyone to leave unless they are disrespectful. What we are talking about is trespassing so that is not within the law. NOBODY IS GOING TO SELL OFF RIVER FRONTAGE FOR A WALKING TRAIL!!!!!!! That idea is simply insane. That's why the property costs what it costs. BECAUSE THE FRONTAGE!
> 
> Ganzer



Never fished the PM, so don't know anything about it. But I have a hard time believing that the entire river wasn't "meandered" by the General Land Office Survey in the 1800's. These maps are available, and to me they are the most valuable tool to prove whether a stream is truly "public" or not, with "public" and "navigable" being used synonymously in the Michigan laws describing our rights on the water.


----------



## RobW

Look, OP, your buddy picked a bad stretch for that style of fishing. Go in at Ledge, get out at Green Cottage, and walk back to your truck. Or go in at M-37. Easy to keep that legal, it sounds like trying to avoid the difficulties of bucking the current was the big reason why you got out of the stream.


----------



## Robert Holmes

MIfishslayer91 said:


> Hey Robert, how much property do you got up there in the yoop? I was thinking about having a little deer camp on some private land I don't hav permission to this fall. Maybe you could build us some trails and put some trash cans out for our beer cans that you can collect. I mean people are gona trespass why don't ya work with the trespassers right?


I have 200,000+ acres a couple of miles from my house. Plenty of public access, trash cans, trails, fishing, hunting, camping. Why do you think that I moved out of the LP. It is worth the pay cut. I don't have to worry about a fisherman walking on my little piece of heaven. I don't have to have a Conservation Officer on speed dial.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Robert Holmes said:


> Why do you think that I moved out of the LP...


To avoid being called a Troll?


----------



## plugger

Robert Holmes said:


> I have 200,000+ acres a couple of miles from my house. Plenty of public access, trash cans, trails, fishing, hunting, camping. Why do you think that I moved out of the LP. It is worth the pay cut. I don't have to worry about a fisherman walking on my little piece of heaven. I don't have to have a Conservation Officer on speed dial.


 We have a lot of public property on the PM but some people just seem drawn to go where their not supposed to. Would you mind just a couple dozen people a day coming through your little slice of heaven? Posted doesn't really mean keep out right?


----------



## Robert Holmes

QDMAMAN said:


> To avoid being called a Troll?


I don't have a small piece of heaven that I have to be concerned about trespassers. There is a river that I fish that has a total of 4 pieces of private property (very small) in over 80 miles that it runs from beginning to end. In the long run I win because I own more land than the Trolls and guess what I let everyone fish on it. Furthermore when I die I can't take it with me so I will leave it in my will that fishermen can use it. Please do not litter and enjoy the numerous trails that will make your fishing easier.


----------



## MERGANZER

Robert Holmes said:


> Repeat, How many private property owners are there in Michigan and how many Conservation Officers are there? Conservation Officers are not private security guards. There are people out there that will expect them to be there every time that they pick up the phone. If a majority of Conservation Officers are protecting property owners it makes it pretty easy for the violators. You can rest assured that the Conservation Officer that wrote the tickets will be on speed dial by the property owner. Precisely why Conservation Officers should not be private property police.


 
My C.O. responds to my calls every single time and he never complains about me calling him about someone breaking the law either.

Ganzer


----------



## YZman

Real Estate:


> Prescriptive Easement. A prescriptive easement arises if someone uses part of your property without your permission. A prescriptive easement involves only the loss of use of part of a property, for example a pathway or driveway.


Whether private road, path or trail, legally doesn't pay to be "nice".


----------



## MERGANZER

So Robert, you want to take a blue ribbon trout stream and a national scenic river and put a boardwalk along the entire system with big blue trash cans every 50 yards or so? That will make that river absolutely beautiful.

Ganzer


----------



## wdf73

Ganzer, are you saying that you live on a section of the PM that has been ruled non navigable?


----------



## MERGANZER

wdf73 said:


> Ganzer, are you saying that you live on a section of the PM that has been ruled non navigable?


 
No I do not live there and yes there are sections that are deemed non navigable.

Ganzer


----------



## MERGANZER

Navigable is not the issue at hand here. Trespassing is the issue. Even in navigable waters you are not allowed to just walk on a private landowners property unless legally doing so such as to avoid deep holes or obstructions etc. I know of some really great areas for pheasants but it is private and I don't have permission hence I do not hunt there because if do I can get a ticket. Same issue here. Expecting landowners to build trails and grant easements etc. is unrealistic to say the least.

Ganzer


----------



## Fishndude

wdf73 said:


> My point was if you are fortunate enough to own some great property, and do not wish to sell off enough for a walking trail, then don't complain when those who are not so fortunate use the river to the full extent the law allows


The law _*doesn't*_ allow trespassing, which is the matter at hand in this post. The fact that some petty criminals choose to trespass on private land, in order to gain access to fishing spots, doesn't put any responsibility on the landowners to sell any portion of their land, to allow non-trespassing access to it. The petty criminals can buy boats, or wade in the river for access. The laws in MI allow for that.


----------



## zig

MERGANZER said:


> No I do not live there and yes there are sections that are deemed non navigable.
> 
> Ganzer


How do you know that?


----------



## stockrex

Quack Addict said:


> Or he could just call this guy. Problem solved!


lol, they plead out a policeman who was SUPERDRUNK so a trespass DNR ticket should be walk in the park.


----------



## Robert Holmes

MERGANZER said:


> So Robert, you want to take a blue ribbon trout stream and a national scenic river and put a boardwalk along the entire system with big blue trash cans every 50 yards or so? That will make that river absolutely beautiful.
> 
> Ganzer


Did I say a trash can every 50 yards and a boardwalk? I will be happy to give you a tour. You will like it so much that you might not want to go back. There are foot trails and hiking trails no boardwalks.


----------



## cookchris

RobW said:


> Look, OP, your buddy picked a bad stretch for that style of fishing. Go in at Ledge, get out at Green Cottage, and walk back to your truck. Or go in at M-37. Easy to keep that legal, it sounds like trying to avoid the difficulties of bucking the current was the big reason why you got out of the stream.


Yeah, that was basically it. Didn't think it'd be a big deal. Sucks to learn the hard way. Sounds easy enough to start a little further up river. Thanks for the tip.


----------



## Robert Holmes

cookchris said:


> Yeah, that was basically it. Didn't think it'd be a big deal. Sucks to learn the hard way. Sounds easy enough to start a little further up river. Thanks for the tip.


I kind of think that you and you buddy were the goat for someone else that ruined things. If the Conservation Officer was policing private property he should have given a few warnings prior to writing tickets. On the other hand he is not in the business of giving out too many warnings. I am not an advocate of Conservation Officers working on behalf of private property owners who have minor trespass complaints. I would think that if the property owner had a problem they should be the person out there talking to the fishermen. As it is now they have a CO on speed dial and they expect the CO to show up every time someone comes 50 feet from their property. This is a big reason why Conservation Officers cannot work some serious poaching complaints.


----------



## MIfishslayer91

Robert Holmes said:


> I kind of think that you and you buddy were the goat for someone else that ruined things. If the Conservation Officer was policing private property he should have given a few warnings prior to writing tickets. On the other hand he is not in the business of giving out too many warnings. I am not an advocate of Conservation Officers working on behalf of private property owners who have minor trespass complaints. I would think that if the property owner had a problem they should be the person out there talking to the fishermen. As it is now they have a CO on speed dial and they expect the CO to show up every time someone comes 50 feet from their property. This is a big reason why Conservation Officers cannot work some serious poaching complaints.


A co wont spend his day playin life guard sitting on the banks reminding fisherman to stay in the water. The signs posted all over the river that say "no trespassing" and "private property" are warnings! The co is there to enforce it!


----------



## fishatty50

That is the kind of law I have practiced for 20+ years. For practical purposes, the public trust doctrine is applicable only to Great Lakes shorelines. A wading fisherman can leave a river and enter private land only temporarily and as necessary to avoid a hazard.


----------



## steve myers

Trespassing is trespassing wether hunting or fishing.If caught suffer the consequences.Don't feel sorry for anyone especially when theres signs everywhere.I pay to lease land and I will call CO on any tresspasser I have.


----------



## Ranger Ray

fishatty50 said:


> The public trust doctrine doesn't apply to rivers, at least not in Michigan.


It does according to our laws. What are we missing?


----------



## jjc155

19rabbit52 said:


> One thing to remember about trespass tickets is that multiple ones can turn into a felony with prison time. I know a rabbit hunter that judge told next ticket, one year.


Misdemenor Trespassing tickets with NEVER turn into a felony in michigan. 1 year is a county jail term NOT prison. The only felony trespassing has to do with trespassing in "key facilities" such as water treatment, electrical stations, prisons etc.

J-


----------



## 19rabbit52

Apparently I was lied to. I guess I don't know the difference in jail or prison. But I do know Rod said the judge told him if he saw him again for trespassing he would get a year for felony trespass. Of course he may have also lied about that. Just passing on what I was told.


----------



## Pastor Bill

A few years back my wife and I were fishing Big Bass Lake for some pan-fish for a nice supper.
We were in a boat fishing about 25 to 30 yards from shore when a lady came out of her house screaming and ranting that we were catching her fish and if we didn't move our boat she was calling the DNR.
She claimed we were trespassing on her water because her property extended to the center of the lake.
We just kept on fishing and paid no attention to her. I felt that was a better way to handle it rather than a shouting match. 
I don't know if she did call the DNR or not but they never showed up and we stayed as long as the fish were biting.:
Would you call that water trespassing?:lol:


----------



## johnny5alive

steve myers said:


> Trespassing is trespassing wether hunting or fishing.If caught suffer the consequences.Don't feel sorry for anyone especially when theres signs everywhere.I pay to lease land and I will call CO on any tresspasser I have.


This is a problem thats coming down the pipe soon. Leasers.


You dont have trespassers the land owner does. Unless the contract you sign says that the landowner and everyone else cant access the land then you dont have trespassers you're just renting the right to hunt there. Call the cops on a person the owner knows and you're likely done leasing when the contract is up


----------



## steve myers

johnny5alive said:


> This is a problem thats coming down the pipe soon. Leasers.
> 
> 
> You dont have trespassers the land owner does. Unless the contract you sign says that the landowner and everyone else cant access the land then you dont have trespassers you're just renting the right to hunt there. Call the cops on a person the owner knows and you're likely done leasing when the contract is up


Wrong.Called DNR they ticketed them and yes landowner had to go to be notified about it but tickets were issued.If your leasing I would hope you have a good enough landowner that they don't tell other guys they can be there.We have a very good one.


----------



## Honkkilla59

johnny5alive said:


> This is a problem thats coming down the pipe soon. Leasers.
> 
> 
> You dont have trespassers the land owner does. Unless the contract you sign says that the landowner and everyone else cant access the land then you dont have trespassers you're just renting the right to hunt there. Call the cops on a person the owner knows and you're likely done leasing when the contract is up


Your wrong leasing land is no different than leasing a home ,the tenant has the right to press charges for trespassing.


----------



## AntiHuntersLoveMe

I totally understand why some people purposely trespass... It's a whole lot cheaper to pay for a trespassing ticket (if even caught) than thousands of dollars for a lease or payments on property. I wonder how many "white men" were ticketed by the Indians?:what:


----------



## steve myers

AntiHuntersLoveMe said:


> I totally understand why some people purposely trespass... It's a whole lot cheaper to pay for a trespassing ticket (if even caught) than thousands of dollars for a lease or payments on property. I wonder how many "white men" were ticketed by the Indians?:what:


I don't know if your statement is sarcasm or not but its a terrible one if not.


----------



## MERGANZER

The problem is the more people who trespass the less access fishermen will have in the future. People aren't going to lease easements or access or put it trails etc. The best way to get and keep access is to be respectful and polite. Its very simple.

Ganzer


----------



## Lang1320

Pastor Bill said:


> A few years back my wife and I were fishing Big Bass Lake for some pan-fish for a nice supper.
> We were in a boat fishing about 25 to 30 yards from shore when a lady came out of her house screaming and ranting that we were catching her fish and if we didn't move our boat she was calling the DNR.
> She claimed we were trespassing on her water because her property extended to the center of the lake.
> We just kept on fishing and paid no attention to her. I felt that was a better way to handle it rather than a shouting match.
> I don't know if she did call the DNR or not but they never showed up and we stayed as long as the fish were biting.:
> Would you call that water trespassing?:lol:


She is correct to some extent. She owns the land to the middle of the lake, but not the water or the fish on it. If you have legal access, you can fish anywhere you want on the surface of the water. You can't build a dock or permanent structure on her lake bottom, and she can't fence off that part of the water either.


----------



## Robert Holmes

I guess that it is a two way street the Conservation Officer tickets a bunch of fishermen. Sometime somewhere that conservation officer will be asking one of those fishermen for some information to help solve a complaint and the fisherman might have a common fish disease called lockjaw.


----------



## UplandnWaterfowl

fishatty50 said:


> The public trust doctrine doesn't apply to rivers, at least not in Michigan.





fishatty50 said:


> That is the kind of law I have practiced for 20+ years. For practical purposes, the public trust doctrine is applicable only to Great Lakes shorelines. A wading fisherman can leave a river and enter private land only temporarily and as necessary to avoid a hazard.





Ranger Ray said:


> It does according to our laws. What are we missing?


Fishatty50 is correct, here it what you were missing:

Michigan gave away the public trust doctrine to inland navigable waters by judicial decision in 1860, the title to the beds of inland navigable waters, both lakes and streams, was declared to be in the riparian owners. The title, allowed to be taken by the riparian owners, was subordinate to public rights, including the public right of fishing. In contrast, the title to bottomlands of the Great Lakes is held in trust by the State of Michigan.

The question is often asked: How did the State of Michigan acquire the duty to hold the soil beneath navigable waters in trust for public use? Virginia ceded the Northwest Territory to the Federal Government. Michigan, which was carved from this territory, took title to the submerged lands limited to the grant by Virginia and the Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance, being one of the laws of the Northwest Territory, and still of binding force in Michigan, provided that "[t]he navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and the Saint Lawrence, and the carrying places between, shall be common highways, and forever free, . . . without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." Art. IV Northwest Ordinance 1787. Therefore, Michigan, upon admission to the Union, took title burdened with the aforesaid public trust.

Michigan, either by legislative enactment or judicial decision, could in turn, surrender title to its submerged lands. The State, by judicial fiat in the case of Lorman v Benson, 8 Mich. 18 (1860), retained title to the bed of the Great Lakes, but surrendered title of the submerged soil of inland navigable waters to riparian owners. However, this transfer of title could not unburden such submerged land from the public right of navigation, fishing, and related uses as the State of Michigan could not convey to a private individual more rights than it originally took.

So you have the right to fish inland navigable waters (answering another post about fishing in front of lake property); however, if you were Hunting and Trapping in that same location, you would be trespassing.

It has been well established in Michigan, that the owner of lands bordering on a navigable stream or lake, with the exception of the Great Lakes, owns the submerged lands to the thread of the stream, subject only to the easement of navigation which the public may have thereon, and that he also owns the ice covering the surface of the water over the submerged lands and any interference with these rights constitutes a trespass.

The right to take game is a private property right vested solely in the property owner. This is unlike the right to fish which arises by the establishment of public water through its use, as well as the waters capacity for use in transportation and travel, and from the fact that there is no private ownership in the fish or in the right to take fish from public waters. Being a private property right, the taking of game is lawful only with the permission of the property owner. The picture is best summed up by example. The public has a legal right to fish from a boat during open season on public waters, but this right would not include the shooting of ducks from the same boat without permission of the riparian owner, even though the shooting season was open.

All this information can be found in the following document www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf It also list the navigable and non-navigable sections of the PM (to answer a previous question in this thread questioning when someone said that not all the PM was navigable, that was also correct).


----------



## Fishndude

Pastor Bill said:


> A few years back my wife and I were fishing Big Bass Lake for some pan-fish for a nice supper.
> We were in a boat fishing about 25 to 30 yards from shore when a lady came out of her house screaming and ranting that we were catching her fish and if we didn't move our boat she was calling the DNR.
> She claimed we were trespassing on her water because her property extended to the center of the lake.
> We just kept on fishing and paid no attention to her. I felt that was a better way to handle it rather than a shouting match.
> I don't know if she did call the DNR or not but they never showed up and we stayed as long as the fish were biting.:
> Would you call that water trespassing?:lol:



I might consider calling the DNR and reporting her for harassing a sportfisherman - you. There is a law on the books that prohibits harassing of anglers. I might also consider telling her to STFU, but I'd probably move right close to the dock to share that, so the neighbors wouldn't have to hear it. Her poor neighbors. I have a good friend who lives on Big Bass. I'll ask him if he knows this woman - she should be well known if she goes outside to scream at people for fishing in front of her home/cabin.


----------



## Ranger Ray

UplandnWaterfowl said:


> Fishatty50 is correct, here it what you were missing:
> 
> Michigan gave away the public trust doctrine to inland navigable waters by judicial decision in 1860, the title to the beds of inland navigable waters, both lakes and streams, was declared to be in the riparian owners. The title, allowed to be taken by the riparian owners, was subordinate to public rights, including the public right of fishing. In contrast, the title to bottomlands of the Great Lakes is held in trust by the State of Michigan.
> 
> The question is often asked: How did the State of Michigan acquire the duty to hold the soil beneath navigable waters in trust for public use? Virginia ceded the Northwest Territory to the Federal Government. Michigan, which was carved from this territory, took title to the submerged lands limited to the grant by Virginia and the Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance, being one of the laws of the Northwest Territory, and still of binding force in Michigan, provided that "[t]he navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and the Saint Lawrence, and the carrying places between, shall be common highways, and forever free, . . . without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." Art. IV Northwest Ordinance 1787. Therefore, Michigan, upon admission to the Union, took title burdened with the aforesaid public trust.
> 
> Michigan, either by legislative enactment or judicial decision, could in turn, surrender title to its submerged lands. The State, by judicial fiat in the case of Lorman v Benson, 8 Mich. 18 (1860), retained title to the bed of the Great Lakes, but surrendered title of the submerged soil of inland navigable waters to riparian owners. However, this transfer of title could not unburden such submerged land from the public right of navigation, fishing, and related uses as the State of Michigan could not convey to a private individual more rights than it originally took.
> 
> So you have the right to fish inland navigable waters (answering another post about fishing in front of lake property); however, if you were Hunting and Trapping in that same location, you would be trespassing.
> 
> It has been well established in Michigan, that the owner of lands bordering on a navigable stream or lake, with the exception of the Great Lakes, owns the submerged lands to the thread of the stream, subject only to the easement of navigation which the public may have thereon, and that he also owns the ice covering the surface of the water over the submerged lands and any interference with these rights constitutes a trespass.
> 
> The right to take game is a private property right vested solely in the property owner. This is unlike the right to fish which arises by the establishment of public water through its use, as well as the waters capacity for use in transportation and travel, and from the fact that there is no private ownership in the fish or in the right to take fish from public waters. Being a private property right, the taking of game is lawful only with the permission of the property owner. The picture is best summed up by example. The public has a legal right to fish from a boat during open season on public waters, but this right would not include the shooting of ducks from the same boat without permission of the riparian owner, even though the shooting season was open.
> 
> All this information can be found in the following document www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf It also list the navigable and non-navigable sections of the PM (to answer a previous question in this thread questioning when someone said that not all the PM was navigable, that was also correct).


Michigan can not give away its public trust doctrine. The trust is actually what gives you the right to fish navigable streams today through private property. The trust does not treat game and fish the same. Game has always been subject to land ownership. Water and fish are different.


----------



## Lang1320

This excerpt from the Riparian Rights document is particularly interesting in your case, cookchris. My understanding is that a property owner can't just 'get tired of it' after granting access for years then suddenly putting up signs and calling 911 for trespassers. I don't think yours involved a bordering highway, but the sentiment should be the same. 

"Notwithstanding, the court additionally held that the right of public access
to bodies of water bordered or skirted by public roads may be lawfully created by long
continued use (prescriptive easement) even across such strip of intervening private
property."


----------



## fishatty50

Permissive use by the landowner can't give rise to prescriptive rights. Frankly, that suggestion will compel landowners to let no one use their property. Respect private property and we'll all be better off.


----------



## kzoofisher

> It has been well established in Michigan, that the owner of lands bordering on a navigable stream or lake, with the exception of the Great Lakes, owns the submerged lands to the thread of the stream, subject only to the easement of navigation which the public may have thereon, and that he also owns the ice covering the surface of the water over the submerged lands and any interference with these rights constitutes a trespass.


 I'm sorry, I keep picturing every cop in Roscommon County rushing the ice at tip up town and 5000 tickets being issued.:lol: What a madhouse that would be. I'm sure it would cost the county far more in lost revenue than they would ever generate in tickets. Has anyone ever been ticketed for that?


----------



## Pastor Bill

Fishndude said:


> I might consider calling the DNR and reporting her for harassing a sportfisherman - you. There is a law on the books that prohibits harassing of anglers. I might also consider telling her to STFU, but I'd probably move right close to the dock to share that, so the neighbors wouldn't have to hear it. Her poor neighbors. I have a good friend who lives on Big Bass. I'll ask him if he knows this woman - she should be well known if she goes outside to scream at people for fishing in front of her home/cabin.


The place in question is in the N.E.corner of the 4 bays of the Lake.
Provided the people still live there. This was in 1989 so it goes back a long ways. Just FYI I have snuck back in there a time or two anyway.


----------



## troutguy26

kzoofisher said:


> I'm sorry, I keep picturing every cop in Roscommon County rushing the ice at tip up town and 5000 tickets being issued.:lol: What a madhouse that would be. I'm sure it would cost the county far more in lost revenue than they would ever generate in tickets. Has anyone ever been ticketed for that?


I'm curious about that also... First time ever hearing of this.


----------



## toto

Wait here a minute, you mean to try to convince me that that PTD doesn't include rivers? Not even close to being true. It has been established, on one hand, that the bottom of the rivers are owned by riparians, that is correct, however, it has also been noted on rivers that are navigable, the public has the right to fish these waters as an incidence of navigation, as long as LEGAL access has been obtained. Why do you think they put into article IV of the ordinance of 1787 (Northwest Ordinance) that little clause? Could it be that, even then, they could see where people would be closed out of using navigable waters. On the hunting and trapping thing, you would be correct. One other way to look at the PTD and rivers, if it has some validity when it comes to surface water, what makes you think it wouldn't be valid on rivers???

Also, Merganzer, just exactly where is this river you have property on that is non-navigable, and who says it's non nav???

http://www.bsmlawpc.com/municipal_l...ation-Regarding-the-Public-Trust-Doctrine.pdf


----------



## MERGANZER

You can search in many documents what is navigable and what has not been deemed navigable. Its not always easy but it is out there. Wish the DNR would put an easy form out there that is very clear so people know.

Ganzer


----------



## Robert Holmes

I might be wrong but I think that if the DNR stocks fish in the river system, that makes the river system navigable. Who knows? I am not too concerned because I live where there is miles of public waterways.


----------



## YZman

On non-tidal smaller streams, ones commercial shipping is not done on, U.S. law states its non-navigable. Unless a statute, and Michigan has no statute defining navigability, or a Court says otherwise. Burden of proving navigability is on party claiming navigable servitude and is done through civil action, and until such time, stream is NON-NAVIGABLE. 

Stocking a stream does NOT make it navigable. No such MCL statute, plus that would fly in the face of BOTT vs NRC, which stated NRC does not have authority to define navigability. That would allow DNR to decided which streams it wanted "navigable".


----------



## MERGANZER

YZman said:


> On non-tidal smaller streams, ones commercial shipping is not done on, U.S. law states its non-navigable. Unless a statute, and Michigan has no statute defining navigability, or a Court says otherwise. Burden of proving navigability is on party claiming navigable servitude and is done through civil action, and until such time, stream is NON-NAVIGABLE.
> 
> Stocking a stream does NOT make it navigable. No such MCL statute, plus that would fly in the face of BOTT vs NRC, which stated NRC does not have authority to define navigability. That would allow DNR to decided which streams it wanted "navigable".


There are sections defined as "navigable" if people do some research. If it is not defined navigable it probably isn't officially recognized as such and is deemed non-navigable.

Ganzer


----------



## swampbuck

The Mdnr can not and does not stock fish in waters that are not open to the public.


----------



## RobW

UplandnWaterfowl said:


> ... "[t]he navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and the Saint Lawrence, and the carrying places between, shall be common highways, and forever free, . . . without any tax, impost, or duty therefor." Art. IV Northwest Ordinance 1787.


I was reading your post, and I'm curious; what happened to all these historic portages? They can't all be public parks now... or are they?


----------



## Sparky23

I didnt know there was non navigable waters on the pm either, sounds like someone just wants everything to himself. Far more private than public on the PM and the problem with it is ALOT of the private can be accessed by the guides but not the public, money talks.


----------



## Robert Holmes

Here we go again!!!!!!:lol::lol::lol:Nobody knows what is private and what is public. You put on a pair of waders and wade a mile of what you thought was a navigable river. The landowner comes out of his cottage cursing at you (harassment). You think that the river is public, the land owner thinks he owns the land under the water. The battle is on. A Conservation Officer is called to play referee. In my opinion the Conservation Officer is wasting his time and our dollars. The only true way to solve the issue is a court opinion to that specific section of water. Yet another waste of time and money.
As the Anti"s buy more property in this state expect it to happen more often.Instead of having Conservation Officers like we used to have they will be Trespass Truancy Officers.


----------



## Robert Holmes

swampbuck said:


> The Mdnr can not and does not stock fish in waters that are not open to the public.


I know of two private very large lakes that were stocked for years by the DNR. It took a couple of lawsuits but the DNR had to purchase a public access on these lakes.


----------



## swampbuck

Robert Holmes said:


> I know of two private very large lakes that were stocked for years by the DNR. It took a couple of lawsuits but the DNR had to purchase a public access on these lakes.



There is a lot of cronyism within the DNR. Good thing they were called on that.


----------



## MERGANZER

This still doesn't clear everything up but it is some of the navigable waters listed but its still a very fuzzy issue to say the least.

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/Porta...DFs/navwaterslistLREwithcutoffs_23Sep2014.pdf

Ganzer


----------



## GVDocHoliday

Sounds like a CO doing a good job. I read alot of complaints about trespassing on this site and most of the time the landowner is pretty much told there's not enough signs, they need a warning first, etc...basically pound sand. A CO just issuing a rec trespass citation without a landowner having to press charges sounds pretty dang OK to me.


----------



## RML

Sparky23..The guides access the private land thru public boat launches..We pay access fees to the State and Fed's and provide Insurance as well to protect the State, Fed's and clients...We access that said private land thru navical waters using a drift boat carrying our clients and gear...You are more than welcome to rent or buy a watercraft, set up a car spot, and access the exact same water I fish !! You can do it for pennies on the dollar compared to my fees and cost we pay to be commercial... Then while you fish, you just need to stay in the water unless your in Federal or state lands..We don't buy access to private land we just row thru a section of water we pick and fish just like everyone else..


----------



## MERGANZER

Sparky23 said:


> I didnt know there was non navigable waters on the pm either, sounds like someone just wants everything to himself. Far more private than public on the PM and the problem with it is ALOT of the private can be accessed by the guides but not the public, money talks.


Where exactly can the guides access that you cannot? If its navigable and there is an access site you can legally enter. If not you can't. That's the rules to the game.

Ganzer


----------



## zig

UplandnWaterfowl said:


> Fishatty50 is correct, here it what you were missing:
> 
> All this information can be found in the following document www.michigan.gov/documents/Water97e_142928_7.pdf It also list the navigable and non-navigable sections of the PM (to answer a previous question in this thread questioning when someone said that not all the PM was navigable, that was also correct).


I have to disagree with your take on this. Just because a particular body (Federal Govt, MI Supreme court, Local Statutes, etc.) deem a body "navigable" does NOT mean that the remaining portion of that body is non-navigable. The streams listed as navigable are only streams that have been adjudicated (i.e. ruled by a judge). This does not mean that any stream not listed, or any section not listed in that document is non-navigable. The same logic applies to the fact that there are only 3 streams adjudicated as non-navigable by the MI Supreme court. Everything not listed is subject to test, and should it make it to court, it may one day find itself judged navigable or non-navigable. For example, I may have missed it, but I did not see the Jordan listed as navigable. Yet, we all know it is as it meets several of the tests for being navigable. This is why I earlier said that I would find it very, very hard to believe the sections of the PM not specifically identified as navigable by this document were not, at a very minimum, meandered and mapped by the General Land Office in the 1800's. I've collected a lot of these maps, and there are some pretty tight headwaters that show up, not all, but definitely much much smaller than the sections not listed as specifically navigable for the PM.


----------



## YZman

FYI, being on a map, even an old map, does NOT mean it was meandered by the GLO. Most were just drawn in "approximately". Even today maps may misrepresent were the actual stream is. You need the surveyor notes and/or documents.


----------



## Sparky23

I am just making things up i guess, about certain guides that had private land leased that i watched WALK clients down to, I could honestly give a crap less about the entire river and its holiier than thow mentality and rules. I used to fish it quite a bit though and watched on 2 occasions 2 different guides walk onto private with clients. NO BOAT, even though since you didnt see it i must be lying.


----------

