# Tiny creeks



## scoot (Jul 4, 2001)

I like fishing small creeks. I hop in at a bridge crossing, stay in the creek and go upstream to the next bridge. I'm confused on wading through private property. "Navigable" is a broad term. Wire going across creeks means what? No fishing it at all? Why isn't there clear cut terms on what's legal and what isnt?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well it is complicated but here is a rough idea of what is navigable vs non. If you could float a log, or float a small boat these days, including a canoe, it's navigable. What you could do is find a list of non navigable streams in Michigan, which there are only 3, don't fish those. If it isn't listed you can fish it. The wire over the stream is nothing more than a scare tactic, and means absolutely nothing. For more on that, you could read:http://www.eregulations.com/michigan/fishing/angler-rights-on-public-streams/


----------



## scoot (Jul 4, 2001)

Thank you Toto. I just hope land owners know the law


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

They may, but think you don't. The biggest thing is making sure you enter stream from a legal point. Once you are in the water, you are only allowed to get out to avoid a hazard, such as a log jam, deep hole etc. You may enter as close to the water as possible to get around that obstruction, but then have to re-enter the water as soon as possible. I'm trying to find a link to a book on this that you can purchase online, or read a small portion of it. I'll post it when I find it.

Here's one that is on point: https://www.michbar.org/file/programs/milestone/pdf/publicaccess.pdf


----------



## eye-sore (Jan 7, 2012)

Dnr told me if a fish can navigate it so can i. Your allowed to exit water only if deep hole or some other obstacle blocks your path. Then must return directly to water at first reasonable place


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

There is a lot of debate and drama on this topic.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yes there is BB, but there really shouldn't be. It's seems pretty simple, if it hasn't been adjudicated as non-navigable, it's open. Even it has, if you could prove that logs have EVER been floated down this particular, it's considered navigable, regardless of whether it becomes too dry at certain times. Where the problem comes in is when someone buys property with a stream running through it, a lot of the times a realtor will state that this is a private stream, when it isn't.


----------



## scoot (Jul 4, 2001)

Bridge crossings are always a legal spot to access correct? There's some sort of buffer zone from the road that will at least allow you to enter the creek has been my assumption


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

scoot said:


> Bridge crossings are always a legal spot to access correct? There's some sort of buffer zone from the road that will at least allow you to enter the creek has been my assumption


I've been told by a CO, yes. Then a different CO said no.


----------



## scoot (Jul 4, 2001)

Lol sounds about right


----------



## Whitetail_hunter (Mar 14, 2012)

scoot said:


> Bridge crossings are always a legal spot to access correct? There's some sort of buffer zone from the road that will at least allow you to enter the creek has been my assumption



They are if you want to jump off the bridge directly into the river/creek or if the land is public, if it is private property then it would be trespassing to use the land to access a stream, the easment you speak of isnt for public use.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

BB, "I've been told by a CO, yes. Then a different CO said no."..... as have I....& MSP also....one said, "you are ok"...& another that said, "If I catch you here again, I will write you up for trespassing." I found out later that this MSP was friends with the landowner. I _did_ have permission from the landowner on the opposite side of this dirt road. This was on a Mecosta county tributary of the Little Muskegon......the MSP were @ the road waiting for me to come out. I saw him there as I neared the road, & thought there could be no problem, but......man, did he ever give me an ear-full!!!


----------



## scoot (Jul 4, 2001)

So to be clear; if I am in the creek and come to a road crossing thats private on both sides with a culvert I can't go through, I can legally get out, cross the road and hop back in the creek. 
However, I can't park at said spot and access creek as quickly as possible unless I spider man it directly from the bridge/culvert?


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

itchn2fish said:


> BB, "I've been told by a CO, yes. Then a different CO said no."..... as have I....& MSP also....one said, "you are ok"...& another that said, "If I catch you here again, I will write you up for trespassing." I found out later that this MSP was friends with the landowner. I _did_ have permission from the landowner on the opposite side of this dirt road. This was on a Mecosta county tributary of the Little Muskegon......the MSP were @ the road waiting for me to come out. I saw him there as I neared the road, & thought there could be no problem, but......man, did he ever give me an ear-full!!!


If you had permission I would have told him to get F'd. I am polite as can be but if I am in the right and have done nothing against the law I will give it to a LEO or properly owner. I obviously do not want conflict or am some tough guy but we anglers have rights.


----------



## Hear fishy fishy (Feb 9, 2013)

My understanding is a lot of gray area. If you have permission to enter on one property and stay in the water through another and can get out on the following if you have permission then you are good. You must stay in the water and all of your gear. If you snag up in a tree and break off your trespassing. I believe you can get out for a log jam to portage but don't believe holes count as you must float or swim through them. I also believe if the land owner ask you to identify yourself you have to give them all information. It's not worth the hassle in my oppion with so many good stream to fish. Every Co can have a different statement with all the gray area. Maybe we can get some input from them.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

As would have I, BB Sean, (Shawn, Shane...sorry that I forgot your name, sorry sp???). However I was alone & on the other side of the road from the property that I have permission to hunt/fish/gather. This landowner (on 4 MIle Rd.) had taken me across the street turkey hunting before, so I didn't think there'd be a problem. He later told me that the property, @ that time, had been bought by new owners that were part of MSP. So I have since stayed off. I really try to not trespass, & I avoid confrontation whenever possible. I always have the utmost respect for private property. - Eric Nummerdor


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

This is my understanding of entering a watershed from bridge crossing. I realized it would be easy if you could just slide down the bridge abutment, but obviously isn't possible most times. My understanding is you may enter, re: walk Within the road right of way to enter a river, however it is not legal to pick mushrooms, nuts, berries etc within said right of way. It is possible as well you would have to find a place to park. There must be a better answer, more definitive, in this somewhere, but that's my understanding. The rationale is that the county or state "technically" owns the road right of way, own may not be the right word but I think you get my drift.


----------



## scoot (Jul 4, 2001)

Thank you for your responses toto. Good stuff


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

toto said:


> Well it is complicated but here is a rough idea of what is navigable vs non. If you could float a log, or float a small boat these days, including a canoe, it's navigable. What you could do is find a list of non navigable streams in Michigan, which there are only 3, don't fish those. If it isn't listed you can fish it. The wire over the stream is nothing more than a scare tactic, and means absolutely nothing. For more on that, you could read:http://www.eregulations.com/michigan/fishing/angler-rights-on-public-streams/


Only 3 in Michigan listed as non navigable?


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

toto said:


> This is my understanding of entering a watershed from bridge crossing. I realized it would be easy if you could just slide down the bridge abutment, but obviously isn't possible most times. My understanding is you may enter, re: walk Within the road right of way to enter a river, however it is not legal to pick mushrooms, nuts, berries etc within said right of way. It is possible as well you would have to find a place to park. There must be a better answer, more definitive, in this somewhere, but that's my understanding. The rationale is that the county or state "technically" owns the road right of way, own may not be the right word but I think you get my drift.


Alot of what you said is right for a navigable river, if there is a pull off you can park your vehicle and launch a canoe/small boat or walk down into the river to wade fish. It's a point a to b thing like you said you can't vere off the trail or pick flowers it's strictly for accessing the river at the bridge/easement. I went through a lot of this a few years ago because on the property I own people were doing just that. Parking along the road and launching their canoes and after I had enough of the garbage left behind I put a stop to it. That's when a paddler left me a note saying that he was legal what he was doing on a navigable river by launching there. Well if it was listed as a navigable river yes but there is a lot more rivers listed as non navigable then there are navigable. A nice gentlemen from the dnr told me this and explained on the river I own on its only considered navigable in 3 of the major cities it runs through. This is a good size river, so the post saying any river you can float a log down is considered navigable is way off and good way to get someone a ticket. You will find there is a very lot of sections of some major rivers that are considered non navigable.


----------



## mattawanhunter (Oct 30, 2011)

I've also found people illiagaly mark no trespassing on their property that bordres navigable streams, I've run into some real jerks, be careful, Northern Michigan and the Up has great numbers of beatiful public land streams and creeks!
​


scoot said:


> I like fishing small creeks. I hop in at a bridge crossing, stay in the creek and go upstream to the next bridge. I'm confused on wading through private property. "Navigable" is a broad term. Wire going across creeks means what? No fishing it at all? Why isn't there clear cut terms on what's legal and what isnt?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well as far as I know there are only 3 rivers/creeks/streams that are adjudicated as non navigable, can't remember which 3. What is important is the floating log test. If you can float a log down it at any time of year it is considered navigable. Today it is said that if you can float a canoe or a float boat it is navigable. Only the courts can decide not some CO or anyone else.


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

toto said:


> Well as far as I know there are only 3 rivers/creeks/streams that are adjudicated as non navigable, can't remember which 3. What is important is the floating log test. If you can float a log down it at any time of year it is considered navigable. Today it is said that if you can float a canoe or a float boat it is navigable. Only the courts can decide not some CO or anyone else.


Well I'm sorry but your wrong, did you know on the Kalamazoo river there is only "3" sections of that entire river that are considered navigable and those are in the bigger cities ? You are way off on this and the courts have decided and with a little effort I'm sure you can obtain a list like the co and county sheriff had when they were out at my property.? Today it is said floating a log don't mean squat that has nothing to do with deeming a stream/river navigable . I'm sorry but your interpretation of this law is a little off no offense but I been up n down this law since I own property on a river.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I just looked again and I can only find 3 that have been adjudicated as non nav. I don't know to post a link from my phone but if you look up public rights in michigan waters, near the end they are listed. Just because a CO says it is doesn't make it so. If the state supreme court hasn't made that determination it's a moot point. Secondly if a river has EVER floated logs 100 years ago for logging purposes it is legally navigable. I believe, respectfully, that you are only getting half the story.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Maybe this will help you could also read the case of Collins v Gerhardt.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Furthermore I wouldn't depend on the CO or county sheriff knowing what is or isn't navigable, they aren't the ones who decide. As I stated earlier it can only be determined by the courts. I had a good friend, deceased, who was a retired state police officer and he didn't know that either. Tell ya what why don't you post the link to the courts cases you referencing.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

So now that I can post a link to it, here is a long read on navigablility on lakes and streams in Michigan. The last page will show which streams or rivers have been adjudicated as such:

http://michiganlakes.msue.msu.edu/uploads/files/FAQ Page/MI Water Laws.pdf

I have tried to find any other streams/rivers that have been added to the list, however it doesn't seem to exist. Therefore, if it isn't adjudicated as such, you can't be breaking a law that doesn't exist. As for the Kalamazoo, it appears as though the river has been deemed, by the courts, as navigable from Allegan Dam downstream to Lake Michigan, but no adjudication other wise.


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

US compiled law, Section 8800, U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this as recently as 2014 when EPA tried increasing waters under their control. Stream is presumed NON-navigable unless statute, court, Army Corp Eng says otherwise. It is determined through CIVIL action, not during a criminal trial (misdemeanor infraction). Been through this in court. You'll note Recreational Trespass Act states " a navigable" stream. Navigable has a legal definition, not one you make up on the fly (get it "fly" (humor)).

If you'll note on streams deemed "navigable", they'll give a start point or state if its the entire length. There are plenty of larger streams not deemed "navigable", but are used by public for years and obviously would be navigable, so no court or other statutes or other rulings, riparians simply don't challenge obvious ones. 

It's simple, if its posted "No Trespassing", call local DNR office, if you don't like their reply, you can ask to have a higher authority to talk to you. People read these forums and I've seen them argue with LEO's. Trespass tickets are now typically in the 4 digit range.

I'm only bothering to post so that, at least some, might save themselves some legal hassles and contact a DNR office instead of using a forum for their "legal advice". Doesn't hold up in court folks.


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

toto said:


> So now that I can post a link to it, here is a long read on navigablility on lakes and streams in Michigan. The last page will show which streams or rivers have been adjudicated as such:
> 
> http://michiganlakes.msue.msu.edu/uploads/files/FAQ Page/MI Water Laws.pdf
> 
> I have tried to find any other streams/rivers that have been added to the list, however it doesn't seem to exist. Therefore, if it isn't adjudicated as such, you can't be breaking a law that doesn't exist. As for the Kalamazoo, it appears as though the river has been deemed, by the courts, as navigable from Allegan Dam downstream to Lake Michigan, but no adjudication other wise.


Good To post and could be a useful sticky possibily. As I said though from that list that isn't 30% of Michigan waterways that are deemed nav, there is a lot more miles of water that is considerd non. Wasn't trying to argue but I just don't wanna a lot of people thinking if you can float a log it's navig could get a lot of tickets to people who get their advice on here insteada looking it up and getting a list like you did. With the kazoo river there is 31 miles navigable which isn't much considering how long that river is, lots of rivers are listed as nag but it's only a small percentage of that river. You can see for every creek / river listed the sections of it that are navigable and it isn't much at all. Thanks for posting


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Um man I just don't know what to say anymore. The floating log test IS the rule of thumb to determine navigability, try reading the link I posted in one of my last posts, as you'll see, I didn't write it. Secondly, do you know the difference between the different names of navigability? If you look at little closer, you will see that the navigation issue on the kzoo river is made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the reason for this is due to the "navigable in fact" rationale. In this case, you would be correct in that the last 31 miles of the kzoo is forever known as navigable waters as determined by the army corps of engineers. This is done for the express purpose of having the corps as controlling commercial, or possible commercial use of these waters. For example, large rivers, such as St. Marys, St. Clair, Detroit, and any other river that has large boat traffice, would be controlled by the army corps, and they are known as navigable in fact. 

If you would just take the time to read the link in my last post, you will see just how this all works. It's unfortunate you choose to believe those that only know part of the knowledge. Water law is one of the most difficult aspects of law, and no I'm no attorney. I could go on as to why you are wrong, I could go in to the meander line issue of navigability, but again, I encourage you read the link. Please do your self a favor and read it, and don't take the word of a CO, or sherriff that really have no idea, and certainly don't have the authority to make these decisions. 

Furthermore, I will submit, that perhaps there have been a couple more "creeks" that have been adjudicated as non nav, but I can't find it, perhaps you could enlighten all of us on which one they are. BTW, if you look at my link once again, on the very last page you will see appendix E, which tells you the names of the non navigable rivers. Just to re-interate one point, don't confuse navigable in fact issues that are controlled by the army corps with what we are talking about here, they are two totally separate definitions of navigable.

As for you YZ, you would be correct in the statute that says the army corps is involved in determining navigability, however you need to read the statute completely for total understanding. It states, and I paraphrase, navigability is determine by the state, AND the United States Coast Guard, as well as Army Corps of Engineers. So by that statement, it would seem that your trespassing issue, should have been null and void. No where can I find where it states that IF the river isn't on either list, it is considered non-navigable, I would submit to you that the Public Trust Doctrine, or at the very least, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 establishes the fact that all waters from the Mississippi, to the St. Lawrence and all waters leading into the same, are free to use...... It's article IV of NWO. Just for a little more history for you, the NWO is known as one of the 4 pillars of the United States. This ordinance is exactly spelling out how any state will be in the future, and it would have needed to be accepted as part of establishing itself as part of the US. I'm rambling I know, the bottom line is, based on the NWO which is still valid today, one would have a valid argument to ward off the trespass you suppossedly encountered, the YZ. 

Read this too: Again I didn't write it, but MR. Summerfield took the time to do the research, and no one argues his take on this. 
https://www.smashwords.com/extreade...ur-right-to-fish-michigans-inland-lakes-and-s


----------



## mbirdsley (Jan 12, 2012)

YZman said:


> US compiled law, Section 8800, U.S. Supreme Court has upheld this as recently as 2014 when EPA tried increasing waters under their control. Stream is presumed NON-navigable unless statute, court, Army Corp Eng says otherwise. It is determined through CIVIL action, not during a criminal trial (misdemeanor infraction). Been through this in court. You'll note Recreational Trespass Act states " a navigable" stream. Navigable has a legal definition, not one you make up on the fly (get it "fly" (humor)).
> 
> If you'll note on streams deemed "navigable", they'll give a start point or state if its the entire length. There are plenty of larger streams not deemed "navigable", but are used by public for years and obviously would be navigable, so no court or other statutes or other rulings, riparians simply don't challenge obvious ones.
> 
> ...


That is basically what DNR told me when I asked how for up stream a certain central mid Michigan unmentionable stream was. They said it floated logs so one of the criteria was passed for navigable. But, there was no official word on how far up river the stream was navigable or non-navigable. Basically to sum it up. If I ran across no trespassing signs he suggested I ask for permission before continuing.


----------



## mbirdsley (Jan 12, 2012)

Here is the response from a DNR biologist when asking about waiting a central Michigan unmentionable.

"$&@" $&@@" has not been officially deemed navigable by court action. Our records indicate the stream was used to transport logs and therefore meets some of the criteria as navigable. To determine how far upstream that extends would require research. If you see a no trespassing sign you may want to touch base with the land owner. Give me a call if you have further questions."


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Well whatever believe what you want. We've had this discussion before and if memory serves me well enough at least one of You, won't mention names, was finally brought out in the open and had property on a river such as you speak. All I can really say is I've had two attorneys, well versed on water law, tell me differently, guess I'll go with the expert. Furthermore use logic, if a CO or whoever said that logs were floated than it's navigable and you can't be sure how far up river that happened, who's gonna say where that stops and ends? Secondly if said stream has EVER been stocked than that also allows you to be there. I think you guys are using emotions and not law or logic.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I managed to find an answer to one perplexing question. You guys say if it isn't in a navigable list it's non navigable, however since we know, or at least you are depending on corps of engineers decisions, you should be aware of what the corps says. 33 CFR 329.16 (b) states: absence from the list of navigable streams should not be taken to mean it is non navigable. Btw birdsley, a biologist? Seriously?


----------



## uglyshtick (Apr 30, 2017)

In regards to getting in the water from a bridge; I recently had an issue with this in Missaukee County. I stopped at a bridge to fish, never walking off the roadway and with my vehicle parked on the edge of the gravel road, and was informed by the cantankerous land owner next door that that road right of way was for transit only. I politely debated it for a minute or two, wished him a good day, and decided to get some better answers before I went any farther with it. After several discussions with different DNR officers I concluded that roadway fishing access depends on how the deed was written up when the county purchased the right of way. Some are a public right of way, some are transit only. I still need to talk to either the county commissioner or the deeds office to see if that not-so-friendly landowner is correct or just acting like a troll chasing people off "his" bridge. Either way, it seems the decent thing to do if you live near a bridge would be to accept that not everyone can afford water frontage and allow the general public to at least respect their private property and fish from a bridge. Thankfully not everyone is that way.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

That will be interesting too see what you find out, I suppose a right of way can drawn up that way, just another example of how confusing this stuff can be.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Knocking on doors has given me a ton of access to waters which would not meet navigability criteria. Houses that have extended drive ways off the road are beneficial to knock at, because a lot of people are nice and will let you park at their place. Even better to get you away from the high traffic bridge areas. 

Tight Lines


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Whitetail_hunter said:


> They are if you want to jump off the bridge directly into the river/creek or if the land is public, if it is private property then it would be trespassing to use the land to access a stream, the easment you speak of isnt for public use.


Not the way I understand the law, if this was the case, then I guess you couldn't walk down the shoulder of the road of 33 ft right of way from the center of the road. Right of ways aren't just for motor vehicles, but for pedestrians, bikers and the general public. Hunting and harvesting plants, nuts, berries etc is not permitted on the public roadside right of ways.


----------



## Whitetail_hunter (Mar 14, 2012)

Trout King said:


> Not the way I understand the law, if this was the case, then I guess you couldn't walk down the shoulder of the road of 33 ft right of way from the center of the road. Right of ways aren't just for motor vehicles, but for pedestrians, bikers and the general public. Hunting and harvesting plants, nuts, berries etc is not permitted on the public roadside right of ways.


My understanding is that the right of way is for construction purposes, i did a quick google search and didnt find what i was looking for but i will look more.



Trout King said:


> Knocking on doors has given me a ton of access to waters which would not meet navigability criteria. Houses that have extended drive ways off the road are beneficial to knock at, because a lot of people are nice and will let you park at their place. Even better to get you away from the high traffic bridge areas.


This is how it should be done, bridge or no bridge.


----------



## Whitetail_hunter (Mar 14, 2012)

By some of your guys logic not only could you trespass legally to enter a stream you could also park in the persons front yard, ya know as long as your vehicle is within 33ft of the center line. Just pull up on the lawn.


----------



## articleten (May 28, 2017)

toto said:


> What I was getting at is this: IF a road ended at a river and there is no bridge that would be classified as a road end, or the alternative would be the road is Platte, but that's just clouding our debate. Ever heard of adverse possession? Using a road right of way, if it's been used for an extended time period, legally 15 years. In reading your above post, it seems you answer the question yourself, no interference with right to pass through. Just take a good luck at the Huron mountain club issue in the u.p. there is a great example of using a road right of way for access. Please read that and think it through.


The more common situation is a bridge is closed and not replaced. If the easement can't be used for road purposes the road easemement rights revert to the land owner. Yes public roads have been created by the public by using a road freely as a road for an extended period of years and so a county might assert an easement but it would still only be for road purposes. 

There can not be adverse posession involving an existing road easement, otherwise the public could sue the government for changing the speed limit or adding a stop sign. I've heard about some controversy involvinng the Huron Mountain Club. There are one or two news stories years ago then silence. There is a thread on this board and the last posts say nobody was showing up at the bridge. Was there ever a final decision by a court? Are those confrontations still happening?

The confusion in Michigan about public rights on roads has a few bad consequences. Smart money does not invest in places that give politically connected people better legal protection than others. Buying acreage propertiy for recreation in Michigan is risky unless you were born and raised in the area and have political connections. There are counties with stagnannt or declining populations and there aren't enough people around to keep the gas stations, grocery stores, party stores, etc. open that the year round residents rely on. Attracting tourissts is one solution but where will they recreate? The community may not be interested in paying for additional recreational opportunities so how about allowing the visitors to recreate on private property? The trespassers know where they can trespass.

Another problem is what kids learn from all this. So a parent takes his boys fishing and trespasses. He's asked to leave. One of the kids wants too go back and have a confrontation with the landowner, a potentially more serious crime than trespass. The other kid not only doesn't want to go back he doesn't want to go fishing anywhere any more because he doesn't want that kind of trouble. I think fines for fishing violations and recreational trespass should be doubled iif kids are made accessories. Trespass is not harmless if kids act out later in llife and do something more serious because may be it's okay to comit a crime sometimes because that's what they learned from fishing? Going fishing should not be crime school for kids for the sake of a few gas stations and party stores.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

The Huron Mountain Club was about access to a navigable Stream, can't remember the stream offhand. This club was trying to stop access to this stream via a bridge right of way. They sued the county to have the road abanded. This brings up two points you have been wrong about: 1) it says you CAN access a navigable stream this way and 2) you can sue the county which if I read it right above you stated the opposite in both instances. This pretty much tells me that you are grasping at straws which leads to the question, why?


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

Salmon Trout River. The falls and the outlet go through HMC.......there is public access in the skinny headwaters near "Dodge City"......


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

As you will see, this has been discussed on a legal forum. Some of those that answered are attorneys, so hopefully you'll get the point. The parking issue is the only issue as pertaining to accessing a stream via a public bridge/right of way.

https://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139105


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Prior to fishing if you have any question about if you can fish a river check the history and/or landmarks at your library or courthouse. This may help determine if it is navigable. If it is still questionable ask at the nearest DNR office or look for more public waters.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

Robert Holmes said:


> Prior to fishing if you have any question about if you can fish a river check the history and/or landmarks at your library or courthouse. This may help determine if it is navigable. If it is still questionable ask at the nearest DNR office or look for more public waters.


My main issue is that the DNR officers often don't have a clue to the actual laws. You may get 5 different answers from 5 different officers.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

One stream that I am familiar with has 3 dams on it all out of commission right now and it has a history of floating logs to a saw mill so I am guessing that its prior history makes it navigable.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yes, absolutely does make it navigable. There are court cases stating as such, from memory, I believe Bott vs Natural Resources is one of them. Also, check Collins vs Gerhardt, I believe both of those state as such in the briefs.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Yes Robert, IF a stream can be proven to have EVER floated logs, it is deemed navigable. To this day, it is the floating log test that is used to determine navigability; that and a couple of other ways such as 1) the ability to float a small boat such as a canoe, or float boat, 2) having a average speed of 41 feet per minute, being an average of 30 feet wide, and having a depth sufficient to float a log, probably 6 inches or so, pretty vague on that part.


----------



## YZman (Mar 4, 2004)

toto said:


> Yes Robert, IF a stream can be proven to have EVER floated logs, it is deemed navigable. To this day, it is the floating log test that is used to determine navigability; that and a couple of other ways such as 1) the ability to float a small boat such as a canoe, or float boat, 2) having a average speed of 41 feet per minute, being an average of 30 feet wide, and having a depth sufficient to float a log, probably 6 inches or so, pretty vague on that part.


Hallden at 181
"Capable of being navigated by oar" is deemed to include navigation
by canoe as well as by rowboat.

Had it not been subsequently overruled, Kelley v Hallden would have
established a landmark decision in the annals of navigability litigation
in Michigan. But in 1982 Hallden was overruled by the Michigan
Supreme Court in a trio of cases. The Supreme Court rejected the
recreational-boating test and cited "the need for a comprehensive
legislative solution."


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

YZman said:


> Hallden at 181
> "Capable of being navigated by oar" is deemed to include navigation
> by canoe as well as by rowboat.
> 
> ...


And nothing has happened. I wish they would make it cut and dry.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

As one can see, this is a very confusing issue and something needs to be clarified. As for the Kelley case, you are correct this was being pushed by MUCC in SB 767 which for some reason I thought had gone into effect. That still doesn't answer the Op's post. The bottom line is this, if it's navigable you may enter via right of way, don't think one can argue that, well you could but why? Anyways I've stated my case with facts, conjecture and emotions won't win any debate.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

....she was the finest old 'ore in all of England.......


----------



## strmanglr (Sep 23, 2015)

I've called one dnr office that said I could enter via bridge and another office say I couldn't as ppl have already mentioned. 

I keep all the dnr office phone numbers in my phone. I know which office and who I spoke with that said I was ok. 

If someone starts spouting tresspassing I start spouting angler harassment and quote the law and pull my phone and tell them I can call rt now, I have their number.

I was kicked off a small stream by allegedly the land owner. I said that stream is stocked, it's my tax dollars and I can enter via road rt of way. He insisted the creek was his property and unless I could walk on water...

That was before I knew anything of navibility. 

Couple years later I was looking at the stocking reports and saw the creek was now being stocked w brown trout. So I called and told him my story. 

He ducked the question of entrance legality. But, he did say the people in the area were missing catching browns. They talked w the land owners and agreed to allow access. He told me if anyone gives me a problem to call him and they will stop planting it. 

I think it comes down to how bad you want to fish that water and what are you willing to go through to stand your ground. 

As for the HMC that was complicated. But there again, why did HMC fight so hard for that bridge? 

To keep people from accessing the river. 

I've thought about making the drive just to fish that bridge. Got catching a Michigan coaster on the bucket list.


----------

