# Water trespass question



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

A number of areas we like to duck hunt have been posted. This is a major Michigan river delta and empites into Lake Michigan . It is navitagable as seen by the number of pleasure boaters, et al. These areas are "islands" of cattails and have no dry land. If you are in the cats, you are standing in ankle to knee deep water. The signs are 15' from the cattails in the river. 

My question is can someone post these obviously wetland areas? There is no dry land, water covers it all. There are cattails and assorted vegetation growing in the water. When the water levels are normal and not 3' below average, these areas are nearly gone. A little help in understanding would be appreciated.


----------



## Steven Arend (Jun 27, 2003)

In the state of Michigan to be able to hunt on a river or creek you need permission from the land owners on both sides of said river or creek. The land owners have the rights for hunting and trapping.

Steve


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Hunting, including waterfowl along with trapping, are exclusive rights of the riparian owner. Unless the state is the adjacent owner or in a few places where the state owns the bottomlands, you must have permission. For example, the state owns the bottomlands of the Great Lakes and Lake St Clair which is why it is OK to hunt there.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Thanks Boehr. Does the State own "the Great Lakes and connecting waters" bottomlands? Again, this is an island of cattails in the middle of a marsh. 
I hunt with a local LEO and he spoke with the local prosecutor about the issue. The prosecutor said we could hunt the water as long as we didn't enter the cats. He did say that in his opinion we could enter the cats to retrieve downed game. He said the recreational tresspass act was put in place to protect land owners from people who did damage to their property, not for someone who is only retrieving game and immediately leaving. He also said that if we anchored on the edge of the cats, the only damage would be the "footprint" of the anchor, hardly damage at all. So, now I'm more confused than ever. Untill I get a clear picture, I'm staying away from there. :sad:


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

TNL said:


> He said the recreational tresspass act was put in place to protect land owners from people who did damage to their property, not for someone who is only retrieving game and immediately leaving. . :sad:


What is sad about this, is the fact that your lawyer friend seems to have the need to go back to school. The RTL (act) was not designed for the sole purpose of protecting property from people who did damage - you STILL need permission to retrieve game from private property - your still tresspassing if you enter the property of another without permission - doesn't matter what your doing - with certain exceptions - walking a river and having to walk around a downed tree lets say - that would 'ok' but that is out of the water, around the 'hazard' and right back into the water - no retrieving is addressed in that case.

Ray, what say you?


ferg....


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

Ferg said:


> What is sad about this, is the fact that your lawyer friend seems to have the need to go back to school. The RTL (act) was not designed for the sole purpose of protecting property from people who did damage - you STILL need permission to retrieve game from private property - your still tresspassing if you enter the property of another without permission - doesn't matter what your doing - with certain exceptions - walking a river and having to walk around a downed tree lets say - that would 'ok' but that is out of the water, around the 'hazard' and right back into the water - no retrieving is addressed in that case.
> 
> Ray, what say you?
> 
> ...


I tend to agree ferg, but this comes from the guy that would be prosecuting the hypothetical case. So I don't know what to think anymore. Let's just say I've been playing it safe rather than to find out negatively in the court of law.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Once an arresting officer provided him facts he might change his prosectorial opinion too. Second, remember maybe nobody cares on that section of property but the prosector is definitly incorrect in his current thinking. Prosecutors are only human too, they can be wrong, dealing with the law is a forever learning experience because nobody knows all the laws and laws do change either by the legislature or by court rulings.


----------

