PA Stream and River Hunting Legality Questions

[RichPA]

I noticed there is a forum on legal issues but decided this forum is more appropriate. The legal issues forum contains only posts from persons using metal detectors. It is very hard to find info on PA surface collecting laws.

Pennsylvania allows public use of navigable waterways as long as you remain within the high water mark These navigable waterways include the Ohio River, Allegheny River, Monongahela River, Youghiogheny River, and many other rivers and smaller waterways. Landowners do not own property below the high water mark on navigable waterways. Is it legal to search artifacts below the high water mark on navigable waterways since it is public property?

I don’t want to waste time searching places that are illegal because I don’t want to risk losing my collection.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Tnmountains]

Google Archeological Protection act of 1979.
Its the one they amended from 1901.

Of interest to you after reading all the legal bull will be this phrase below

16 U.S.C. 470ee(g),

Removal of arrow-
heads located on
ground surface(g) Nothing in subsection (d) of this section shall be deemed
applicable to any person with respect to the removal of
arrowheads located on the surface of the ground.

This refers to any navigable waterway. Big thing is no digging ! Its why the metal detector gets all the grief.
Its also a good idea to meet the Federal employees that work (for you) in that area. Be nice it will get you a country mile. Enjoy your hobby and your public land
Hope this helps..

 

[uniface]

My sad but true advice would be that, if you have any doubt whatever about the strict legality of what you're doing, say nothing. If you tell someone you're collecting arrowheads, and by some off chance there's a state law or federal statute that can jam you (there's usually a legal back door to a conviction under some other statute if they stretch it far enough)(and do you have fifteen grand for a lawyer to fight them if they do ?), you've given anybody with a connection to a badge grounds to search you. And if it should happen that you've got an artifact in your pocket when they do, you're fried.

Q : Hey -- what are you doing down there ?

A : (select one)

You always ask nosy questions ?

Walking around. What's it look like I'm doing ?

What's it to you ?

Collecting fossils.

Looking for my car keys.

The Federales and Poe-leece, much as I hate to say it, are not your friends. Much of the time, the game is to feign empathy to draw the "perp" out and get him to spill his own beans, in the expectation that they'll surely see his side of it and be reasonable. Heck -- they seem like decent guys. Then, once he's given them the info (= confession) they were after, the friendly goes away and the handcuffs come out.

The more insistently someone wants to ask prying questions, the less he deserves an answer to them.

"Am I under arrest ? If so, for what ? I'm not ? Then have a nice day."

It's sad that we've come to this -- gone from having Peace Officers to coping with Law Enforcement Officers (180 degree difference), but we have.

Case in point you may have heard about : a guy is shooting a semi-auto on a range. The sear breaks and it sprays the rest of the magazine. Somebody hauls him in and he's charged with possessing a fully automatic weapon ("machine gun") without a federal license for it. Even though it's by accident, they try him and he does time. That's our "justice system."

Proceed accordingly.

My two cents.

 

[sidmind]

I understand your in a different state. but I will tell you what I have learned in my area.

I recently called the Sheriff Dept. in our county to ask him our laws on the river I never mentioned arrowhead hunting, only that I was fishing. The (elected) Sheriff called me back personally and told me he honestly did not know the local laws of the "river" and land ownership(shows you the local sheriff just doesn't know all). He did the best he could and called the county attorney. The county attorney called him back and told him it was too complicated to deal with and the best bet was for him to advise "me" to just avoid areas of the river that land owners try to run me off. Later that day the Sheriff called me back and informed me he did even more research(very nice guy), he tells me that he talked to the local "core of engineers < Feds) The Feds told him that anywhere along the river in our state that the land owners own all the way to the water including under the water. Keep in mind the Core of eng. only controls federal land around some lakes, but he was giving advice about ALL rivers because he was asked.....
In my opinion, he basically told me that if I ever took it to court that he didn't know the answer and would call the "feds" to testify. The Feds would be the "expert" opinion. as he just didn't know how it works.. He was NOT a buthead about this conversation, just letting me know what he would do.

Personally I have done lots of research of the laws in our state and I believe in what I have researched that they are wrong depending on where your at. BUT.. and I stress BUT it all has to do with your local law enforcement and the "little" research they do on the subject. I happend to know that the local feds (core of eng) like to hunt points themselves and will try to tell anyone that is the competition that it is illegal to hunt anywhere on the river) They are wrong, but lets be honest "who will win in a costly court battle)

It all has to do with how much your willing to risk. I do believe that us point hunters have more rights than the local law enforcement will believe. it will cost you dearly and more than it's worth to fight it.... I personally tread lightly and avoid areas that cause confrontation. learn your area and just avoid land owners along the river banks that will cause problems and I stress always get land owner permission. Your county courthouse will offer a "plat book" that will provide who owns the land, Buy one and get permission. that's just my two cents.

Uniface posted while I was typing. He is correct!!!!!!!!!!! and it goes along with what I am saying.

 

[Th3rty7]

If I were you I'd ask some of the farmers / landowners with plowed fields along those waterways for permission to hunt their fields. The worst that can happen is they say no. Imo you will find higher concentrations of artifacts above the flood plain. You may find isolated random artifacts along the river but most likely they washed out of a high bank from a camp or village site. Once you have landowner permission on private land you don't have to worry about anything. When in doubt play deaf, dumb, and blind if approached. Or, start saying...here boy, here boy...uh, yeah I lost my dog, have you seen him.

 

[RichPA]

Thanks for all the information. I plan to mostly hunt private land but wondered about the navigable streams and rivers.

The public officials are not to be trusted in my area. Two police officers were caught selling drugs. They probably took them from one group of kids and sold them to another group. They would more than likely take my artifacts and sell them on Ebay.

It would be a good idea to carry my fishing license and rod when hunting the waterways.

What are you doing?
(me) Looking for bait.

 

[stwcreek]

I think you will find the state or Feds. will claim they own the river and all artifacts in it. So this brings us back to taking artifacts from the states or Feds. Which is for the the most part a NO NO. A good example is the state of Kansas. State controls all rivers but 2 of them. All creeks are off limits because they are private property in all states. Which means you must have the OK from owner. Best to stay off the rivers and hunt private property with permission(written is best). Best to have permission to do anything on private land. Happy Huntin'

A Rancher who is tired of running people off the land he owns!!!

 

[creek astronaut]

Tests "Navigability"
by Linda Steiner
photos by Robert & Lin Steiner


Most property in Pennsylvania, including waterways and watersides, is owned privately, without legal doubt. Some places, like state forests, county parks, game lands and Fish & Boat Commission lakes and boat accesses, are unquestionably in some form of public ownership.

The area of public rights in Pennsylvania waters is a "gray area" in Pennsylvania property law. Questions about which waters are legally navigable and the public's rights to use them have sparked considerable litigation and debate. A recent decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court has answered some questions about the status of one Pennsylvania stream.

On July 26, 1999, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld a lower court ruling that the public "has the right to fish the bed of the Lehigh River for its length."

The controversy over whether or not the public has a right to use the Lehigh River, in all its parts, has been closely watched by the angling and boating public, as well as private property owners.

The incident that prompted the court case occurred in the spring of 1995, when an angler, John Andrejewski, began fishing in a section of the Lehigh River upstream of Francis E. Walter Dam, near the Great Falls of the Lehigh, in Luzerne County. Andrejewski had accessed the Lehigh through lands co-owned by his father. He fished waters that had been leased and stocked with trout by a private group, the Lehigh Falls Fishing Club, and posted against trespass. Members of the club told Andrejewki he was not permitted there; but the angler, believing the river was within the public domain, refused to leave. The stage was set for a court test of the navigability of the Lehigh, and public and private rights to the waterway.

In January 1996, the Lehigh Falls Fishing Club filed a complaint with the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. As plaintiff it sought "a declaratory judgment that a portion of the Lehigh River, which traverses certain lands leased by it, is non-navigable, and that the public therefore has no right to fish in that portion of the river." The defendant, John Andrejewski, filed his answer with the lower court, "alleging that the section of the Lehigh River which traverses Plaintiff's leasehold interest is a navigable waterway, therefore open to members of the public, including the Defendant; and that Plaintiff therefore had no right to bar his access to that portion of the river bed."
In March 1996, the club petitioned the trial court for a preliminary injunction, and hearings were held in April. On April 26, Judge Ann H. Lokuta granted the preliminary injunction. The injunction ordered the defendant to stop entering and fishing the Lehigh on the club's property. It was evidently issued to prevent further on-site altercation between the parties.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reversed that injunction in October, saying that the club's right to exclude the fisherman from the leasehold area depended on whether the Lehigh River was navigable there. The court put the burden on the club of establishing the non-navigability of the river section it leased. A major court case was in the works.

Almost two years later, in February 1998, what court papers call "extensive testimony and voluminous exhibits" were presented to the Common Pleas Court of Luzerne County. The proceedings even included a visit to the disputed area with the counsels for the parties involved.

In summarizing the findings of fact in the case, Judge Lokuta noted that "historically, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has treated the Lehigh River as a navigable water and as a great river of the Commonwealth for its length. This use of rivers for transportation was natural in the early days of the Commonwealth, as overland transportation was expensive, difficult and only used for low bulk, high value items. Large bulk, low value goods moved by water."

About the Lehigh River itself and its history as a public waterway, the findings of fact in the case included that the development of the coal industry in the Lehigh Valley spurred efforts to improve the river "for commercial navigation for its length, from its mouth to the Great Falls at Stoddardsville." The river was the subject of "consistent and repetitive passage of legislation by the Pennsylvania General Assembly," before and after 1776, regarding improving it and other rivers of the state for navigation, because they were so important to trade and commerce. The area near Stoddartsville was the scene of massive timbering operations in the mid-1800s, and the river provided access.

A federal dam on the Lehigh, Francis E. Walter Dam, near White Haven, was authorized in the late 1940s and subsequently built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It blocked in modern times the ability to boat (or navigate) the waterway continuously, without at least portaging around the dam. That structure became part of the plaintiff's contention that the river was not navigable upstream of the dam.

Judge Lokuta wrote that "the question as to whether the Lehigh River [or any other water of the Commonwealth] may be considered to be navigable cannot, in the Court's opinion, be resolved by merely observing the river in its present state of being." At issue was whether, when the United States declared independence on July 4, 1776, the Lehigh was considered a navigable waterway, and capable of use by the public for transportation and commerce. Uses accepted in the doctrine of navigability include fishing and boating.

The accepted test of navigability by the Courts of Pennsylvania is navigability in fact, "when they are used, or are susceptible to being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce." Judge Lokuta wrote that "if the Lehigh River met the navigability test at any point in its history, it remains a legally navigable waterway subject to the Public Trust Doctrine." The judge cited several court cases that reinforced that "a body of water once found to be navigable in its natural state is presumed to be navigable and forever free."

As for a dam having been built, a U.S. Supreme Court case had already decided that "the fact, however, that artificial obstructions exist, capable of being abated by due exercise of public authority, does not prevent the stream from being regarded as navigable in law." Judge Lukota said that "applying this standard to the present case, the [Lehigh] river must be viewed as it existed prior to the construction of Francis Walter Dam, i.e., in its natural state."

As to whether the Lehigh itself was ever pronounced a navigable river, Judge Lokuta's statement talked about a number of prior Pennsylvania Court cases, some dating to the early 1800s. One case, Shrunk v. Schuylkill Navigation Co. (1826), specifically says that "owners of land on the banks of the Susquehanna and other principal rivers, have not an exclusive right to fish in the river immediately in front of their lands, but that the right to fisheries in these rivers, is vested in the state, and open to all. It is unnecessary to enumerate at this time the rivers which may be called principal, but that name may safely be given to the Ohio, Monongahela, Youhiogeny [sic], Alleghany [sic], Susquehanna, and its north and east branches, Juniata, Schuylkill, Lehigh, and Delaware."

"In the view of the Pennsylvania Appellate Courts, therefore, the Lehigh River has been a navigable river and therefore open to the public for over two hundred twenty-five years," wrote Judge Lokuta. "Public rights in the navigable waters of Pennsylvania have been jealously protected by the courts," she added. Past court cases also confirmed that "between the ordinary high and low water marks the public retains a servitude or easement, to use the waters of Pennsylvania's navigable streams." Ownership by the Commonwealth included the submerged lands, in other words, the underwater bed, of navigable rivers, according to past court decisions.

The plaintiff's contention to the court was that the construction of Francis E. Walter Dam rendered the river's upstream section, including the club's leaseholding, non-navigable, while only the section below the dam remained navigable. Judge Lokuta decided that "both sections can or could be traversed to the area of the Dam both downstream and upstream." In other words, both were navigable.

In its decision, the Court of Common Pleas recognized that the disputed area isn't currently used as "a broad highroad of commerce," but was "satisfied that the subject area of the Lehigh River is usable or can be made usable in such regard, and in any event, the bed thereof is Commonwealth property held in trust for the public."

Judge Lokuta concluded in her decision that the Lehigh was navigable, that natural obstructions that interrupt it (like the Great Falls) didn't destroy its navigability under the law, and that "the character of the navigable water is not changed by any subsequent economic or geographic developments." She specifically cited the Francis E. Walter Dam as not affecting the navigable status on either side of the dam. "The rights of the Plaintiff [the fishing club] to the bed of the river are not clear and free from doubt...the defendant has the right to fish from the bed of the Lehigh River for its length," ordered the judge.

Appeal

The Lehigh River's day in court was not over, though. Judge Lokuta's decision was appealed by the Lehigh Falls Fishing Club to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, in July 1998. Almost exactly one year later, on July 26, 1999, the Superior Court affirmed the lower court's ruling. The judges who decided were James R. Cavanaugh, Joseph A. Hudock and John P. Hester.

In the original court case, neither side sought to join the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania "as an indispensable party in interest," as Judge Lukota described it. She especially mentioned the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, which "the Court believes has standing, jurisdiction and interest in matters relating to the issues of navigation and navigability." The judge noted that the Court would have had the "benefit and guidance of the Commonwealth," if the Department of Environmental Protection had been asked to be a party, but she still believed the determination of navigability to be correct.

In his opinion for the Superior Court, Senior Judge Hester noted the Commonwealth's absence in the lower court. But when the case came before the higher court, several entities became involved as amicus curiae, or "friends of the court." In the appeal, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, the Department of Environmental Protection, the Fish & Boat Commission and the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs all filed amicus curiae briefs. Judge Hester said that "all four amici curiae support the trial court's conclusion that the Lehigh River is a navigable waterway."

Again at the Superior Court, the opposing parties agreed that navigable waterways are owned by the Commonwealth and held in trust for public use, while beds of non-navigable waterways are owned by the property owners of the land along the waterways. The central issue was whether the Lehigh River, including the contested section, is a navigable waterway.

Public river

The early court cases counting the Lehigh River as one of the state's public rivers were reconsidered by judges Cavanaugh, Hudock and Hester, including some discrepancies in wording between published versions of the court decisions. One of the arguments was that these cases looked at different sections of the Lehigh River than the one currently in question.

"We find this fact to be irrelevant," said Judge Hester. "Rivers are not determined to be navigable on a piecemeal basis. It is clear that once a river is held to be navigable, its entire length is encompassed."

"Since the Appellant's land is on the Lehigh River," wrote Judge Hester, "the public has the right to fish on the portion of the river located through its land...Order affirmed."

In closing, Judge Hester commented that "the relevant case law necessarily is old since the issue of what rivers are public rivers became important early in the history of our Commonwealth." With the recent decision, future courts will have one more definition of what navigability means, and the public's rights to navigable waters.

PA Supreme Court

The plaintiff has one more level of Pennsylvania court that can be appealed to, the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is Pennsylvania's "court of last resort," in matters of law. Like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can exercise discretion in accepting or rejecting most appeals, which allows it to devote greater attention to cases of far-reaching effect. The Lehigh Falls Fly Fishing Club has asked the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review this case. A decision on whether this case will be subject to further review is pending.

Joseph Neville, former Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs, observed that the final conclusion may not be reached for a year or more. "We're hoping the Supreme Court will look at the decision and say it's correct," said Neville.

What ramifications will the Lehigh River navigability court case have? It's unclear what, if any, effect the decision will have on determining the navigable status of other waters, because the decision is specific to the facts about the Lehigh River. That case involved some unusual features, including a dam and a waterfall that "divided" the stream. The Fish & Boat Commission web site (www.fish.state.pa.us) has the full text of the case, and it is also available in .pdf format from the Pennsylvania Courts (www.aopc.org).

Although the public has the right to fish, boat, wade and otherwise use state navigable rivers, no one has the right to trespass across property to access that river. Private landowners' ground adjacent to navigable rivers should always be respected, and private property owners should respect the public's right to be in or on the navigable river that flows by their land.

The Commonwealth has no comprehensive list of its navigable waters, according to Dennis Guise, Esq., Fish & Boat Commission Chief Counsel, and the determination of whether a stream qualifies as navigable waters often is difficult. Historical evidence, legislative enactments from early days of the state and scientific information can be useful in making the determination. "Neither the Fish & Boat Commission or the Department of Environmental Protection is authorized to make navigability determinations," said Guise. "As a result, parties disputing the navigability of a particular stream or river may have to go to court, which can be an expensive and time-consuming process."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[creek astronaut]

Richpa,i hunt the streams and rivers alot here in ohio,i have had run ins with property owners on a few occasions,i know i am allowed anywhere in between the banks or highest watermark.most navigatible stream/river laws have been on the books for 200 years or more in most states.I never gain access by trespassing on someones property and i would give you that advice, if you can get in the stream or river without trespassing then you should be good to go.I had a landowner try to run me off last year,i told him to call the cops or i could call them for him,the cops showed up and didnt really know what to do,so i whipped out my photo copy of the legal statuate on navigatble streams.end of story.and the article i found pretty much says that.you can hunt the waterways as long as you dont trespass to get there.anytime someone asks what i am doing,most of the time i just tell them that i am looking for a good fishing spot.good luck hunting those rivers and creeks.

 

[RichPA]

greg-rocks thanks for posting the info on the Lehigh River navigability case. A more recent court ruling awarded navigability to the Little Juniata River. I am an avid fly fisherman and credit the state for fighting for public use of waterways. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) were the plaintiff's in the Little Juniata River case.

The PA state feds will fight for the public in waterway access. The PFBC wins by selling fishing licenses, the DCNR wins by selling camping leases, and the state benefits from sales taxes of fishing and camping related merchandise.

Even though I am greatful the state has an interest in public access to waterways, I do not trust them concerning surface collecting artifacts. I have never gained access by trespassing to fish and would not trespass to hunt artifacts.

 

[ohioaxeman]

Richpa,i hunt the streams and rivers alot here in ohio,i have had run ins with property owners on a few occasions,i know i am allowed anywhere in between the banks or highest watermark.most navigatible stream/river laws have been on the books for 200 years or more in most states.I never gain access by trespassing on someones property and i would give you that advice, if you can get in the stream or river without trespassing then you should be good to go.I had a landowner try to run me off last year,i told him to call the cops or i could call them for him,the cops showed up and didnt really know what to do,so i whipped out my photo copy of the legal statuate on navigatble streams.end of story.and the article i found pretty much says that.you can hunt the waterways as long as you dont trespass to get there.anytime someone asks what i am doing,most of the time i just tell them that i am looking for a good fishing spot.good luck hunting those rivers and creeks.

this past summer, i entered the river on foot at milan, in erie county ohio from a public access and walked downstream for at least a mile 1/2, then encountered a property owner who said i was on his property and he started to harass me, only cuz i got pissed at him, but within a few minutes we was getting along pretty good, and he eventually gave me permission to continue my fishing. he said i could be in the water in a boat, but as soon as i stepped out of it I was on his property. how was i supposed to know where the public and private stops and begins? there weren't any signs saying end of public, or beginning of private.

 

[Tnmountains]

OK first of all federal law takes precedence over state and local law. That means is does not matter what a local sheriff or farmer says or what state you are in its all the same. Public land is all navigable waterways and up to the floodline. I have owned/involved with property's on rivers and lakes and know for fact that the Federal law covers up to the flood line. Ever tried to do a shore line resoration?(nighmare)
Case in point
A lady got mad at some duck hunters who parked on her shore and were shooting ducks. She fed the ducks in her yard they were like her pets. She comes out yelling and screaming banging pots and pans.The hunter who was legal smart whips out a cell called the law on her. She was arrested and taken to jail from her place of residence for impeding a hunters rights on Federal land. They were on her bank. The farmer does not own a shore line unless its very high and out of a 50 year flood plane. I do know some ole timers with land along some rivers I would not argue with.lol
You may own a small creek though. I have deeds that separate property lines to the center of the creek. But its a non navigable waterway.

The law is not state or local its all federal. You can pick up a boat load of artifacts and ride the water all day long that's legal. Where the grey area comes into play is when you remove the artifacts from federal land say like at a boat ramp driving away.
Federal employees have stopped me on a river bank that I was on. They said no digging. I said yes sir. In Alabama they have programs where they try to work with surface hunters on reporting significant finds. The State deems it is dangerous and a waste of effort to approach surface artifact hunters because they may be armed. In Tennessee the law usually travel in pairs and never alone. I do not blame them.
My best advice in know the Archaeological laws and if in doubt when approached throw your broken arrowhead into deep water.
Its a shame I used to be able to sit down and share my finds with Archaeologist.
Now I just know who will be out there
Enjoy your hobby just do not dig on public land go for the eye ball finds

 

[sidmind]

In my research there are some exceptions to the rule of high water mark. Before statehood navigable rivers/streams belonged to the Feds, at the time of statehood a trust for that land was passed to the state, Except for land not owned by the Feds at the time of statehood. (Indian land) so what I am saying is that some areas the land owners do own everything but the water itself. and that could be one small stretch of land but not another. Also the test for navigable/streams is a test based on the time of statehood.
just because the gov came in a built a dam which made a river navigable in today's time does not make it a navigable river by legal definition because it might have been a small non-navigable stream 100/200 years ago.

Basically my point is, you would have to go to court to fight many of these issues and not all truly navigable rivers/streams have had anyone take it to court yet to put it in the books that it is. do you want to be the first?

 

[creek astronaut]

sidmind where do you live?the laws here in ohio cover all navigatible waterways there is no selection process, it is either navigatible or its not.no private property owner has the right to stop anyone from being in a navigatible stream or river from bank to bank as long as they dont trespass on their property to get in the water,the law is the same for all property owners,not for a stretch of land here and not there.

the feds can only get involved if i am in a river/stream that is running through federal property example;a national park,indian reservation.whether a stream was navigatible 200 years ago or 3 weeks ago has no bearing on the law.

the question is what is a navigatible stream?one you can canoe in?is it one you can float on intertube in?is it one you can walk in?or is it one you can drive a barge in?this is where i think the problem lies.

 

[creek astronaut]

Richpa,i hunt the streams and rivers alot here in ohio,i have had run ins with property owners on a few occasions,i know i am allowed anywhere in between the banks or highest watermark.most navigatible stream/river laws have been on the books for 200 years or more in most states.I never gain access by trespassing on someones property and i would give you that advice, if you can get in the stream or river without trespassing then you should be good to go.I had a landowner try to run me off last year,i told him to call the cops or i could call them for him,the cops showed up and didnt really know what to do,so i whipped out my photo copy of the legal statuate on navigatble streams.end of story.and the article i found pretty much says that.you can hunt the waterways as long as you dont trespass to get there.anytime someone asks what i am doing,most of the time i just tell them that i am looking for a good fishing spot.good luck hunting those rivers and creeks.

this past summer, i entered the river on foot at milan, in erie county ohio from a public access and walked downstream for at least a mile 1/2, then encountered a property owner who said i was on his property and he started to harass me, only cuz i got pissed at him, but within a few minutes we was getting along pretty good, and he eventually gave me permission to continue my fishing. he said i could be in the water in a boat, but as soon as i stepped out of it I was on his property. how was i supposed to know where the public and private stops and begins? there weren't any signs saying end of public, or beginning of private.

all i can say about your incident is that the guy you ran into was full of crap and didnt know the laws here in ohio,if you can paddle a canoe in that river he doesnt have a right to stop you from walking in it or flying over it or sledding on it in the winter time.

 

[sidmind]

sidmind where do you live?the laws here in ohio cover all navigatible waterways there is no selection process,

I recently had a long business trip with lots of free time and printed off hundred of legal cases from this web site
http://nationalrivers.org/us-law-menu.htm

more specifically
http://nationalrivers.org/us-law-cases.htm

Some of the court cases go into more detail about how it all works. for the most part your right, but I am in Oklahoma which was Indian Teritory, so most of what I am saying maybe only applies here.
I have them printed out at home, I will try to find the relevant cases dealing with indian territory in Oklahoma and post a link when I get time.
and let you be the judge..I could very well be wrong, but from all that reading I did, I believe I am correct....

 

[goodtime]

Great thread. Hard to believe how many people are ignorant of these river laws. To bad we don't have a more clear cut definition of what a navigable river is.

 

[ohioaxeman]

greg, when he said, "do you realize you are on private property" i got pissed, and pretty much told him to "f-off", and he immediately said "dont give me any sh-t, or i'll have the sheriff out here in a heartbeat", so i backed off and told him i was sorry and didnt know it was private property, even though i knew he was wrong at some point, but I just wanted to continue fishing. we talked and he said he's had the law out there so many times, and has won all his cases in court, and he wasn't afraid of the next one! i can tend to agree with him about the kids and 4 wheeling destroying his property. this was one week after 4th of july, and there was beer bottles and fireworks all over the river banks and trash everywhere. i told him if he gave me permission to be there, that i would help clean up all the trash, because personally, i think its disgusting that some people have little regard for nature itself. he was very surprised that i would offer that, but still skeptical about giving me permission, because for 1. there are bald eagles nesting on his property right on the bank of the river. 2. rod and gun club is on his property and people pay to be there. 3. if I brought a friend with me, that friend would bring another friend, and so on, then it gets out of hand! i respect his reasons, but i dont totally agree with being harassed from the get go!

 

[Smurufett]

This was a good read . I thought I would share this story.
We decided to hunt the brazos river one time here in Texas . So we park of the highway under a bridge. You know, like places were people fish and party . So me and my hubby start walking down the river . He is good at wondering off very quicklly. I loose him and start back were we started . I find a crawldad (Crawfish) . I started to entertain my self with this creature picking him up and just missing with it . Next thing I know police is saying "Mam put down what ever is in you hands. So I drop it and he asked me "What are you doing ?". I said well I was playing with a crawldad . He said you must be from Texas. Whatever that meant . I think he was refering to my heavy southeren accent. Then it went to "Mam were is that man that came down here with you ." So I call my hubby back to me and the police . When he gets there the officer ask my hubby "What are yall doing down here?" My hubby said rock hunting for arrowheads and fossils . He informs us we are on a bad part of the river were they have found dead bodies dumped and that its was not safe to be in that area after dark. I think he thought I pushed my hubby in the river or knock him over the head or something at first. Well come to find out the police informs us we were on the wrong side of the river and directs us were to go and find arrowheads. Come to find out he was a collector too. Lol

 

[Tnmountains]

This was a good read . I thought I would share this story.
We decided to hunt the brazos river one time here in Texas . So we park of the highway under a bridge. You know, like places were people fish and party . So me and my hubby start walking down the river . He is good at wondering off very quicklly. I loose him and start back were we started . I find a crawldad (Crawfish) . I started to entertain my self with this creature picking him up and just missing with it . Next thing I know police is saying "Mam put down what ever is in you hands. So I drop it and he asked me "What are you doing ?". I said well I was playing with a crawldad . He said you must be from Texas. Whatever that meant . I think he was refering to my heavy southeren accent. Then it went to "Mam were is that man that came down here with you ." So I call my hubby back to me and the police . When he gets there the officer ask my hubby "What are yall doing down here?" My hubby said rock hunting for arrowheads and fossils . He informs us we are on a bad part of the river were they have found dead bodies dumped and that its was not safe to be in that area after dark. I think he thought I pushed my hubby in the river or knock him over the head or something at first. Well come to find out the police informs us we were on the wrong side of the river and directs us were to go and find arrowheads. Come to find out he was a collector too. Lol

Yeah see they are not all bad and he was looking out for you. Nothing worse than finding a floater.