River Bank hunt interrupted by misinformed landowner

[huntsman53]

I believe that the main problem that the laws concerning waterways (lakes, rivers, streams and even creeks) are so imposing and sometimes outright ludicrous is because many of the State Legislators and other State politicians most often do very little to nothing for the money they are paid. They often rely on Aids, Secretaries and Assistants to read (and sometimes compose) the laws that are being proposed and most often rely too much on their input and opinions instead of reading the proposed laws themselves before voting on or signing them into law. They never think that these same people that they rely on could actually be biased one way or another for property owners rights over public use rights. The same is true as to why many of these same laws are so askew from one State to the next. Heck, in this and many other States, there are actual State Laws and City/County Laws that were written and placed into effect in the 1800s and even 1700s in some States that are no longer applicable but yet, they remain on the books. Take for example, there are many cities in Tennessee where horses and carriages are allowed but you can be ticketed for not hitching your' horse or carriage to a hitching post which can also include your' car or truck. Some folks have actually been ticketed for not hitching their' car or truck to a hitching post to bring light to these out of date laws but as of this date, some still exist. Legislators and other State Politicians should assign Summer Aids the task of weeding out these out of date laws and to bring them to their attention, so that they can be stricken from the books.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[Charlie P. (NY)]

If the land under the water adjacent to someone's property is their land, what happens when I catch a trophy bass in the water over that land? Do I have to give it to the homeowner? Just being sarcastic, but you get my point. Only a real horse's butt would try to claim land under water as being their property and off limits...

The state owns the fish. They tell you when, where and what size you can keep; provided you have a license.

He didn't say he was detecting in the water. He said he was between the water and the "high water mark" - so presumably it was dry or partially dry land at the time.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

He didn't say he was detecting in the water. He said he was between the water and the "high water mark" - so presumably it was dry or partially dry land at the time.

True, but I was being sarcastic in my reply.

The problem with claiming that you own the land down to the waterline is the waterline is ever changing. What happens if there's a drought and the river runs dry? Does that suddenly increase the owner's land? Where's the borderline of his property and the borderline of the neighbor directly across from him? Do they split it in the middle? Sorry, but a person's land is clearly measured and noted by the town. Your land doesn't increase in times of drought.

 

[Clay Diggins]

If the land under the water adjacent to someone's property is their land, what happens when I catch a trophy bass in the water over that land? Do I have to give it to the homeowner? Just being sarcastic, but you get my point. Only a real horse's butt would try to claim land under water as being their property and off limits...

Fishing is regulated by the State. A fish in the water is not owned by the person who owns the land below the lake or stream.

If you really want to know the law on stream bed ownership in Rhode Island you need to understand the difference between littoral (seashore) rights and stream bed rights. In Rhode Island stream bed rights were settled in TYLER ETAL. V. WILKINSON (PDF). Those rights were described as:

Every proprietor upon each bank of a river is entitled to the land, covered with water in front of his bank, to the middle thread of the river.

In virtue of this ownership he has a right to the use of the water flowing over it in its natural current, without diminution or obstruction. But he has no property in the water itself.

So in Rhode Island at least the center of the stream or river is the property line. The land owner does own the bed of the stream or river but they do not own the water itself.

On the shore it's an entirely different situation because the State owns the shore below the mean high tide line.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

Doesn't matter to me. Any time I get harassed by anyone, I just give them my stock answer. Think I'm doing something illegal? Call the cops. You're not the law, so don't even think about taking the law into your own hands. We don't have castle laws here in RI, so any act of aggression will result in the homeowner being arrested, not me.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Doesn't matter to me. Any time I get harassed by anyone, I just give them my stock answer. Think I'm doing something illegal? Call the cops. You're not the law, so don't even think about taking the law into your own hands. We don't have castle laws here in RI, so any act of aggression will result in the homeowner being arrested, not me.

Probably true Tim. In the absence of any aggression it would be you going to jail after you have been asked to leave. In every State the property owner has the right to order you to leave the property. This is the law from Rhode Island but you will find something similar in every State.

§ 11-44-26 Willful trespass – Remaining on land after warning – Exemption for tenants holding over. – (a) Every person who willfully trespasses or, having no legitimate purpose for his or her presence, remains upon the land of another or upon the premises or curtilage of the domicile of any person legally entitled to the possession of that domicile, after having been forbidden to do so by the owner of the land or the owner's duly authorized agent or a person legally entitled to the possession of the premises, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both.

 

[FreeBirdTim]

There isn't a cop in this land that will arrest you over a dispute regarding property lines abutting a pond or stream. They might ask you to leave and even tell you to leave, if you refuse. If you want to be a jerk, yes, they could arrest you.

I always cooperate with the police, but I'm not afraid of them. I will stand up for my rights and voice my opinion on any situation. I do know that it can be a crappy job, though. I have relatives who are cops and know they hate responding to trivial crap like "someone is metal detecting on my land". But they have to check it out if someone complains. But if you complain too many times, the cops will take longer and longer to show up and may even tell you to stop calling them over childish nonsense. They have better things to do than deal with someone who's whining about alleged trespassers.

 

[Nitric]

There isn't a cop in this land that will arrest you over a dispute regarding property lines abutting a pond or stream. They might ask you to leave and even tell you to leave, if you refuse. If you want to be a jerk, yes, they could arrest you.

I always cooperate with the police, but I'm not afraid of them. I will stand up for my rights and voice my opinion on any situation. I do know that it can be a crappy job, though. I have relatives who are cops and know they hate responding to trivial crap like "someone is metal detecting on my land". But they have to check it out if someone complains. But if you complain too many times, the cops will take longer and longer to show up and may even tell you to stop calling them over childish nonsense. They have better things to do than deal with someone who's whining about alleged trespassers.

Cool ...Can I wander over take a beer out of the fridge, drive your car, and take a shower when your at work? None of it is hurting anything and we sure wouldn't want to bother cops over a stupid beer and shower. I may need a trivial part off a car in someones yard too....Stupid homeowner should just let me take it and not bother police, that thing has been sitting there since 1970 and he's not doing anything with it. I know where a complete Challenger T/A complete with 6 pack is returning to earth in the middle of field and woods. Would love to have that car! But....The owner said "no" 20 some years ago and as far as I know it's still there. I can see it on the last google earth image. It's his, and no one should take it.

Same idea's depending on how you look at it.

I do get what your saying in a local park or school.... But private property is someones piece of the earth. They should have all the say on how it's used. Even if stupid or something really minor.

 

[OZARKS]

I'm not referring to dinky streams where you can pan for gold. I'm talking about streams, rivers and ponds that you can navigate a canoe through. If they're public access and navigable, then home owners along the shoreline cannot claim the land under the water belongs to them. If the town, city or state manages and maintains the body of water, they own the land under it as well.

The only people on earth who would try to claim that someone owns the land under the water in front of their house are people who own waterfront property. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. I know you think you and your neighbors control that small pond or stream that you live on, but you don't. You just own the land and access to the pond at that particular point, period.

If it owned by a homeowners association, they do own that lake, and all lakes in their town, like we do in ours... no resident card? You're trespassing... so don't be so quick to assume they don't own the lakes!

 

[huntsman53]

Cool ...Can I wander over take a beer out of the fridge, drive your car, and take a shower when your at work? None of it is hurting anything and we sure wouldn't want to bother cops over a stupid beer and shower. I may need a trivial part off a car in someones yard too....Stupid homeowner should just let me take it and not bother police, that thing has been sitting there since 1970 and he's not doing anything with it. I know where a complete Challenger T/A complete with 6 pack is returning to earth in the middle of field and woods. Would love to have that car! But....The owner said "no" 20 some years ago and as far as I know it's still there. I can see it on the last google earth image. It's his, and no one should take it.

Same idea's depending on how you look at it.

I do get what your saying in a local park or school.... But private property is someones piece of the earth. They should have all the say on how it's used. Even if stupid or something really minor.

That is stretching FreeBirdTim's words! We are discussing lake, river and stream hunting in the water and along the banks not crossing someone's property to take a beer out of their' fridge, take a shower in their' home or drive their' car, etc., etc... This is what gets discussions out of hand, feelings hurt and causes mud slinging. Most of us have dealt with trespassers, or property owners and/or both and know when we or when we are not in the right and when to back down.

 

[huntsman53]

If it owned by a homeowners association, they do own that lake, and all lakes in their town, like we do in ours... no resident card? You're trespassing... so don't be so quick to assume they don't own the lakes!

Do you believe or know that is the case if the town considers these same lakes as sources of fresh water for the town?

 

[Clay Diggins]

There isn't a cop in this land that will arrest you over a dispute regarding property lines abutting a pond or stream. They might ask you to leave and even tell you to leave, if you refuse. If you want to be a jerk, yes, they could arrest you.

I always cooperate with the police, but I'm not afraid of them. I will stand up for my rights and voice my opinion on any situation. I do know that it can be a crappy job, though. I have relatives who are cops and know they hate responding to trivial crap like "someone is metal detecting on my land". But they have to check it out if someone complains. But if you complain too many times, the cops will take longer and longer to show up and may even tell you to stop calling them over childish nonsense. They have better things to do than deal with someone who's whining about alleged trespassers.

That's often the case Tim. Enforcement in rural areas can be spotty at best. It depends on where you live as to how serious or informed the police are about property law. In some areas it's considered high priority, especially in cities or towns. In some other more rural areas it's not their top priority.

It's the same trespassing law whether it's city or country but enforcement is another story entirely. Somehow people just assume rural property owners have fewer property rights than a mansion in an expensive part of the city. Often rural owners actually have more property rights than a city homeowner - like the right to use the water in the stream that flows across their land.

What you consider "childish nonsense" in Rhode Island is actually a pretty big deal in some areas of the west. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[Nitric]

That is stretching FreeBirdTim's words! We are discussing lake, river and stream hunting in the water and along the banks not crossing someone's property to take a beer out of their' fridge, take a shower in their' home or drive their' car, etc., etc... This is what gets discussions out of hand, feelings hurt and causes mud slinging. Most of us have dealt with trespassers, or property owners and/or both and know when we or when we are not in the right and when to back down.

I respectfully disagree Huntsman.... He was talking about that people may call the cops for stupid little things. My point is that "if the owner is in the right" It doesn't matter how stupid we think it is. It's his!!! It's the exact same idea no matter how big or small. Just because a property owner gets upset over something minor? Why, is he looked at in the wrong because it seems stupid to us? If Freebird can dig the stuff out of the bottom legally? fine, great! but...My impression(and could be wrong) was that he didn't care if it was owned or not.

And some cases, depending on area, taking things from the soil in the water may be the property of the land owner.


I also agree that most all of us know when we are trespassing. I've done it in my life I'm no angel...But never had the attitude that..."I'll do what I want!! No ones going to tell me...." or got upset with the property owner that wanted me out of there. I knew I was trespassing, backed down and left. Which rarely ever happened. I grew up in an area where we ran all over and not many seemed to care. And you stayed away from the few that did.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

“The problem with claiming that you own the land down to the waterline is the waterline is ever changing”

Not really a problem, but a reality. Land boundaries qualified by water can change dramatically.

It’s not black and white, but ya if your deed calls the centerline of the stream and the stream changes course, you can gain or lose a substantial amount of land. There have been issues where gov. agencies refuse to issue permits for development because that 40 acres described in 1940, is now 36 acres after it’s surveyed and it’s no longer qualified to be split in half because it’s 20 acres min. zoning.

Property rights become much more important to an owner when they own 1000 acres with a stream runnng through it, compared to someone that owns 800 square feet lot in a city subdivision.

It’s correct the state owns the game, however the landowner has exclusive rights to take the game.

These signs actually mean something, and there are good reasons for enforcing them other than being a horses ass. Keeping homeless/drug camps out could be one. Have to have an open mind.

 

[NEPA History]

Just logged in to check this thread today, glad to see the discussion is still going. I am still waiting for the PA Fish and Boat Commission to call me back to give me their input, and get the law. According to what I've read on their website, I am still convinced that the law is on my side. I've read some of the comments, and I appreciate the conversation, but some have taken it to the extreme. The facts are that I was in a natural channel of the Susquehanna River, a rather large river that is classified as a navicable waterway. In Pennsylvania, a land owner does not own the property beyond the "normal" high water line. The river bank between the natural high and low water line is considered to be held in trust for public use. This is where I was detecting. I have been all over the river channel for at least fifty miles in both directions both metal detecting and searching for native American artifacts, and have NEVER had an issue with anyone, except this one guy at one place. No land owner can own the channel of a navicable waterway in Pennsylvania. Shorelines of lakes or small streams may be different, but not the Susquehanna River. Some have suggested that I simply avoid going there. The point is that I was within my rights to be there. I would never willfully trespass on someones land..but I wasn't trespassing. It's simply the principal now. I will definitely update everyone when I get a response from the Fish Commission.

 

[Nitric]

Here's something for your state... I guess it would come down to.....If you can detect on State Land. The water may have an exception.

Interesting how your states land owners lost the land in "Navigable water". It was cheaper to take it!

http://www.emlf.org/clientuploads/directory/whitepaper/Mcelwee_11.pdf

 

[FreeBirdTim]

I abide by all RI laws when it comes to metal detecting. I know of at least 10 colonial cellar holes within a mile of my house that I've never detected. Why? Because Providence Water Supply Board owns the land. I could very easily sneak into one or more of them late at night and never get caught, but it wouldn't be ethical.

I also watch out for boundary markers and no trespassing signs when I detect on public land. Very easy to wander onto someone's property if you're not careful. But if I'm detecting a stream and some homeowner tells me he owns the land under the water, I'll just assume he's a jerk and let him call the cops on me. No big deal...

 

[uglymailman]

Wow. Just read this whole thread and I can't believe the attitude some posters have.
I guess each state is different. The idea of being able to go down a waterway (traverse) is to get from one point to another. You have that right here in Missouri, but you don't have the right to REMOVE anything from that waterway. It might be owned by the U.S.Government, the State of Missouri or by an individual but it doesn't belong to you in this state.
On Harry S Truman Lake, a U.S.Corp of Eng. Lake, you may not remove Indian Artifacts. The same holds true of State lands. I know a guy made to put an arrowhead back by a Conservation Agent. Not sure if he went back for it or not.
On one stream on Truman Lake, a property owner had a cave he was going to make into a Tourist Trap. That landowner took easement from the Corp of Eng.. We surveyed two half mile stretches and the easement was also the property line. That line fell in the center of the stream. 100 years from now, if the stream changes course, his land will still be where it was set, even if the stream moves.
There are places where someone owns both sides of a stream. If that landowner jumps through the hoops, they can get permits to change the course of the steam and mine the land under the existing steam. I'd say the landowner owns what's under the water in this case.
I don't think picking up an arrowhead out of a steam is a big deal and I'd probably pick them up too, but around here I wouldn't get a Holier than Thou Attitude about crossing someones land in a stream, it might not end well. Good luck.

 

[NEPA History]

Here's something for your state... I guess it would come down to.....If you can detect on State Land. The water may have an exception.

Interesting how your states land owners lost the land in "Navigable water". It was cheaper to take it!

http://www.emlf.org/clientuploads/directory/whitepaper/Mcelwee_11.pdf

When you look at the summary of Pennsylvania in this link, it does appear to state that the area between the high and low water line is owned by the Commonwealth, the landowner above can only own to the high water line. Thanks for the info..

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

We surveyed two half mile stretches and the easement was also the property line. That line fell in the center of the stream. 100 years from now, if the stream changes course, his land will still be where it was set, even if the stream moves.

Depends on how the description was worded and how the stream features change (suddenly or gradual and not readily perceptible).

All these topics about land boundaries, title, rights, ect. are complicated. Most people have less than a basic understanding that seems to be enough to stay out of trouble.

The Red River boundary dispute is an interesting one pertaining to first Spain & US, then Texas & US, currently Oklahoma & Texas. 90,000 acres in dispute along 116 miles of river. Water boundaries are the source of much litigation.