PDA

View Full Version : Fishermen/Landowner rights on rivers and streams




Matt Smith
02-07-2006, 03:04 PM
A test case is cast on Wolf
By Tom Charlier
Contact
February 6, 2006

MOSCOW, Tenn. -- It was supposed to have been a relaxing fishing trip on the Wolf River, but all Bob Alkema came away with was one little crappie and one trophy-sized headache.

Returning to the public boat ramp from which they'd launched last spring, Alkema and his son found a state wildlife officer and private landowner waiting for them. They received a citation for fishing without permission on the owner's property.

Alkema says he was stunned.

"When you're on the water, nobody owns the water," the Collierville resident said.

Turns out, that isn't necessarily so.

In a property-rights battle that could have statewide implications, a former Memphis businessman has been prosecuting boaters who fish in a swath of Wolf River backwater within his property lines.

Following a series of citations last spring, three more cases go to court this week.

The issue is attracting wide attention because it centers on a chronically flooded area adjacent to the Ghost River State Natural Area and Wolf River Wildlife Management Area -- two scenic and bountiful sites popular among Memphis-area canoeists and other outdoor enthusiasts. It is accessible by public boat ramps both upstream and downstream.

"This is a much broader issue than just one little spot on the Wolf River," said W. David Smith, secretary-treasurer of the Fayette County Rod & Gun Club, whose members have been among those ticketed.

Statewide groups have taken notice, as well.

"We have great concern that in a public waterway, a private landowner can restrict access to a public resource, such as a fishery," said Mike Butler, executive director of the Tennessee Wildlife Federation.

The landowner prosecuting the trespassers is Bobby Pidgeon, former president of the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. operation in Memphis that his family owned for generations.

Property records show he and his trust own seven tracts in the area totaling nearly 1,900 acres and appraised at $3.93 million.

Along a stretch of the Wolf between Moscow and LaGrange, Tenn., less than 50 miles east of Memphis, Pidgeon has posted his property line with blue paint on trees and orange signs reading "Posted and Patrolled."

Pidgeon's property line extends to the river's original north bank. But in the years since the tract was laid out, sediment pouring in from tributaries has clogged the Wolf, transforming it into a broad swamp reminiscent of the Okefenokee.

Pidgeon's property encompasses about 144 acres of water along the north side of the river.

Efforts to contact Pidgeon were unsuccessful, but his attorney, Scott F. May, said no one has the right to fish within his client's property without permission.

"It's his property. He pays taxes on it," May said. "He doesn't see any reason why someone should go on his property without his permission."

That's especially true given that the state natural area and state wildlife area lie adjacent to Pidgeon's property, he said.

"There's 6,000-7,000 acres of state land that wraps around Mr. Pidgeon's land," May said. "It's not like the public doesn't have anyplace to go."

The issue pits riparian rights -- the claims of a landowner along a stream -- against the rights of the public to use a waterway.

Tennessee law divides navigable waterways into two main categories. Streams large enough to convey commerce upstream and downstream during normal water levels are considered navigable in the legal or technical sense. Along those waterways, the stream and its bed are held in trust for the public by the state.

But along waterways that are navigable in the ordinary or common sense -- meaning they can float boats but not commercial vessels -- the riparian landowners own the bed to the center line of the stream. However, the public has an easement to navigate the waterway.

Neither the property owner nor the waterway users should "unreasonably interfere with" or obstruct one another, court rulings have held.

In a 1980 opinion dealing with another Tennessee stream, then-state Atty. Gen. William M. Leech Jr. said that along any navigable waterway, adjoining property owners "may not impede commerce or prohibit reasonable public use of the waterway."

May said that even though Pidgeon could claim ownership to the centerline of the Wolf, the boaters he's prosecuted have ventured 100-250 yards off the main channel into his acreage.

Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency officials, who issue the citations, say fishermen have no right to use Pidgeon's acreage.

"If they get off the WMA (state wildlife management area) and onto his property, even though it's under water, they're fishing without permission," said Ronnie Shannon, the agency's area law-enforcement supervisor.

Fayette County General Sessions Judge William Rhea ruled last June that the fishermen charged in the case were "well beyond the questionable area" and on Pidgeon's property.

Fishing without permission is a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by a fine up to $50, or up to 30 days in jail, or both.

Rhea dismissed the initial cases, in part, because Pidgeon at that time hadn't adequately posted his property. But he warned fishermen they need to "steer clear" of the owner's property.

"There's an abundance of other places to fish right along this area," Rhea noted.

Smith, however, said that interpretation of the law would allow property owners along other Tennessee streams to prohibit trout fishermen from wading in front of their land.

Alkema, one of those whose case was dismissed, can't understand the prosecutions.

"This is the only place in the United States that I've heard that you could not stay on water that you accessed publicly," he said.




tncatfishing
02-07-2006, 03:26 PM
According to the core of engineers( excuse my spelling) nobody owns the right of ways, now if you step onto the bank of the property then you are tresspassing. A friend told me of a situation where a land owner was after him about being in a canoe in a stream going through farm land, according to the corps of engineers as long as he was in a boat and not on the bank he was fine.

dinkbuster1
02-07-2006, 03:27 PM
geez, i get really angry when i hear about stuff like this so im not in the right frame of mind to comment. however, something needs to be done soon on a state and national level to come up with a law that will allow the public to enjoy our rivers and lakes, in boat and on bank, before things get so bad where folks start looking at socialist, or communist solutions where there is no such thing as a "land-owner"! im afraid its going to come to that, just a matter of time....

Swampy
02-07-2006, 03:47 PM
In Fl. if someones land is flooded by over flow of a river and you are on the land you can be fined. about 20 years ago we had a guy tell us that we couldn't fish in a area so we asked the Fl FWC Officer. The Officer told us not to cross the prop.line,then he said "just cast like hell from the prop.line" and ya'll be just fine.LOL

gargoil77
02-07-2006, 03:53 PM
That's just screwed up. Anyone know what Indiana's law says? I wade fish quite a bit and it goes between farms.

Cheryl
02-07-2006, 04:24 PM
"MOSCOW" must be more Communist than American. That's all I got to say about that.

Cheryl
02-07-2006, 04:33 PM
OK, to clarify my last comment----The news item is from MOSCOW, TN.

Nobody Special
02-07-2006, 09:00 PM
It only applies if they are millionaires who give generously to the campaigns of our "public servants".

loanwizard
02-07-2006, 09:11 PM
In Ohio the waterways are open territory to the bank. I don't know about Flooding. If it were me I would start a sportsmen's petition against Coca Cola and even contact Pepsi in the event that they might own some lands where it could be useful in their advertising. Hit the idiot where it hurts, in the pocketbook. Even if he is retired, if Coca cola gets wind of this they might apply a little of their own pressure since I don't see what company (other than Halliburton or the WWF) can stand negative publicity in these trying times.

Deltalover
02-07-2006, 09:24 PM
In Ohio the waterways are open territory to the bank. I don't know about Flooding. If it were me I would start a sportsmen's petition against Coca Cola and even contact Pepsi in the event that they might own some lands where it could be useful in their advertising. Hit the idiot where it hurts, in the pocketbook. Even if he is retired, if Coca cola gets wind of this they might apply a little of their own pressure since I don't see what company (other than Halliburton or the WWF) can stand negative publicity in these trying times.
"Hit um where it hurts"! I like that, count me in!

Icemanxxxv
02-08-2006, 11:57 AM
In Ohio the waterways are open territory to the bank. I don't know about Flooding. If it were me I would start a sportsmen's petition against Coca Cola and even contact Pepsi in the event that they might own some lands where it could be useful in their advertising. Hit the idiot where it hurts, in the pocketbook. Even if he is retired, if Coca cola gets wind of this they might apply a little of their own pressure since I don't see what company (other than Halliburton or the WWF) can stand negative publicity in these trying times.
Count me in I'm switching to Activist Mode and that can be Ugly. I boycotted Home Depot for three years after I waited 40 minutes at a register to get a Gift Certificate. I know that most people would say why wait? Well it became personal after three employees visited the register and nobody even asked why I was standing there......
I've now become a Pepsi man!

Nobody Special
02-08-2006, 12:14 PM
If that is allowed to stand, it could eliminate fishing on any water that barges couldn't travel in.

Flathead
02-08-2006, 03:01 PM
Grumpy;
I agree with you that has been tried here in Palmyra Tn.on east fork creek.
Carrol

loanwizard
02-08-2006, 03:40 PM
You know, if we could get an address on this guy, his attorney, and Coke headquarters, we collectively "might" be able to make a little noise. Things like this really get under my skin.

Catbird
02-08-2006, 05:12 PM
Moderators..if this is out of line...please deleat post.

Contact info requested:

"Attorney"
Scott F May Law Firm
1850 Poplar Crest Cv
Memphis, TN 38119
(901) 683-9111

"Land Owner"
Bobby Pidgeon
18600 Highway 57
Moscow, TN 38057
(901) 877-1222

"Coca-Cola Consumer Affairs"
PO Box 1734
Atlanta, GA 30301
(800) 438-2653

dafin
02-08-2006, 05:18 PM
I see it a matter if land owner rights. To me it is like hunting, the state owns the deer on private land. should anyone have the right to hunt any land they want?

loanwizard
02-08-2006, 07:55 PM
Dafin, I see what you are saying, but where are the property lines where water is concerned? Should he erect a fence to the end of his property line in the water? Fences delineate property on land as set forth by surveyors. Do property lines move with the height of the water? Just seems raw to me. Are they damaging his property more than the water itself by floating on it? Like I said, it just seems wrong to say that the river is a Federal waterway yet part of it is owned privately. It's not a pond completely surrounded by his land.

Matt Smith
02-08-2006, 09:19 PM
If you are going to write letters, they would be best served to the folks who write the laws.

Deltalover
02-08-2006, 09:40 PM
I see this as a trend all across the U.S.A. All up and down the thousand miles of Calif Delta, fishing access is being denied, if it isnt the water distric illegaly blocking access, its the farmers closing off fishing areas that have been used for over fifty years. most of the small mom and pop launch ramps are being taken over by big hotel interest, with plans of building privet docks for the wealthy. Access to many coastal fishing areas are slipping away from us as well. I think we as fisherman need to fight for our right to fish on every front! Just maybe our children will thank us for it!

dafin
02-08-2006, 10:42 PM
I can't say for other states, Here the deeds will have the lines spelled out. On navigable streams it is the normal high water line. If one has not seen the deed or a plat of the land they have no idea where the line is.The stream is not the line on most streams here. Land was marked out off section lines We own all the stream that runs through the farm

mmarcum6
02-08-2006, 10:56 PM
This reminds me of a story from quite a few years back from a friend. Two of them were fishing a small lake in Georgia and came upon a small area offset from the rest of the waterway. As they approached they found a submerged barbed wire fence just beneath the water . They thought nothing of the fence and proceeded into the area. The land owner came and started threatening them so the left and contacted a wildlife official. They were told that during winter when the level was lower the farmer had to erect the fence to keep livestock from leaving his property. However the average water depth was significant to keep his livestock on his property then there was no problem with them fishing past the fence as long as they never touched the bank. As long as the water level was sufficient to pass over the fence it was an open public waterway. It has been many years since I heard this story so I'm not sure of all the details.

1stpalindrone
02-08-2006, 11:34 PM
Ok, so I just figured this was true but now I've gota go research.

My good 'ole timer fishing bud holds firm that there is an act from 1919 stating that all waterways not COMPLETELY surrounded by private land is public property. He also states that you have almost four feet of public ease way that is also public land, only stipulation is you must have accessed the h2o or bank that you're fishing on by public access, i.e., under bridge overpasses, public parks or ramp, etc... He also tells the story when you question his knowledge of this that he once was harrased by a property owner who threatend to call the police and did. When the game warden showed he started questioning him like he was in the wrong, before saying anything the officer asked how he gained access to this womans property, my buddy stated the bridge about 1/2 mile away and then asked if he was aware of the American Fishing Act of 1919 in which the officer asked him nicely to not disturb the nice elderly lady although he could not make him leave.

Don't know if this is true only in TX or anywhere for that matter, although I'll be looking into it.

Anyone know what Im talkin 'bout?

Lucas

Cheryl
02-09-2006, 12:13 AM
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2003/October/Day-02/i25193.htm

Try this. There are numbers to call for each state. Not sure this is the last amendment to what you are looking for, but you can check that out. Bedtime for me.

Salmonid
02-09-2006, 10:16 AM
A good point to remember is that the Federal Govt has set standards but states are allowed to do whatever they want to supercede what the federal govt has defined. Therefore every state is different and you must contact local DNR or game enforcement to get the true definition of what is trespassing or what isnt for that specific state.

I hope you dont live in a state Like Ohio where the laws are very "grey" and asking different law enforcement folks will get you different answers, that is very frustrating!

Salmonid