Michael Quigley

I don't know for a fact. What I have been told is - when the Dresdon dam was built, much of the land that was flooded was never purchased by the state or federal goverment. This is what allowed owernship of some of the islands on the river. They were private proprty and becam islands when the river was backed up from the dam. This is what allows them to lease campsites and the premis for negating the usual "bank" being defined by the high water mark. Since they owned the land that was flooded by the installation of the dam, the actual river bank is somewhere out by the channel. Since it is a navigible stream, they cannot prevent any boating / fishing activity on the water, even that created by the dam. Again, I have no facts to back this story up but it is what is commonly accepted in the area.

Mike, I never said you took a stand on anything. You also singled me out instead of just posting your take on the issue - are you a lawyer offering a legal opinion or just stating your interpretation? What was your point to bring up the fact that you weren't "technically illegal" if not to imply it was somehow ok. I think the information in your follow up replies were much more pertinent to the issue then the fact that "technically you are not illegally" trespassing if the property is not posted where you choose to enter it. Not knowing whether you were going to add anything to it, I felt compelled to make my post as I felt your original reply could be construed as an ok to trespass if the property was not "posted" because it was not "technically illegal". Furthermore, I will do some more checking with my lawyer, as the section you were quoting was for "criminal" trespass. I was under the impression from (verbal discussions with a lawyer) there were two statutes for trespass - one for " criminal" trespass, which applied to posted property or repeat offenses and another for regular unintentional & first time offenses on non posted property, with "criminal trespass" carrying heavier penalties & fines. Aside from all of that it is more than just practical to knock on doors, IT IS ESSENTIAL, if you want to promote our sport. Think about if you owned a pond or property with water flowing through it. Would you want any and every stranger fishing it? Putting you at risk for possible law suits if they get hurt? Possibly damaging the property or the resource? I know people tend to think of a stream and the fish that swim through them being more public domain then a pond or lake. The other issues, besides who owns the fish or wildlife are still relevant. Unfortunately too many people feel " Asking permission is fine, but I'd rather not wake somebody up if I don't have to. I fish so many different places, if I get left a note, I don't fish there again unless I ask permission. If I don't get a note, it's game on. No one wants to chase you upstream through the woods. People are too lazy out in the country to waste time with you. usually put cell number in car window and note says went canoeing/fishing. " I guess they were just too lazy to post a sign every 10 feet around their properly too. When you go seeking permission and you get screamed at, treated rudely, or the dogs are turned loose on you, remember the property owner may not have been just another ahole but just tired and annoyed of wasting his time chasing all the other trespassers before you. Terrydodge, I agree with scot, you have nothing to be sorry about, and bterril I am not trying to pass judgment on you either. I am just trying to make a point. I like to think most people are fine ethical sportsmen who just really do not think about the ramifications of their actions or put themselves in the property owner’s shoes. They tend to focus on things like "they" are "only fishing or canoeing", "they" would never sue if "they" stumbled down a creek bank and broke something or worse, "their" family would never sue if somehow they drowned or got killed on the property, "they" would never leave trash, damage the property, or resource". We all know from experience, there are plenty of "theys" out there that don't fit in this category. I hope you understand where I am coming from. I would never let someone bully me out of fishing some place I have a right to be but I will always do the leg work first and know I have that right, or seek permission first, and respect the property owners rights and decision to allow or refuse access as I would like to think any member of the ISA would do.

Now Mike Clifford - not so fast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing I stated is untrue. Because the owner does not post does not mean they cannot request you to leave and once known you have to immediately leave or you can be arrested and charged with tresspass. The owner does not give up any rights just because he does not post. Further more, without written permission, all the owner has to do is claim he has made the notice previously to the trespasser and without proof of permission to trespass (written permission / contract / lease) you can be arrested for trespass at the request of the property owner. When the case goes to court, it becomes an issue of when / if notice was given and without proof of permission to enter upon anothers property it becomes your word against the property owners. He claims he made the notice. You have nothing to prove otherwise. Whose side do you think the court will side on. Trespass - to invade the property or rights of another without consent. To use the excuse that the property wasn't posted as an excuse to trespass is plain Bullsh*t. Those that do are wrong and they know it. I stand by my previous statement and don't see how your statement " you are not tecnnically trespassing " has any bearing on the issue. An ethical sportsman will ask / seek permission, or research / discover whether the land is public domain and whether permission is required, just like knowing the general laws / regulations and site specific regs before you engage in fishing or hunting. It is all those people who have trespassed (whether or not they were charged or the owner stopped what he was doing to chase down the person and request them to leave) who make it so hard to gain access to ponds, streams, or land for hunting today. Mike, with all the stands you have taken for so many good causes in the past, I can't really believe you would imply (by virtue of your post) that if the land is not posted it has any bearing on whether or not someone should /could just enter the property, for what ever purpose. PS, as a property owner who owns 260 ft of property along a creek I am very familiar with the trespass laws.

Property owners DO NOT have to post their land to make it illegal for someone to trespass and signs do not always mean they have the legal right to keep people off the property. It easy to pound in a sign and post and no one may challenge and just beccause they don't post, doesn't mean anyone can just walk on their property. On the other hand, anyone who just trespasses without researching deserves any and all the grief they get, including arrest and fines if they are in fact trespassing. Are you ok with strangers walking through / trespassing your property? You can go to the county court house, find the property on a plat map, look at a copy of the deed which will describe the boundaries of the property. It usually ( not always ) will clearly, in black and white, describe whether the property owner HAS legal backing to keep you off the property. As Scott said, though, laws in this area are not always clear, deeds, as written may not actually give them those rights (even if written), and people are not willing to spend the effort & $ to challenge. If you do the research, you will at least know whether the land owner believes he has the right or is just trying to bully you out of public water he doesn't own. If you get a copy of the deed and present it to him, he may back down from a challenge, at least you will know if you have the right to fish.

Last year it was about proposed changes. Word was it wasn't going to happen / they weren't going to change anything. Well now it's in black & white in the 2009 regulations. Hopefully they will keep the old regs for the Kankakee with the occupied blind stipulation and clarify that it only applies during waterfowl season. Thanks for your help with this Mike.

From the 2009 fishing regulations Page 6, lower right hand corner highlighted in grey as a new regulation. "WATERFOWL BLINDS - No fishing within 250 yards of department owned or managed waterfowl blind. This includes all sites listed and not listed in this regulation book." Looks like this is going to need some clarification. A call to the office at Mazonia, about Mazonia said it only applied during waterfowl season, (although that is not the way it is written) which makes no sense as the area is closed to fishing during the waterfowl season except Monster Lake which has no duck blinds on it. As for the Kankakee, no mention either about an occupied blind verses an un-occupied blind as per old site specific regs for the Kankakee. I can't imagine the regulation was intended as written but this is definately going to cause confusion, problems, and division among sportsmens groups if it stands as written. AS discussed here before there is no reason to change the regs at the Kankakee State Park as long as fishermen and hunters respect each others right to enjoy a quality experience on the river. There is seldom a conflict between the groups anyway. Hope they can change clarify the reg soon. Only in the state of Il-annoy.