Mark K

1 hour ago, Terry Dodge said:

 

It’s gray because, yes,  the forest preserve does own “property” with a public launch just down stream of the old guys property but the old guy does own both sides of the property for a stretch. So therefore I would think that he can exercise the same rights as the folks in Boone County and run barbed wire across the Kish if he so chooses to do so. So I do believe that the old guy could make an argument for your guessing of “good to go.”

At the end of the day the result is going to be the same as in the video I posted above whereas the public officer will just ask you or assist you in leaving the area to neutralize the situation until answers can be found, which will never happen because nobody really knows.

On a side note, when this problem and a couple others were brought to the forest preserves attention their reply was that they don’t have anything to do with the water that flows thru their land property, they only care about the land property.

Did you confirm on the county GIS that he indeed owns both sides? I took a fast look at it, and looks to me like property lines go up to the bank. 

Does that stretch in question fall between these floats? 

https://paddleillinoiswatertrails.org/2015/06/13/kishwaukee-river-water-trails/#Redhorse

Have you called the conservation police to ask if it's cool to float thru there? 

Have you talked to anyone that was actually busted for trespassing?

40 minutes ago, Mike Clifford said:

There is a piece of water just downstream of the Iroquois on the Kankakee that has "no trespassing" signs posted in the water. As if the entire little bayou there is off limits. You can float right into it from the river.

Never understood what that is all about.

According to this,  the whole K3 is Illinois Public water.  

The entire length and surface area in Illinois, including all backwater lakes and sloughs open to the main channel or body of water at normal flows or stages, are open to the public unless limited to a head of navigation as stated.

https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/WaterResources/Pages/PublicWaters.asp

Is it on the map?

21 hours ago, Terry Dodge said:

I know the video is Texas but it the same thing. Nobody really knows anything for sure and nobody is ever going to know anything for sure. Just because a river is not on the states navigable waterways list does not necessarily mean it’s a non-navigable waterway, such as the Kishwaukee is by means of Winnebago County. There is a land owner on the Kish that yells at canoes/kayaks as they pass his property and I have even heard of land owners in Boone County that still run barb wire across the Kish, which I guess in Boone they have the right to do that. I also learned while working with the IDNR that accessing a stream from a bridge does not make it okay to work the waters up or down stream of such bridge, you still need so called permission. It’s all too gray and nobody will ever give you a straight up answer.

I don't see what is gray about what you posted. So the Kish is not on the Illinois Public waters list, but there are numerous Forest Preserves which are public owned.  The old guy can yell all he wants.

If there is a public launch at one end of a float and a another at the other end, I am guessing you are good to go.

https://paddleillinoiswatertrails.org/2015/06/13/kishwaukee-river-water-trails/

And again, clearly the Boone County folks can legally block the river, which is their right.  

Regarding accessing a stream from a bridge.  I heard that one two, but never from anybody other than another fisherman.  so that one goes under "fake news" till otherwise researched.

15 hours ago, Ed Buric said:

Some years ago I did a guerilla paddle on the Apple river, When I got to my take out a conservation officer was there to greet me. The end result was pretty much the same as that video. He agreed that the law was ambiguous and said as long as I wasn't hunting [ it was turkey season ] he wouldnt do anything. Actually he was a pretty cool guy about the whole thing.

You can always contact the CPO directly before your guerilla mission. There is not that many of them.  He is the guy that ultimately who is going to decide whats legal or not and unless you have time to waste (I don't)  in court, nor do I want anything on my record.   It took a day or two and it was not the answer wanted, but he did get back to me.

https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/LawEnforcement/Documents/DistrictCPOPhonesAndEmails.pdf

Wow, now I remember those.  But I think you would need about 40 of them to to canoe the Mazon.

33 minutes ago, Mike Clifford said:

I also remember something about being able to recreate up to the high water mark on navigable waters. Also, isn't the vicinity around bridge pilings considered to be owned by a state agency on any stream? Such as IDOT?

I think that is true, but the high water mark thing is if the land owner only up to the bank.  I looked at the GIS for a friends property located on a non navigable tributary of the Kankakee, his property only goes up to the bank.  I remember him saying that people could access the creek up to the high water mark.  So that whole thing about the property line extending straight down the center of the waterway is not occurring everywhere. 

So I was wondering If you put a canoe in a totally legal  spot, say someone gave you permission and you have a spot to legally take it out.  Basically one guy owns one side the other guy owns the other-side straight down the middle of the stream.  No matter what you will be trespassing on someone's property.  I am guessing yes.  But does someone have to file a complaint?   If you get a ticket how does the cop have any idea who's property it is? 

If a cop rolled up on you out of the blue, with nothing out of the ordinary other tha  he knows you are not on public land, can he write you a ticket?  (the cop I talked to sounded like he would)

If you we to say, Oh yeah. I know Jim Bob he is okay with me to be here.  How would he know you weren't lying. 

So both the Depaul and Amercan White Water links say:

Criminal trespass on private land is a class B misdemeanor (the cop I talked to said you could be charged with a felony) and occurs where notice has been given indicating that entry is forbidden.12)

So is that the wrinkle? You have to be given notice either by a sign or otherwise?

53 minutes ago, Terry Dodge said:

Ran across this today.

It’s all a gray area.....

 

This is Texas, not Illinois.  The law is totally different state to state. In Texas I think you can drive with a beer in one hand and an M16 in the other. Something like that.

16 hours ago, Mike Clifford said:

 

Much of the confusion is due to land owners not being aware of the latest laws as they apply to people on their property.

Secifically, the liability factor. Several years ago, the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act in Illinois was worded in such a way that only included liability protections for a land owner for hunters and recreational shooting. All the wording related to fishing, hiking, conservation and any other activity was removed from the Act.

We can thank trial attorney groups for that.

When I attended Conservation Congress in Springfield, getting the other activities re-worded into the Act was at the top of my list of objectives. I can't say for sure what may have happened to get those protections put back into the wording, but as of today they are once again included. One gentleman I met there all but assured me that he could turn it around if it was that important to us, and we had a meeting scheduled. Unfortunately, he passed away before we could have a serious conversation. 

I can't say for certain that navigability laws hinge upon this particular Act (probably not), but if a land owner still believes that an angler is going to drown on their property, a hiker breaks a leg or a bird watcher falls from a tree while trying to get a closer look.....and they believe they will get sued......then there is little hope we are getting permission, and a great likelihood that they won't change their minds on that. Regardless of the fact that the protections are back in place. 

Hope that makes sense. 

 

It explains why a land owner might not want you on their property, but not the law regarding whether they have a right to.  My recent Googling seems to have cleared that up.  The law really isn't all that vague.

On a navigable stream, if a landowner owns the stream up to the center of the river you only have the right to "navigate thru" not to fish or hunt there. That's a new one on me.

On a non-navigable stream you do not have the "navigate thru" right.  So basically you have no right to be there. at all. The links I posted do not say that.  I think they infer it.

even worse. Page 363. 

http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2408&context=law-review

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/access:il?

didn't know this and it refers to a navigable stream, so if a stream is navigable and someone owns the streambed then you only have the right to "navigate" (float?)  thru it.

Extent of Public Rights in Navigable and Non-Navigable Waters

In Illinois, “the public have an easement for purpose of navigation in waters which are navigable in fact, regardless of the ownership of the soil.”8) If the state owns the streambeds, then the public has the further right to hunt and fish, and generally recreate on the water.9) If the streambed is privately owned, however, and the stream is navigable in fact, then the public only has the right to navigate the water, and has no right to hunt or fish in that water.10)

It is unclear whether activities incident to navigation, such as portaging, are allowed. In meandered streams, which are held in public trust, portaging most likely is permissible because the federal navigation servitude should apply to these streams. Keep in mind that Illinois has a strong interest in conserving natural resources and in protecting and improving its physical environment,11) so care should be taken. As explained below, portaging on private land is most likely not allowed in Illinois.

On 12/27/2019 at 2:26 PM, Bart Durham said:

I've come to the conclusion the issue is confusing for a reason, State attempting to balancing rights of land owners vs. outdoorsman without upsetting both.  For private access best bet IMO is to get permission from landowner to access and take out.

That's the point, in one mile there might be 10 land owners- that own only 1 half the stream.  In the entire stretch I see only one or two sections where someone owns both banks and one of those is the Boy Scouts who own a huge amount of land.

One could not possibly get everyones permission to access it, but if the law says that the land owner must own both banks to own the streambed, then you should not need it. 

2 hours ago, Terry Dodge said:

I researched this about 10 years ago with many phone calls placed to many people who “could better answer that question” and came to the conclusion that no official of any kind knows anything about stream access laws in the state of Illinois.  

It’s not worth the hassle.

Which is scary, but not suprising in this state.

14 hours ago, tjtroester said:

Watch out you don't get shot, eh!

Pulling a gun out on someone today would be a bold move. 

Can someone simplify this for me? (He asked hoping Mike Clifford chimes in)

So non-navigable waterway.  Land owner owns property on both sides of the stream.  He owns the stream bed below. I get that.

So.

Non Navigable stream, property lines go right down the middle of the stream.  You enter the "non-navigable waterway" legally and stay within  the highest water mark , or to be safe in the water.  Are you good to go?

17 hours ago, bill sheridan said:

Type in Grundy County Gis. .This web site has maps that if you click on the property number it high lights the property lines and the owner.

Type in any county name in any state with gis and you get the same info. Land owner, lot size, address and where the tax bill is mailed.

All the same information about you is on the county gis that  you live in too.

Bill Sheridan

 

Okay.  I got it now.  So it looks like the property lines for most of the river are right in the middle.  One guy owns one side another owns the other and a heck of a lot of it is Boy Scout property. So what does that mean?

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 10:34 AM, Bart Durham said:

There has to be a happy medium between respecitng landowner's rights and the public's right to use the waterway. I've actually found the landowners around the Mazon to be quite friendly if you are respectful to them. The one time I asked a landowner for permission to access his property to wade fish I was granted permission. I spoke to another landowner who gave me his phone number and said I could park on his property if I ever needed river access. The current landowner adjoining Oxbow bridge will allow you access if you call him and introduce yourself. His phone number is posted next to bridge. Every time I meet these people I stress I am a member of ISA, a steward of the river and respectful of landowner's rights and will not pollute. I think thats what most landowners really want to know. I have never had a bad experience with a landowner when fishing the Mazon. I wouldn't be deterred from fishing the Mazon, otherwise, your missing out on fishing one of Illinois' great smallmouth streams.

Okay I saw the sign.  I wonder if that's the guy I talked to once.  He was really nice.

This is the only reel I have found to be next to indestructible. Daiwa has been making them since the 80's. They used to be made in japan.  the ones have are.  Now they are made somewhere else.  I don't know if they are any worse.

They never bind up from taking dunking.  The drag is really smooth.

https://www.daiwa.com/us/contents/reels/ss_t/index.html

The trade-off is, by today's standards they are pretty clunky right out of the box.

Article is geared more towards someone not from around here, or totally unfamiliar with them but overall a good summary of those rivers.  What you could condense it a couple pages.

Also an article of interest, possibly to those of us that frequent Sylvania.. about the Middle Fork of the Ontonagon.  This was all trout stuff.

I love the photography in this magazine, which I would call understated..

 They have a feature in each one called "exposure" , which features nothing but photos and a one sentence caption.   

Here is some bamboo being prepared to be made into a flyrod.  This blows my mind how they do this.

My first time too.  John and Co. did a great job.  The grounds are impressive too, never been there. 

Cool, you can just drag pics in.  

Here is one of Cory's Deer Hair flies.

On 11/10/2019 at 6:55 PM, rich mc said:

mark took a pic of one of my dragontail  worms.

Would that make it harder to net the fish?

Not to be dumb, but why is it called the "Early Show" ?  that's been plaguing me.  Hopefully it's not stupidly obvious.

3 hours ago, Rob G said:

I'm presuming this technique is designed for faster and more stained water.  Good luck getting within 10 feet of a wary smallie in our slower, lower, and clearer water.  You  would have to be one sneaky Indian, Ha

It was moving pretty fast - riffly water and you could not see the fish.  I think that even if you initially spook some, if you hang still they will come back.

.