A loss for the PTD

[seeth07]

Darn, this really clouds the picture about navigable waters being entirely public.

Wisconsin judge won’t allow boaters on flooded private property

The public’s right to use flooded rivers, lakes and streams ends where the water normally stops, a Wisconsin judge ruled Monday.

www.weau.com

 

[BrentD]

Darn, this really clouds the picture about navigable waters being entirely public.

Wisconsin judge won’t allow boaters on flooded private property

The public’s right to use flooded rivers, lakes and streams ends where the water normally stops, a Wisconsin judge ruled Monday.

www.weau.com

Not really. I don't see the need for people to be boating all over someone's flooded pasture or lawn. The law seems pretty clear to me. At least in Iowa, between the high water banks is pretty clearly not intended to include the neighbor's front lawn. What's the matter with people hat don't get this?

 

[seeth07]

Not really. I don't see the need for people to be boating all over someone's flooded pasture or lawn. The law seems pretty clear to me. At least in Iowa, between the high water banks is pretty clearly not intended to include the neighbor's front lawn. What's the matter with people hat don't get this?

Here is his property. The water levels in this photo aren't at the high mark - he lives on an island in a lowland area along the river. So you tell me, what does this ruling do in terms of what water here is public and what is private?

 

[thomas89]

So your contention is everything flooded should essentially become public as long as there’s water on the ground? No way. I’m good with it being shut down.

 

[Treeshark]

what does this ruling do in terms of what water here is public and what is private?

Man… it potentially opens a giant can of worms, that’s what it does!

 

[Treeshark]

So your contention is everything flooded should essentially become public as long as there’s water on the ground?

Only if it is connected to a navigable waterway (that may have been what you meant, but just for clarification).

 

[Ben Lamb]

Get a few wake boats going through and really expand that high water mark.

 

[thomas89]

Only if it is connected to a navigable waterway (that may have been what you meant, but just for clarification).

Correct, but doesn’t all that become attached to the rock river there?

I think a few of us are duck hunters in this thread already. If you can float a little creek that’s flooded out and created sheet water up into someone’s corn…should you be able to hunt it? As long as you stay in your little kayak or jon boat?

 

[Treeshark]

The water levels in this photo aren't at the high mark - he lives on an island in a lowland area along the river.

This picture is a great example the can of worms I was thinking about. For some properties, it’s easy to tell where the riverbank is and the lawn begins.

But the property you posted, and a ton up here along the Wolf, are basically islands of flooded timber. The “shore” location changes hourly sometimes. No idea how those property lines would be defined.

 

[seeth07]

So your contention is everything flooded should essentially become public as long as there’s water on the ground? No way. I’m good with it being shut down.

From the WDNR Webpage

Waterway Regulations and The Public Trust Doctrine | Waterway protection | Wisconsin DNR

dnr.wisconsin.gov

Some key text from there:
"The Public Trust Doctrine applies to all navigable waters, which are defined as any waterway on which it is possible to float a canoe or small watercraft at some time during the year. The Public Trust Doctrine protects the people of Wisconsin’s rights to:

• Transportation and navigation on waterways.
• Protection of water quality and aquatic habitat.
• Recreational activities, including boating, fishing, hunting and swimming in waterways.
• Enjoyment of scenic beauty while on the water."

"The Wisconsin State Supreme Court has ruled that when conflicts occur between the rights of riparian owners and public rights, the public's rights are primary and the riparian owner's are secondary."



This judge's ruling has redefined the above photo under "when the water level is high".

 

[Treeshark]

If you can float a little creek that’s flooded out and created sheet water up into someone’s corn…should you be able to hunt it? As long as you stay in your little kayak or jon boat?

According to Wisconsin state law, before this ruling anyway, the answer to that scenario is yes.

In fact, you could get out of the boat and stand on the ground as long as you keep your feet in water.

 

[seeth07]

Correct, but doesn’t all that become attached to the rock river there?

I think a few of us are duck hunters in this thread already. If you can float a little creek that’s flooded out and created sheet water up into someone’s corn…should you be able to hunt it? As long as you stay in your little kayak or jon boat?

Per the judge's ruling, no you can't anymore.

 

[SC Living Outdoors]

It makes sense to me. Same law where I live. You just need a map and to know where the high water mark is. I've hunted some in Ark too. Same rule out there. If you drive your boat off the public water onto some private flooded property you'll probably get shot. They don't play around when it comes to ducks out there.

 

[seeth07]

According to Wisconsin state law, before this ruling anyway, the answer to that scenario is yes.

And actually, you don't even need to stay in your boat in WI. If your feet are wet, you are on public land.

 

[thomas89]

Yeah no I’m good with NOT having people all up in someone else’s flooded property, I stand with the judge.

 

[Treeshark]

And actually, you don't even need to stay in your boat in WI. If your feet are wet, you are on public land.

Yep edited to add as you were posting. 100% correct.

 

[Treeshark]

Yeah no I’m good with NOT having people all up in someone else’s flooded property, I stand with the judge.

I can totally see where you are coming from.

A counter perspective is that you aren’t- you’re still standing in the river.

 

[seeth07]

The rule has been very simple for a long time. Keep your feet wet, and you are on public and legal for use to recreate. For a public land use forum, WI should be the gold standard of public rights in terms of waterways. It's full access to water.

This ruling ordering the WDNR to rewrite and redefine this to restrict access above the OHWM during times of higher water levels (typical spring flooding from melt off for example) is a direct loss of public land use and I can't believe anyone on this forum would oppose to that. Furthermore, the state already has the difficult task of determining in some instances where the OHWM exists. It isn't always easy when dealing with lowland cattail marsh areas for example like around my neck of the woods.

 

[Dsnow9]

This week on @seeth07 complaining about something…

 

[seeth07]

This week on @seeth07 complaining about something…

Right, because informing a public land forum that a 100+ year old state Supreme court ruling on public access is being challenged in "complaining".