# Is it legal for land owners to post the shore on a lake?



## ValleyCityHunter2008 (Jan 13, 2008)

I'v been thinking this for a couple of years now. I have lake that I like to hunt, now some parts of the lake are better spots than others. There are no housing developments on this lake what so ever. No houses within 3 miles of the lake. Now most of the land around the lake is posted. Now just because the land is posted, does the owner realy own the shore on the lake? Is the shore line on the lake huntable by other people leagaley? If I were to access a point on that lake and walk the shore line until i got to the posted property, would i be legaly able to hunt it with out braking the rules of posted property. Because my belief is that no person own's the water on a lake, nor the shore line. There are over 15 different farmers who share there fields that touch this lake. So in reality do thay co own the lake? Or does the Government of North Dakota own the lake and shore line, and in return it is legal to hunt the shore line even though the land behind it is posted?

Any input on this topic would be great.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

If the land around the lake is private, and its posted, the lakeshore, and lake is posted.

If their is a public access point, than no, the lake is not posted. But, you have to be SURE its a public access point.

If one land area bordering the lake is not posted, than that chunk of shoreline is huntable. I wouldnt press my luck any further. Id ask. Its really easy to ask, all you have to do is dial a phone or knock on a door.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

Like bareback jack stated, if the lake is surrounded by privately owned land and its posted, then the lake and shoreline would be surely posted. I would find a landowner in that area and ask. The worst thing he can say is no.


----------



## goldfishmurderer (Jul 1, 2008)

You guys keep talking about asking the landowner, well if he's got it posted then he's going to say no. I think what valleycity is trying to ask is: Does he have the RIGHT to post and prohibit people from hunting on lakeshore that is available by other access points around the lake?


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

> well if he's got it posted then he's going to say no.


 :lol: :eyeroll:


----------



## goldfishmurderer (Jul 1, 2008)

:lol: :eyeroll:

What are you trying to say? I don't get it.


----------



## cgreeny (Apr 21, 2004)

goldfishmurderer said:


> You guys keep talking about asking the landowner, well if he's got it posted then he's going to say no. I think what valleycity is trying to ask is: Does he have the RIGHT to post and prohibit people from hunting on lakeshore that is available by other access points around the lake?


So because the land and so said lake is posted, just keep on driving. :roll: It could be maybe its posted because he wants to know who is using his land. Besides I've had a handful of knuckleheads go on the land even though it was posted. there is a reason for everything, even posted signs, but it doesnt mean its automatically posted so keep on driving.


----------



## dblkluk (Oct 3, 2002)

goldfishmurderer said:


> :lol: :eyeroll:
> 
> What are you trying to say? I don't get it.


If I drove past every posted sign assuming the farmer would say "no".

I would hunt about 1/10th as much as I do.

Like greeny said..Posted does not always mean no hunting is ever allowed.


----------



## goldfishmurderer (Jul 1, 2008)

Yes I realize that...i've hunted before and I've asked permission to hunt on posted signs before, thanks for the tips though guys. The point is DOES HE HAVE THE RIGHT TO POST ON A LAKE THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO? Just forget about the debate on whether he wants people to hunt or not. Lets just say he was asked and he said no he doesn't want anyone hunting on the lakeshore he has posted. Then the question is what I have in all caps above. Lakeshore maybe he has the right to post and prohibit people from hunting. But what if there are thick weeds that you can conceal your boat in about 10 yards out in front of the shore he has posted. You are hunting in the lake and not on the shore. Can you hunt there then even though he's got it posted and says you can't hunt on his lakeshore?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

barebackjack said:


> If the land around the lake is private, and its posted, the lakeshore, and lake is posted.
> 
> If their is a public access point, than no, the lake is not posted. But, you have to be SURE its a public access point.
> 
> If one land area bordering the lake is not posted, than that chunk of shoreline is huntable. I wouldnt press my luck any further.


There is another consideration too that hasn't been discussed.

I believe there is additional law that talks about a lakes meander line.

If the lake has gone down below the meander line, and a strip of land adjacent to a road has opened up, you can use that public right of way land to access the lake. You can then hunt the water anywhere, as long as you are legally anchored (this refers to ND law only mind you).

This is the same law that ice fisherman use to access a lake, withouth infringing on the landowners property.

Correct me if I'm wrong?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

goldfishmurderer said:


> Lakeshore maybe he has the right to post and prohibit people from hunting. But what if there are thick weeds that you can conceal your boat in about 10 yards out in front of the shore he has posted. You are hunting in the lake and not on the shore. Can you hunt there then even though he's got it posted and says you can't hunt on his lakeshore?


That is my understanding yes. I have discussed this many times with ND G&F and as long as the lake was legally accessed on public land (even thru the method I described in my previous post), then yes you can hunt that lake given that scenario above.

Hope this helps

Ryan


----------



## kmpots (Nov 22, 2005)

God owns the lake. So if you fell and broke your leg can you sue god?

Super Troopers


----------



## jpallen14 (Nov 28, 2005)

kind of off the supject but i thought i would share. I was fishing on a slough NE SD a couple of years ago drove onto the lake thru a access on a WPA. Anyways half the slough was over the WPA land and the other was over private. The owner of the private had drilled holes in the ice and put up no tresspassing signs every 100 yards or so across the whole slough in 15 feet of water. Funniest damn thing I ever saw. I ended up fishing on water over the WPA, figured it wasn't worth the hasle of the owner coming out. Accidently ran over a half a dozen signs while out there though. owell


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

barebackjack said:


> If the land around the lake is private, and its posted, the lakeshore, and lake is posted.
> 
> If their is a public access point, than no, the lake is not posted. But, you have to be SURE its a public access point.
> 
> If one land area bordering the lake is not posted, than that chunk of shoreline is huntable. I wouldnt press my luck any further. Id ask. Its really easy to ask, all you have to do is dial a phone or knock on a door.


About nails it.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

R y a n said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > If the land around the lake is private, and its posted, the lakeshore, and lake is posted.
> ...


Thats pretty much how I interpret the meander line as well. I left it out for simplicity sake.

We have a "lake" (for you MN boys-a large slough for us locals), that is bordered on ALL sides by private posted land (half ours, half anothers), access is strongly controlled and enforced, you wouldnt believe how many people out there think that lake (large slough) is fair game just because of its size.

A "lake" is no different than a pothole, if the land around is private and posted, than its off limits unless you ask. Pretty simple.


----------



## jpallen14 (Nov 28, 2005)

What happens if there is a flooded road that runs into a slough/lake that is all privately owned. is it legal to put in off the road right-of-way and fun the water?


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

jpallen14 said:


> What happens if there is a flooded road that runs into a slough/lake that is all privately owned. is it legal to put in off the road right-of-way and fun the water?


Now thats a good question. How do you fun the water? :lol:

But seriously, good question. I would say no. But I have no idea.


----------



## jpallen14 (Nov 28, 2005)

my bad, hunt/fish the water


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Many States are different.In SoDak,if its a meandered lake(originally surveyed and then determined to be 'permanent'water),you can hunt/fish it if you have public access.On dry land as well if below the 'high water'mark.(note:this is often disputed and you may end up in court.Also,some COs differ on interpretation and enforcement)If no public access=no access.
If not meandered,you can't.
When in doubt,you'd better ask.Trespass is serious in terms of your future rights of hunting and fishing-in many States that are part of the 'compact'.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I can depend. Many "lakes" in ND are actually impondments constructed by the county, state or federal government. Some of these impondments may have a small strip of land around them owned by one of those same entities. As a general rule there is some type of public access on these lakes. In many cases the adjacent land owner is granted the right to use a portion of that land but cannot restrict access to it. Thes areas are generally pretty well marked if owned by the feds (Army Corp of Engineers) but may not be marked by the state or county. I think there may also be something in the law about navigable waters. I'm not sure how or if that would apply to large sloughs bordering a road but it would make many rivers.streams fair game.


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

I went through this bit on a body of water that is now a bay of Devils Lake a number of years ago. At that time it was a separate body of water.

The key is whether or not the body of water is designated as a "Meandered Lake" or not. If it is, once you have access onto the water (via public landing, landowner permission, or section line) you are free to hunt or fish it. If an adjoining landowner has his landed posted, you cannot go on that landowner's shoreline, however.

I had access via land owned by a buddy. His land was about 25% of the shoreline, the remaining 75% was owned by a neighbor who they refer to as "the enemy" suffice to say this guy was an icehole and a poor neighbor.

The way this guy (who is currently running for Ramsey Co Commissioner) saw it, he controlled the water adjacent to his land. He even went so far as to plant trees across a section line that crossed his land to block that legal access to the water! I reported this to both NDGF & the States Attorney years ago, but neither seem interested in investigating this blatant violation of ND law.

By his definition, as long as we hunted on Rick's "end" of the water,it was OK, but... setting up in the cattails on "his" end and firing a shot almost instantly resulted in the guying driving about 60 miles an hour across his pasture, pulling up at the shore, then getting out and screaming & cursing a person, ordering him off "his end" of the slough.

This guy would not listen when advised we had every legal right to hunt anywhere on that slough. Eventually, he interfered with hunts so often that I reported him to NDGF. A visit by a CO telling him we could legally hunt the water went in one ear & out the other as the next morning we hunted, here he came again.

The next step was to go to the States Attorney and request to file charges of Hunter Harrassment (B Misdemeanor in ND). Lonnie decided to try reason one more time. He sent the guy an official nasty-gram with copies of the law and the Platt Map showing the water to be a meandered body, with instructions to leave anyone hunting it alone, pending charges. This put an end to it, and I rather suspect earned me a lifelong enemy.

It all became a moot point when the lake rose to the point that this slough became a bay, so even though now there's no question anyone can hunt it, with the cover gone there's little reason to do so...


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

NDT,
Yeh thats pretty much what happens here except a few will file civil trespass against you anyway and into court you go.
The key is 'meandered'water and 'high water' mark.Not as easy to determine as one would think on many lakes.Can depend on old historical survey records and whether the original surveyor(often in a hurry based on Gov'tment payment procedure)felt the body of water was 'permanent',and therefore worth 'meandering'around or was temporary and he could skip it.
The real problem is the severe penalty if you're wrong.


----------



## water_swater (Sep 19, 2006)

Ok here's what I thought it was, the land underneath the water is still the landowners, he's paying taxes on it. In order to shoot a duck legally on water in ND you have to be anchored or standing in the water. So then you are on posted land and do not legally have a right to hunt. Especially true in the Devils Lake area.

So if you put a boat in off the road and are cruising the lake your legal, as soon as you step off that boat or anchor you are trespassing


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

water_swater said:


> Ok here's what I thought it was, the land underneath the water is still the landowners, he's paying taxes on it. In order to shoot a duck legally on water in ND you have to be anchored or standing in the water. So then you are on posted land and do not legally have a right to hunt. Especially true in the Devils Lake area.
> 
> So if you put a boat in off the road and are cruising the lake your legal, as soon as you step off that boat or anchor you are trespassing


incorrect. Anchoring is legal.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

NDTerminator said:


> The next step was to go to the States Attorney and request to file charges of Hunter Harrassment (B Misdemeanor in ND). Lonnie decided to try reason one more time. He sent the guy an official nasty-gram with copies of the law and the Platt Map showing the water to be a meandered body, with instructions to leave anyone hunting it alone, pending charges. This put an end to it, and I rather suspect earned me a lifelong enemy.
> 
> It all became a moot point when the lake rose to the point that this slough became a bay, so even though now there's no question anyone can hunt it, with the cover gone there's little reason to do so...


Great example NDT!

Lonnie is awesome. I learned alot from that guy in Criminal Law at NDPOT.

I think I know the exact place you are talking. Glad I never went up into that bay. We had a cabin up that way before the really bad flooding swallowed the original lake. We still own the land under 20 feet of water. :lol:


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

R y a n said:


> water_swater said:
> 
> 
> > Ok here's what I thought it was, the land underneath the water is still the landowners, he's paying taxes on it. In order to shoot a duck legally on water in ND you have to be anchored or standing in the water. So then you are on posted land and do not legally have a right to hunt. Especially true in the Devils Lake area.
> ...


Ryan is correct. In a nutshell once you legally access a meandered body of water, you are good to go. You have to maintain the legal distance of 440 yards from any occupied dwellings for shooting, but other than that can anchor and hunt or fish.

We got a thorough education in this up here as the level of Devils Lake has risen. Once the land is under water, it is considered part of the body of water. If/when the lake level ever drops and the land is once again exposed, original property lines will come back into play.

I know a number of peope who completely lost lake lots to flooding. Concievably that land may someday again be exposed but until then it is part of the lake bottom and not privately owned real estate...


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

NDTerminator said:


> I know a number of peope who completely lost lake lots to flooding. Concievably that land may someday again be exposed but untilthen it is part of the lake bottom and not privately owned real estate...


*raises hand*

I'm one of them. We had a lot right near this "bay" you speak of. 

I think I know exactly where you are talking about. I think we bought ours from the original landowner Archie? Is he the other family you speak of?

If you knew those lots at all along that shoreline further up, we were the ones with the huge expanse of open sandy shore, with the huge oak? tree that must have been 60 feet tall. Sadly the water (and later ice), knocked that big beautiful tree over... it was a perfect place 30 yds from shore to lazily sit under a tree with a fishing pole in the water with the rustle of the leaves lulling you to sleep on a hot summer day...

Just before the final last flooding that overran our lot, we had a chance to tie up to that tree, and hunt the "flooded" timber of our lot and our neighbors.. it was truly sad to see it go. Last I checked our lot is now 1/4 mile into the water, and under 25 feet of water.

I was thinking I should go offer my neighbors on 3 sides, $50 each to buy their lots, on speculation that the water might some day recede... but that is likely wishful thinking..


----------



## kmpots (Nov 22, 2005)

Instead of boating in and anchoring what if one accessed the slough from their own land or public land and *walked* across the slough, crossed over the now underwater barbed fence (tricky) onto adjacent landowners land (which is now underwater)and hunted in some cattails.

Is standing on the submerged land legal like anchoring?


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

kmpots said:


> Instead of boating in and anchoring what if one accessed the slough from their own land or public land and *walked* across the slough, crossed over the now underwater barbed fence (tricky) onto adjacent landowners land (which is now underwater)and hunted in some cattails.
> 
> Is standing on the submerged land legal like anchoring?


This is the ultimate grey area, and likely might be interpreted either way. Seeing as you accessed the area legally, and are not standing on dry ground, you might think that it would be legal. I hazard to say you **might** be ok. The standard that would likely be applied, would be the "meander" line of the water rule. Since the water had "meandered" further onto his property, the property line had also meandered further in to the shoreline, hence allowing you to access the water provided you legally accessed it originally in a legal method.

However, I'd advise you'd be at greater risk for an unfavorable interpretation from a judge if you decided to challenge the issue and got a ticket from a warden.

Caveat Emptor to my lay interpretation of this scenario, as it is definitely a grey area that could be argued either way.

Ryan


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

In SoDak,in a non-meandered lake,you'd be in trouble.In a meandered lake,maybe OK but a real issue and many landowners would push it. :roll:


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

kmpots said:


> Instead of boating in and anchoring what if one accessed the slough from their own land or public land and *walked* across the slough, crossed over the now underwater barbed fence (tricky) onto adjacent landowners land (which is now underwater)and hunted in some cattails.
> 
> Is standing on the submerged land legal like anchoring?


I don't recall if you established if the slough you are speaking of is designated as a meandered body of water or not.

If it is then land underwater is not the property of the adjacent land owner. you would be just fine unless you walked out of the water onto his land.

If it is not so designated, then the landowner(s) property lines & rights include the slough in it's entirety.

Sounds like way too much work to shoot ducks though. No wading across sloughs for me, thanks much, I'll stick with field hunting, pass shooting, or at worst, use one of my boats....


----------

