Private vs Public Rights on a Public Road

[property owner]

My question involves an easement in the state of: Michigan

A public (township) road crosses a creek via a bridge. The surrounding land is in one private ownership. Parking is not permitted by township ordinance. It appears to be illegal to use the road right of way as public access site to the creek because that is not a use incidental to 'highway transportation'. If there is a police complaint by owner/agent/tennant is the infraction trespassing? Would fishing from the bridge deck also be trespassing?

Does anyone know of a web page that discusses these issues more broadly? I've searched and come up empty so far.

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Public roads are open to the public. Public bridges are open to the public. Arguing, "There's only private property past this point down the public road" does not make the road itself any less public."

If the fisherman are using public land to fish, the issue is not one of trespass. It's more likely one of a statute or ordinance prohibiting pedestrian traffic on particular types of roads. I cannot promise you that a statute or ordinance applies, as I don't know anything about the nature of the road nor what unit of local government (I expect the township) might have ordinances pertaining to the specific stretch of road.

[property owner]

Public roads are open to the public. Public bridges are open to the public. Arguing, "There's only private property past this point down the public road" does not make the road itself any less public."

If the fisherman are using public land to fish, the issue is not one of trespass. It's more likely one of a statute or ordinance prohibiting pedestrian traffic on particular types of roads. I cannot promise you that a statute or ordinance applies, as I don't know anything about the nature of the road nor what unit of local government (I expect the township) might have ordinances pertaining to the specific stretch of road.

I hoped someone else would answer but no luck. You are wrong about the law in this instance. The issue comes up regularly in michigan sportsman forum discussions. There is no dispute about the legal principle. Here's the best wording I've found.

"Very true about bridges, for a person to use a bridge as an access point the side one is accessing must be gov't/state/federal owned...period. Private landowners own the property up to the road, county/MDOT own the right-away for certain road usages, either 33 or 66 feet from center of road, on avg its 66 feet I beleive, it could be more or less but that point is mute. But to make a point, one can "park" as long as your using the right-away area as a normal traffic usage(broke down, riding the shoulder, changing a tire, waiting for somebody, etc..), but you can not use that right-away to gain access, pick mushrooms, hunt, gather flowers, etc.."

I was hoping for help finding the legal writings that establish the above. Some time in the past a Michigan court decided the answer is no. I would dearly like to find that decision or may be there are several decisions. Does anybody know how I might do that?

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[aaron]

Your question said nothing about entry into private land.

If it's your land and somebody is trespassing, tell them to leave.

If you want to prove where your land ends and public land begins, refer to a survey.

[property owner]

Your question said nothing about entry into private land.

If it's your land and somebody is trespassing, tell them to leave.

If you want to prove where your land ends and public land begins, refer to a survey.

Your answer is typical of the fishermen who don't want to acknowledge the limitations on public use of roads. Road rights of way are not "public land". They are private land belonging to the abutting landowner but the ROW is subject to an easement giving giving certain rights to the public for transportation and units of government who maintain the road. If the road is abandoned the land reverts to the landowner. It is never public land that can be put to other uses. It is the same as a utility easement except there is a different bundle of rights. In Michigan it is ILLEGAL to use a public road right of way, surrounded by private property, that crosses a stream, to gain access to the water, without the landowner's permission. That use is not considered part of the easement which limits activities to "road purposes". The infraction is trespassing.

I suppose the question could be put more broadly. Somewhere on the internet there ought to be writings about how the term "road purposes" is applied to road easements in Michigan. I haven't found that yet. Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[Mr. Knowitall]

Apparently you cannot read?

Again, slowly: If this is your land, and people are on your land, you can tell them to leave.

If this is not your land, and there is an ordinance that prohibits their presence, you can report them to the authorities. If the authorities won't respond, too bad, so sad.

If this is not your land and there is no ordinance that prohibits their presence, the question about what to do in relation to their presence is up to whomever owns the land.

It sounds like you want us to magic up a way to make fisherman leave land that isn't yours, despite either (a) their lawful presence or (b) the complete indifference of any law enforcement agency to their presence such that the police won't order them to move.

[jk]

is your only purpose here to argue? You have been answered by two very knowledgeable posters, one actually being a Michigan attorney. Aaron's post agreed with your most recent post yet you refuse to see it. I guess unless somebody posts exactly what you want to hear in the exact terms you wish to see, you simply will argue. Maybe spending a couple bucks with an attorney would be your best avenue for an answer you wish to hear.

[LandSurveyor]

If the stream is navigable (Michigan uses the "floating log" rule) then there is no doubt that the streambed and water are a public right of way. Even though the streambed is in private ownership, walking and wading are not a trespass when fishing.

I would have no legal restraint on walking down the township road right of way to it's intersection with the stream right of way, and wading in. I could go upstream or downstream just as I liked and could leave the stream and cross private property (the "portage" rule) if I found the steam to be too deep or fast to wade in spots.

If someone were to interfere with me in my fishing expedition, I might pull out my cellphone and call the county sheriff and report interference with an angler, which is a crime per Michigan statute.

[jk]

I think the ultimate concern is the fishermen parking along the road. Once in the water, the fisherman is safe but if parked along the road, his car isn't due to the parking ban. Whether that will get anything more than a parking ticket I do not know.

[LandSurveyor]

It appears to be illegal to use the road right of way as public access site to the creek because that is not a use incidental to 'highway transportation'.

I was responding to that statement, which I disagree with completely. The parking appears to be a critical issue to the OP in opposing any public access to and from public right of way. Stopping the parking (a local exercise of the police power) does not however restrict other unrelated rights, such as fishing.