Quote Originally Posted by HURRICANEBOB View Post
Wow, a challenge: I bet $5 that Rich can get in and out and sneeze before the attorney can get his secretary to even call to schedule the initial court hearing.

Seriously, I don't think anybody was singling anybody out.

To help all understand, most courts resolve this issue using two distinct rules. A majority of jurisdictions follow the common law rule which states that owners of land underlying the surface waters of a man-made, non-navigable lake are entitled to control of only that portion of the lake lying over the land they own. So B-Bug, you are completely right as you own the whole she-bang by owning the land under and all around the lake. I agree with that.

The civil law rule states that an owner of land abutting or extending into portions of a lake, navigable or not, is entitled to the reasonable use and enjoyment of the entire lake. Me thinks this may be where Rich was coming from, or atleast that's how I took his comments, more in a mind set of "Littoral Rights" that aren't readily applied to waters where the owner owns all land around the non-navigable lake.

I'd get into raparian right, but I need another beer.
Are you trying to explain a state or federal civil law or is it a ruling on a specific case? If state, what state and which jurisdiction? I agree that if a lake is community owned, as in a gated community, all owners of land adjoining the water have a right to fish the entire lake. However, I don't agree that one owner should permit an outsider to fish the lake without permission of all the landowners.

I would accept your challenge but did you clear this with Rich or Budweiser? Personally, I think Rich is a better man than that, but I've known "Bud" to cause a mess of trouble. lol

The part I was unsure about is whether he was talking about ALL water or water that connects to a creek/lake/river.

Are you citing a state or federal civil law rule? We don't all live in the same state. I doubt that it is a federal law because fishing laws vary so much from state to state. If that were the case, would we not possibly have to buy a federal fishing license instead of a state fishing license? Just a thought.

I never thought Rich was singling me out because he doesn't know me. My question to him was a general question, not specific.