Wisconsin's Wet feet Law

Fishing A Learning Experience, Pass it On.
1

Is waterway public or private
This is directly from Wisconsin Trout Fishing Regulations

Public or Private?

How Do I Know If I?m Trespassing?

? Navigability determines whether a waterway is public or private.
Navigable lakes and streams are public waterways.

? A waterway is navigable if it has a bed and banks and it is
possible to fl oat a canoe or other small craft at sometime of
the year?even if only during spring floods.

? Because they are public, you may use navigable waters for
fishing, boating, swimming or other recreational activities,
provided public access is available, or you have permission of
the land owner to cross their property to reach the waterway.
Once on a navigable waterway,

AS LONG AS YOU KEEP
YOUR FEET WET, YOU MAY WALK ALONG THE BED OF
THE STREAM, FISH, SWIM, OR BOAT IN ANY NAVIGABLE
LAKE OR STREAM.

KEY to what you just read:

? A waterway is navigable if it has a bed and banks and it is
possible to float a canoe or other small craft at sometime of
the year?even if only during spring floods.

All streams with water in them year round are navigable

…

Trout streams are the SIDEWALKS of the outdoors in Wisconsin.
Landowners do NOT own the stream.

If you ask politely a couple times and they say NO. WADE IT.

If they bother you call police and get them charged with harassing an angler.

Most bridges with weight limitation on them are public bridges. You have a small
easement to enter the water and get your feet wet. I don’t care if the landowner owns
2000 acres in each directions you are LEGAL.

Wade from public easement on to private land is OK also. The ones that preach NOT wading just don’t want you to interfere with THEIR home field advantage or they own the land.

Take a digital camera with you and film unruly land owners. it will work well in court.

2

Spinner;

Doesn’t that kinda a ruin the whole idea of relaxing and enjoying your day on the stream ? I mean, I don’t like to be anywhere I’m not wanted, and I want to fish, not get involved in some legal dispute.

3

it makes for a stressful outing.
Usually when I have decided to wade…
I tell the landowner on the last attempt to get permission.
I have the fish regs with me and point out there is
a wading option in the law.

Lots of people don’t
realize there is a wading law.

If they don’t believe what they see directly under their nose in print.
I then tell them I will be wading the stream on their property.

There are 2 streams I wade in my homewaters. Two NO landowners in 47 years of asking permission.

4

You are so right Spinner.
It is our responsibility to retain as much of our “outdoor” rights as possible, for us and our children.
Good men who DO nothing will still lose ALL to the opposition.
…lee s.

5

One point of consideration, at least in some places. Being legally in the right does NOT make you immune to buckshot.

Ed

6

I am a retired cop. If anyone brings a gun to greet me on stream they better kill me because i am pressing charges when I return home. My camera would be in Mpeg mode and i would make the “CRIMINAL” aware i was taping.

7

You have a point BUT to just give in doesn’t help protect your rights either.

8

Sorry Spinner, but that comes across as sort of pushy to me. Just reading your statements raised my blood pressure. But on the other hand, not being familiar with Wisconsin, the law is the law and you can do what the law allows.

George

9

The law has been this way for eons in Wisconsin.
Had the law expalined to me by the Head Fisheries guy from the state of wisconsin.

10

Old #art -

I believe that in most states, someone pointing a gun in a threatening manner at another person who is acting within the law and lawfully on public property ( that would be a fisherman in Wisconsin with wet feet, for example ) can be charged with assault.

It would be in the interest of the fishing and other recreating public lawfully on public waterways that such persons be charged and prosecuted for their crime.

John

11

I’m sorry people. I guess my first post is too vague.

Let me try again ha ha ha. How would going fishing somewhere, that you know that there will be a dispute, be an enjoyable day on the stream ??

Then again !!! If you got all the problems ironed out at an earlier time (before fishing), I would really be able to enjoy the day.

just not into crap when I’m in such a good mood

12

MSD53X -

The point I made was for the benefit of people who maybe have not thought about it that way and would like to have some remedy for situations they run into.

I hardly ever see anyone else where I fish, let alone property owners.

Over the past six years, I’ve run into a two or three rather obnoxious property owners or property caretakers, only one of whom was threatening. After a ten minute discussion with that fellow, we became friends and I now park at his house and access some prime water by crossing his property.

If people do know their rights and remedies, and express them in a congenial but firm way, fewer property owners and caretakers will create uncomfortable situations for fishermen and others acting lawfully while lawfully in a public place.

John

13

I live in Wisconsin! Dogs and Bulls are a problem too!!! Dogs do not read and Bulls plain
do not give a DAM!! That’s right-Catch and Release on a Bull, you caught on your back cast can be a bit tricky.

POINT BEING; Being dead and dead right are two different things!!!

Fishin’ Jimmy

Spinner-Watch your self over on Piere Springs!

14

With regards to wading, in Connecticut the law is a whole lot more complex. The general rule is if you own the land on the bank you own the stream bottom to midstream. Many landowners who own both banks can therefore prevent wading though as pointed out above, you can still float it if it’s navigable.

When I run into trouble with a landowner I’m polite and I retreat. Usually I’m wrong and am just pushing it. :slight_smile: If I’m right, I just need to decide if it’s worth my trouble to push it. There are so many places to fish getting into food fights over rights is sometimes more trouble than it’s worth.

15

Fishin’ Jimmy,
Thanks. That is the point that I was trying to make.

16

In Utah, there’s been a legislative fight between landowner rights and public rights (fishermen, hunters, canoers, etc) that has just recently been completed. HB187 was introduced to modify, circumvent, re-interpret, a Utah Supreme court ruling, that allows public access to navigable streams, to the highwater mark, from public access areas. Radical expression of view, from both sides came out, and were tossed back and forth for months. The bill was narrowly defeated, but the issue has not gone away, and will probably be revisited next year. My point is, the right to public access, to public streams, can and will be taken away, if we don’t stand up and fight for it. Not in a combative, or radical way, but firmly. Chinks in the armor of the law will be exploited. Each state has the right to set its own laws, and it behooves a sportsman to know the laws of the state where he’s fishing. It may be different from home.

17

Lew -

I was wondering how that legislative thing down in Utah turned out.

Not sure I would be too concerned about the legislature passing a bill since the Utah Supreme Court’s decision was based on the Utah Constitution. Seems to me, Utah would have to ammend it’s constitution to get around the Supreme Court decision, otherwise the Court can just go back to the Constitution and come to the same decision.

John

18

John
I’m not sure of the legaleze that occurred. I watched another board from Utah very closely for awhile to see how things developed. Much of what was discussed there would have tipped the scales to the landowners, if their definition of the bill had been adopted. There were demonstrations on the steps of the Capital. The heavy sigh of relief from the Utah fishermen is what’s caused all this wind up here.:wink:

19

What the Supreme court of Utah says is one thing. Throw in politicians and things get complicated and confusing.
The landowner legislators (and real estate lobbyists) in Utah introduce a bill, that they hoped would become law thus changing what the USC ruled on. I heard it was supposed to be a balanced ruling on public rights and landowner rights. I read the bill. I think balance was a misconception in this case tipping to the favor of the landowner. I also don’t think the lawmaker that introduced the bill expected the firestorm that followed. It was supposed to just slide through unnoticed. Luckily for Utah anglers, it was.
Maybe Utah should take note of Wisconsin’s law. I agree with Lewie, it ain’t over yet.

20

I may be wrong on this, but I thought the Supreme Court of the US has determined that all navigable waterways shall be open to the public in the US. Some states have tried to do what the poster from CT says, but that is against the law of the land, IF the waterway is navigable.

Matter of fact, I know a couple of guys who float flooded bypass fields to shoot ducks, and no one can do anything, due to the fact that the “stream” (1/4 mile wide or better) is navigable at that time.

That said, it is safer to pursue your interests in court than in front of the barrel of a gun.

There are a few places in CA where I believe the access law should be pushed, but the fishing is just as good elsewhere nearby, so why bother.