Homeowner didn't like fisherman getting close to property

[Onshore]

The gentleman in the video infers that if a marina is contained within a dug-in inlet or basin it is private and boating within it can be restricted. I do not believe this to be correct. Let me state up front that I am not an attorney. I base this on opinion documents from the NH Dept. of Justice I have read, final reports on public water access from previous legislative committees and some relevant case law. in the case of a dredge inlet the owners may claim they retain ownership of the submerged bed but the waters that flow in remain public. Consider that almost all, if not all, riverbeds in NH are privately owned but the waters are public and navigation cannot be obstructed. I believe there is also a NH Supreme Court case from the early 1900's that established that even if an entity owned all of the land around a great pond they cannot restrict access. It remains a public water. I will see if I can track that case down. If I can find it, I will post a link to it for those who are curious.

[Top-Water]

Originally Posted by shore things

The gentleman in the video infers that if a marina is contained within a dug-in inlet or basin it is private and boating within it can be restricted. I do not believe this to be correct. Let me state up front that I am not an attorney. I base this on opinion documents from the NH Dept. of Justice I have read, final reports on public water access from previous legislative committees and some relevant case law. in the case of a dredge inlet the owners may claim they retain ownership of the submerged bed but the waters that flow in remain public. Consider that almost all, if not all, riverbeds in NH are privately owned but the waters are public and navigation cannot be obstructed. I believe there is also a NH Supreme Court case from the early 1900's that established that even if an entity owned all of the land around a great pond they cannot restrict access. It remains a public water. I will see if I can track that case down. If I can find it, I will post a link to it for those who are curious.

I do not think that statement is correct either, but could not find anything that could or would indicate it one way or another. I would seriously doubt the state would give up any of its rights under any circumstances through the permitting process, and if by chance any of it was done without a permit they could make them restore it back.

Thank you for that post. Very thankful you replied.

Some thing else he mentioned that was not true either but not in these exact words was that if you own land, lets say for example 100 acres that has a 10 acre pond in the middle of it, that pond is owned by the state and in simple terms means that anyone who wants to use it can. Again all of this in very simple terms. If there is no public access to the example pond above, the state can come in and create one. I personally am in this situation, however the land is in current use and we allow people to access the land. That allows people to get to the pond. (Being in current use takes it off of any priority list for Fish & Game to forcefully obtain public access) As a side note to this even though we own the land around the pond entirely and technically the pond itself. I and and anyone else have to have a valid fishing licence to fish in that pond.

Its kinda the same thing if you have a lakefront home you think you own the land but you really don't in some ways. The State is the one who controls what happens at the waters edge and 250 feet ???? inward. Same is kinda true again in simple terms for a non lake front home and the first 10 or 15 feet in from the street. If the town wants to put a side walk in in front of your home, they can and more or less get to make the rules what can happen on that sidewalk.

I doubt the state gave up any rights with regard to this. If you find something please share it.

[Onshore]

Originally Posted by Top-Water

I do not think that statement is correct either, but could not find anything that could or would indicate it one way or another. I would seriously doubt the state would give up any of its rights under any circumstances through the permitting process, and if by chance any of it was done without a permit they could make them restore it back.

Thank you for that post. Very thankful you replied.

Some thing else he mentioned that was not true either but not in these exact words was that if you own land, lets say for example 100 acres that has a 10 acre pond in the middle of it, that pond is owned by the state and in simple terms means that anyone who wants to use it can. Again all of this in very simple terms. If there is no public access to the example pond above, the state can come in and create one. I personally am in this situation, however the land is in current use and we allow people to access the land. That allows people to get to the pond. (Being in current use takes it off of any priority list for Fish & Game to forcefully obtain public access) As a side note to this even though we own the land around the pond entirely and technically the pond itself. I and and anyone else have to have a valid fishing licence to fish in that pond.

Its kinda the same thing if you have a lakefront home you think you own the land but you really don't in some ways. The State is the one who controls what happens at the waters edge and 250 feet ???? inward. Same is kinda true again in simple terms for a non lake front home and the first 10 or 15 feet in from the street. If the town wants to put a side walk in in front of your home, they can and more or less get to make the rules what can happen on that sidewalk.

I doubt the state gave up any rights with regard to this. If you find something please share it.

I found some information on the case pertaining to great ponds surrounded by privately held lands. The case was first heard as Percy Summer Club V. Welch and State v. Welch in the NH Supreme Court in 1889. They were still fighting it out and waiting for a US Circuit Court Decision in April of 1906. Private message me with an email address and I'll send you a copy of a NY Times article from April 4, 1906 that talks about the case.

[Top-Water]

Thanks (sending) PM

[ConcernedAngler]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...207/207-57.htm

Per Executive Director Normandeau of NH Fish and Game “there are no private/off-limit areas of Lake Winnipesaukee other than seasonal restriction ( Winnipesaukee is a salmon lake, so some restrictions apply). Boats, docks, tethered floats, etc... are private and personally owned, however, the water is public. Any individual damaging these are responsible for the damage, but fishermen can fish fish them and be within their legal rights. Anyone harrassing, threatening or interfering with fishermen will be in violation of NH Title XVIII 207:57 and can be cited.”

[fatlazyless]

Definitely something to repeat and repeat and repeat, commit to memory, while zipping from hot spot to hot spot in your bass boat at 45-mph.

So's, what was that second sentence again ?..... ka-boom-a-boom-boom!

You know, for $5 you can go to the Meredith McDonald's and get two filet-o-fish which are Alaskan pollock, caught in the Bering Sea off Alaska, a real fish that wasn't tossed back!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filet-O-Fish .... plus a large courtesy cup of water ..... drawn from nearby Lake Waukewan ..... cheers!