Another post got me thinking about a location I fish and wondering if I should be.
A few years ago I found a section of a class A that runs through land that is not posted with signs or purple blaze. There are no homes, farms, or businesses for over a mile in every direction. There's no sign of activity and besides the occasional car on the road I've never seen another person.
The land is not marked as state, county or township land on any map I can find and does not appear green on Google maps.
I made a half hearted attempt to figure out who owns it by emailing the township it's located in but never got a reply.
It's a beautiful spot with plenty of fish, I fish it 4 or 5 times a year.
Should I stop, am I trespassing, am I being unethical somehow??
Not looking for legal advice just opinions.
Swatties post is the only correct post I’ve read. To answer the OP’s question, you are 110% legally, morally, and ethically allowed to fish on the property you mentioned. Contrary to what some want others to believe, here is the law that we must read and UNDERSTAND,
So reading along, we see that section (a) does not apply since you are not entering a building or separately secured portion thereof. Section (b), also known as defiant trespass, also does not apply since the property is not fenced, posted or otherwise communicated that you are not allowed to enter. Section (b.1) simple trespass also does not apply because you would have to have entered or remained in any place for THE PURPOSE OF threatening or terrorizing the owner, starting or causing a fire, or damaging the property. Even the most irrational land owner could not associate a fishing rod and waders with any of those elements.
So now we arrive at section b.2, agricultural trespasser where, contrary to what has been posted, requires the same posting or communication requirement as section b, defiant trespass.
as for the moral or ethical arguments, this is what some resort to when nothing else fits. Whether your an angler trying to apply the Magna Carta to fishing posted land or a landowner trying to keep others off their property without regard to the law. Either way, both are wrong. As free people we have the right to travel unencumbered wherever we wish to go. Freedom is a great thing. However, freedom can be governed and it frequently is. One way is when landowners don’t want you on their property which is their right. When two groups wish to exercise opposing rights and freedoms, the law must step in.
In this case the law allows the landowner to post his land, so post your land if you don’t want others on it. Simple. In fact I would argue it’s immoral and unethical to skirt the law to do as you see fit for the sole exclusive reason to exercise your rights with a total disregard that others also have rights and freedoms. Regardless of what side of the fence you are on, your rights don’t trump anyone else’s rights until the law intervenes. I will always follow the law and I expect others to do the same. It’s how a civilized society works. Post you land in accordance with the law if you don’t want others on it. If you don’t, it legally, morally and ethically implies others can be there. If signs or notice is given, don’t invoke the Magna Carta, stay out.
And yes, I am a homeowner, and a property owner. The property has a wonderful native brook trout stream that runs through it. No I didn’t care if others fished or hunted it. It was not posted. My home is not posted. Kids are welcome to cut through my yard which they frequently do. When I tire of this I will follow the law and put up a fence or a sign. It’s really that simple.