Walking river banks - Trespassing or Not?

jimbo 22

Hi everyone

I do alot of hunting near rivers for obvious reasons the main one being there are less houses to contend with and better hunting and you even get to glance at trouts / samlon passing by....

What i want to know Is the riverbank a right of way for walkers, fishermen and hunters alike?

I respect land owners rights to not allow hunting on there land
which is fair enough.

But Do they have the right to tell you to F*** off if you are walking the riverbank with or with out a gun

What annoys me is outsiders buying plots of land adjoining the river and baracading access to the riverbank

Verry annoying when you go hunting from one field to another and you get a prick that thinks he owns the river

I despise these people with a passion !

Can anyone shed some light on this topic?

Have we got the right to walk the river bank or not? respecting the land owners requests not to shoot on the land of course?


I posted this on the fishin forums some time back and didnt have any luck with an answer.

Mellor

I imagine that you don't have a right to walk on any river bank thats private property. I can't see why you would.

fathersymes

You must have the permission of the riparian land owner, basically whoever owns the land beside the river.

touchyie

Jimbo you might find this link usfeul, as a kayaker i have encountered this problem before. and to the best of my knowledge and that of friends of mine, the river bank is not a right of way

http://www.canoe.ie/Portals/32/1Docs4Dload/Policy%20Documents/Land%20and%20River%20Ownership.pdf

jwshooter

touchyie wrote: »

Jimbo you might find this link usfeul, as a kayaker i have encountered this problem before. and to the best of my knowledge and that of friends of mine, the river bank is not a right of way

http://www.canoe.ie/Portals/32/1Docs4Dload/Policy%20Documents/Land%20and%20River%20Ownership.pdf

what about shooting ? i have shooting rights for a mile of the slaney there is a club on the other side ,so do my rights go half way into the river ,as the club claim to have all rights on there side and over all the river right to my bank .they say i can not shoot a duck on the river bank thats over the water

touchyie

JW, my interpretation on it is that club might have been able to secure the rights to the river but only by getting agreement from the landowner on the far side that this is were the boundry would lay. However if this is not the case, you should have access to the entire river as it is shared ownership.

On a seperate note there might be an issue with safety and thats why they are kicking up.

bogteal

IF the river is tidal as far as i know you can walk within 15 feet of river bank.it came up one time at a fishing meeting. Would have no idea where you stand on shooting.

meathstevie

There's no such thing as private ownership of the actual river as far as I know. Someone might own the land bordering the river and all the rights that come with it but the river as such is state property as far as I know.

IRLConor

meathstevie wrote: »

There's no such thing as private ownership of the actual river as far as I know. Someone might own the land bordering the river and all the rights that come with it but the river as such is state property as far as I know.

The info in the link that touchyie posted earlier is quite interesting. If a river flows through someone's property they own the riverbed and the airspace above it but not the water flowing through. They can prevent you from trespassing on the river just the same as if you were walking on any other part of their land. The situation where the river is a boundary is more complex (by default the midpoint of the river is the boundary but there are other rights involved), but if neither owner wants you hunting on that river then there's no real difference to the situation with a single owner.

What I take away from that document is:

• You have no automatic right of way along a river or riverbank
• Unless one or more owners gives you permission, odds are you're trespassing.

jimbo 22:
If the landowners don't want you on their riverbank, then I'd steer well clear, given that the onus of proof of permission is on you, not the owner. The last thing you want is to end up in court over something like that.

vcsggl

Interesting area this - extending it to lakes I had cause to look into the question of ownership recently. My land covers the shore of a nice fishing loch that also has ducks on it from time to time. The only access to the loch on my side is through my land. A few weeks ago I discovered a party of 4 french fishermen on the loch in little one-man inflatable boats. I asked them how they got there and of course they assured me that although they were fishing along my shore they'd gone into the loch on the other side! Just to add a bit of complication the border runs down the middle of the loch - so they were doing a bit of "international fishing" - I wonder - do the fish know where the border is?!

After various enquiries it seems that as far as lakes are concerned fishing rights do not necessarly reside with the owner of the shore but may have been assigned to others at various times. I'm told that there may be central records with the land registry but nobody seems very sure!

So far as shooting is concerned there seems to be an "understanding" around these parts that if there's no sign up saying shooting rights reserved then any "locals" can take the odd rabbit or duck from neighbour's land and this applies even more to ducks on lochs than to land. The same approach is taken to hunting - I guess hounds don't take too much notice of boundaries!

George

Mellor

meathstevie wrote: »

There's no such thing as private ownership of the actual river as far as I know. Someone might own the land bordering the river and all the rights that come with it but the river as such is state property as far as I know.

I don't think thats right.
If two different people own a bank each maybe.
But if a river flows through a private property, as in both side are one property, then surely the river is included, as mentioned above, not the water, but the bed and the airspace.
If this was not the case, one could happily paddle along this river in the private property.
I imagine that the water is not included purely because it isn't static, if it was private, somebody could do as they please to it. Which may have knock on effects after it leaves the property

jimbo 22

jimbo 22 wrote: »

jimbo 22:
If the landowners don't want you on their riverbank, then I'd steer well clear, given that the onus of proof of permission is on you, not the owner. The last thing you want is to end up in court over something like that.

Not what i wanted to hear IRLConor

But its better to know where you stand on a situation like this than getting on the wrong side of some one

meathstevie

Mellor wrote: »

I don't think thats right.
If two different people own a bank each maybe.
But if a river flows through a private property, as in both side are one property, then surely the river is included, as mentioned above, not the water, but the bed and the airspace.
If this was not the case, one could happily paddle along this river in the private property.
I imagine that the water is not included purely because it isn't static, if it was private, somebody could do as they please to it. Which may have knock on effects after it leaves the property

Still not convinced, should do a bit of homework on it really. I wish anyone who wants to use a river running through their land as a private resource the best of luck with the OPW and the courts. Stuff like digging drinking slips into the banks etc would be no bother but for example damming it to create a little lake while cutting of the water supply downstream will land you in very hot water if you haven't applied for permits/licences. If passage on a river wasn't free I just want to buy two acres of land opposite eachother on the eastern and the western bank of the Shannon. I'll be a millionaire extracting tolls from pleasure cruisers.

IRLConor

meathstevie wrote: »

Still not convinced, should do a bit of homework on it really. I wish anyone who wants to use a river running through their land as a private resource the best of luck with the OPW and the courts. Stuff like digging drinking slips into the banks etc would be no bother but for example damming it to create a little lake while cutting of the water supply downstream will land you in very hot water if you haven't applied for permits/licences.

I think the problem with those kind of actions is that you're interfering with the water, which isn't yours. The banks, the bed and the airspace may be yours but the water isn't.

meathstevie wrote: »

If passage on a river wasn't free I just want to buy two acres of land opposite eachother on the eastern and the western bank of the Shannon. I'll be a millionaire extracting tolls from pleasure cruisers.

The Shannon has specific legislation which would cover things like that. I'm pretty sure some other large waterways do too. At a guess, anything managed by Waterways Ireland would probably allow public use. Anything not managed by them is probably private.

cavan shooter

I always thought that if a river flows through your property you own the bank on your side and half way accross. However there are certain things you cant do if it affects people up river or down river. However the fishing rights canbe owned by somebody totally different.

I have read a number of books in relation to the inland waterways as I have an interest in them as I like walking and they provide excellent routes (crossing the country etc)

In one book I remember reading that the tow path is always classed as part of the navigation(therefore originally in private ownership of the owners of the navigation) having nothing to do with the farmers who's land it goes through.

However since they fell into disrepair alot of the original towpaths were taken in by land owners a term used by one author as "poaching by the land owner"

How Waterways Ireland will square with a chap walking the towpath with a shotgun ????? well, you can guess that one

Our man in Havana

How does this equate with a person holding a foreshore licence?

You have the right to shoot the foreshore but you can be prevented from reaching said foreshore? Would I be right in saying so?

IRLConor

Bond-007 wrote: »

How does this equate with a person holding a foreshore licence?

You have the right to shoot the foreshore but you can be prevented from reaching said foreshore? Would I be right in saying so?

I don't know to be honest, although I suspect you're right in saying that.

Does a Coillte permit allow you to cross private land to reach it even if you have no permission to do so? I'd be surprised if it did.

meathstevie

Bond-007 wrote: »

How does this equate with a person holding a foreshore licence?

You have the right to shoot the foreshore but you can be prevented from reaching said foreshore? Would I be right in saying so?

That's correct, something to that extent would be printed on the actual licence or in a cover letter you get with it. So how do you get to the state lands you have permission on if you're not allowed passage on a certain stretch of land bordering them.....by boat accross the water.;)

As for walking on a towpath with your shotgun : I can't see any problem if you don't discharge a shot from the towpath or fire over it from private land in a careless manner. Your licence entitles you to have the gun in your possesion on a public road or walkway in order to get to your permission.