Very interesting. Wealthy residents in some northern Indiana have had issues regarding this for a long time.

By that language you can kiss fishing within. 200 feet of shore goodbye

To resolve this issue, on May 21, 2014, the Indiana Natural Resources Commission issued an order which determined that under the prevailing statute, IC 14-15-3-17, the only motorboat operations which are permitted within 200 feet of the shoreline are trolling or approaching or leaving a dock.

So let me get this right………Private property owners that have shore along a public water and prohibit certain activities within 200' of the shore????? So the shore lines will now be littered with basically "NO TRESPASSING" signs on public water??? Ok, I can see some good, and bad in this. It would mean water roaches (jet ski's) , and regular skiing cannot be done. Thats a positive!!!! However, I thought there was regs in place for that before this on going that fast near shore. But, not being able to anchor up, and fish or hunt sucks!

Where did all of this come from???? I assume the private property owners have a right a way, or their property extends to the "normal" low water elevation, and they are claiming that area when the water is a full pool???? Is this ALL public water across the state, or are they talking about a specific lake/area?

Interpretation is going to be the key.

Yaz, clear you mailbox.

Looks bLack and white to me.

Better not be bass fishing around the rich boys docks, or dropping anchor.

Only the middle of the lake is public now.

Hey kyle, you should add fishing and anchoring to the title to get everyones attention

And boating in general lol

Cleared

I think you nailed it Dave! Some bass fisherman bounced a jig off a rich boys expensive "go fast" boat at his dock, and pissed him off!!!!

"Where did all of this come from????"

Best guess would be from the "it's legal and you can't stop me" crowd . Homeowners got tired of a few folks thinking they could hunt in their back yard because it was legal . So now it is no longer legal .

Here you go! Google Tobias DNR permit appeal. I CAN understand the frustration of the property owners in this particular case, however to sheep dip the entire State with this ruling opens up a BIG ole can of worms…….

http://www.staceypageonline.com/2014/03/05/wawasee-pier-permit-denied-appeal-filed/

Big business at work again. Wonder who got paid off at the NRC? Maybe a phone call from Mitch using his good old boys tactics? Wawasee use to be one of the best bass fishing lakes in Indiana, sad to see this happen but big money always trumps logical decisions. h.h.

I agree with this. It did not come from big business, it came from a few inconsiderate jerks.

Man what a shame, caught a lot of bass off the docks at Geist and Lake Lemon....

If the law is absolute, then even homeowners can't anchor in front of their homes to hunt or fish. Seems like it will be an enforcement nightmare for quite a while.

So Eli Lilly isn't big business? If it was just a homeowner complaining you think the NRC would have done anything?

Some of you guys need to grow a pair and quit worrying about being political correct all the time. h.h.

Randal Tobias used to be the CEO of Eli Lily for those unaware.

"Some of you guys need to grow a pair and quit worrying about being political correct all the time."

Oh , I've got a pair and I don't worry about being P.C. at all .
So is it safe to say that you would be allright with me and a dozen or so friends setting up and hunting within ,say, 35 yards of your house ?

Once again, common sense, and common COURTESY has gone by the way side………causing problems for everybody!!!!

Common curtousy and common sense left the building years ago..

If you are hunting in a legal manner then its really none of my business. Im not one to call 911 ever time I hear close gun fire.

I see some of you don't really know the lake residents mentality. Basically its we own the lake and dont want the public on it! Dont believe me just go around and ask a few lake residents on how the feel about public ramps at their lake and you will quickly see what I mean.

Taking away everyone's anchoring rights because Eli Lilly executives dont want any boats anchored in their multimillion dollar lake view is ridiculous. h.h.

I think the bitterness that we all feel about this is a bit misdirected. Sure I don't like the outcome or the process that enabled this to happen but it once again highlights the lack of sportsmen representation and the lack of a sportsman organization that watches all the issues here in indiana. Fault = sportsmen.

Good post, Dave. So true in many aspects of our sport.

Some more interesting reading on this issue....

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...lfzbqXVhu-xdSjft2w&bvm=bv.68693194,d.aWw

Common courtesy solves almost every problem like this. Don't get me started with the idiot bass guys on geist. Not all tournament guys are idiots but IMO 50% are. Running on plane in coves to make weigh in, Lotta bass killed w some of the tournaments (NCAA I saw several 5lb fish laying unbagged while the fisherman talked for 10 minutes!), a##es flying by at 60 within 15 yrds or coming in literally 20-30 ft to fish on me if I'm in my open bow, guess they fig I'm not a "real fisherman". I see and hear guys all the time smackin boats w jigs around docks. Wonder if the same guys woukd care if i bounced one off theirs?

However the 200 ft ruling is complete BS. If the homeowners now "own" 200 feet of lake will they be taxed for it?

In this particular situation, it didn't sound like fisherman were the problem at all. I read into it that the party boats would pull up in front of their docks, and anchor up. Blocking them from getting in and out. I can just imagine what was said in that exchange with a bunch of drunks. Probably ended up in "FU dock owner"……..Hence starting the whole issue…..

I go out of my way to stay out of peoples way on the water. Pleasure boaters and other fishermen. I realize I have a fairly large spread when I'm fishing, and if some one is where I want to be, I go WAY out and around them and come back later…..WHen it is busy on the lake with tubers and skiers, I hug the banks. But you still get those idiots that thinks it would be funny to see how close they can get to my planers, or try to squeeze between me and the bank. IDIOTS!

+1 yaz

This particular lake has had plenty of issues over the years, including some issues for duck hunters. I have a professional friend that has a place up there and he said the duck hunters literally park within 3 feet of the bank in front of their place. Actually, he didn't care but he said his neighbors hated it. He actually would go out mid morning and talk to the guys hunting. I haven't talked to him yet about this but he just last year bought a boat to duck hunt out of and he and his boys really got into it. It'll be interesting to get his take on this.

The next thing that will eventually get pushed will be hunting within "x" yards of a residence, building or such. It's coming sooner or later and it'll probably happen without notice from most sportsmen.

Wow sounds like a few disrespectful hunters who ruined it for a lot of respectful ones.

Just because it (or in this case used to be) 'legal' does not make it 'right'.

Courtesy, common sense, and respect go a long way in situations like this.

Tobias and his neighbors did what they had to do.

It wasn't about duck hunting, it was about not being about to get out of his cove to go to main lake. I'm guessing a party cove?

Probably Kyle but this Is similar to Geist a few years ago when the residents said it wasn't really about the hunters being there but instead about safety. I knew a number of the residents there and what they didn't like was the noise and daily presence of the duck guys. So they looked for every thing they could say to get the duck guys off the lake, true or otherwise, and they did. And there have duck issues on the lake for years.

CORRECT! But ruined it for everyone including fishermen and hunters……...

Just so you guys know what the problem is, the poor rich guys living in the mansion cant get the boats out of their 150ft long pier. Their mansion use to be called the monastery and 30 years ago we could park there and walk out to ice fish, good luck with that now! Eli Lilly exec's used their money and power to get the NRC to pass the law and now the poor unsuspecting little guy will get the shaft as always. h.h.

76Chevy....once again....can you post your quotes before you respond? It's not that difficult. Really,,,it isn't... :rolleyes:

And no...the big dollar guys just had the $$ to do what a lot of folks on here wished they could do. Like keep trespassers out and protect their investment. Can you honestly blame them for doing what they had to do to get rid of idiots??

Like this, Chevy...

WRONG...... These people don't OWN the lake !!!!

The people of this state do, and they have every right to be there.... No one was Tresspasing!!!!

Did you miss the part about parking and walking thru the property to ice fish?? :rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with ICE fishing... :rolleyes: YET!!

Did you read the links??? :rolleyes:

GFY Brew....if it were you, you'd be crying like a baby.

Weed, many, many people did this when it was the monastery owned by monks and they allowed people to park and walk out from the property. The monastery closed and sat empty for several years. I believe the whole property is behind a fence now but that's not the issue here. If you look at the picture there is clearly no problem getting in and out of their dock, all a smoke screen to keep anyone from anchoring in their million dollar view. Eli Lilly and its exec's don't own the lake! h.h.

Thanks for the info HH... now that makes sense.

Comment from CO
I got this from a CO:

Mr. Anthony,

The short answer to your question is, false. Below I have cited the state law on operating a motorboat within 200 ft. of a shoreline. Keep in mind this only applies to lakes or a channel that is at least 500 ft. in width. So, for our area, this would not apply to Lake Shafer or Lake Freeman. Also included below is the administrative code requirements on placing buoys on public waters.

It appears your received the information from an individual’s website or blog. I would be cautious in believing the information you receive pertaining to laws and regulations from a website other than that of an “official website.” Hope this helps.

Below is the state law on operating near the shoreline on lakes.
C 14-15-3-17 Minimum distance from shore lines
Sec. 17.
(a) A person operating a motorboat may not approach or pass within two hundred (200) feet of the shore line of a lake or channel of the lake at a place or point where the lake or channel is at least five hundred (500) feet in width, except for the purpose of trolling or for the purpose of approaching or leaving a dock, pier, or wharf or the shore of the lake or channel.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person operating a motorboat may not approach or pass within two hundred (200) feet of the shore line of a lake or channel of the lake at a speed greater than idle speed.

(c) This subsection applies to lakes formed by hydroelectric dams in a county having a population of:
(1) more than twenty-four thousand five hundred (24,500) but less than twenty-five thousand (25,000); or
(2) more than twenty thousand (20,000) but less than twenty thousand five hundred (20,500).
A person operating a motorboat may not approach or pass within fifty (50) feet of the shore line at a speed greater than idle speed. However, on tributaries of lakes described in this subsection that are formed by hydroelectric dams, a person operating a motor boat may not approach or pass within two hundred (200) feet of the shore line of the tributary at a speed greater than idle speed. For the purposes of this chapter, tributaries on lakes formed by hydroelectric dams do not include the principal body of water flowing into the lakes. As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.38-2000, SEC.3; P.L.170-2002, SEC.93; P.L.119-2012, SEC.119.

Below is the administrative law on placing buoys on public waters
Rule 4. Navigation Aids and Water Recreation Structures
312 IAC 5-4-1 Navigation aids and water recreation structures; applicability
Authority: IC 14-10-2-4; IC 14-11-2-1; IC 14-15-7-3; IC 14-29-1-8
Affected: IC 14-15-3-17
Sec. 1. (a) This rule governs the placement of any navigation aid or water recreation structure.
(b) A person must comply with this rule before placing a navigation aid or water recreation structure on or along public
waters. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e), a license from the division is required for the placement of a navigation aid
or water recreation structure.
(c) Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e), each navigation aid must be colored white with international orange
geometric shapes. If placed on the water, a navigation aid must be a buoy.
(d) A buoy that identifies a point two hundred (200) feet from the shoreline of any lake or channel under IC 14-15-3-17 is
exempted from subsection (c). This exemption does not apply to Lake Michigan or where the division determines the exemption
will be contrary to safe and lawful boat usage.
(e) This rule does not apply to a navigation aid or water recreation structure located within one hundred fifty (150) feet from
the waterline or shoreline of a public freshwater lake or to a mooring buoy. The placement of a navigation aid or water recreation
structure under this subsection is governed by 312 IAC 11. A mooring buoy located on a navigable waterway is governed by 312
IAC 6. (Natural Resources Commission; 312 IAC 5-4-1; filed Mar 23, 2001, 2:50 p.m.: 24 IR 2370, eff Jan 1, 2002; readopted
filed May 29, 2008, 1:53 p.m.: 20080625-IR-312080057RFA; errata filed Jun 2, 2009, 10:29 a.m.: 20090624-IR-312090386ACA)

312 IAC 5-4-2 Application for a license for a navigation aid or water recreation structure; general requirements
Authority: IC 14-10-2-4; IC 14-11-2-1; IC 14-15-7-3; IC 14-29-1-8
Affected: IC 14
Sec. 2. An application for a license under this rule must be completed on a department form and contain information
sufficient to describe the purpose for which the license is sought. The application shall include the following information:
(1) The name and address of the applicant.
(2) The name, address, and telephone number of an individual who can be contacted concerning placement, maintenance,
and removal of the navigation aid or water recreation structure.
(3) A description of any navigation aid or water recreation structure to be placed under the license.
(4) The date, location, and duration of placement.
(Natural Resources Commission; 312 IAC 5-4-2; filed Mar 23, 2001, 2:50 p.m.: 24 IR 2370, eff Jan 1, 2002; readopted filed May
29, 2008, 1:53 p.m.: 20080625-IR-312080057RFA)

Sgt. Blaine R. Gillan
Indiana Conservation Officer
District 3 Headquarters
4112 E. SR 225
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Office: (765) 567-7859

What ever.... :rolleyes: keep grasping at straws!!!!

This don't have a FNing thing to do with Ice fishing or Tresspasing ..... :rolleyes:

Brew,,,you'd be the first to complain about someone setting a stand on your property line. Same thing...you don't own the property that the stand was placed on. Same thing....common courtesy.

It appears that the NRC only gave these three permission for the bouys. Funny how it appears to be a special treatment rule. Which is good on the one hand and ridiculous otherwise

SMH...... Keep grasping , Weed..... Now it's turned to tree stands and Deer hunting!!!

BTW..... I know what common courtesy is also!!!

Yep.....

It's all dependent on what personally suits you at any specific time and topic, Brew. Carry on....

Actually Italy be that the issue here was purely placement of buoys and the statute had been in place for a long time. Possibly the three permit requesters feel that the placement of buoys will then force law enforcement to enforce the statute. This could lead to opening a bigger can of worms as other lake property owners see an opportunity to raise issues.

Just spent a half an hour on the phone with a guy who has a place up there. It was quite a conversation. Heck, this ruling may be the tip of the iceberg. He is headed up there this weekend and said he already has had a few of the residents up there call him and complain about why they weren't included in the ruling. I think from the conversation Lilly may need the space in front of their place for exe's to moor the boats. Something about riparian right. Heck, we also talked about how a wetland was moved to enable a new road to be made to one of the homes. Also, there might be an interesting emerging issue on webster where residents wanted to treat about 160 acres for the weeds but the DNR only wanted about 70 acres treated apparently because of the muskie fisherman. We need to put a fence around that area up there.

A news release was put out about this yesterday from DNR...

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar_dn...ation_id=14406&type=&syndicate=syndicate


Looks like they can place buoys and the DNR cannot enforce whatever these guys want to say on signs within their riparian zone....LOL what joke!

What this will have accomplished though is putting pressure on law enforcement regarding activities within the 200 foot threshold, at least at that lake. It just tells me that the state shouldn't allow any further development along public lakes if possible.

Never happen! As the 1% continue to amass mega wealth they will use it to get what they want by pressuring the right people. h.h.
They already do. Wawasee has a Kosciusko county police boat that patrols the lake plus the DNR is usually there. Look at the picture north of the mansion and see how the exec's have closed in their piers so no one can navigate close to their shoreline. More to this story than them wanting to moor boats. h.h.

I agree HH. Did you have any insight into Tobias getting the road moved which I was told had an affect on a wetland there. The guy I talked with that has a house on the lake there told me some stories that were pretty telling that the residents up there pretty much believe they should be able to do as they wish and honestly, they have enough political connections to get their way. It'll be interesting to learn what happens on the weed control at a couple of those lakes.

Not sure about the road but from if I remember right you had to go north across the railroad and then back across by the golf course. The Eli Lilly Rd is new and must have been built in the wetland area.

Wawasee has probably more millionaires than any other lake in Indiana. Ive seen them buy two or three $100,000.00+ lake homes, tear them down and use the property to build one multimillion dollar house. Back in 2000 lake front property with no home was going for $10,000.00 a foot.

All,

Please refer to the letter below about fishing within 200 ft. of shore from our legal council at Indiana DNR.

Thank you,

Indiana Division of Fish and Wildlife


June 17, 2014
Wawasee Property Owners Association
PO Box 427 Syracuse, IN 46567-0427


Dear Sir or Madam,

I write to you in response to recent discussions that have taken place regarding the Agreed Order entered into by the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) and property owners Anchor LLC and Randall J. Tobias and Sargent H P LLC (“property owners”). A copy of the Agreed Order is enclosed for your reference.
In November 2013, the property owners applied for a permit from the DNR to place posts offshore of their properties. The posts were intended to support signs with language regarding the mooring or anchoring of boats within 200 feet of the shoreline. The DNR denied the permit request on grounds that the posts would create a navigational hazard for the boating public. The property owners appealed the DNR’s denial to the Natural Resources Commission (NRC), an autonomous board that addresses issues pertaining to the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. The NRC assigned an administrative law judge to hear the appeal. In May 2014, the parties reached a settlement agreement approved by the administrative law judge that allows for the placement of temporary buoys 175 feet from the respective shorelines. The buoys are required to be of a material that, if struck by a watercraft, would cause little or no damage. The agreement further provides that the landowners may place signs on the buoys; the DNR is without authority to regulate what language the property owners post on signage in his or her respective riparian zone. The Agreed Order applies solely to the parties named in the order.
The Indiana Lakes Preservation Act, IC 14-26-2, provides that the natural resources and the natural scenic beauty of Indiana are a “public right” and that the public has a “vested right” in the preservation, protection, and enjoyment of all freshwater lakes in Indiana. As part of the Agreed Order, the parties agreed that while the public has a vested right in all freshwater lakes, there are certain restrictions to that right. Specifically, IC 14-15-3-17 limits the operation of a motorboat within 200 feet of the shoreline of a public freshwater lake to those activities stated in the statute.
As it has consistently enforced in the past, it is the DNR’s position that a motorboat that is moored or anchored is not in operation for the purposes of IC 14-15-3-17. As a result, the Department will continue to not take action against any individual who has moored or anchored his or her boat within 200 feet of shoreline, provided the individuals onboard have abided by all other applicable operating laws in arriving at that point. At the same time, the DNR will promptly and diligently respond to any call that advises that anchored or moored boats are preventing egress or ingress from a citizen’s property or where occupants of the moored or anchored boats are coming upon the shoreline and trespassing on private property. The DNR will also respond to complaints that the occupants of the
watercraft are littering and/or violating any other applicable infraction or law. We have received
communication from the Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department, who has advised that after
reviewing the Agreed Order and applicable statutes, their interpretation of IC 14-15-3-17 will remain
unchanged and consistent with the DNR; that an individual is not prohibited from anchoring within
200 feet of the shoreline of any public freshwater lake.
As noted, the Agreed Order applies solely to the parties named in the order. Pursuant to 312 IAC 11-
3-1, property owners may place a buoy out to 150 feet of their property without first seeking a permit
from the DNR. Any buoys placed that do not comply with the general license requirements of 312
IAC 11-3-1 would be required to first seek a permit from the DNR.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.


Sincerely,

Joe Hoage
General Counsel


Enclosure
cc: Steve Snyder
Indiana Lakes Management Society
Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department
Deb Patterson
Stacey Page

Thanks for the clarification and WELCOME to the site!

Sure thing!

+....1

It's going to get even more interesting up there in the future and I just hope that they keep this issue related to those lakes up there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYK9G2Yizfw

True....

It would be interesting to know how these land owners where allowed to built piers/docks that enclose public water area for private use...

Agreed Brew. But as HH has said, there is a lot of money up there and political connections. Blocking of a section of the lake seems like it should be illegal but probably isn't. There will be legislation introduced in the future on this stuff and it'll likely pass because of the political connections.

I was wondering the same thing..........If you use Google Earth to look around the lake no one else has docks that enclose the shore line in front of their property. With all that fenced in shoreline their reason needing the space to moor boats kind of goes south quick. Eli Lilly exec's used their power/money to get what they wanted. h.h.

Yep!

Here's a link to the pier rules for all Indiana public waters:
http://www.indianalakes.org/pierRules.htm

As stated in the letter from our legal council

The Indiana Lakes Preservation Act, IC 14-26-2, provides that the natural resources and the natural scenic beauty of Indiana are a “public right” and that the public has a “vested right” in the preservation, protection, and enjoyment of all freshwater lakes in Indiana. As part of the Agreed Order, the parties agreed that while the public has a vested right in all freshwater lakes, there are certain restrictions to that right. Specifically, IC 14-15-3-17 limits the operation of a motorboat within 200 feet of the shoreline of a public freshwater lake to those activities stated in the statute.

As it has consistently enforced in the past, it is the DNR’s position that a motorboat that is moored or anchored is not in operation for the purposes of IC 14-15-3-17. As a result, the Department will continue to not take action against any individual who has moored or anchored his or her boat within 200 feet of shoreline, provided the individuals onboard have abided by all other applicable operating laws in arriving at that point. At the same time, the DNR will promptly and diligently respond to any call that advises that anchored or moored boats are preventing egress or ingress from a citizen’s property or where occupants of the moored or anchored boats are coming upon the shoreline and trespassing on private property. The DNR will also respond to complaints that the occupants of the watercraft are littering and/or violating any other applicable infraction or law. We have received communication from the Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Department, who has advised that after
reviewing the Agreed Order and applicable statutes, their interpretation of IC 14-15-3-17 will remain
unchanged and consistent with the DNR; that an individual is not prohibited from anchoring within
200 feet of the shoreline of any public freshwater lake.

I would suggest contacting DNR law enforcement if you are being harassed in anyway while fishing or hunting as it is against state law. You can contact them 24/7 at: (812) 837-9536
ICODispatch@dnr.IN.gov

As always, feel free to contact us with any questions or concerns at dfw@dnr.in.gov.

these folks are former leaders of Eli Lilly which has shut down and rerouted public roads in Indianapolis.

They were given $214 Million in state and local tax incentives for the promise of adding 7500 jobs -- which they never created.

This included getting Indianapolis to agree to pay $4 million for street and thoroughfare improvements through their corporate center location.

They then eliminated thousands of jobs with no accountability to the taxpayers.

Them putting up a big square dock and trying to get the rules changed is nothing... =)

Proof?? Links??