Meandered, non-meandered, and sloughs, oh my!

L

Limitless

Well-known member
Coming from Minnesota, where if you can access water from a public piece of land (public hunting areas, road right of ways, etc), you can hunt it, as long as there is ice under your feet, the SD situation always gives me headaches. Just when I think I do understand it, I read something that puts my understanding in jeopardy.

What would people say is allowable in the following situations?

Assume the bodies of water are not on the non-meandered waters list, to make this easier (maybe).

- Slough/lake/pond borders public land (or public water). Can access the frozen water from that public side, and hunt up to the edge of the water, as long as ice is under your feet?

- Slough/lake/pond borders public right of way. Can access the frozen water from that point, and hunt up to the edge of the water, as long as ice is under your feet?

There is a lot of info online about the non-meandered waters, but not as much for a plain old slough or pond, that might not even have a name.
 
Limitless said:
Coming from Minnesota, where if you can access water from a public piece of land (public hunting areas, road right of ways, etc), you can hunt it, as long as there is ice under your feet, the SD situation always gives me headaches. Just when I think I do understand it, I read something that puts my understanding in jeopardy.

What would people say is allowable in the following situations?

Assume the bodies of water are not on the non-meandered waters list, to make this easier (maybe).

- Slough/lake/pond borders public land (or public water). Can access the frozen water from that public side, and hunt up to the edge of the water, as long as ice is under your feet?

- Slough/lake/pond borders public right of way. Can access the frozen water from that point, and hunt up to the edge of the water, as long as ice is under your feet?

There is a lot of info online about the non-meandered waters, but not as much for a plain old slough or pond, that might not even have a name.
Click to expand...
Just hunt it.
 
If the body of water/slough is on private property it can't be hunted unless you have permission. Asked a CO in SD about this as MN you can access it. We were curious because years ago we were duck hunting in SD and wanted to hunt a slough that started on a WPA and transitioned to private property. He stated that even though you can access it from public property, once you cross the property line even if it's under water that you are now on private property and it that is trespassing. So even if you stay on the ice, it's considered private property.
 
waterdog09 said:
If the body of water/slough is on private property it can't be hunted unless you have permission. Asked a CO in SD about this as MN you can access it. We were curious because years ago we were duck hunting in SD and wanted to hunt a slough that started on a WPA and transitioned to private property. He stated that even though you can access it from public property, once you cross the property line even if it's under water that you are now on private property and it that is trespassing. So even if you stay on the ice, it's considered private property.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I wonder if others have had other answers given. Also possible things have changed over the years, as they have been more explicit about defining "navigable waters" in SD.
 
waterdog09 said:
If the body of water/slough is on private property it can't be hunted unless you have permission. Asked a CO in SD about this as MN you can access it. We were curious because years ago we were duck hunting in SD and wanted to hunt a slough that started on a WPA and transitioned to private property. He stated that even though you can access it from public property, once you cross the property line even if it's under water that you are now on private property and it that is trespassing. So even if you stay on the ice, it's considered private property.
Click to expand...

In SD if you access water/ice from a legal means, you can recreated on that water/ice. You cannot use the land under the water/ice without permission (i.e. wade or walk). If the body of water is legally marked per GFP guidelines, then you cannot recreate on that water surface. Now, throughout the years, CO's gave varying opinions depending on the county you were in. But the GFP's official position has always been "the water is public." Hence why they stocked all those sloughs and lakes once they flooded in the first place. Non-meandered waters might be a hot topic in the legislature again this winter; our GFP secretary proclaimed a few years ago that they were making awesome progress keeping water open and here we sit at a record of nearly 10,000 acres closed, including portions of water attached to meandered lakes which goes against the spirit of the law. GFP secretary Robling was instrumental in negotiating access to non meandered water before he was appointed secretary, and it's been downhill ever since. But when you're Noem's golden boy, you're not going to piss off her landowner friends and donors...
 
SPUR60 said:
In SD if you access water/ice from a legal means, you can recreated on that water/ice. You cannot use the land under the water/ice without permission (i.e. wade or walk). If the body of water is legally marked per GFP guidelines, then you cannot recreate on that water surface. Now, throughout the years, CO's gave varying opinions depending on the county you were in. But the GFP's official position has always been "the water is public." Hence why they stocked all those sloughs and lakes once they flooded in the first place. Non-meandered waters might be a hot topic in the legislature again this winter; our GFP secretary proclaimed a few years ago that they were making awesome progress keeping water open and here we sit at a record of nearly 10,000 acres closed, including portions of water attached to meandered lakes which goes against the spirit of the law. GFP secretary Robling was instrumental in negotiating access to non meandered water before he was appointed secretary, and it's been downhill ever since. But when you're Noem's golden boy, you're not going to piss off her landowner friends and donors...
Click to expand...
Thanks for the reply. I figured there might be some SD residents who are in the know on all this water rights stuff.

I've read that the meandered lakes have a concept of using the high and low watermarks to determine where you can go as well. My understanding, which could be wrong, is you can go up to the high water mark, as long as it is within 50 feet of the current water level edge. Or said another way, you can go as far as 50 feet from the low water mark, on a dry year, all the way up to the high water mark, on less dry years, as long as the current water is within 50 feet of that high water mark. How you determine where the low water mark and high water marks are is a bit of a mystery to me. They might have surveys for some lakes, but I doubt they have them for every pond and marsh.

Given the above, would you say it is safe if you stay on the ice or within 50 feet of the edge of the ice, where you can see that the 50 feet is clearly where there used to be water? (shore bank is visible, lake bed is visible, etc, so you know where water once was)

The final section of this document discusses this a bit:

This is a nicely written piece too, but not put out by the state: https://lexenergy.net/public-right-to-water-bodies/

Regarding the legal marking, with buoys, etc., it is my understanding that is only for the non-meandered list of waters. Is that not the case?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top