River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1896-06-11
Willow River Fishing Cases

Nine cases were called in Justice
Ensign's court on last Thursday grow.
ing out of the attempt of private par
ties to fish on what the Willow River
Club claims to be its private preserves
This club consists of st. Paul parties
who have bought, or leased, the lands
adjoining Willow River between the
Falls and the city of Hudson.
In the cases tried here the defend.
ants rendered judgment for six cents
damages and costs, admitting that
there was a technical trespass on the
plaintiffs land, which land they
crossed in going to the stream, but in
no manner admitting that they were
trespassers while in the stream, OF
that the plaintiff has any rights in
the fish in the stream superior to
those of others. The acceptance OF
this offer by the plaintiff would seem
as if il has abandoned its effort to re
cover for the value of the fish caught
We give below in full the opinion OF
Judge Bundy on the rights of the
public to fish in the stream in a case
decided last fall and which is now in
the supreme court.
OPINION OF THE COURT
The plaintiffs in this action seek to recover
for an Invasion of what they claim to he Their
right of fishing upon certain lands ia ST. Croi1
county.
Willow River, the stream in question: is and
for many years last past, has been noted trout
stream, not meandered and not navigable fol
any purposes of commerce, except for the pur
pose OF driving logs and, to limited extent
the use of small boats used for pleasure anc
fishing.
longs TO the owner Of the land through which
the stream ruus-in this case, the plaintiff
Burkhardt 1t is not disputed but that he de
PENDANTS entered upon the land OF plaintiff and
caught three trout of the value, when caught, o.
fifty cents.
The plaintiffs seek to recover as damages
first the value of the trout, and second, for the
unlawful entry upon the land.
As 20 the first claim to the value of the fist
caught. in my Judgment the plaintiffs canno
recover, because fish in their wild state, in al
the streams ani waters of this state belong t.
the state and held in trust for the use of the
people at large. 30 thai when the legislature
of the state 'are hereby declared TO be the prop
erty of the state aud may be taken for the use o.
the individual aud become his property at any
time and in any manner, not prohibited by the
laws of this state" were not announcing any
new doctrine. II has been the settled law o.
this country ever since the landing of the Pill
grim Fathers that the fish belong to the state fol
the benefit of the people at large.
The plaintiffs could. in the nature Of things
have no pos ible title 70 them; they belong &C
anybody who takes and kills them and IL IS i'm
material upon whose land tie catching is done
Fish in THIS state may be caught by any person
at an place where he has right 70 be. IL hs
is passing along highway, upon land or upon
navigable waters upon which he has q right Il
pass. he has a right incident 10 travel, Il
stop and shoot game angle for fish, at any
point along such highway
This Willow River being nayigable, he had
right, think. to pass 1t In boat. and II while
passing along he should throw out line AND
angle for fish. he would have perfect right (
do-so If he should tie up his boat and while
resting, exercise his right OF fishing, no one
could complain; and even IL he should sfer ~
of his boat into the bed Of the stream end thruv
line aud catch fish. don't think that woult
be actionable by the owner OF the land undel
the water. for the reason that no possible dam
age would be done 10 him He does not own tn,
fish and one man has as good a right TO catei
item as anc Their.
Ofcoarse he would not have right to cree
any permanent fishing works on the land o
smother or to draw a seine upon his land; mol
~ould the principle apply to an oyster bed 50 a.
tc pc rmif passerby TO take oysters from IL, bu
il does apply 10 fishing for migratory fish viii
| o hook d line.
have NOT referred to any case in this countr,