People Kept Asking to Cross Private Property to Fish the River — Then Damage, Litter, and Privacy Turned It Into a Problem

Owning land along a river can sound peaceful until strangers start treating that land like a public entrance.

That was the problem one property owner described after people repeatedly asked to cross private property to reach the river and fish. At first, it may have sounded like a simple favor. Someone wants to get to the water. The property happens to provide access. Letting them walk through might seem neighborly.

But over time, the owner said the situation became harder to ignore.

The property owner shared the concern on r/legaladvice, explaining that people kept wanting access to private property so they could reach the river for fishing: https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/1oayim2/people_wanting_access_to_my_private_property_to/

The issue was not only that people wanted to fish. Fishing itself was not the problem. The problem was that reaching the fishing spot meant crossing someone else’s land, and the owner did not want the property turned into an unofficial trail.

That kind of situation can become frustrating quickly. One person asks, then another. Someone tells a friend. A friend tells a cousin. Before long, a private driveway, yard, pasture, path, or riverbank starts feeling like a shared access point, even though the owner never agreed to make it one.

For the landowner, there were practical concerns.

People walking through private property can leave gates open, damage fences, create ruts, trample grass, disturb animals, or leave trash behind. Even people who mean well can cause problems if they do not know how the property is used. Someone may park in the wrong place. Someone may block access. Someone may walk through an area that is unsafe or sensitive.

Then there is the privacy issue.

A private property owner should not have to wonder who is walking across the land at any given time. They should not have to look out and see strangers heading toward the river. They should not feel pressured to say yes just because the water is nearby and people want to fish.

The property owner appeared to be caught between not wanting to be rude and not wanting the problem to grow. That is a difficult spot. Saying no can make a person feel unreasonable, especially if the request is framed as harmless. But saying yes can create expectations that are hard to undo.

The biggest concern was likely liability.

If someone is allowed to cross private land and gets hurt, the owner may worry about being blamed. A person could slip on a muddy riverbank, fall near rocks, get injured by a hidden hole, step into a dangerous area, get bitten by an animal, or have an accident while carrying fishing gear. Even if the owner did nothing wrong, an injury can still create stress, conflict, and legal questions.

That fear can make repeated requests feel much heavier than they look from the outside.

To the people asking, it may have been only a shortcut to a fishing spot. To the owner, it was a risk, an intrusion, and a possible opening for more problems later.

There is also the issue of precedent. Once land becomes known as a convenient fishing access point, stopping it can be hard. People may argue that they have always gone that way. They may ignore signs. They may assume permission from one past visit applies forever. Some may even start showing up without asking.

That is what makes private access disputes so tricky. The earlier they are handled, the easier they are to control. But many landowners hesitate at first because they do not want to create tension with locals, neighbors, or people who believe the river should be easy to reach.

The owner’s question was really about where to draw the line.

They were not trying to control the river itself. They were trying to control access across their own land.

What commenters said

Commenters generally encouraged the landowner to be firm about boundaries before the situation turned into a bigger pattern.

Several people said the owner should stop granting casual permission if they were uncomfortable with people crossing the property. Commenters warned that repeated informal access can create expectations, even if it does not automatically create legal rights.

Others recommended posting clear “No Trespassing” signs, marking boundaries, and making sure gates or access points were secured. Some also suggested documenting any damage, trash, or unauthorized entry.

A number of commenters focused on liability and said the owner should speak with a local attorney or insurance agent if they were considering allowing access. If the owner wanted to permit fishing access, commenters suggested doing it only with a written agreement, clear limits, and an understanding of local law.

But the strongest advice was simpler: the owner did not have to let strangers cross private property just because they wanted to fish.

To many commenters, the safest answer was to protect the land, protect the owner’s privacy, and avoid turning a private riverbank into a public shortcut.