Fish at large in a stream or other body of water are ferae naturae, and the right of property in them, so far as it can exist, is in the public, or in the state for the benefit of the public.1

93. State v. Mallory, 73 Ark. 236, 67 L. R. A. 773, 3 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 852, 83 S. W. 955; Schulte v. Warren, 218 111. 108, 75 N. E. 783, 13 L. R. A. N. S. 745; L. Realty Co. v. Johnson, 92 Minn. 363, 100 N. W. 94, 66 L. R.

A. 439; Payne v. Sheets, 75 Vt. 335, 55 Atl. 556. See note 18 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 458.

94. Wickham v. Hawker, 7 Exch. 62; Webber v. Lee, 9 Q.

B. D. 315; Bingham v. Salene, 15 Ore. 208, 3 Am. St. Rep. 152, 14 Pac. 523; Payne v. Shoots, 75 Vt. 335, 55 Atl. 556.

95. 2 Blackst. Comm. 419; Blades v. Higgs, 11 H. L. Cas. 621; Rexroth v. Coon, 15 R. I. 35, 23 Atl. 37, 2 Am. St. L.ep. 863; Payne v. Sheets, 75 Vt. 335, 55 Atl. 656.

96. Adams v. Pease, 2 Conn. 481; Schulte v. Warren, 218 111.

108, 75 N. E. 783; Sterling v. Jackson, 69 Mich. 488, 13 Am. St. Rep. 405, 37 N. W. 845; Stare v. Shannon, 36 Ohio St. 423; Hooker v. Cummings, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 90.

97. Queen v. Pratt, 4 E. & B. 860; L. Realty Co. v. Johnson, 92 Minn. 363, 66 L. R. A. 439, 100 N. W. 94.

98. Forestier v. Johnson, 164 Cal. 24, 127 Pac. 156; Diana Shooting Club v. Husting, 156 Wis. 261, 145 N. W. 816.

99. Sea editorial note in 27 Harv. Law Rev. at p. 750.

1. 2 Blackst. Comm. 391 et seq.; People v. Bridges, 142 111. 30, 16 L. R. A. 684, 31 N. E. 115; State v. Lewis, 134 Ind. 250; Treat v. Parsons, 84 Me. 520; State v. Blount, 85 Mo. 543; Fleet v. Hege-man, 14 Wend. (N. Y.) 42; MonThey are, however, if lawfully captured or confined by an individual, or when contained in a private pond having no communication through which they can pass to other waters, the subject of a qualified ownership.2 When the land under water belongs to the state, as in the case of navigable tidal waters, the larger lakes and, in some states, navigable non-tidal waters, the right to take fish, including shell fish, is common to all the public;3 and the right which thus originally resides in the public to take fish is not affected by the fact that, by grant or prescription, the land under the water becomes vested in an individual.4 The state may, however, grant to an individual the exclusive right, as against the public, of fishing in a particular body of water,5 and has full power to regulate the roe v. Withycombe, 84 Ore. 328, 165 Pac. 227; Peters v. State, 96 Tenn. 682.

2. People v. Bridges, 142 111. 30, 26 L. R A. 684, 31 N. E. 115; Gentile v. State, 29 Ind. 409; Treat v. Parsons, 84 Me. 520, 24 Atl. 946; Sollers v. Sollers, 77 Md. 148, 39 Am. St. Rep 404, 26 Atl. 188; State v. Roberts, 59 N. H. 256, 47 Am. Rep. 199; State v. Shaw, 67 Ohio St. 157, 60 L. R. A. 481, 65 N. E. 875; Peters v. State, 96 Tenn. 682, 33 L. R. A. 114, 36 S. W. 399.

3. Bagott v. Orr, 2 Bos. & P. 472; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 367, 10 L. Ed. 997; Manchester v. Massacnusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. Ed. 159; Exparte Bailey, 155 Cal. 472, 31 L. R. A. (N. S.) 534, 132 Am. St. Rep. 95, 101 Pac. 441; Chalker v. Dickinson, 1 Conn. 382, 8 Am. Dec. 250; Ex parte Powell, 70 Bl.-.. 363, 70 So. 392; Sollers v. Sollers, 77 Md. 148, 20 L. R. A. 94, 39 Am. St.

Rep. 404, 26 Atl. 188; Com. v. Chapin, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 199, 16 Am. Dec. 386; Weston v. Sampson. 8 Cush. (Mass ) 347.

4. 3 Kent, Comm. 417; Gould, Waters, Sec.Sec. 20, 26, 27; Bickel v. Polk, 5 Har. (Del.) 325; Moulton v. Libbey, 37 Me. 172, 59 Am. Dec. 59; Weston v. Sampson, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 347; Packard v. Ryder, 144 Mass. 440, 59 Am. Rep. 101. 11 N. E. 578; Hogg v. Beerman, 41 Ohio St. 81, 52 Am. Rep. 71; Johnson v. Jeldness, 85 Ore. 657, 167 Pac. 798. But the owner of the shore has the exclusive right of catching fish by means of fixtures annexed to the soil. M:.tthews v. Treat, 75 Me. 594; Locke v. Motley, 2 Gray (Mass.) 265.

5. Heckman v. Swett, 107 Cal. 276; Com v. Vincent, 108 Mass. 441; Paul v. Hazletor., 37 N. J. Law 106; Brookhaven v. Strong, 60 N. Y. 56; Collins v. Benbury, 25 N. C. 277, 38 Am. Dec. 722; Halleck v. Davis, 22 Wash. 393, mode in which the public shall exercise the right of fishing.6

In one or two states the right of fishing has been regarded as incident to the right of navigation, so as to give the public the right to take fish wherever the waters can be regarded as navigable, irrespective of the fact that the land under the water belongs to private individuals.7 Such a view is not, however, generally accepted,8 and is by no means satisfactory from the standpoint of principle.9 The general rule is that one who owns the land under non-tidal waters has the exclusive right to fish thereover,9a unless he, or his predecessor in interest, has granted the right of fishing to another, creating in him a right of profit a prendre.10

60 Pac. 1116. Contra, by force of constitutional provisions. Eagle Cliff Pishing Co. v. MeGowan, 70 Ore. 1, 137 Pac. 766.

6. Gould, Waters, Sec. 189; Manchester v. Massachusetts, 139 U. S. 240, 35 L. Ed. 159.

7. Willow River Club v. Wade, 100 Wis. 86, 42 L. R. A. 305, 76 N. W. 272; Winous point Shooting Club v Bodi, 57 Ohio St. 226, 48 N. E. 944 (semble); Winous Point Shooting Club v. Slaughterbeck, 96 Ohio 139, 117 N. E. 162 (semble). And see cases cited ante, this section, note 98. Compare State v. Shannon, 36 Ohio St. 423.

8. Hartman v. Tresise, 36 Colo. 146, 4 L. R. A. (N. S.) 872, 84 Pac. C85; Schulte v. Warren, 218 111. 108, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 745, 75 N. E. 783; New England Trout & Salmon Club v. Mather, 68 Vt. 338, 33 L. R. A. 569, 35 Atl. 323..

9. See editorial note, 16 Mich.

Law Rev. at p. 37.

9a. 3 Kent, Comm. 409; Murphy v. Ryan, Tr. Rep 2 C. L. 14C; O'Neill v. Johnston, (1909) 1 Ir. R. 237; Pearce v. Scotchcr. 9 Q. B. D. 162; Holyoke Water Power Co. v. Lyman, 15 Wall. (U. 3.) 500 20 L. Ed. 133; Adams v. Pease, 2 Conn. 481; Beckman v. Kreamer, 43 111. 447, 92 Am. Dec. 146; Com. v. Chapin, 5 Pick (Mass.) 199, 16 Am. Dec. 386; Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. Law 369; People v. Piatt, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 195, 8 Am. Dec. 382; Trustees of Brookhav n v. Strong, 60 N. Y. 56; Skinne:- v. Hettrick, 73 N. C. 53; Baylor v. Decker, 133 Pa. 168, 19 Atl. 351; Griffith v. Holman, 23 Wash. 347, 63 Pac. 239, 54 L. R. A. 178. 83 Am. St. Rep. 821; State v. Theri-ault, 70 Vt. 617, 41 Atl. 1030, 43 L. R. A. 290, 67 Am. St. Rep. 695.

10. Post Sec. 381.

The right of an individual to take fish in water upon his land does not involve the right to interfere with the passage of fish to other waters, as by the erection of dams and weirs,11 and the right must always be exercised in subordination to any right of navigation in the public,12 as well as to the right of the state or of the United States to interfere therewith in the improvement of navigation.13 Furthermore, the mode in which the right of fishing shall be exercised, so as not to interfere with the rights of the public in the preservation and propagation of fish, is frequently the subject of statutory regulation.14

11. 3 Kent, Comm. 411; Parker v. People, 111 111. 581; Com. v. Chapin, 5 Pick. (Mass.) 199. 16 Am. Dec. 386; State v. Roberts, 59 N. H. 256. 47 Am. Rep. 199.

12. Post Sec. 421.

13. Lewis Blue Point Oyster Cultivation Co. v. Briggs, 229 (J. S. 82, 57 L. Ed. 1083, affirming, 198 N Y. 287, 91 N. E. 846.

14. Lewis v. State, 110 Ark. 204, 161 S. W. 154; Bannon v. Logan, 66 Fla. 329, 63 So. 454; Parker v. People, 111 111. 581; Com. v. Chapin, 5 Pick. (Mass ) 199, 16 Am. Dec. 386; People v. Collison, 85 Mich. 105, 48 N. W. 292; State v. Mount, S5 Mo. 543; State v. Roberts, 59 N. H. 256, 47 Am. Rep. 199; Lawton v. Steele,

119 N. Y. 226, 7 L. R. A. 134 16 Am. St. Rep. 813, 23 N. E. 878; Monroe v. WithyCombe, 84 Ore. 328, 165 Pac. 227; Peters v. State, 96 Tenn. 682, 33 L. R. A. 114, 36 S. W. 399; Lincoln v. Davis, 53 Mich. 375, 5l Am. Rep. 116, 19 N. W. 103; Martin v. Waddell, 18 N. J. Law 496; Collins v. Benbury, 27 N. C. 118, 42 Am. Dec. 155; Bell v. Smith, 171 N. C. 116, 87 S. E. 987; Hogg v. Bperman, 41 Ohio St. 81, 52 Am. Rep. 71; Shrunk v. Schuylkill Navigation Co., 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 71; Allen v. Allen. 19 R. I. 114, 30 L R. A. 497, 61 Am. St. Rep. 738, 32 Atl. 166; Morris v. Graham, 16 Wash. 343, 58 Am. St. Rep. 33, 47 Pac. 752.