# Navigable waters,rivers,creeks



## Wood Smoke

Can anyone tell me where to find the supposed legal statute, legislation, etc (state or federal??) that says as long as you are on the water, and the waters are a navigable stream, creek, river,etc. that you have rights to be there and that landowners on either or both sides of a stream, river, or creek can not prohibit you from being on those waters?  I've always heard this but am curious to actually be able to read it and utilize it if needed.

C'mon.....we got to have some legal experts out there!  Thanks!


----------



## lablover0929

I think it goes back to some old, old, old Georgia navigation law that they have never changed or updated.

It always seemed to be a bunch of blank to me, but the CO's never could answer it either.

Good luck................


----------



## Gaducker

Navigable water means trade ships could navigate in the old days. On the flint if you can leagly access the water either by right of way or private property to get your boat in you were good as long as you stay in the boat. Thats per the gw and I got checked alot by diffrent gws in the early ninetys.  I dont believe there is much navigable waterways in Ga when you apply that rule.


----------



## Nitro

Most places in GA , if you step onto the bank, you are trespassing.

Unless you have a written permission slip from the landowner. 

Flame away!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## cut'em

Nitro said:


> Most places in GA , if you step onto the bank, you are trespassing.
> 
> Unless you have a written permission slip from the landowner.
> 
> Flame away!!!!!!!!!!!



Hit the nail on the head


----------



## JustUs4All

Gaducker has it.  Most waters in the state are private.  No stream, creek, or brook will be a navigable water.  Most rivers in the state are navigable up to the fall line where the first rapids are located.  Some and only a very few are navigable above that.  Those rivers will have a system of locks to move boats above this spot.   

A landowner can prevent boat access to any portion of a  non-navigable water that is on his property.  He can stretch a chain or cable over it if he wishes.


----------



## gamallardman

I could be wrong but I believe how state law reads (in my own shortened version) if the same person owns land on both sides of a slough then the slough is considered his.  All of the rivers in the state belong to Georgia so no one can keep you off the rivers unless it is a state law that you cant be on them.  Federal law basically says that if the area you are in rises and falls with the river levels or the tide then the water way is state land and that no one actually owns the water way.  But now if you get caught in a slough and someone that is unsportsman enough to call th gw because you are in a slough that you can drive your boat into, then you will get a ticket and probably going to have to pay a fine.  Don't really thik it would be worth the time or money to go to federal court and try to fight it.  Like I said before, I might be completely wrong but that is the way I understood it.


----------



## little rascal

*It's kinda like this*

the water in my farm pond belongs to the state(you&me/taxpayers). I stocked it with fish with my money, the state will stock it free if you wish to go that route, or used to would. If you could get into and back out of my pond without touching bottom(my land) or the adjacent banks etc, then you would be on state waters and not tresspassing on my land. 
However, they(my lands) would not fall under navigable waterways, but would be considered state waters. So if duck hunting access is only permitted where ever the statutes plus all the red tape reads as only navigable,  then there are a lot of places we do navigate that we aren't supposed too.
What does it all mean? And I'm sure 50 people decipher it 50 different ways.
What to do?
Use common sense, just cause Joe Farmer's 400 acre cornfield flooded doesn't mean it's navigable and you can run up in there from the river and hunt.
Be respectable and try to hunt away from docks, ramps, bridges, highways and public areas. The more folks(land owners, lake lot owners, non-hunters, bunny huggers) you expose it too, the faster your public hunting will dissappear.
Be invisible as much as possible and avoid landowner/hunter conflict and everyone is happy!


----------



## EEFowl

Navigable Waters and Waters of the State are two seperate things.  Waters of the State would include navigable waters and non-navigable waters.  
Someone mentioned that rivers in GA are navigable.  They are not.  The Flint is navigable, by legal definition, up stream to around Montizuma (sp), or somewhere around the fall line.  The Chattachoochee is navigable and/or publically owned upstream to the upper end of lake Lanier and probably somewhere past there.  The Chatt river in the mountains way above Lainer is privately owned property.  There are placed where the Forest Svc and Municipalities owns the river which is still in ownership but in those cases owned by the Govt.

EF


----------



## aaronward9

he's a troublemaker anyway fellas!  it doesn't matter what y'all tell him to do or not do, he ain't listenin!!  j/k!!  look forward to riding in the water with ya smoke!!  be back in GA on Monday.


----------



## quackaholic

its the states waters that go over the river bottom so your allowed to be there just dont get out of the boat and touch ground at that point you would be tresspassing


----------



## JustUs4All

quackaholic said:


> its the states waters that go over the river bottom so your allowed to be there just dont get out of the boat and touch ground at that point you would be tresspassing



If I were you I would not try that on Kiokee Creek where it crosses my farm.


----------



## jmfdakaniterider2

St8 from the GW mouth tonight the only place that is nav. around here is the old muddy till ya get to Hawkinsville


----------



## Coach N

If you own land on one side of the river, how far out can you wade and not be trespassing?  I spoke with the game warden from Taylor County and he told me we could hunt from our boat in the Flint as long as we did not get out, or tie off to the bank.  What I have realized about this topic over the last few months is that you had best check with the local game warden to see how they enforce it in your area, I know you could not navigate a comercial vessel in the Flint were our lease is.


----------



## quackaholic

the property goes to the center of the channel does not matter what side the channel is on the river


----------



## JustUs4All

quackaholic said:


> the property goes to the center of the channel does not matter what side the channel is on the river



Depends on how the property is deeded.  Channels change with time, land lines do not change with them.


----------



## quackaholic

thats just what i was told by dnr


----------



## JustUs4All

quackaholic said:


> thats just what i was told by dnr




Yep.  Most of them know the game laws forward and backward.  They sometimes have a little trouble with other things.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

http://www.ngaproperty.com/toccoariver.htm

Georgia Law Regarding  
Landowner Property Rights 
 on Toccoa River and Non-Navigable  
Streams and Rivers 
______________________________________

HOME 

  Disclaimer 
The information on this site should be considered "as-is" and should be verified. The maintainers of this site make an effort, when possible, to try to verify the information, but we are not lawyers and, therefore, we cannot and will not give legal advice. If you need accurate answers, hire an attorney who is licensed in the state in question or feel free to verify the information with the state and federal government. Some of the information provided on this site is directly from http://www.legis.state.ga.us which is an official website maintained by the State of Georgia. ___________________________________________________________________ 



LEGAL RESEARCH BY TRIPP BRIDGES (http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/National/SandBar/3.1comment.htm)

Tripp Bridges is a third-year law student at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, Georgia. The views expressed below are the author’s own. This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions and positions of the National Sea Grant Law Center and its affiliates.

Georgia is fortunate to have many rivers that can be used for recreational boating. Canoeing and kayaking are recreational activities enjoyed by many people in the state. These numbers will undoubtedly increase with the population growth of Atlanta and its suburbs. Generally canoeists have enjoyed relatively free access to many of Georgia’s larger rivers, however in recent years there have been some notable exceptions.


The following two cases exemplify the problems that the public has had in gaining access to some of Georgia’s non-navigable rivers. In Georgia Canoeing Assoc. v. Henry, 482 S.E.2d 298, 267 Ga. App. 814 (1997), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s opinion that the public did not have a right of passage down Armuchee Creek where it flowed through Mr. Henry’s land. The Georgia Canoeing Association was seeking to enjoin Mr. Henry from stopping free passage by the public down the river. In Givens v. Ichauway, Inc., 493 S.E.2d 148, 268 Ga. 710 (1997), the court found that the Ichauwaynochaway Creek was non-navigable, and therefore inaccessible to boaters, even though the appellant was able to navigate a small raft carrying two people, a goat, and a bale of cotton in attempts to prove navigability under the standard of commerce of the nineteenth century.


As illustrated by the aforementioned cases, current Georgia law does not allow a right of passage for the public down non-navigable rivers. According to O.C.G.A. § 44-8-2 the adjacent landowner owns the bed of a non-navigable river to the midpoint, and if the landowner owns both sides of the river, then ownership extends to the entire streambed. The same is true if the river is a boundary between properties; the landowners both own to the midpoint, and could join together and prohibit passage down the river.1 The legislature passed this law long before the start of any significant recreational boating in the region. This section of the code effectively prohibits the public from using many of Georgia’s scenic rivers. Consideration should be given to changing it to allow a right of through passage down non-navigable rivers.


At this time Georgia boaters only have a right of passage down navigable waters. Georgia’s definition of navigable is surprisingly restrictive. Under Georgia law, navigable streams are those “capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable.”2 Few rivers in Georgia qualify under Georgia law as navigable due to the fact many barges are over 200 feet long, and few rivers would be able to support such boats.3 This restrictive definition precludes a right of passage on most of Georgia’s rivers, including the Chattooga, Chestatee, and Toccoa, which are frequently used for canoeing.



GA DNR Q AND A (http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga.us/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=421)

Q: How is navigability defined in Georgia?  How does this relate to public access to waterways for the purposes of fishing, hunting, and boating?

A: This is a complex issue in Georgia because of the difficulty in determining whether or not a stream is navigable as described by Georgia law.  The following definitions in Georgia law describe navigable streams and tidewaters:

O.C.G.A. §44-8-5(a)  Navigable stream means a stream which is capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable. 
O.C.G.A. §44-8-7  Navigable tidewater is any tidewater, the sea or any inlet thereof, or any other bed of water where the tide regularly ebbs and flows which is in fact used for the purposes of navigation or is capable of transporting at mean low tide boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade. The mere rafting of timber thereon or the passage of small boats thereover, whether for the transportation of persons or freight, shall not be deemed navigation within the meaning of this code section and shall not make tidewaters navigable. 
These definitions were formulated in 1863 and speak in rather archaic terms. Therefore, the navigability of streams under state law is often decided on a case-by-case basis through court litigation.

The question of whether a stream is open to the public for fishing, boating, etc., must be determined on its physical characteristics and history, especially for smaller streams.  It comes down to whether the state owns the bottom (bed) of the stream or if the adjacent landowner owns it. The state owns the bed of navigable streams and adjacent landowners own the bed of non-navigable streams. If the state owns the bed, the stream is open to the public for fishing, wading, boating, and other public use and the owner of the adjacent land only owns to the low water mark (edge) on the bed of the stream [Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) §44-8-5(b)]. If the stream is non-navigable, the adjacent landowner may determine who can and cannot come onto the stream to fish or boat.  If different landowners own the land adjacent on either side of a stream, they each own to the thread or center of the main current.

A good rule of thumb is to always ask for permission to hunt and fish on private lands first to avoid problems.



QUICK FACTS (not opinions)

-The Toccoa River is legally classified as a non-navigable river. Opinions may vary on which rivers should or should not be classified navigable or non-navigable, however, the Toccoa river is still legally classified as a non-navigable river as are most rivers in Georgia. The status of navigable or non-navigable is not an opinion left up to individuals to decide upon, it is a legal classification.

-Property owners that own both sides of a non-navigable stream or adjacent property owners who let the public float through their property are doing so by their own choice. They do NOT have to let you pass (or FISH) through property on rivers classified non-navigable. This is a fact, not an opinion. It can be verified by trying to pass through some of the other rivers in Georgia, just like the Toccoa, that have been closed to passage for years. If you attempt to pass through you will be arrested and/or ticketed. You can verify this by contacting the appropriate authorities and asking if you can pass through or fish.

 -Owning property on non-navigable rivers and streams is how private fishing outfitters legally operate and it is also how the cattle industry is able to legally fence in the river to keep cattle inside their property

-There are many non-navigable rivers (most rivers in Georgia are classified non-navigable) and streams which have sections closed (and/or fenced) to passage by any means. I.E. golf course's, fishing outfitters, cattle farmers, land owners, etc.

-Dozens of people are arrested each year for either not knowing the law or knowingly disagreeing with the law. 

-It is your responsibility to know the law. It is NOT the property owners responsibility to explain the law to you if you are trespassing.

-Just because you have floated through private property before does not mean you can continue to do so after the property has been posted.

-The property does not have to be posted (keep out, no trespassing, etc) in order for you to be trespassing. If the property owner (or someone authorized) verbally asks you to leave, and you do not leave, then you are trespassing.



 -Remember, these are laws. Not everybody likes every law, but they are still laws non the less and there are consequences for breaking the law.



Regarding the fish(fact)

Many people will argue that nobody "owns" the fish in the river. They are exactly correct. Per DNR, It is no different than a deer standing on private property that is posted. The land owner does not own the deer, however, while the deer is on his property nobody can harm the deer or kill the deer. Per DNR, this is the same for fish in a river legally classified non-navigable in which the landowner owns both sides of the river and posts the river for "no fishing".

Disclaimer 
The information on this site should be considered "as-is" and should be verified. The maintainers of this site make an effort, when possible, to try to verify the information, but we are not lawyers and, therefore, we cannot and will not give legal advice. If you need accurate answers, hire an attorney who is licensed in the state in question or feel free to verify the information with the state and federal government. Some of the information provided on this site is directly from http://www.legis.state.ga.us which is an official website maintained by the State of Georgia.


----------



## JustUs4All

Very good post and as the Brits say, spot on.   It went into all the details that I left out of my several earlier posts.


----------



## Eroc33

what about the chatahoche river above helen can you walk from public land and keep going in front of the houses where they have posted signs on the banks.


----------



## JustUs4All

That will depend on what the land owners will allow.  The landowner may just want you to stay off the land and on the water.    Usually, if they want you off the water they will fence it or put a chain or cable across.  

If this is a place where tubing is allowed, it is possible that the State has acquired an easement from the landowners for the use of the river.


----------



## Wood Smoke

*Rivers and streams*

Scooter1........way to go and thanks for the in-depth research!  Pretty good info.  I've have to give that _"2 men, a bale of cotton, and a goat"_ thing a second try!   *Hey Aaron*.....this means that I already got the two men and the bale of cotton already....you can be the goat! 

I've just got the itch to go explore some smaller rivers, and one in particular that I am looking at now is actually fed by the outflow from a Corps. lake, and has a public (DNR managed) boat ramp.  Its the Ichanoolatikkahoopee River !


----------



## aaronward9

Wood Smoke said:


> Scooter1........way to go and thanks for the in-depth research!  Pretty good info.  I've have to give that _"2 men, a bale of cotton, and a goat"_ thing a second try!   *Hey Aaron*.....this means that I already got the two men and the bale of cotton already....you can be the goat!
> 
> I've just got the itch to go explore some smaller rivers, and one in particular that I am looking at now is actually fed by the outflow from a Corps. lake, and has a public (DNR managed) boat ramp.  Its the Ichanoolatikkahoopee River !



let's go!!!


----------



## Boudreaux

quackaholic said:


> its the states waters that go over the river bottom so your allowed to be there just dont get out of the boat and touch ground at that point you would be tresspassing


 


quackaholic said:


> the property goes to the center of the channel does not matter what side the channel is on the river


 


quackaholic said:


> thats just what i was told by dnr


 

You and I have been talking to different DNR agents, then.

As DNR explained it to me, most rivers in the state are not considered navigable.

Therefore, access to the use of the waterway can be restricted. My argument was that if it was state water, and I never touched the bottom or the bank, why couldn't I use the state water.

DNR said it's a logical thought, but was not the way the law is written.  Yes it is state water, and private landowners cannot restrict the flow of such water.  They can, however, restrict your access when that water flows across their land.  The can even put up a physical boundary across the water way - fence, rope, chain, etc - so long as it does not impede the flow of the states water.

Not what I wanted to hear, but if it's the law, it's the law.  I imagine if I had 100 acres with a river running through it, I wouldn't want everyone and their redneck cousin floating down through my property shooting off guns.  So I can understand the position of the landowners.  I also understand the position of the hunters/fisherman who want access to the state resources.  Until the law changes to allow sportsmen the access to state resources crossing private property, you won't see me trespassing.  No fish or bird is worth that to me.


----------



## lucymick

*Federal court has Ruled! The State of Georgia miss applies the law!*

the below link shows that the view of the state of Georgia (DNR)on navigable water has been missapplied in the past! Rivers that can be navigated are navigable and they don't have to be used for commerce to be navigable.  This is a federal law and is NOW law for Georgia based on the ruling in the case, which creates law.  This could be a big help to GA sportsmen.

http://www.natlawreview.com/article/georgia-rivers-are-navigable


----------



## The Longhunter

lucymick said:


> the below link shows that the view of the state of Georgia (DNR)on navigable water has been missapplied in the past!



Really?

I take it you didn't actually read the case.

Because if you had, you would have seen the part about both rivers' historic use as commercial waterways, which is the nexus of current Georgia law.

The decision is two years old, I haven't seen a lot of people ignoring current Georgia law relying on it.

FWIW, Georgia and the Feds can have two entirely different definitions of "navigable" which are equably applicable to their respective areas of responsibility.  For ex. Georgia and the Feds have their own definition of "firearm" and neither definition is binding on the other government.


----------



## longrangedog

In the state of Georgia which law enforcement agency has primary enforcement responsibility for trespassing violations on non navigable rivers?


----------



## JustUs4All

The local Sheriff, the DNR, and the land owner can swear out a criminal complaint.


----------



## jimboc

A few years ago Ichawaynochaway Plantation closed off the Nochaway Creek which has been used by locals for eons. Well a local good ole boy floated a raft down the creek with a goat and a bale of cotton to prove it was navigable for trade. He was arrested for trespassing. So it seems if you have lots of money and power, you can get any waterway closed.


----------



## Raybo1

jimboc said:


> A few years ago Ichawaynochaway Plantation closed off the Nochaway Creek which has been used by locals for eons. Well a local good ole boy floated a raft down the creek with a goat and a bale of cotton to prove it was navigable for trade. He was arrested for trespassing. So it seems if you have lots of money and power, you can get any waterway closed.


Yes they can. This is how GW's get to hunt and fish on the big land owners property.


----------



## across the river

The Longhunter said:


> Really?
> 
> I take it you didn't actually read the case.
> 
> Because if you had, you would have seen the part about both rivers' historic use as commercial waterways, which is the nexus of current Georgia law.
> 
> The decision is two years old, I haven't seen a lot of people ignoring current Georgia law relying on it.
> 
> FWIW, Georgia and the Feds can have two entirely different definitions of "navigable" which are equably applicable to their respective areas of responsibility.  For ex. Georgia and the Feds have their own definition of "firearm" and neither definition is binding on the other government.




This is correct.   In general, if it is river that runs to a city on the fall line, like the Chattahoochee, Ogeechee , Savannah, etc.... then you are free to fish or duck hunt it below the fall line.  Above the fall line, in most cases, the river or creek isn’t navigable.  There are some rivers that have historically been accessible and landowners allow it, but that doesn’t mean they have to. Just means they allow it or it is a pain to stop people when there are a bunch of other landowners who don’t want to
restrict access.   You are never allowed to walk along the bank in any case to access water unless the land is publicly owned and accessible.  You also can’t put in a creek with a canoe or kayak at a bridge and float to the next bridge on a creek unless the land the creek is on is public.   In general, don’t count on being able to fish or hunt it unless it is a major river and you are below the fall line.


----------



## Resica

Raybo1 said:


> Yes they can. This is how GW's get to hunt and fish on the big land owners property.


It is?


----------



## BeerThirty

I think the way the rules are written in GA regarding this topic are completely nonsense. In many other states, if you can access water publicly, can you can follow it as long as you stay in the water. Found a good many fishing and duck hunting spots doing this in my younger days. Not many folks were willing to walk a stream for miles...


----------



## across the river

BeerThirty said:


> I think the way the rules are written in GA regarding this topic are completely nonsense. In many other states, if you can access water publicly, can you can follow it as long as you stay in the water. Found a good many fishing and duck hunting spots doing this in my younger days. Not many folks were willing to walk a stream for miles...



I completely disagree.   Why should someone be able to kayak, much less simply walk all into someones property?  That makes zero sense, and there is reason it isn't allowed.   If you are talking about a major river you could drive a large down, then someone floating or boating on it has little if any impact to the landowner.   That is not the case if you are kayaking a creek or walking up a stream.


----------



## Mauser

jimboc said:


> A few years ago Ichawaynochaway Plantation closed off the Nochaway Creek which has been used by locals for eons. Well a local good ole boy floated a raft down the creek with a goat and a bale of cotton to prove it was navigable for trade. He was arrested for trespassing. So it seems if you have lots of money and power, you can get any waterway closed.


I have a hatred for anything to do with Ichaway because of that. I wish Carrol would  have won his case. Now we can only fish to the power dam.Makes me so dang mad when I see them on other parts of notchaway or chickasawhatchee doing their studies or whatever you want to call it.


----------



## BeerThirty

across the river said:


> I completely disagree.   Why should someone be able to kayak, much less simply walk all into someones property?  That makes zero sense, and there is reason it isn't allowed.   If you are talking about a major river you could drive a large down, then someone floating or boating on it has little if any impact to the landowner.   That is not the case if you are kayaking a creek or walking up a stream.



I'm talking about all waterways. And in most states, you can't leave the water, so technically you can't walk all over someone's property, i.e. land. It's ridiculous for someone to think they own the water and all the wildlife contained in it. Making a water shed impassable is just wrong.


----------



## across the river

BeerThirty said:


> I'm talking about all waterways. And in most states, you can't leave the water, so technically you can't walk all over someone's property, i.e. land. It's ridiculous for someone to think they own the water and all the wildlife contained in it. Making a water shed impassable is just wrong.



If you look at the property records, the land owner owns the land to center of the creek, stream, river, etc...   If they own both sides they own the land underneath the whole thing.   If you walk up the creek, then yes, you are walking on someones property.  If you are floating the creek, then you are on water on someones property.  Outside of a navigable waterway, you are a trespasser.  Most creeks and streams are impassable anyway in a kayak, canoe, etc..... without getting out to pull around rocks, trees, etc...  Why should someone have the right to canoe through, much less walk through, someones property in a stream?  That is an absolutely terrible idea. Just go to the public waterways we have now to see how people treat those.  In any of the western state the government owns half of the land.  You are comparing apples and oranges.


----------



## mguthrie

This law isn’t applied on large rivers north of the fall line. Me and many other people run the rivers that come into lake Jackson. I’ve floated the hooch many times through Duluth and Atlanta. I’ve rafted a couple rivers in north Georgia. Once with a guide service and many other rafts. There are public boat ramps on many of these rivers.


----------



## across the river

That is correct because a bunch of people own the land as well as typically the government.  It it’s worth the effort to trying to keep someone off of the little section of river most typically own and it can’t really be enforced if someone wanted to try to enforce it.  What is enforced on those rivers though is someone getting out on a private island or riding up a creek off the river that lies entirely on someone’s property.  I haven’t personally gotten one but have close friends that have received tickets and or warnings for both.


----------



## Nicodemus

Mauser said:


> I have a hatred for anything to do with Ichaway because of that. I wish Carrol would  have won his case. Now we can only fish to the power dam.Makes me so dang mad when I see them on other parts of notchaway or chickasawhatchee doing their studies or whatever you want to call it.




Carrol Givens was something else, no doubt that. I was also hoping he would win that one. He was a friend.


I wonder about the public landing and boat ramp at HWY 118 bridge over the Kinchafoonee Creek between Smithville and Bronwood? Every bit of the property on this creek is private, from where you can step across it on my wife`s ancestral homeland all the way down to where it merges with the Muckalee Creek.


----------



## Ruger#3

It was difficult getting used to the GA law on this subject having lived where the law permitted access as long as you stayed on or in the water.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Wasn't there a Spring Creek that that went private before Ichaway?


----------



## Nicodemus

Artfuldodger said:


> Wasn't there a Spring Creek that that went private before Ichaway?




That`s the Spring Creek that runs into Seminole between the Flint River and Fish Pond Drain. 

I`ll keep my thoughts to myself about that stretch of water.


----------



## GTMODawg

across the river said:


> I completely disagree.   Why should someone be able to kayak, much less simply walk all into someones property?  That makes zero sense, and there is reason it isn't allowed.   If you are talking about a major river you could drive a large down, then someone floating or boating on it has little if any impact to the landowner.   That is not the case if you are kayaking a creek or walking up a stream.




Why is it logical to ban the public from a river or creek that is flowing over someone's land but not "navigable"  and not logical to do the same on a "navigable" body of water?  The impact to the land owner is identical.  If it is logical to do so on a small creek or river above the fall line it should apply to major rivers below the fall line and no one other than property owners and those granted permission from the same should be allowed access. 

Presumably I can float a barge of something, say a chemical agent, from just south of Augusta to Savannah on the Savannah river and there is naught any land owners can say about it.  I may have to have some sort of permit from the state or federal governments but I would not be trespassing.  

Now lets say I am floating a canoe down a small creek in North Georgia.  Most likely I am trespassing...I am definitely trespassing if I am walking down the creek bed and its private property.  My presence on this creek is not as risky as my pushing a barge of chemicals from Augusta to Savannah but the land owner in the first instance is protected while the others are not.  It would make far more sense to simply not allow any use of any waterway by anyone other than the land owner if protecting the property of land owners is the point.  That will go over like a lead balloon....

One thing is for certain.....ANY body of water which has ANY private property restrictions should be completely excluded by ANY DNR stocking efforts or publicly funded improvements of any kind. I do not know if it is still so but 20 years or so ago there were several trout streams stocked by the state with little or no public access and the property owners were very serious about protecting their "property"...which consisted of a stream which had never held anything other than brook trout, if that, before the state of Georgia put trout in those marginal waters at the expense of all residents of the state.  That should never happen, but I would bet it is still going on and probably worse today than it was then.


----------



## across the river

GTMODawg said:


> Why is it logical to ban the public from a river or creek that is flowing over someone's land but not "navigable"  and not logical to do the same on a "navigable" body of water?  The impact to the land owner is identical.  If it is logical to do so on a small creek or river above the fall line it should apply to major rivers below the fall line and no one other than property owners and those granted permission from the same should be allowed access.
> 
> Presumably I can float a barge of something, say a chemical agent, from just south of Augusta to Savannah on the Savannah river and there is naught any land owners can say about it.  I may have to have some sort of permit from the state or federal governments but I would not be trespassing.
> 
> Now lets say I am floating a canoe down a small creek in North Georgia.  Most likely I am trespassing...I am definitely trespassing if I am walking down the creek bed and its private property.  My presence on this creek is not as risky as my pushing a barge of chemicals from Augusta to Savannah but the land owner in the first instance is protected while the others are not.  It would make far more sense to simply not allow any use of any waterway by anyone other than the land owner if protecting the property of land owners is the point.  That will go over like a lead balloon....
> 
> One thing is for certain.....ANY body of water which has ANY private property restrictions should be completely excluded by ANY DNR stocking efforts or publicly funded improvements of any kind. I do not know if it is still so but 20 years or so ago there were several trout streams stocked by the state with little or no public access and the property owners were very serious about protecting their "property"...which consisted of a stream which had never held anything other than brook trout, if that, before the state of Georgia put trout in those marginal waters at the expense of all residents of the state.  That should never happen, but I would bet it is still going on and probably worse today than it was then.



There is a huge difference in floating a barge or pontoon boat up the Savannah river for the purpose of commerce or recreation over land that is owned by a ton of different  people over a vast stretch of land verses some random redneck floating or walking half of mile on private land to fish a creek.  They aren’t even comparable.  Even the rivers above the fall line that have public boat ramps but no commerce’s no usually cover a bunch of different landowners and have different owners on different sides.   That is completely different than a creek flowing over a single or couple of land owners having people trample all up and down the creek fishing.  Completely different situations.   As far the fish stocking, there are plenty of instances where the DNR provides services for private land owners.  They will stock my private pond with bass, bream, and catfish at no cost, does that mean anyone should get to fish it?   The state stocked deer and turkey across the state, are the people with more land suppose to let those without much hunt?  No.  I don’t understand the argument.  Most wildlife management occurs on private land.  If you want a fish able population of trout up and down a larger length of creek, you can achieve that just stocking the few sections that exist on public land.  Just like it doesn’t make sense for the state to run a hatchery if they were only going to stock PFAs.


----------



## GTMODawg

across the river said:


> There is a huge difference in floating a barge or pontoon boat up the Savannah river for the purpose of commerce or recreation over land that is owned by a ton of different  people over a vast stretch of land verses some random redneck floating or walking half of mile on private land to fish a creek.  They aren’t even comparable.  Even the rivers above the fall line that have public boat ramps but no commerce’s no usually cover a bunch of different landowners and have different owners on different sides.   That is completely different than a creek flowing over a single or couple of land owners having people trample all up and down the creek fishing.  Completely different situations.   As far the fish stocking, there are plenty of instances where the DNR provides services for private land owners.  They will stock my private pond with bass, bream, and catfish at no cost, does that mean anyone should get to fish it?   The state stocked deer and turkey across the state, are the people with more land suppose to let those without much hunt?  No.  I don’t understand the argument.  Most wildlife management occurs on private land.  If you want a fish able population of trout up and down a larger length of creek, you can achieve that just stocking the few sections that exist on public land.  Just like it doesn’t make sense for the state to run a hatchery if they were only going to stock PFAs.




I don't see how the number of property owners makes any difference....if it is wrong to float over the property of one person's property it is wrong to do so over thousands of people's property.  If the intent is to protect the integrity of property owners rights then it should be applied equally to all property owners and no one other than the property owner and those they expressly allow to use their property should be allowed to access their property....and that means only that portion of the river or stream that they own.  The truth of the matter is that the state knows that will never float, no pun intended....because the people of this state wouldn't stand for it...so they apply an archaic measure dating back to a time when the king told people what to do and they did it or died and obfuscate the issue making it almost impossible to know when you are in the right or wrong and allowing property owners bent that way to pretend they are correct and having the power of the state to back them up.  I own a lot on the Ogeechee River and the Savannah river.  It it is not OK for me to access a river in North Georgia I don't see how its logical that folks from north Georgia can access my river (for what its worth neither are my river....but that is the stand that some would take).  

As far as stocking goes deer and turkey are indigenous species to Georgia and were depleted by mismanagement and habitat destruction.  They belong to all of the people of the state and are our responsibility...therefore it is a legitimate act of the state to fortify their numbers through stocking programs paid for by the people of the state.  There is only one species of "trout" native to Georgia and it ain't really a trout it is a Char.  Rainbows and Browns and all varieties other than brookies stocked by the state in trout streams for the purpose of harvesting by sportsman are raised and stocked with funds from ALL Georgians.  Those fish should not be stocked in any waterway where they are not accessible to the people who footed the bill for them to exist.  STocking actual native brook trout into private waters is legitimate because they are indigenous and as stewards of the state we should see to it that we keep the state as close to its original nature as possible.

Warm water species and stocking programs of native species is a legitimate function of the state on the taxpayers dime because we call benefit.  The state absolutely should stock private waters for a fee...but not for free.  If they do this they shouldn't....because it just ain't right to use public resources to benefit such a  narrow group of people such as a landowner and their immediate friends and family.  There are plenty of private fish hatcheries who will stock their water for a fee.


----------



## Mauser

Nicodemus said:


> Carrol Givens was something else, no doubt that. I was also hoping he would win that one. He was a friend.
> 
> 
> I wonder about the public landing and boat ramp at HWY 118 bridge over the Kinchafoonee Creek between Smithville and Bronwood? Every bit of the property on this creek is private, from where you can step across it on my wife`s ancestral homeland all the way down to where it merges with the Muckalee Creek.


He was a #1 bona fide baker county dirt road sport,last of a dying breed.i grew up eatin with my grandparents at his restaurant,hated he closed. Loved hearing all his crazy stories.


----------

