# Tresspassing question



## 8pointduck

I was talking with a young man today about shooting near a property line. The swamp where he hunts is 50   yards to the line with the rest of it on the other property . If he shoots a duck and it falls on the other mans property does he have to gain permition(sp) to go on this land or can he just go look for the duck? He is trying to tell me that he can because he has to attempt to retrieve said duck. I have always believed that you needed the owners confirmation  before you stepped foot on their land. The man in question does hunt and would readily catch them if they tried.  I never had to deal with this duck hunting so I'm just putting it out there to see what you guys have to say.


----------



## Resica

8pointduck said:


> I was talking with a young man today about shooting near a property line. The swamp where he hunts is 50   yards to the line with the rest of it on the other property . If he shoots a duck and it falls on the other mans property does he have to gain permition(sp) to go on this land or can he just go look for the duck? He is trying to tell me that he can because he has to attempt to retrieve said duck. I have always believed that you needed the owners confirmation  before you stepped foot on their land. The man in question does hunt and would readily catch them if they tried.  I never had to deal with this duck hunting so I'm just putting it out there to see what you guys have to say.


Without permission from the other property owner his attempt to retrieve said fowl ends at the property line.


----------



## 8pointduck

I tried to tell him but you can't tell the hardhead nothing.


----------



## T-N-T

I believe its in the regs book.  Im certain it talks about it relating to deer more so.  But deer or duck,  property lines are still lines.


----------



## g0nef1sshn

Some people need to learn the hard way. When it comes to laws, ill heed the advice until I find out for sure. Some rather just keep goin till their caught and play the dumb game.


----------



## steelshotslayer

Any land owner that gives someone a hard time about retrieving downed game is scum anyways and not a true sportsman.  This shouldn't even be a question because ethics and sportsmanship should keep people frok being idiots on this matter.


----------



## T-N-T

steelshotslayer said:


> Any land owner that gives someone a hard time about retrieving downed game is scum anyways and not a true sportsman.  This shouldn't even be a question because ethics and sportsmanship should keep people frok being idiots on this matter.



Agreed.  If you are looking for an animal you shot and you have an unloaded gun, or no gun at all you are doing what is ethical.
Around these parts, it an understood thing to just go get your deer (or whatever).  Retrieve it and go on with yourself.  No need to ask to collect your kill.


----------



## g0nef1sshn

TopherAndTick said:


> Agreed.  If you are looking for an animal you shot and you have an unloaded gun, or no gun at all you are doing what is ethical.
> Around these parts, it an understood thing to just go get your deer (or whatever).  Retrieve it and go on with yourself.  No need to ask to collect your kill.



than the "other other" people will tresspass knowingly and say, oh i was just looking for my dead whatever. guess it just makes a clear law that cant be mistooken.  I agree that you should just be able to go get your game. At the same time I see land owners rights. just get the permission, and if its not given, choose the shots wisely.


----------



## Scrapy

So said property line crosses a creek you can paddle a boat up.  

Property line crosses a navigable waterway? 

Somebody audacious enough to think he owns the creek I'll be glad to go to court on a frivolous trespassing charge.


----------



## jay sullivent

Scrapy said:


> So said property line crosses a creek you can paddle a boat up.
> 
> Property line crosses a navigable waterway?
> 
> Somebody audacious enough to think he owns the creek I'll be glad to go to court on a frivolous trespassing charge.



Someone can absolutely own the creek. I don't know of any creeks you can float a shipping barge down.


----------



## Scrapy

jay sullivent said:


> Someone can absolutely own the creek. I don't know of any creeks you can float a shipping barge down.


 Where you been?  If an ant can float on a coffee cup it is likely a navigable waterway by todays definition. 

Nobody can own a creek unless it is the kind found in the book "Trout Fishing in America".


----------



## KINCHAFooneeryan

Scapy you need to read the thousands of court cases involving "navigable waterways". I don't really get what you mean by today's definition....because the law sure doesn't.


----------



## kmckinnie

What if he shoots it over theother propery and it lands on his,is that legal.


----------



## g0nef1sshn

popcorn cookin.


----------



## KINCHAFooneeryan

> popcorn cookin.


Yep...gets brought up every year.


----------



## jakebuddy

You have no right to cross onto lands of another     .    The proper thing to do is to contact the land owner and get permission they may say yes may say no but without permission even without a weapon its trespass, with a gun hunting w/out permission. Any game any season.


----------



## Scrapy

KINCHAFooneeryan said:


> Scapy you need to read the thousands of court cases involving "navigable waterways". I don't really get what you mean by today's definition....because the law sure doesn't.



I have read thousands, probably hundreds though. Including the 1896 Rivers and Harbors Act, law on Navigable Waterways: the expansion of the definition to include adjacent wetlands under the Clean Water Act; and adjunct *******izations of it to the current day.

Not just a brief skimming over. I have read and reread them many times.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Scrapy said:


> So said property line crosses a creek you can paddle a boat up.
> 
> Property line crosses a navigable waterway?
> 
> Somebody audacious enough to think he owns the creek I'll be glad to go to court on a frivolous trespassing charge.



just because you can get a canoe up the creek does not mean it meets the definition of navigable waters in Georgia.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

Georgia Law  OCGA 44-8-5

A waterway is considered navigable if it is "capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for a whole or a part of the year. The mere transporting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable"


----------



## Scrapy

NE GA Pappy said:


> Georgia Law  OCGA 44-8-5
> 
> A waterway is considered navigable if it is "capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for a whole or a part of the year. The mere transporting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable"


Federal law goes on to include " waterways that may have been used in the past as well as modified to serve in the future".  

For some crazy reason "Kings Grant" "Bottom Muds" still holds some sway proved that you are direct descendant of such grant with an unbroken chain of title to said lands.


----------



## NE GA Pappy

scrapy, so you would agree that a creek you can float a canoe on probably will not meet the legal description of navigable waters?


----------



## JustUs4All

steelshotslayer said:


> Any land owner that gives someone a hard time about retrieving downed game is scum anyways and not a true sportsman.  This shouldn't even be a question because ethics and sportsmanship should keep people frok being idiots on this matter.



If the woods were filled with sportsmen instead of thieves and poachers, i would agree with you.



Scrapy said:


> I have read thousands, probably hundreds though. Including the 1896 Rivers and Harbors Act, law on Navigable Waterways: the expansion of the definition to include adjacent wetlands under the Clean Water Act; and adjunct *******izations of it to the current day.
> 
> Not just a brief skimming over. I have read and reread them many times.



You are going to need to read them again, Scrappy.  Federal law does not control on this issue.


----------



## chase870

Send the dog, never seen a dog get a trespassing ticket.


----------



## Scrapy

NE GA Pappy said:


> scrapy, so you would agree that a creek you can float a canoe on probably will not meet the legal description of navigable waters?


canoe might be running Rum for interstate Commerce then or Pot now.

I agree on the need for common sense functional values boundaries. But we are talking about Law in general and Trespass Law in specific.


----------



## groundhawg

Scrapy said:


> I have read thousands, probably hundreds though. Including the 1896 Rivers and Harbors Act, law on Navigable Waterways: the expansion of the definition to include adjacent wetlands under the Clean Water Act; and adjunct *******izations of it to the current day.
> 
> Not just a brief skimming over. I have read and reread them many times.



May have read them but sure do not understand them.


----------



## KINCHAFooneeryan

There's no need to argue this. If you interpret the law one way...so be it. I don't have the money to argue with the courts so I'll stick with state law. 

I would however try to refrain giving/taking legal advice from an internet forum. 

I personally believe all legal questions should go to the person responsible for writing the tickets....not someone who could get one.


----------



## jay sullivent

You are dead wrong scrappy.


----------



## Millcreekfarms

When I coonhunted we would ask owners permission to get our dogs the ones that said no we told em to go ahead and call the law because were going to go get our dogs some people are nutts about their property lines but I will always retrieve wounded or dead game if I have to pay a ticket for being a sportsman I will


----------



## steelshotslayer

Not saying scrappy is right but recently the EPA has made a big push to change the definition of "federal" waters to just about include anything down to a roadside ditch.  If this continues it will make any water way you can get a boat in to be a federal waterway and the issue will resolved until all of that is finalized though there is way to much grey area for me to worry with.


----------



## KINCHAFooneeryan

steelshotslayer...I think you are referring to the feds definition of wetlands .


----------



## rhbama3




----------



## Scrapy

groundhawg said:


> May have read them but sure do not understand them.



I have permission on most places I continue to hunt simply because I access through private land. I could hunt those same Waters of the U.S. If I took a notion to power, paddle , or pole a johnboat/batow  for 24 hrs to get there. Then If a duck fell on the Hill I would need permission from the private land owner. Even if it fell across a dike into a privately managed pond. But not an illegal pond.  Also, if the duck fell where I could paddle /pole to it on the adjacent non stream flow backwaters of said creek / watershed , I would go get it.  

It is not settled case law such as retrieving cattle that got on lands of another due to an "Act of God" where a limb tore down the fence and the cows got out.

This is not settled Law for the obvious reason no side wants it settled. Common sense be danged. It ain't River Keepers + Siera Club V. Duck Unlimited, GA Water Fowl Associations ; They all fall into the same category of Doo Gooders that Own more than an acre they pay tax on. If they do pay tax it is with your tax money, not theirs . They are in bed together. 

It is not settled law. It is in all cases where a socalled land owner of land that he does not own brings suit on a accused Trespasser. How can I bring suit on anybody for being on land I don't own?????  

You are right. Don't listen to me. But don't stick your tail between your legs river duck hunters, and listen to anyone else either. It IS a deception carried out by those wanting to "Own" something that they do not Own.  Threats of Trespass is enough to make most River Duck Hunters turn around and scoot.  It has worked for years and years and even lawyers and judges believe it . Be prepared to take on a Private landowner head to head. He has bigger fish to fry such as how to pay the Tax on the rest of the property he is due to pay property Tax on .  A Conservation Easement Ownership is a JOKE .  Private Land Ownership I truly believe will allow you to fetch your duck no question asked. It is the Snakes in the Grass you got to be careful of, JMO not legal advise at all.


----------



## Scrapy

KINCHAFooneeryan said:


> steelshotslayer...I think you are referring to the feds definition of wetlands .


 As well as adjacent wetlands that might be dry as a chip most of the time. I am talking about Olde English Laws of Navigation where a Man is the Captain of the Ship he sails. Those on board obey, no questions asked.
 I claim to remain the Captain of the life I lead.  This is very dangerous business. Always has been and always will be. Much easier to say Yassah or EYEEYE Sir. But it also means things like a democracy is fit for no man but the JUST. Which puts a lot of responsibility on a Captain.   Folks were Subject to a King. No wonder they wanted to have their own little boat. Or Big Boat. You decide, but if you never experienced the feeling of being Truly Free I am talking on deaf ears.


----------



## Scrapy

KINCHAFooneeryan said:


> There's no need to argue this. If you interpret the law one way...so be it. I don't have the money to argue with the courts so I'll stick with state law.
> 
> I would however try to refrain giving/taking legal advice from an internet forum.
> 
> I personally believe all legal questions should go to the person responsible for writing the tickets....not someone who could get one.



I personally believe  all legal guestions should be addressed to Our Representatives responsible for either singing on to or initiating said " Fake, unconstitutional laws,  and /or allowing such laws . Not for the NOME responsible for writing said ticket. NOME;  He jussa dooin his percievededed jawb after all, without a clue nor a nickel in it. Just a check at the end of a pay period.

What say you to that?


----------



## Scrapy

rhbama3 said:


>



Let me see if I got de jist of dis ? A uniformed sweet bear, Irate with one that for a, BUT FOR, KEEP  THE MARKET ALIVE,did I miss something?


----------



## MudDucker

steelshotslayer said:


> Any land owner that gives someone a hard time about retrieving downed game is scum anyways and not a true sportsman.  This shouldn't even be a question because ethics and sportsmanship should keep people frok being idiots on this matter.




Hmmm, you are about as wrong as a flat football.  Do you know how many people purposefully hunt on property lines and shot at game across the line and then use this excuse to trespass.  You can wish for sportmanship and ethics in one and defecate in the other and I can tell you which hand will be full and smelly!


----------



## MudDucker

Scrapy said:


> I have permission on most places I continue to hunt simply because I access through private land. I could hunt those same Waters of the U.S. If I took a notion to power, paddle , or pole a johnboat/batow  for 24 hrs to get there. Then If a duck fell on the Hill I would need permission from the private land owner. Even if it fell across a dike into a privately managed pond. But not an illegal pond.  Also, if the duck fell where I could paddle /pole to it on the adjacent non stream flow backwaters of said creek / watershed , I would go get it.
> 
> It is not settled case law such as retrieving cattle that got on lands of another due to an "Act of God" where a limb tore down the fence and the cows got out.
> 
> This is not settled Law for the obvious reason no side wants it settled. Common sense be danged. It ain't River Keepers + Siera Club V. Duck Unlimited, GA Water Fowl Associations ; They all fall into the same category of Doo Gooders that Own more than an acre they pay tax on. If they do pay tax it is with your tax money, not theirs . They are in bed together.
> 
> It is not settled law. It is in all cases where a socalled land owner of land that he does not own brings suit on a accused Trespasser. How can I bring suit on anybody for being on land I don't own?????
> 
> You are right. Don't listen to me. But don't stick your tail between your legs river duck hunters, and listen to anyone else either. It IS a deception carried out by those wanting to "Own" something that they do not Own.  Threats of Trespass is enough to make most River Duck Hunters turn around and scoot.  It has worked for years and years and even lawyers and judges believe it . Be prepared to take on a Private landowner head to head. He has bigger fish to fry such as how to pay the Tax on the rest of the property he is due to pay property Tax on .  A Conservation Easement Ownership is a JOKE .  Private Land Ownership I truly believe will allow you to fetch your duck no question asked. It is the Snakes in the Grass you got to be careful of, JMO not legal advise at all.




I hope you didn't pay too much for your online legal degree!    If you are not an LEO, you can not legally enter upon the land of another for any purpose without permission or you are trespassing.  Any LEO other than a game warden must have a warrant unless it private property that invites public entry such as a place of business.

BTW, I suggest you don't try paddling up my creek or you might find yourself up a creek without a paddle and with a big fine.


----------



## Scrapy

MudDucker said:


> I hope you didn't pay too much for your online legal degree!    If you are not an LEO, you can not legally enter upon the land of another for any purpose without permission or you are trespassing.  Any LEO other than a game warden must have a warrant unless it private property that invites public entry such as a place of business.
> 
> BTW, I suggest you don't try paddling up my creek or you might find yourself up a creek without a paddle and with a big fine.



As I stated plainly above, I am not a lawyer. I am a Citizen. I read and I KNOW my rights.  I am not an LEO If you are looking for LEO to interpret Law? Well> If I paddle up "YOUR" creek quote unquote , I may find myself dead.   You might find yourself doing LIFE. I doubt either of us will be worrying about a fine from leo.

In matter of fact in law, a leo CANNOT enter into private lands without a duly procured search Warrant. See you in the funny papers.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg

Wow-This Duck Hunting Is A More Emotional Type Of Hunting Than I Thought !!!


----------



## rhbama3

Scrapy said:


> Let me see if I got de jist of dis ? A uniformed sweet bear, Irate with one that for a, BUT FOR, KEEP  THE MARKET ALIVE,did I miss something?



Yes.
The original post was whether the guy could legally cross a property line to retrieve a downed duck. The thread is now a discussion of what qualifies as navigable waters, and old english laws vs. Federal laws, etc...
Can the guy get his duck or not?


----------



## T-N-T

MudDucker said:


> Hmmm, you are about as wrong as a flat football.  Do you know how many people purposefully hunt on property lines and shot at game across the line and then use this excuse to trespass.  You can wish for sportmanship and ethics in one and defecate in the other and I can tell you which hand will be full and smelly!



Hunting on the line in hopes of "getting" to trespass to retrieve game gains nothing.  
If you are hoping to trespass so you can shoot more game across the line, then you are no longer just doing what is ethical by retrieving your game.  
IF you shoot at game across the line then you were doing wrong from the get go.  

The comment was to go ethically retrieve wounded game that got across the line before death.  And in that instance, Everyone should have a right to retrieve said game.  Those who say "no, you cannot come onto my land to gather a dead animal.....I wish for it to rot in the woods" is in fact a scumbag.


----------



## glynr329

You can tell who has land of their own and who does not. I promise if your animal falls on my property ask nicely I probably will say sure go get it or maybe I will even help you. It is called respect but if I catch you without asking I will do everything I can to prosecute you. People who give respect usually gets respect.


----------



## T-N-T

glynr329 said:


> You can tell who has land of their own and who does not. I promise if your animal falls on my property ask nicely I probably will say sure go get it or maybe I will even help you. It is called respect but if I catch you without asking I will do everything I can to prosecute you. People who give respect usually gets respect.



I own 10 acres.  and have family who owns more.  If any of us were to find you nose to the ground looking for blood,  or feathers,  we would all fall in with you looking.  
To some, there is a difference in trespassing and retrieving game.  They are two things to me.
If you were driving down the road and your wheel broke off your car and rolled up in my yard I would expect you to walk over and get it...


----------



## jay sullivent

If I can contact landowner and ask I will, if I'm unable to do so quickly, I'm getting my duck. Either way I'm getting my duck and I'm not gonna wait long to do it


----------



## Nicodemus

As I`ve said many times, don`t bother to try to find me, just go get your game. Leave any gates as you find them, don`t tear up anything nor run over any trees or crops, and leave only your tracks. Do that and there won`t ever be a word said.

And yes, I am a landowner.


----------



## Resica

jay sullivent said:


> If I can contact landowner and ask I will, if I'm unable to do so quickly, I'm getting my duck. Either way I'm getting my duck and I'm not gonna wait long to do it



Why not attempt to gain access before you ever hunt?


----------



## Joe Overby

Don't ask, don't get caught...don't have a problem. Don't ask, do get caught...you gonna have a big problem. Dont shoot ducks near the property line and this won't even be a discussion. Everybody wants to make this a complicated matter when in fact it is very simple...don't hunt an area where retrieval of game may put you in a bad spot.


----------



## JustUs4All

Scrapy said:


> In matter of fact in law, a leo CANNOT enter into private lands without a duly procured search Warrant. See you in the funny papers.




Wrong again there Scrappy.

Mr Overby has given about the best answer to the original question.


----------



## southerngreenscape

chase870 said:


> Send the dog, never seen a dog get a trespassing ticket.



x2 x2


----------



## Resica

southerngreenscape said:


> x2 x2



Still trespassing.


----------



## steelshotslayer

Joes response to not hunt next to the isnt a good response if I legally own property that has a swamp that splits the line im not gonna just not hunt it cause the owner next to me might get mad about me walkin 10 yards to pick up my dead duck.  As tropher said I'm willin to help anyone track a downed animal and to try and prevent that or say its disrespectful for someone to attempt it without hunting you down prior just to ask shows you arent a true sportsman.


----------



## jay sullivent

Resica said:


> Why not attempt to gain access before you ever hunt?



Yes, if there is a house on the property that I can go up to and knock on the door and introduce myself.... Of course.  But tracking down a landowner through the tax assessor, and mailing a letter or something like that..... I'll take my chances


----------



## T-N-T

jay sullivent said:


> Yes, if there is a house on the property that I can go up to and knock on the door and introduce myself.... Of course.  But tracking down a landowner through the tax assessor, and mailing a letter or something like that..... I'll take my chances



Yep.

If you are truly just getting downed animals, you wont be there long anyway.  Right or wrong,  if you are in and out, you are likely not going to raise any eyebrows in doing so.


----------



## Resica

jay sullivent said:


> Yes, if there is a house on the property that I can go up to and knock on the door and introduce myself.... Of course.  But tracking down a landowner through the tax assessor, and mailing a letter or something like that..... I'll take my chances



I guess don't get bent out of shape if you get a fine and lose your license, or whatever the penalty would be in that situation. As long as you're aware of possible repercussions and are willing to deal with them, have at it.
  I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'd let you retrieve if you asked.


----------



## 8pointduck

I did not ask ya'll to start a war hear. I wanted to know if I was right about the law. I did not say the man would not let them get there ducks. I simply stated that the man hunted too so he knows his land and if he caught them over on his side could think they were hunting on his property. Today with so many dishonest people you can't get many folks to believe anything you say. I know of people who crossed the line to track a deer. they did not realize they had crossed the line and the land owner found out while they were tracking and call DNR. They found the deer and was taking it back but was intercepted by the officer. No matter if they did not realize they were trespassing or not . They both got fined. Too many folks do not read the regs. but think they  know more than everybody else. This is what I was dealing with.


----------



## Resica

8pointduck said:


> I did not ask ya'll to start a war hear. I wanted to know if I was right about the law. I did not say the man would not let them get there ducks. I simply stated that the man hunted too so he knows his land and if he caught them over on his side could think they were hunting on his property. Today with so many dishonest people you can't get many folks to believe anything you say. I know of people who crossed the line to track a deer. they did not realize they had crossed the line and the land owner found out while they were tracking and call DNR. They found the deer and was taking it back but was intercepted by the officer. No matter if they did not realize they were trespassing or not . They both got fined. Too many folks do not read the regs. but think they  know more than everybody else. This is what I was dealing with.



It's not your fault. Property line questions always stir interest and different opinions. It makes for interesting internet chatter. Sometimes we go over the line and it gets a little heated.


----------



## T-N-T

Resica said:


> It's not your fault. Property line questions always stir interest and different opinions. It makes for interesting internet chatter. Sometimes we go over the line and it gets a little heated.



That's it.  The waterfowl forum is where we come to get our daily arguments in...  
Some opinions are stronger than others is all.


----------



## Throwback

your "reasonable effort to retrieve" ends at said property line. 

yes you would have to get permission to retrieve them to be legal. yes the landowner could prosecute you if they wanted to. 

T


----------



## The Longhunter

Throwback said:


> your "reasonable effort to retrieve" ends at said property line.
> 
> yes you would have to get permission to retrieve them to be legal. yes the landowner could prosecute you if they wanted to.
> 
> T



I can point you to several tracts of land in the Brunswick/White Oak area where you can _count_ on being prosecuted if you try to retrieve game on them.  You can call them all the names that you want to, they got enough money, they don't care.


----------



## Eugene Stinson

8pointduck said:


> I was talking with a young man today about shooting near a property line. The swamp where he hunts is 50   yards to the line with the rest of it on the other property . If he shoots a duck and it falls on the other mans property does he have to gain permition(sp) to go on this land or can he just go look for the duck? He is trying to tell me that he can because he has to attempt to retrieve said duck. I have always believed that you needed the owners confirmation  before you stepped foot on their land. The man in question does hunt and would readily catch them if they tried.  I never had to deal with this duck hunting so I'm just putting it out there to see what you guys have to say.



Wouldn't the easiest thing to do is get the permission BEFORE the season starts. Either yes or no, the question would already be settled. Then YOU and only you can decide if you want to go get it or not and take the chance.

Common Sense Is So Rare These Days, It Should Be Classified As a SUPERPOWER.


----------



## tradhunter98

kmckinnie said:


> What if he shoots it over theother propery and it lands on his,is that legal.



Why you gotta throw a curve ball in there??


----------



## Throwback

Eugene Stinson said:


> Wouldn't the easiest thing to do is get the permission BEFORE the season starts. Either yes or no, the question would already be settled. Then YOU and only you can decide if you want to go get it or not and take the chance.
> 
> Common Sense Is So Rare These Days, It Should Be Classified As a SUPERPOWER.





but...but....but....what if they say no?



T


----------



## Throwback

8pointduck said:


> I did not ask ya'll to start a war hear. I wanted to know if I was right about the law. I did not say the man would not let them get there ducks. I simply stated that the man hunted too so he knows his land and if he caught them over on his side could think they were hunting on his property. Today with so many dishonest people you can't get many folks to believe anything you say. I know of people who crossed the line to track a deer. they did not realize they had crossed the line and the land owner found out while they were tracking and call DNR. They found the deer and was taking it back but was intercepted by the officer. No matter if they did not realize they were trespassing or not . They both got fined. Too many folks do not read the regs. but think they  know more than everybody else. This is what I was dealing with.





people belive what they want to believe. 
just look at all the "black panthers" that are seen every year. 


T


----------



## Eugene Stinson

You are considered hunting where your eyes are looking. Just like deer hunting. If you are on the line and facing a property you don't have permission to hunt, then you are hunting illegally.


----------



## MudDucker

Scrapy said:


> As I stated plainly above, I am not a lawyer. I am a Citizen. I read and I KNOW my rights.  I am not an LEO If you are looking for LEO to interpret Law? Well> If I paddle up "YOUR" creek quote unquote , I may find myself dead.   You might find yourself doing LIFE. I doubt either of us will be worrying about a fine from leo.
> 
> In matter of fact in law, a leo CANNOT enter into private lands without a duly procured search Warrant. See you in the funny papers.



Again, your opinions are dangerous, because someone might believe them.  First, I am not, nor are any landowners I know, going to shot someone for paddling up a creek.  Many reasonable folks don't enjoy incarceration or fines.

A Game Warden, who is an LEO, can enter property without a warrant to search for game violations.

Have a nice day!


----------



## MudDucker

rhbama3 said:


> Yes.
> The original post was whether the guy could legally cross a property line to retrieve a downed duck. The thread is now a discussion of what qualifies as navigable waters, and old english laws vs. Federal laws, etc...
> Can the guy get his duck or not?



The answer is NO you may not trespass to recover game.  Legally you must ask for permission.


----------



## MudDucker

TopherAndTick said:


> Hunting on the line in hopes of "getting" to trespass to retrieve game gains nothing.
> If you are hoping to trespass so you can shoot more game across the line, then you are no longer just doing what is ethical by retrieving your game.
> IF you shoot at game across the line then you were doing wrong from the get go.
> 
> The comment was to go ethically retrieve wounded game that got across the line before death.  And in that instance, Everyone should have a right to retrieve said game.  Those who say "no, you cannot come onto my land to gather a dead animal.....I wish for it to rot in the woods" is in fact a scumbag.



If someone asked me and I determined that they were not hunting the line, I would allow them to retrieve.  If I caught them without permission, I would let them talk to the Sheriff.

It is easy for you as a keyboard tiger to call people names like scumbag.


----------



## northgeorgiasportsman

Eugene Stinson said:


> You are considered hunting where your eyes are looking. Just like deer hunting. If you are on the line and facing a property you don't have permission to hunt, then you are hunting illegally.



Do what????  If I want to set up right on my side of the line and stare your property, I'm still hunting legally on MY side of the line.  Please show me in the regulations or in any other legal document where it says I'm hunting wherever my "eyes are looking."


----------



## GSURugger

Eugene Stinson said:


> You are considered hunting where your eyes are looking. Just like deer hunting. If you are on the line and facing a property you don't have permission to hunt, then you are hunting illegally.



Did that make sense in your head?


----------



## king killer delete

You can not make this stuff up


----------



## Joe Overby

steelshotslayer said:


> Joes response to not hunt next to the isnt a good response if I legally own property that has a swamp that splits the line im not gonna just not hunt it cause the owner next to me might get mad about me walkin 10 yards to pick up my dead duck.  As tropher said I'm willin to help anyone track a downed animal and to try and prevent that or say its disrespectful for someone to attempt it without hunting you down prior just to ask shows you arent a true sportsman.



I'm sorry you don't like it. I really am....but if you don't hunt next to the line then there is no worry about tracking wounded game across the line. Don't like it?? Buy more land. Listen, I am with the camp that says its better to ask forgiveness than permission. However, don't think for one minute that it is legal...regardless of our stubborn opinion. Consequences be darned we will attempt to retrieve what we believe is rightfully ours. However, that doesn't make us right. The simple solution is not to hunt a spot where it might put us in a morally compromising situation. The way I see it is you can ask permission from the neighbor, you can attempt to lease the swamp from the neighbor, or you can simply buy the swamp and then the line in question and this entire situation is moot. If you can't buy it, and the neighbor won't lease it or grant permission otherwise then I suggest not hunting where bail money might be required.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg

I forgot the question !!  What was it again ??!!


----------



## jay sullivent

Atlanta Dawg said:


> I forgot the question !!  What was it again ??!!



The question is if someone beats you to your spot on public land that you cyberscouted and shoots before legal time, can you get their duck if you spot name a roost


----------



## Atlanta Dawg

jay sullivent said:


> The question is if someone beats you to your spot on public land that you cyberscouted and shoots before legal time, can you get their duck if you spot name a roost



Of course you can !!!


----------



## T.P.

GSURugger said:


> Did that make sense in your head?



I hope not.


----------



## groundhawg

Eugene Stinson said:


> You are considered hunting where your eyes are looking. Just like deer hunting. If you are on the line and facing a property you don't have permission to hunt, then you are hunting illegally.



No way.   You got to show me the regs on this one.


----------



## sinclair1

Hello. DNR, yeah I gotta guy looking my way....can you come give him a ticket.


----------



## Scrapy

OK so now that we have determined that the site is a swamp that has a property line through it that is distinguishable and someone walks across that line and that line has clear tile of ownership on the offending side at least. That people are wading instead of boating also. Then I agree about not trespassing.
All that said there are hundreds of thousands of duck hunting places that has a property line on paper and maybe a fence across it that are not private land. The land may be private but the water is not. People pretend like they own it but they don't own it. They might act "bad" about it and run you off.  That is why we have Magistrate Court. Local Magistrates that likely know the area in question. But now I am so glad we agree on the top paragraph scenario.


----------



## Nicodemus

Scrapy said:


> OK so now that we have determined that the site is a swamp that has a property line through it that is distinguishable and someone walks across that line and that line has clear tile of ownership on the offending side at least. That people are wading instead of boating also. Then I agree about not trespassing.
> All that said there are hundreds of thousands of duck hunting places that has a property line on paper and maybe a fence across it that are not private land. The land may be private but the water is not. People pretend like they own it but they don't own it. They might act "bad" about it and run you off.  That is why we have Magistrate Court. Local Magistrates that likely know the area in question. But now I am so glad we agree on the top paragraph scenario.





Ever heard of Ichawaynochaway Creek down in Baker County?

I agree with you, Scrap, but that`s the way it is.


----------



## jtm402

The great goat float!


----------



## Resica

Scrapy said:


> OK so now that we have determined that the site is a swamp that has a property line through it that is distinguishable and someone walks across that line and that line has clear tile of ownership on the offending side at least. That people are wading instead of boating also. Then I agree about not trespassing.
> All that said there are hundreds of thousands of duck hunting places that has a property line on paper and maybe a fence across it that are not private land. The land may be private but the water is not. People pretend like they own it but they don't own it. They might act "bad" about it and run you off.  That is why we have Magistrate Court. Local Magistrates that likely know the area in question. But now I am so glad we agree on the top paragraph scenario.



If they own both sides of the creek, they own the creek bed, at least up here they do. On a non-navigable water anyway.


----------



## Resica

Eugene Stinson said:


> You are considered hunting where your eyes are looking. Just like deer hunting. If you are on the line and facing a property you don't have permission to hunt, then you are hunting illegally.



I don't think anyone owns the airspace. Ask Donald Trump.


----------



## JustUs4All

Scrappy, in Georgia, except for riparian waters (tidal) and about 4 rivers up to the inland most point where paid freight was regularly carried in the first half of the 19th century, trespass law isn't about who owns the water it is about who owns the land under the water.

I would hate to see some young hunters messed up by bad advice here. A good discussion of the issue  is here: http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/SandBar/SandBar3/3.1comment.ht.

The controling law was applied and discussed in this 1984 case:

LANIER v. OCEAN POND FISHING CLUB, INC., 253 Ga. 549 (1984), 322 S.E.2d 494.  Nothing has been done to change GA law since.

If you can cite a case that bears out your idea of trespass in GA via water please do so.  It would have to be after 1984 and it would be a pretty big deal as it would drastically change property rights in this state.


----------



## Throwback

My advice is DO NOT listen to scrapy


T


----------



## Scrapy

Your link got me as far as the National Sea Grant Consortium home page. That was it but that was about as far as I needed to go.

There are way too many cases to cite if I knew how to post links. Avoyles Sportman League V Marsh is an eye opener To twisted definitions. Riparian , Lactustrine, Palustrine etc. ad infinitum all have definitions that are broad sometimes and narrow sometimes but not all the time even in socalled "settled " law. Marsh found out he did not own the land even though it was dry enough to grow soybeans on.

Are you insinuating that if someone west of I-95 owns land on both sides of a creek or small river , that they also "own" the creek?  Might could even set up a toll both and charge folks boating up and down said river?  Certainly not.  
 However "land ownership" implies more rights than just to pay taxes on and keep a lowly duck hunter off of.  It means you can do things that you want to do with it. A good test for that is try diking it up or channelizing it and see what you really own.


----------



## groundhawg

Throwback said:


> My advice is DO NOT listen to scrapy
> 
> 
> T



Very good advise.


----------



## Throwback

here are my posts on this subject for the umpteeth time. its gotten to the point im tired of posting it. 

again--i would strongly suggest you ignore scrapy. here and in the link below. 

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=736348&highlight=navigable


T


----------



## Scrapy

Throwback said:


> here are my posts on this subject for the umpteeth time. its gotten to the point im tired of posting it.
> 
> again--i would strongly suggest you ignore scrapy. here and in the link below.
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=736348&highlight=navigable
> 
> 
> T



T . I read your link entirely. And you base your remarks on one or two cites of GA Law.  Justus 4 all gave a good explanation with some links and explanations and the way I read that is we are pretty much saying the same thing.  It is in the definitions and the "interpretrations" of definitions .  
A stumble bumble goes hunting without knowing or caring where "real honest to goodness lines" do exist, running up on a knucklehead who may or may not find he owns title to that spot and does not care . Well, the chance of two fools meeting is pretty slim.

Frank Sanatra song "They can't take that away from me".   The last right in the Bundle of Rights a landowner will lose is the right to pay taxes on it.

If you truly think you want to know where the limits of "navigation" end and "associated direct connections" to "adjacent" waterbodies" and "other" "waters of the US" "nexuxses." (all of which have definitions)Just ask the Corps if you dare, not the GW.


----------



## T-N-T

MudDucker said:


> If someone asked me and I determined that they were not hunting the line, I would allow them to retrieve.  If I caught them without permission, I would let them talk to the Sheriff.
> 
> It is easy for you as a keyboard tiger to call people names like scumbag.



ANd then there is a whole new problem of most of the time you are caught trespassing the first time you "usually" get a warning.  Not trying to say anything by it,  just seems to be the way it works nowadays.
And I dont have problems calling people names to their faces.  The keyboard just makes it more readily available for people to "hear" what I said.


----------



## T-N-T

How about this-
If you shoot a duck and he falls across the line,  is said duck counted against your limit?  Or a deer that runs off tagged?  
I mean if you cant prove it dies?  Or do you assume its a mortal wound?  
There is too many variables here,  I quit hunting.


----------



## Throwback

Scrapy said:


> T .  read your link entirely. And you base your remarks on one or two cites of GA Law.  Justus 4 all gave a good explanation with some links and explanations and the way I read that is we are pretty much saying the same thing.  It is in the definitions and the "interpretrations" of definitions .
> A stumble bumble goes hunting without knowing or caring where "real honest to goodness lines" do exist, running up on a knucklehead who may or may not find he owns title to that spot and does not care . Well, the chance of two fools meeting is pretty slim.
> 
> Frank Sanatra song "They can't take that away from me".   The last right in the Bundle of Rights a landowner will lose is the right to pay taxes on it.
> 
> If you truly think you want to know where the limits of "navigation" end and "associated direct connections" to "adjacent" waterbodies" and "other" "waters of the US" "nexuxses." (all of which have definitions)Just ask the Corps if you dare, not the GW.





I called the corps

They said its a state issue. 



T


----------



## Scrapy

Throwback said:


> I called the corps
> 
> They said its a state issue.
> 
> 
> 
> T



That's a new one on me LOL.

The limit of their jurisdiction is requested in writing. If you get an answer this duck season I will be ammaized.


----------



## welderguy

MY BRAIN HURTS!!!


----------



## kmckinnie

My dog got the duck, I told her to go put it back.


----------



## Scrapy

welderguy said:


> MY BRAIN HURTS!!!



It'll be alright. Just don't trespass where you ought not trespass. And if somebody, iny and everybody comes along and pulls the trespass threat on you and you believe it, then don't bother putting your boat in the water.


----------



## welderguy

I never thought I'd say this but I kinda liked you a little better when you had that fake hillbilly accent and you weren't trying to act all intellectual.Which one is the "real" Scrapy anyway?


----------



## Scrapy

welderguy said:


> I never thought I'd say this but I kinda liked you a little better when you had that fake hillbilly accent and you weren't trying to act all intellectual.Which one is the "real" Scrapy anyway?



It's Geetchie,,  and I can't help it if I got the can't help its.

Oh I see now! That was back before Nicholus gave me my new avatwar. I recon that is confusin somewhat but I like my avatar ,don't get me wong.


----------



## welderguy

sometimes when Im bored I pretend that horse is scrapy.


----------



## Scrapy

welderguy said:


> sometimes when Im bored I pretend that horse is scrapy.


We'll weld together given time. Only if that suits you mind you1.


----------



## Scrapy

kmckinnie said:


> My dog got the duck, I told her to go put it back.


 Dang trespassing dog should have been shot both times.


----------



## Scrapy

How about Marmaduke trained to blood track, gets exited and crosses the line and skids the deer back??? You did not send him , in fact you tried to wrastle him down??? He is on his own at that point  and I might not even bail him out the pound if he don't get shot first.


----------



## duck-dawg

I hope no one ever comes on this site and uses Scrapy's interpretation of the law as a reference for trespass law or what constitutes a public waterway. 

The law is the law, and ignorance of it isn't an excuse for breaking it. You can even think you're on your property, but the second you take one step on someone else's property, you're trespassing and subject to criminal and civil action. Doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with it.


----------



## Scrapy

duck-dawg said:


> I hope no one ever comes on this site and uses Scrapy's interpretation of the law as a reference for trespass law or what constitutes a public waterway.
> 
> The law is the law, and ignorance of it isn't an excuse for breaking it. You can even think you're on your property, but the second you take one step on someone else's property, you're trespassing and subject to criminal and civil action. Doesn't matter whether you like it or agree with it.


Where did Scrapy ever say anything to the contrair?? About taking a step?   I been talking about a boat and navigability the whole time. Or recently a dog from a boat.

Again, if you don't know and are scared to find out , don't bother to put your boat in the water or you will get jacked around when you have a perfect right. Be a scare or know what you are doing and accept a challenge that you already know for certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are going to win.

If you don't know the law (which I am not a lawyer)  you can run a test case by your attorney ( and see how confident he is before you ever go. If you don't, pass shooting summer ducks while facing a private impoundment so that the duck fall in the Rivah will be a thing of the past. Then you can take up diver hunting out in the Oceans and it won't be long before some knucklehead comes along saying you are trespassing. Go for it, or fall for it if you want to.


----------



## Atlanta Dawg

Wow-This Duck Hunting surely is a Passionate Sport !


----------



## steelshotslayer

Atlanta Dawg said:


> Wow-This Duck Hunting surely is a Passionate Sport !



If they would update some laws to redefine "navigability"  so it isn't written to pre-modern standards then this wouldn't be an issue.  It also isn't just a duck hunting issue this is an issue for river fishermen across the state because the majority of Georgia rivers and creeks are considered non-navigable currently or have never been addressed. It is a matter that needs to be updated for the benefit of sportsmen all over the state and country for that matter.  Personally anything inside the stream bed should be public domain if accessed from public property or legally obtained private property.  Some good common sense can go along way here.  If you can float a canoe or better yet a john boat motor and duck hunting gear in it then its obviously navigable.


----------



## Throwback

steelshotslayer said:


> If they would update some laws to redefine "navigability"  so it isn't written to pre-modern standards then this wouldn't be an issue.  It also isn't just a duck hunting issue this is an issue for river fishermen across the state because the majority of Georgia rivers and creeks are considered non-navigable currently or have never been addressed. It is a matter that needs to be updated for the benefit of sportsmen all over the state and country for that matter.  Personally anything inside the stream bed should be public domain if accessed from public property or legally obtained private property.  Some good common sense can go along way here.  If you can float a canoe or better yet a john boat motor and duck hunting gear in it then its obviously navigable.




So landowners need to have property rights taken by the government so the people 
Who didn't pay for the land can come hunt for free? 

How will these landowners be compensated for their loss and who will pay for it?


T


----------



## MudDucker

TopherAndTick said:


> ANd then there is a whole new problem of most of the time you are caught trespassing the first time you "usually" get a warning.  Not trying to say anything by it,  just seems to be the way it works nowadays.
> And I dont have problems calling people names to their faces.  The keyboard just makes it more readily available for people to "hear" what I said.



I don't have a problem with an LEO giving a warning, however, most LEO's aren't going to give a warning if the landowner wants to push the issue, especially if there has been an on going problem.

No, the keyboard makes it easier.  If you say that out in the real world, someone is going to take you to task.


----------



## steelshotslayer

Throwback said:


> So landowners need to have property rights taken by the government so the people
> Who didn't pay for the land can come hunt for free?
> 
> How will these landowners be compensated for their loss and who will pay for it?
> 
> 
> T



The purchase of land doesn't give you rights to own a body of water that does not originate on your property.  (Back to scrappys argument) Try damming it up.  I am not saying because you have a 6 inch deep creek that cross a public road that John Doe can walk up the creek bed and shoot your swamp.  I am saying if I put in the flint at the top end of Blackshear and run up river I am technically "Tresspassing" the entire time because the river is considered non-navigable actually the entire Flint is that way.  So any landowner the entire length of the river could pretty much have someone arrested for fishing, hunting, or just floating down (if they own both sides).  I am all for property rights of landowners, but I am also against for the lack of a better word hole... Saying I own a 200 yard stretch right here guess what you can't pass it anymore.


----------



## tcoker

steelshotslayer said:


> The purchase of land doesn't give you rights to own a body of water that does not originate on your property.  (Back to scrappys argument) Try damming it up.  I am not saying because you have a 6 inch deep creek that cross a public road that John Doe can walk up the creek bed and shoot your swamp.  I am saying if I put in the flint at the top end of Blackshear and run up river I am technically "Tresspassing" the entire time because the river is considered non-navigable actually the entire Flint is that way.  So any landowner the entire length of the river could pretty much have someone arrested for fishing, hunting, or just floating down (if they own both sides).  I am all for property rights of landowners, but I am also against for the lack of a better word hole... Saying I own a 200 yard stretch right here guess what you can't pass it anymore.



Well said


----------



## tcoker

I'm going to treat people the way I want to be treated. I don't care how "society" acts or the way it is now or any of that other junk. I will try to be a sportsman. If I shoot a duck LEGALLY on MY property and if falls across the property line, I'm going to go get it. I've never been accused or charged with trespassing or any other charge like that. So if for some reason I don't have my dog with me, I will sit my gun down, go get the dead bird and walk back. Call the sheriff, the dnr, the judge, your momma, whoever. If they all show up and the sheriff writes me a ticket for trespassing, I'll pay my fine and be done with it. I very well could be wrong, but I don't think I know of anyone rotting in jail for trespassing alone.

So give me my ticket and my duck. Don't need a lecture, I understand what property lines are, I have some of my own. I understand what trespassing is. 

I'm going to start calling the sheriff when these kids down the street playing baseball hits another tennis ball in my backyard and they don't get written permission before retrieving it. I'm going to teach them a lesson. So what I wasn't home and they rang the doorbell, it's my tennis ball now.


Anyone want to buy tennis balls on the cheap???


----------



## Throwback

steelshotslayer said:


> The purchase of land doesn't give you rights to own a body of water that does not originate on your property.  (Back to scrappys argument) Try damming it up.  I am not saying because you have a 6 inch deep creek that cross a public road that John Doe can walk up the creek bed and shoot your swamp.  I am saying if I put in the flint at the top end of Blackshear and run up river I am technically "Tresspassing" the entire time because the river is considered non-navigable actually the entire Flint is that way.  So any landowner the entire length of the river could pretty much have someone arrested for fishing, hunting, or just floating down (if they own both sides).  I am all for property rights of landowners, but I am also against for the lack of a better word hole... Saying I own a 200 yard stretch right here guess what you can't pass it anymore.





Those laws basically tell the landowner what they can't do To the water They don't extend rights to everyone That can figure out a way to float a scrap of wood on it






T


----------



## Duff

What if your neighbor is sitting on the line but facing your property and your buddy(who is facing your property) shoots a can and it falls onto you neighbor's side.
But then the said can floats to your side and the neighbor sends his lab over to retrieve the bird. Now say the lab is not such a great dog and he brings the duck to you (swimming on your property). 
Now say the swamp is only a couple of feet deep, so there is a chance the lab could have touched the bottom as it swam onto your property.
Can the neighbor come by boat and get the duck? And who now owns the dog?


----------



## steelshotslayer

Duff said:


> What if your neighbor is sitting on the line but facing your property and your buddy(who is facing your property) shoots a can and it falls onto you neighbor's side.
> But then the said can floats to your side and the neighbor sends his lab over to retrieve the bird. Now say the lab is not such a great dog and he brings the duck to you (swimming on your property).
> Now say the swamp is only a couple of feet deep, so there is a chance the lab could have touched the bottom as it swam onto your property.
> Can the neighbor come by boat and get the duck? And who now owns the dog?


----------



## steelshotslayer

Throwback said:


> Those laws basically tell the landowner what they can't do To the water They don't extend rights to everyone That can figure out a way to float a scrap of wood on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T




My point exactly they don't address the issue that is why they need to be UPDATED.  By your logic it should stand that if I went and bout two 1/4 tracts on either side of the river and wanted to block travel up and down the river then that's fine by you and everyone else.  That is ridiculous... because you can easily get a  boat up and down the river and depending on where at quite a large boat.  If it can be used for travel imo on anything if it is only a piece of wood as you said then the rights are to the public, but only a true richard would make a stink of this.  Though as we have seen there are a couple incidences where this is the case.  I think that is just greed and mean spiritedness passing through on a boat or anchored out next to the bank isn't hurting you or your "land" Now if they get out of the streambed then so beat it have them locked up.


----------



## Throwback

steelshotslayer said:


> My point exactly they don't address the issue that is why they need to be UPDATED.  By your logic it should stand that if I went and bout two 1/4 tracts on either side of the river and wanted to block travel up and down the river then that's fine by you and everyone else.  That is ridiculous... because you can easily get a  boat up and down the river and depending on where at quite a large boat.  If it can be used for travel imo on anything if it is only a piece of wood as you said then the rights are to the public, but only a true richard would make a stink of this.  Though as we have seen there are a couple incidences where this is the case.  I think that is just greed and mean spiritedness passing through on a boat or anchored out next to the bank isn't hurting you or your "land" Now if they get out of the streambed then so beat it have them locked up.



1) law isn't logical once I figured that out it all made more sense

2) in regards to your last sentence---if a creek or river is 15 feet wide and 2 feet deep how can they NOT end up stepping g out of the water and onto the ground to retrieve game?


T


----------



## T-N-T

MudDucker said:


> I don't have a problem with an LEO giving a warning, however, most LEO's aren't going to give a warning if the landowner wants to push the issue, especially if there has been an on going problem.
> 
> No, the keyboard makes it easier.  If you say that out in the real world, someone is going to take you to task.



I've had my rear whipped for less than telling a man my opinion of him.  I also learned early that most people avoid conflict.  But I can give just fine.  And if in the case a fella has packed a lunch I was unaware of, I can tote a lot too.  

I also will refrain from more comment as the duck forum gets a lot of bandings...


----------



## steelshotslayer

Throwback said:


> 1) law isn't logical once I figured that out it all made more sense
> 
> 2) in regards to your last sentence---if a creek or river is 15 feet wide and 2 feet deep how can they NOT end up stepping g out of the water and onto the ground to retrieve game?
> 
> 
> T




The retrieval of game across property lines is a whole separate argument to the legality of using waterways.  Personally I don't think someone retrieving a downed animal should ever be an issue, but yet again you have Richards all over the state.  As for the creek this isn't just a duck hunting issue, this is a fishing issue, a floating issue.  I take my wife and kids on floats we dont ever step foot out of the boat, but technically by today's laws I am trespassing the entire time.  And I am not saying a 15 foot wide 2 foot deep creek this is more in reference to just about all of Georgias rivers north of the coast.  The Hooch, the Flint, the upper Oconee, the upper Ocmulgee, the Etowah.  All are non-navigable.  Along with a bunch of larger tributaries of these systems that I don't have the time to even begin to list.


----------



## T-N-T

steelshotslayer said:


> The retrieval of game across property lines is a whole separate argument to the legality of using waterways.  Personally I don't think someone retrieving a downed animal should ever be an issue, but yet again you have Richards all over the state.  As for the creek this isn't just a duck hunting issue, this is a fishing issue, a floating issue.  I take my wife and kids on floats we dont ever step foot out of the boat, but technically by today's laws I am trespassing the entire time.  And I am not saying a 15 foot wide 2 foot deep creek this is more in reference to just about all of Georgias rivers north of the coast.  The Hooch, the Flint, the upper Oconee, the upper Ocmulgee, the Etowah.  All are non-navigable.  Along with a bunch of larger tributaries of these systems that I don't have the time to even begin to list.


And yet they have public boat ramps.


----------



## Scrapy

Throwback said:


> 1) law isn't logical once I figured that out it all made more sense
> 
> 2) in regards to your last sentence---if a creek or river is 15 feet wide and 2 feet deep how can they NOT end up stepping g out of the water and onto the ground to retrieve game?
> 
> 
> T



A 100 X 500ft oxbow is not in the creek bed and is accessible by boat ??.


----------



## Resica

TopherAndTick said:


> How about this-
> If you shoot a duck and he falls across the line,  is said duck counted against your limit?  Or a deer that runs off tagged?
> I mean if you cant prove it dies?  Or do you assume its a mortal wound?
> There is too many variables here,  I quit hunting.



Not counted.


----------



## Resica

steelshotslayer said:


> The purchase of land doesn't give you rights to own a body of water that does not originate on your property.  (Back to scrappys argument) Try damming it up.  I am not saying because you have a 6 inch deep creek that cross a public road that John Doe can walk up the creek bed and shoot your swamp.  I am saying if I put in the flint at the top end of Blackshear and run up river I am technically "Tresspassing" the entire time because the river is considered non-navigable actually the entire Flint is that way.  So any landowner the entire length of the river could pretty much have someone arrested for fishing, hunting, or just floating down (if they own both sides).  I am all for property rights of landowners, but I am also against for the lack of a better word hole... Saying I own a 200 yard stretch right here guess what you can't pass it anymore.


Even if you own both sides of the creek? You own the stream bed don't you?


----------



## steelshotslayer

Resica said:


> Even if you own both sides of the creek? You own the stream bed don't you?



From the way it reads any water that does not originate or leaves your property is under government jurisdiction.


----------



## Resica

steelshotslayer said:


> The retrieval of game across property lines is a whole separate argument to the legality of using waterways.  Personally I don't think someone retrieving a downed animal should ever be an issue, but yet again you have Richards all over the state.  As for the creek this isn't just a duck hunting issue, this is a fishing issue, a floating issue.  I take my wife and kids on floats we dont ever step foot out of the boat, but technically by today's laws I am trespassing the entire time.  And I am not saying a 15 foot wide 2 foot deep creek this is more in reference to just about all of Georgias rivers north of the coast.  The Hooch, the Flint, the upper Oconee, the upper Ocmulgee, the Etowah.  All are non-navigable.  Along with a bunch of larger tributaries of these systems that I don't have the time to even begin to list.



 The Richards often times are the people doing the shooting. Someone's property is their property. They don't have to be sportsman. Whatever they decide is up to them.  Know it ahead of time.


----------



## steelshotslayer

Resica said:


> The Richards often times are the people doing the shooting. Someone's property is their property. They don't have to be sportsman. Whatever they decide is up to them.  Know it ahead of time.



So what your saying... Lets use a deer cause a duck isnt much to waste in many peoples eyes... But say you shoot a deer it runs 600 yards and crosses the line (I have seen perfect kill shot deer do this)  and the neighbor says nope I'd rather it rot than let you retrieve your animal.  

^ This is ok in your eyes???? This shouldn't be ok in anyone's eyes that calls themselves a hunter.


----------



## Resica

steelshotslayer said:


> So what your saying... Lets use a deer cause a duck isnt much to waste in many peoples eyes... But say you shoot a deer it runs 600 yards and crosses the line (I have seen perfect kill shot deer do this)  and the neighbor says nope I'd rather it rot than let you retrieve your animal.
> 
> ^ This is ok in your eyes???? This shouldn't be ok in anyone's eyes that calls themselves a hunter.


 A duck holds no less value in my eyes than a deer, whether it be a doe or a huge buck. I would prefer that folks were able to retrieve all game they shot but I also understand the ownership of land and the owner's right to not allow allow people on his or her property for whatever reason, they don't need a reason. Your obligation on retrieval ends at a property line whether you like it or not. You have zero right to retrieve it if the owner does not allow it. You should respect his rights. Property ownership and the wishes of owners seems to be secondary to some hunters.


----------



## Boudreaux

chase870 said:


> Send the dog, never seen a dog get a trespassing ticket.




This is one great reason I own a retriever!  I'd tell the GW to go ahead and ticket the dog!


----------



## tcoker

Resica said:


> You should respect his rights. Property ownership and the wishes of owners seems to be secondary to some hunters.



And people should have common sense. Evidently that seems to come after everything else...

Some people don't, but again, I'm going to treat people like I want to be treated. You can call the sheriff on me if you'd like.


----------



## Resica

tcoker said:


> And people should have common sense. Evidently that seems to come after everything else...
> 
> Some people don't, but again, I'm going to treat people like I want to be treated. You can call the sheriff on me if you'd like.



And I'm sure they will. Hunting is a privelege, a highly regulated privelege. You can be fined and lose your license. Common sense seems to be eluding you. You have zero right to step on another's property without permission, period. Don't suppose you'll ever understand. That's ok, that's why we have law enforcement. Don't be bent when you get fined and lose your license, you knew the rules.


----------



## Scrapy

I am not a johny come lately. I know everybody that joins land with me and even all the neighbors of cousins scattered property that I hunt. We all know and respect each other. I'd go "retrieve" whatever, duck , deer ,treeing dog and never think twice about bothering them about it and neither would they worry about contacting me.  The only problems we might have about going on somebody else's land around here are still hunters and they are not "landowners" all they do is rent some pine land to hunt on. Whether they would track a wounded deer onto my land I do not know and do not care.

But that's getting off topic of duck hunting out of a boat.


----------



## kmckinnie

U can get your duck off of my rented timber land without permission. I have a major creek with swamps that is a border.


----------



## T-N-T

kmckinnie said:


> U can get your duck off of my rented timber land without permission. I have a major creek with swamps that is a border.



Thanks kmckinnie.  I will if the need arises.


----------



## tcoker

Resica said:


> And I'm sure they will. Hunting is a privelege, a highly regulated privelege. You can be fined and lose your license. Common sense seems to be eluding you. You have zero right to step on another's property without permission, period. Don't suppose you'll ever understand. That's ok, that's why we have law enforcement. Don't be bent when you get fined and lose your license, you knew the rules.



I guess that's the only post of mine on this thread you read. That's ok, I don't expect someone with obvious control issues to be open minded. I'm well aware of the legal rights of property owners. I own land, I know where the property lines are and who is and isn't allowed on it. Do I want  people trespassing on my land, nope. Do I want them to get their duck that landed on my property off before it rots, yep. So in a court of law, you win, in common sense you lose hands down. So go back and look, I'll get my duck, you call dnr or sheriff, when they show up I'll take my ticket. Just like I said, I don't need or want the lecture. I'm a fairly educated sportsman and if I knowingly break a law then I will accept the punishment. So you can keep your talk of regulated privilege and zero right's and write me my ticket and I'll get back to shooting ducks. I'm not advocating trespassing or purposely breaking game laws. I'm just an advocate of common sense, the lack thereof is rampant in society today and sue happy people. 

I'm not going to jail or losing my hunting license for first offense trespassing charges, it's a misdemeanor. As before mentioned, write my ticket and be gone. So considering the whole duck landing across the line has never happened to me, I highly doubt it will happen enough to warrant a repeat offense, so yeah, I'm going to take the chance and get my duck. Or better yet, my dog will get it because that's what it's for, to retrieve. 

So do I need to call DNR when the neighboring kids come on my property to retrieve a tennis ball instead of the police? I'm so confused, they both can write trespassing tickets and since no game laws were broken I wouldn't think it would be worth wasting the short staffed DNR's time. Same thing with game retrieval. If no weapons were carried onto he private property in question, it's trespassing, not hunting without permission. TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT OFFENSES. 

So I will take that you think common sense eludes me and looking down your nose at me because I would actually step foot on your land without permission to retrieve a dead duck that was shot legally. Yeah I'm fine with that, you call the law. At the end of the day, you got me a ticket, but I got my duck, went on your land without permission(only to retrieve game), and still used common sense, that's a win.  G'day!


----------



## steelshotslayer

tcoker said:


> I guess that's the only post of mine on this thread you read. That's ok, I don't expect someone with obvious control issues to be open minded. I'm well aware of the legal rights of property owners. I own land, I know where the property lines are and who is and isn't allowed on it. Do I want  people trespassing on my land, nope. Do I want them to get their duck that landed on my property off before it rots, yep. So in a court of law, you win, in common sense you lose hands down. So go back and look, I'll get my duck, you call dnr or sheriff, when they show up I'll take my ticket. Just like I said, I don't need or want the lecture. I'm a fairly educated sportsman and if I knowingly break a law then I will accept the punishment. So you can keep your talk of regulated privilege and zero right's and write me my ticket and I'll get back to shooting ducks. I'm not advocating trespassing or purposely breaking game laws. *I'm just an advocate of common sense, the lack thereof is rampant in society today and sue happy people*.
> 
> I'm not going to jail or losing my hunting license for first offense trespassing charges, it's a misdemeanor. As before mentioned, write my ticket and be gone. So considering the whole duck landing across the line has never happened to me, I highly doubt it will happen enough to warrant a repeat offense, so yeah, I'm going to take the chance and get my duck. Or better yet, my dog will get it because that's what it's for, to retrieve.
> 
> So do I need to call DNR when the neighboring kids come on my property to retrieve a tennis ball instead of the police? I'm so confused, they both can write trespassing tickets and since no game laws were broken I wouldn't think it would be worth wasting the short staffed DNR's time. Same thing with game retrieval. If no weapons were carried onto he private property in question, it's trespassing, not hunting without permission. TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT OFFENSES.
> 
> So I will take that you think common sense eludes me and looking down your nose at me because I would actually step foot on your land without permission to retrieve a dead duck that was shot legally. Yeah I'm fine with that, you call the law. At the end of the day, you got me a ticket, but I got my duck, went on your land without permission(only to retrieve game), and still used common sense, that's a win.  G'day!



This


----------



## KINCHAFooneeryan

There's 2 different arguments of whats going on in this thread.

#1. The law.

#2. Common sense.

I'm a bigger fan of the latter but it should be noted that not all property owners are sportsman... and there's no need to argue common sense. We all know what the common sense solution is...


----------



## killerv

I would have no problem with someone coming onto my property to retrieve an animal they legally shot on theirs. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, much more important things out there to be concerned with.  I'm fortunate enough to have a little hunting land and know what its like run into folks not supposed to be on your land, but their is a difference when we are talking about simply retrieving an animal. Leave your gun on your side, promptly come get your whatever and get off, no worries if its a once in a while thing, but if you are shooting ducks and all or a majority of them are landing on someone elses property, no one should have to tell you that you need to be setting up somewhere different to help keep that from happening.


----------



## tcoker

KINCHAFooneeryan said:


> There's 2 different arguments of whats going on in this thread.
> 
> #1. The law.
> 
> #2. Common sense.
> 
> I'm a bigger fan of the latter but it should be noted that not all property owners are sportsman... and there's no need to argue common sense. We all know what the common sense solution is...



Well put


----------



## tcoker

killerv said:


> I would have no problem with someone coming onto my property to retrieve an animal they legally shot on theirs. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, much more important things out there to be concerned with.  I'm fortunate enough to have a little hunting land and know what its like run into folks not supposed to be on your land, but their is a difference when we are talking about simply retrieving an animal. Leave your gun on your side, promptly come get your whatever and get off, no worries if its a once in a while thing, but if you are shooting ducks and all or a majority of them are landing on someone elses property, no one should have to tell you that you need to be setting up somewhere different to help keep that from happening.



pretty much nailed it


----------



## welderguy

I think most of us would love to think that everyone has good honest intentions when they come onto your land, but the reality is that a few don't. They are up to no good.These are the ones making it hard for the honest people to have full trust of landowners.I am a landowner myself and have only had two incidents (which were not really a big deal).But both times, the first thing that went through my head was"Are my wife and kids and belongings safe?"These days you never know.In Grampaws day it was different but today, you can't let your guard down.I wish it wasn't like that.Iwish we could all be nabourly and trust everyone and everything be done honestly, but we just can't.


----------



## Scrapy

welderguy said:


> I think most of us would love to think that everyone has good honest intentions when they come onto your land, but the reality is that a few don't. They are up to no good.These are the ones making it hard for the honest people to have full trust of landowners.I am a landowner myself and have only had two incidents (which were not really a big deal).But both times, the first thing that went through my head was"Are my wife and kids and belongings safe?"These days you never know.In Grampaws day it was different but today, you can't let your guard down.I wish it wasn't like that.Iwish we could all be nabourly and trust everyone and everything be done honestly, but we just can't.



I am being honest and I know you are not asking my advice but it seems like you doing a life long lot of worrying about something that you aren't going to able to do much about anyway. Gotta have faith.


----------



## welderguy

My point is you can't trust people these days like you could in the old days.Im not worrying about it but Im not naive about it either.


----------



## dawg2

steelshotslayer said:


> Any land owner that gives someone a hard time about retrieving downed game is scum anyways and not a true sportsman.  This shouldn't even be a question because ethics and sportsmanship should keep people frok being idiots on this matter.



Maybe they get tired of people trespassing on their land.  I can see instances where they would say "No."  I would and will allow people to retrieve their game or dogs on my property.


----------



## dawg2

killerv said:


> I would have no problem with someone coming onto my property to retrieve an animal they legally shot on theirs. That kind of stuff doesn't bother me, much more important things out there to be concerned with.  I'm fortunate enough to have a little hunting land and know what its like run into folks not supposed to be on your land, but their is a difference when we are talking about simply retrieving an animal. Leave your gun on your side, promptly come get your whatever and get off, no worries if its a once in a while thing, but if you are shooting ducks and all or a majority of them are landing on someone elses property, no one should have to tell you that you need to be setting up somewhere different to help keep that from happening.


I agree.


----------



## Scrapy

I am trying to imagine a real life situation ya'll are descrbing. You are in a swamp and hunting with permission or ownership on one side of a line and a duck falls across it.  For the sneaking , poaching, trespass theorists, does that mean you think that ducks are lighting across the line unconcerned because they are across a line? I imagine the neighbor will be shooting too. Even if not, how long does it take to pick up a bird and be gone? Versus you poaching across the line and standing there shooting for a good while to get caught. I am just trying to imagine this in a real life situation.


----------



## MudDucker

Common Sense is not always common!  

Personally, I have had bad experiences with redneck hunters on my land and I know a lot who have also had these experiences.  This is not the days of our grandfathers and not every hunter is ethical.  We also read threads here everyday of someone getting ripped off.  As a landowner or land renter, do you want people hunting injured game and finding your stuff instead.  It has happened.

Common Sense says if it is against the law, try to get permission instead of having a problem.  Common Sense and ethics say to set up where you hunt to bring your game down within the area you have permission to hunt.


----------



## emusmacker

I would like the question answered that was asked earlier about a duck falling across the line wounded, does it count against your total bad limit if you can't retrieve it?

Hey Mud, you are the legal expert here what's the answer to that?


----------



## MudDucker

emusmacker said:


> I would like the question answered that was asked earlier about a duck falling across the line wounded, does it count against your total bad limit if you can't retrieve it?
> 
> Hey Mud, you are the legal expert here what's the answer to that?




According to both a State game wardens and a Federal game warden that I have talked to about this in the past, if you knock game down, it counts against your limit whether you can retrieve it or not.  This includes crippled birds as well.


----------



## T-N-T

MudDucker said:


> According to both a State game wardens and a Federal game warden that I have talked to about this in the past, if you knock game down, it counts against your limit whether you can retrieve it or not.  This includes crippled birds as well.



HArd to count a bird that cant be seen.
Now, I am not willing to join a moral side to this argument,  just hard to count it is all...


----------



## MudDucker

TopherAndTick said:


> HArd to count a bird that cant be seen.
> Now, I am not willing to join a moral side to this argument,  just hard to count it is all...



I don't disagree with your comment, however, I came out of a pond a couple of years and there sat the game warden with his binoculars.  When I asked him what he was doing, he said he thought he saw a cripple another boat missed picking up.  All three boats in our group brought in a limit of picked up birds.  He asked if anyone had crippled and not picked up a bird.  I asked him why he was asking and he said because that means someone is over the limit.  No one fessed up, he didn't get in a boat and nobody got a ticket, but if you ask me, he was spoiling to write one.  He also questioned why one boat did not have running lights.  I reminded him that boats under paddle power are not required to have them.


----------



## emusmacker

If you can't retrieve it legally then how can it be considered yours?  not arguing, just asking.  If a wounded bird can't legally be retrieved without permission, then how can that said bird be held against your limit?


----------



## Scrapy

*English*

I guess if anybody comes out  of a beaver pond with a limit of wood ducks that could be  Burden of proof evidence that you are over the limit because you don't always get them all. I have deleted the latin. ENGLISH ONLY


----------



## shirttail

Head is spinning from reading this......... back about 25 years ago the GW didn't ticket me.......... He did mention it was a good thing we didn't have guns with us on somebodies land.......... he got on the blood trail and helped us track the deer...... we knew the boys who leased the rights......... never knew who the land owner was.


One question though......... who gets to keep the trespassing dogs........ did read in local paper where a friend of mine paid a 400.00 cause his dog did leave evidence of trespassing on a neighbors lawn a block over.SMH


----------



## Beta Tau789

Well I put the $$$ down on a swamp lease yesterday. Went by there today to walk the bottom and scout a good place to hunt it on Christmas morning with some family members. On my way out three kids come barreling up the slough in a raggedy old john boat decked out in Yeti, and Duck Comander Hats so I waved them down and asked them where they were headed. They told me they had hunted this spot up the "creek" opening morning and wanted to scout it out again (now mind you this is 3pm). I informed them that the property was now under a hunting lease and they where trespassing and the kids had the audacity to start name dropping people that had granted them permission, I warned them that they may want to get that said "permission" in writing from the land owner next time.  I have a feeling I will see them in the future, and if so, they won't be leaving in their boat. (Based on the fact that all three had uncased guns in their hands I'm pretty sure they were running and gunning, which really CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored me off.) 

Thanks for the rant


----------



## king killer delete

Beta Tau789 said:


> Well I put the $$$ down on a swamp lease yesterday. Went by there today to walk the bottom and scout a good place to hunt it on Christmas morning with some family members. On my way out three kids come barreling up the slough in a raggedy old john boat decked out in Yeti, and Duck Comander Hats so I waved them down and asked them where they were headed. They told me they had hunted this spot up the "creek" opening morning and wanted to scout it out again (now mind you this is 3pm). I informed them that the property was now under a hunting lease and they where trespassing and the kids had the audacity to start name dropping people that had granted them permission, I warned them that they may want to get that said "permission" in writing from the land owner next time.  I have a feeling I will see them in the future, and if so, they won't be leaving in their boat. (Based on the fact that all three had uncased guns in their hands I'm pretty sure they were running and gunning, which really CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored me off.)
> 
> Thanks for the rant


Time for you to call the Effingham SO.


----------



## Scrapy

killer elite said:


> Time for you to call the Effingham SO.



That's right! 

You "leased'' it. Did you do a title search to make sure that fellow owns it? Or do you just assume. ? Sounds like you are the "newcomer" in this situation. Has it traditionally been hunted by boat? Or is it just now being "claimed"  with a willing accomplice to help control it?


----------



## Beta Tau789

I have a letter from the owner with entitled rights, this weekend I think I'm gonna string a bright colored rope across the entrance with a big ole NO TREASPASSING sign on it.


----------



## Scrapy

Beta Tau789 said:


> I have a letter from the owner with entitled rights, this weekend I think I'm gonna string a bright colored rope across the entrance with a big ole NO TREASPASSING sign on it.



You might want to run that thought past the owner. Did you lease it to hunt it or to patrol it? Do you assume patrolman rights or is it specified in your lease.


----------



## king killer delete

Scrapy said:


> You might want to run that thought past the owner. Did you lease it to hunt it or to patrol it? Do you assume patrolman rights or is it specified in your lease.


 Scrapy this is a good point. I would involve the land owner in anything I did.


----------



## Scrapy

Putting $$$$ down doesn't mean much.  Every year I run into the same old thing. Somebody puts $$$ down on someplace and then think they own it all. The specific place I am talking about is 200 acres of the nastiest button bush/ stunted maple freshwater tidal backwater you ever want to see. That whole place is "heirs property" not only one set of heirs but two different sets. I get written permission from any one of six heirs that I know just for asking. Some fellow comes along and puts $$$ down to one heir that doesn't even live in the state and he sets about "running us off" . We just laugh.

Paying tax on it makes you an owner?  This county will gladly let you pay tax on the intra coastal waterway and surrounding salt marsh.


----------



## emusmacker

If I pay money to lease a property I feel I have the right to stop others from "trespassing there especially if they are hunting it.


----------



## Beta Tau789

Myself and 10 other have exclusive rights and are to prosicute any party responsible for TREASPASSING if caught on the property( this is written in the lease. The property wasn't sold, the previous lease was terminated), through assistance with local sheriff or GA DNR. BUT I got to thinking this party was trying to get up in the slough, because this is the only chance they have had since opening weekend to get in there without putting boots on the ground.


----------



## king killer delete

Have you contacted the SO yet?


----------

