# Feet Wet Law



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

I was introduced to this through another forum and I must say Wisconsin is on to something here maybe Georgia should take a look into this. 
http://www.fieldandstream.com/forums/fishing/trout/wisconsins-wet-feet-law

from their dnr website
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/questions/PublicAccessFactSheet.pdf


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 20, 2014)

I dont agree, I'm a landowner and you canoe up a creek thats entirely thru my property and shoot ducks/squirrels or any other game you choose. I doubt much of that game is going to fall into the creek now your trespassing onto my land to retrieve your game.


----------



## duckyaker90 (Dec 20, 2014)

Just post it and you won't have that problem. Up north a know for a fact the farmers could care less you can hunt any field as long as it's not posted. So if you have a problem with somebody beep bopping in a Conoe SHOOTIN  what have ya. Post it!!


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

What part of you cant step out of the high water line did you miss.  It mainly protects floaters fishermen and people on large rivers huntin such as the hooch or the flint.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

Georgia Hard Hunter said:


> I dont agree, I'm a landowner and you canoe up a creek thats entirely thru my property and shoot ducks/squirrels or any other game you choose. I doubt much of that game is going to fall into the creek now your trespassing onto my land to retrieve your game.



This mindset is why we need the laws to change.  There is a gentleman here that owns a portion of an extremely large creek large enough to run a john boat in but due to our outdated laws he blocks it off so his buddies and him can stock trout and fish it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

do I see a green eyed monster peeking into this thread?

If the man owns both sides of the creek, it is his to do with what he wants.  

If you want to have your own trout fishery, buy you some land with a stream through it.


----------



## K80 (Dec 20, 2014)

Not for that idea at all.


----------



## across the river (Dec 20, 2014)

steelshotslayer said:


> What part of you cant step out of the high water line did you miss.  It mainly protects floaters fishermen and people on large rivers huntin such as the hooch or the flint.



You can legally hunt most of the Flint, Hooch, or any other major river in Georgia's now, without a law like this.  I would not be in favor of allowing people to hunt or fish on any creek or stream they can get a canoe or kayak in.  That opens up far too many opportunities for idiots to mess up private land for people ho have put a lot of time and effort into their property.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

NE GA Pappy said:


> do I see a green eyed monster peeking into this thread?
> 
> If the man owns both sides of the creek, it is his to do with what he wants.
> 
> If you want to have your own trout fishery, buy you some land with a stream through it.




Its not about the trout I could care less about them its the ability to block off a public waterway due to a law written in the 1800s.  As I have said before we are just talkin about branches here 90% of Georgia waters are this well pretty much everything north of the coast.  Ie everytime someone runs the hooch north of west point they are tresspassing or whenever you float the flint or Oconee.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

across the river said:


> You can legally hunt most of the Flint, Hooch, or any other major river in Georgia's now, without a law like this.  I would not be in favor of allowing people to hunt or fish on any creek or stream they can get a canoe or kayak in.  That opens up far too many opportunities for idiots to mess up private land for people ho have put a lot of time and effort into their property.




No you can't these waters are non navigable and placing foot or anchor on streambed or anything attached to the stream bed makes you tresspassing.   See where the problem lies.  Currently there arent any major problems but there is huge potential for it.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

steelshotslayer said:


> Its not about the trout I could care less about them its the ability to block off a public waterway due to a law written in the 1800s.  As I have said before we are just talkin about branches here 90% of Georgia waters are this well pretty much everything north of the coast.  Ie everytime someone runs the hooch north of west point they are tresspassing or whenever you float the flint or Oconee.



I believe you are confused over what constitutes navigable waterways in Georgia.  If it were a navigable waterway, he couldn't block it off.  It doesn't fall under that category, so he can do as he sees fit with his land and his stream.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I believe you are confused over what constitutes navigable waterways in Georgia.  If it were a navigable waterway, he couldn't block it off.  It doesn't fall under that category, so he can do as he sees fit with his land and his stream.



Ya dont say ?  I could have sworn thats why I posted the link and the went to make the statement our outdated laws need to change.  If I can run a boat unimpeded I would think that any logical human would say that constitutes navigable currently thats not hown it works hence the laws needing to changed.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

Nope, the law doesn't need changing.  Just because a boat will float on it doesn't mean it is navigable.  People need to read the law, and follow it.

Just because someone gets his panties in a wad that he can't use the stream the way he wants, doesn't mean the law needs changing.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Nope, the law doesn't need changing.  Just because a boat will float on it doesn't mean it is navigable.  People need to read the law, and follow it.
> 
> Just because someone gets his panties in a wad that he can't use the stream the way he wants, doesn't mean the law needs changing.



I bet you feel the same way about Obama care and taxes as well.  As for the creek its not an issue to myself I have plenty of other opportunities it was an example of what property owners are capable of on just about any river creek or stream north of the coast, but hey since your so into following the law it doesnt effect you right? You dont leave public lakes or float past property lines on rivers then anchor or step out of the boat.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

steelshotslayer said:


> I bet you feel the same way about Obama care and taxes as well.



I sure do.  The old law worked just fine and didn't need to be changed just because some idgit in DC decided he wanted to give a bunch of folks insurance by taking money from my pocket.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

NE GA Pappy said:


> I sure do.  The old law worked just fine and didn't need to be changed just because some idgit in DC decided he wanted to give a bunch of folks insurance by taking money from my pocket.



Your logic there is extremely flawed. It was passed its a law follow dont gripe.  Kinda hypocritical  to argue otherwise


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

and for what it is worth, I don't have any streams running through my property, so this would not effect me at all.  I just see all the issues it would bring allowing people to wade up and down any stream in Georgia.  What about all the streams in North Ga with gold in them. What would stop someone from panning a creek as long as they didn't leave the streambed?  From what I read in the Wisconsin law, nothing.  And you couldn't even keep them out in the season when no water was flowing, as long as they stayed in the stream bed.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

steelshotslayer said:


> Your logic there is extremely flawed. It was passed its a law follow dont gripe.  Kinda hypocritical  to argue otherwise



No, I am being extremely logical.  I am consistent with saying we need to keep the old laws because they work, and do not give entitlements to folks who think they deserve to be give something they didn't work to own.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

I am not saying the law is perfect but I think it is a step in the right direction.   Something legally opening more wate that just tidal rivers and a more modern set of guidelines.   I dont agree that of I can walk in it it should be public but if I can float a gear laden canoe down it no problems then yea.


----------



## steelshotslayer (Dec 20, 2014)

NE GA Pappy said:


> No, I am being extremely logical.  I am consistent with saying we need to keep the old laws because they work, and do not give entitlements to folks who think they deserve to be give something they didn't work to own.



Keep with the oldways as you said these are the same waterways that were originally used for travel.  How is that an entitlement?  The pervious 1800s and its vague idea of commerce and travel changed that.  Im a firm believer if it aint broke dont fix it but its broke it needs updating.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

whats broken about it?  the fact you don't get to use it like you want to use it?

I bet the man who owns the land doesn't believe it is broken.


----------



## NE GA Pappy (Dec 20, 2014)

Georgia law defines a navigable stream as “a stream which is capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or part of the year.”  It also states that any part of a stream that is affected by the tides are considered navigable.

Why don't you load a boat with stuff, and go tear down the block he has on the stream, and travel anywhere you like. Then you will get a chance in court to prove the stream is navigable and you were there legally.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 21, 2014)

I guess nobody will go to the trouble to see if the Kings Grant included the "Bottom Muds' or not. I get tired of repeating that. Same as yal'l that swear if a man owns both sides of a creek etc etc, ad infinitum. All other waters are owned by the State held in trust for the people of the State. Anchor touchin bottom and all that stuff most are just wild as guessing about. Kings Grant only applied to a very small portion of GA. Interstate and Intrastate Commerce Laws also apply; Sorry, fellers.

Laws need to be plain but they will not be plain because there is too much at risk from the environmental side and from the resident landowners side. Neither really wants to know or are scared to know.There will never be clear cut laws on this ,ever. IMO.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 21, 2014)

duckyaker90 said:


> Just post it and you won't have that problem. Up north a know for a fact the farmers could care less you can hunt any field as long as it's not posted. So if you have a problem with somebody beep bopping in a Conoe SHOOTIN  what have ya. Post it!!



Think I'll just run out and post the road in front of my house.


----------



## duckyaker90 (Dec 21, 2014)

Is it a private road homeboy


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 21, 2014)

steelshotslayer said:


> No you can't these waters are non navigable and placing foot or anchor on streambed or anything attached to the stream bed makes you tresspassing.   See where the problem lies.  Currently there arent any major problems but there is huge potential for it.



Get you one of these.
http://www.southernimperial.com/18-...er-and-pull-cord-magnecorp-banner-p-4849.html


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 21, 2014)

duckyaker90 said:


> Is it a private road homeboy


I pay taxes on that acreage.


----------



## T-N-T (Dec 21, 2014)

I think people get wildly different ideas of a creek or river when this subject comes up.  
And again, if it is "your" waterway, just go ahead and dam it up.  We will see then.


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 21, 2014)

Ah comrade, I see another communist here who wishes to take from the rich and give to the masses.  Very good, now move to Russia and feel at home.

Then I see another who continues to stick his head into the King's mud as deep as he can.

The State isn't going to change the law because to do so would require the State to buy those rights, because we don't live in Russia.


----------



## duckyaker90 (Dec 21, 2014)

Nothing will ever change except prices they keep goin up.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Dec 21, 2014)

Not to forget people can't just not be sorry.  A lot of the places I trout fished as a youth were on private land, but no one posted land really then or cared all that much.

Then people started trashing up the places, tearing up the land with 4wds, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, etc.  Add the fact that we're a lawsuit happy country these days and most of those places are now closed.


----------



## across the river (Dec 21, 2014)

steelshotslayer said:


> No you can't these waters are non navigable and placing foot or anchor on streambed or anything attached to the stream bed makes you tresspassing.   See where the problem lies.  Currently there arent any major problems but there is huge potential for it.



You can.  Any portion of an major river in Georgia, you can hunt or fish below the fall line.  There is a reason Columbus, Macon, Augusta, Lousivulle, etc…, sit where they sit and that is because that is as far a freight can go up the river.Any thing below the fall line you can hunt and fish (in the river channel) all you want.  If you add in all the miles of the hooch above the fall line that borders public land, and the fact that on most rivers different land owners own different side of the river, so people typically fish it without incident, you can hunt and fish far more miles of those rivers than you can't. I don't see a problem at all.  You do, but I don't think you not being able to fish on the one spot you can't is worth changing the law.


----------



## Uptonongood (Dec 21, 2014)

Dr. Strangelove said:


> Not to forget people can't just not be sorry.  A lot of the places I trout fished as a youth were on private land, but no one posted land really then or cared all that much.
> 
> Then people started trashing up the places, tearing up the land with 4wds, stealing everything that wasn't nailed down, etc.  Add the fact that we're a lawsuit happy country these days and most of those places are now closed.



This is exactly what happened to access out West.  Add a bunch of ambulance-chasing lawyers to the " You're the land owner, you're responsible for my client's stupidity on your property" mix and now no one gets to hunt/fish on private property like they did as a kid.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 21, 2014)

The Ogeechee-Savannah Canal was built at great expense. It was not a "natural" waterway. I can see paying to barge commerce on that.


----------



## Millcreekfarms (Dec 21, 2014)

There is a small river up in my area no where near big enough for a barge but it has public canoe/small john boat ramps and is open to hunting and fishing so how do you know what's legal when dnr doesn't even go by this ancient law


----------



## welderguy (Dec 21, 2014)

GOOD GRIEF PEOPLE!! I thought we went over all this in the other thread.Theres basically three points of view to this:those that own land and dont want a bunch of yahoos  they cant trust on it,those that dont own land that want something for nothing,and those that just want to keep the squabble stirred up between the other two parties.Its never going to be resolved.The worst thing that could happen though IMO is for the government to step in and take more of our hard fought for rights away.Thats never a good thing.


----------



## JustUs4All (Dec 21, 2014)

Millcreekfarms said:


> There is a small river up in my area no where near big enough for a barge but it has public canoe/small john boat ramps and is open to hunting and fishing so how do you know what's legal when dnr doesn't even go by this ancient law



Carefully watch for the posted signs.


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 21, 2014)

NE GA Pappy said:


> Why don't you load a boat with stuff, and go tear down the block he has on the stream, and travel anywhere you like. Then you will get a chance in court to prove the stream is navigable and you were there legally.



That's been done.  Involved a goat and a bale of cotton.

The would be captain of commerce lost, and last I can find out, was facing jail time as a result of his experiment.


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 21, 2014)

Millcreekfarms said:


> There is a small river up in my area no where near big enough for a barge but it has public canoe/small john boat ramps and is open to hunting and fishing so how do you know what's legal when dnr doesn't even go by this ancient law



That's a really good question that you will have to get someone from DNR to answer.

I got nothing.  There are "public" boat ramps all over the state on private waters.  I'll bet I could name a dozen just on my own, I haven't even been to west Georgia.


----------



## Millcreekfarms (Dec 21, 2014)

I've ask them they said duck hunt it all you want as long as you don't get out on the bank we are gonna float it later on when (if) the swamps and ponds freeze up


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 21, 2014)

across the river said:


> You can.  Any portion of an major river in Georgia, you can hunt or fish below the fall line.  There is a reason Columbus, Macon, Augusta, Lousivulle, etc…, sit where they sit and that is because that is as far a freight can go up the river.Any thing below the fall line you can hunt and fish (in the river channel) all you want.  If you add in all the miles of the hooch above the fall line that borders public land, and the fact that on most rivers different land owners own different side of the river, so people typically fish it without incident, you can hunt and fish far more miles of those rivers than you can't. I don't see a problem at all.  You do, but I don't think you not being able to fish on the one spot you can't is worth changing the law.



Just for historical accuracy, I've researched this pretty well, and as far as I can determine, there are only three rivers in Georgia that can be documented as "navigable" above the fall line.  The most obvious, is the Savannah, above Augusta to the town of Petersborough.  Petersborough was a major river shipping port to Augusta.  Being as Peterbouroug is now beneath Clarke's Hill Lake as is most of that portion of the river, the distinction is entirely academic.

A portion of the Chattahoochee above Columbus.  How far up is open to further historical research, but it's pretty clear that there was some commerce on that stretch.

The other is the Flint, which likewise has a pretty clear record of commerce in the applicable period, pre-1848.  But again, exactly what are the upper limits is open to discussion.

The one that is of local interest is the Oconee above Dublin.  Steam boat companies were chartered for the upper Oconee, and there is discussion about whether steamboats ever operated on that stretch.  Likewise, there is a question whether there was ever flatboat traffic from the Athens/Scull Shoals/Greensboro area to Dublin.

One thing that has complicated the study of the subject is the massive silting of the Oconee River channel.  In this section, there is anywhere from 6-8 feet of silt.  So conceivably there would have been enough water in the channel much of the year to float a small steam boat, and certainly a flatboat.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 21, 2014)

I think the Corps of Engineers actually has a list of navigable waters.

One time we were putting in at a small creek landing and the old fellow said "Son, from here you can go anywhere in the world if you got a big enough boat".

Lots of barge traffic has always taken place above the "fall line" unloaded and reloaded under the fall line.  Langford Canal is mostly a series of locks built for that purpose of not having to unload and reload at the fall line.

International Commerce; Interstate Commerce; Intrastate Commerce.  Some recent interesting Supreme Court decisions on The Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Photographing birds for example.LOL


----------



## Throwback (Dec 21, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Think I'll just run out and post the road in front of my house.



that will do you just as much good 


T


----------



## Throwback (Dec 21, 2014)

how will these landowners be compensated for their loss of property rights they have paid for and paid taxes on and who will pay for it?



T


----------



## Throwback (Dec 21, 2014)

I say we make hovercrafts legal to hunt from and as long as the person hunting is 10 feet or more above the ground when he shoots the animal he can hover above anyones land and hunt all he wants--after all, no one owns the air. 

T


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 21, 2014)

Takes a certain amount of audacity to come up with some of this stuff such as "Charleston, where the Ashley and Cooper Rivers merge to form the Atlantic Ocean."


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 21, 2014)

When you look at the "works" on Ogeetchie and Langsford canals you'll see that barges were not very big. Wide enough to hold a bale of cotton.


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 22, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> I think the Corps of Engineers actually has a list of navigable waters.
> 
> .LOL



Corps of Engineers and State of Georgia definition are two different things.

I've seen the Corps send a "snag boat" up the Altamaha to keep it "navigable."  Had to be one of the biggest wastes of taxpayer monies ever, and that's saying a lot.

Seen that I've read that the Corps finally realized how silly that was, and quit doing it.


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 22, 2014)

This has been debated a 1000 times over on NGTO concerning the Toccoa River. Bottom line is property lines run to the center of the stream/river A landowner doesnt own the water or fish but does own the stream/river bottom so no wading or anchoring. If the landowner owns both sides of the stream/river then he can outlaw fishing and technically floating over said property. As it stands now the Law enforcement is not ticketing boat fishermen on the Toccoa but if a landowner asks you to move along (remove anchor or stop wading) they can call the Law if you refuse (of course the LEO's have more to do than follow boats to the take outs but it can cause trouble for the guides. This has been researched by lawyers who are members of NGTO and the Law is on the property owners side.
I do agree the State needs to redefine what waterways are considered public use but bottom line is if you float your canoe on my stream your gonna have problems


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 22, 2014)

Lets say Selective cutting is allowed on within a streamside management zone. There is a 25 ft bank to bank stream. The 36 diameter  90 ft tall pine on one bank slips and falls across the stream. Does the logger have to whack off the pine at the stream centerline? Can he "retrieve" the other 87.5 feet of said tree? Is the tree trespassing?  Which way will it be fellows?


----------



## The Fever (Dec 23, 2014)

steelshotslayer said:


> Your logic there is extremely flawed. It was passed its a law follow dont gripe.  Kinda hypocritical  to argue otherwise



Wouldn't this logic work against your claim? The law was passed years ago, so follow, don't gripe? Also, Hitler said something similar about laws


----------



## Throwback (Dec 23, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Lets say Selective cutting is allowed on within a streamside management zone. There is a 25 ft bank to bank stream. The 36 diameter  90 ft tall pine on one bank slips and falls across the stream. Does the logger have to whack off the pine at the stream centerline? Can he "retrieve" the other 87.5 feet of said tree? Is the tree trespassing?  Which way will it be fellows?





1) what was your previous user name?

2) this is not the same as hunting on someone elses property and you know it. 


T


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 23, 2014)

Throwback said:


> 1) what was your previous user name?
> 
> 2) this is not the same as hunting on someone elses property and you know it.
> 
> ...


 I never had a previous user name on here. 
2) In this case it is not about "hunting" but is about "fetching" something that landed on the other side of the centerline of the creek. A portion over the "creek bed" and the remainder on private property. I wonder if GP has ever been sued for trees that landed across the fence or property line?


----------



## king killer delete (Dec 23, 2014)

recovery of downed birds is part of hunting. The law is clear on this matter. A bird that has fallen on another persons  land  can not be picked up unless you have written permission to go on that persons land to pick the downed bird up. I do not care about logging, pulp wooding or anything related to it. Get back on topic.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 23, 2014)

killer elite said:


> recovery of downed birds is part of hunting. The law is clear on this matter. A bird that has fallen on another persons  land  can not be picked up unless you have written permission to go on that persons land to pick the downed bird up. I do not care about logging, pulp wooding or anything related to it. Get back on topic.



ok.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 23, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> I never had a previous user name on here.
> 2) In this case it is not about "hunting" but is about "fetching" something that landed on the other side of the centerline of the creek. A portion over the "creek bed" and the remainder on private property. I wonder if GP has ever been sued for trees that landed across the fence or property line?




Yeah sure you haven't been here before


Youre just talking randomly as usual


T


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 23, 2014)

Throwback said:


> Yeah sure you haven't been here before
> 
> 
> Youre just talking randomly as usual
> ...



Yes. No other or previous user name. That's what I said. You got it.

I am here a lot with this user name, so in that respect I have certainly been here before.


----------



## across the river (Dec 23, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Lets say Selective cutting is allowed on within a streamside management zone. There is a 25 ft bank to bank stream. The 36 diameter  90 ft tall pine on one bank slips and falls across the stream. Does the logger have to whack off the pine at the stream centerline? Can he "retrieve" the other 87.5 feet of said tree? Is the tree trespassing?  Which way will it be fellows?



They wouldn't cut a tree like that, but for hypothetical purposes, the loggers would tie a chain to the end of the tree and pull it back over onto the land they were cutting on.  Since the entire tree never went on the neighbors land (like or fallen duck or gut shot deer) then there is no issue with trespassing.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 23, 2014)

Let's say a kid turns a balloon loose and it flies across someone's property and lands in the dead center. Their father runs across he street and buys a mule and rides it to the opposite side of the county. The child weeps and the sun sets--- how will this affect the price of a share of ford stock?


----------



## king killer delete (Dec 23, 2014)




----------



## Resica (Dec 23, 2014)

Throwback said:


> Let's say a kid turns a balloon loose and it flies across someone's property and lands in the dead center. Their father runs across he street and buys a mule and rides it to the opposite side of the county. The child weeps and the sun sets--- how will this affect the price of a share of ford stock?


 Make it stop, please.


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 23, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> I wonder if GP has ever been sued for trees that landed across the fence or property line?



Yes.


----------



## FASTnSPEEDY (Dec 26, 2014)

Somewhat of a dead topic, but for those on both sides, FL law and case law has a law which is MUCH better defined. Something which you can keep in mind and is somewhat of a middle ground.


*Water Rights:*
Essentially the high water mark is public if it's accessible by public ramp. Legally, if you could get anything (legally they've used canoes and even smaller boats to establish this) down the waterway in 1845 than it's public. 

*Where Hunting is Legal*
FS 790.15 allows shooting/hunting on any public property or residential land (provided you have landowner permission). As a result, it prohibits firing over anyone's property who has not given permission.
Further, FL state law (maybe 790.15, or maybe another in the 790's) prevents counties and cities from passing laws which prohibit what 790.15 allows, it also establishes STRONG penalties for officers (I think up to $5k) or departments (I think up to $20k) which write frivolous tickets related to discharging/possessing a firearm in an area deemed legal by the state (my understanding is this came as a result of Miami threatening prosecution for hunters hunting near downtown).


*Result*
Legally I can run my boat down a creek I can get down, jump out on the bank below the high water mark, and hunt..... 
IF: I can shoot without my shot carrying over onto someones property who hasn't granted me permission. This effectively shuts down creeks that are extremely narrow unless I can confidently shoot only straight down the creek (and would be willing to defend myself in court or to a warden).

This definition makes it much simpler for both the law and a citizen as both don't need to know case law as well as separate rules for each creek they might happen upon.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0790/Sections/0790.15.html
http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/8D98D298C0060C0785256B110050FFB7


----------



## Throwback (Dec 26, 2014)

FASTnSPEEDY said:


> Legally I can run my boat down a creek I can get down, jump out on the bank below the high water mark, and hunt.....
> IF: I can shoot without my shot carrying over onto someones property who hasn't granted me permission. This effectively shuts down creeks that are extremely narrow unless I can confidently shoot only straight down the creek (and would be willing to defend myself in court or to a warden).
> 
> This definition makes it much simpler for both the law and a citizen as both don't need to know case law as well as separate rules for each creek they might happen upon.
> ...



how is that simpler than just not allowing it? there are multiple creeks/rivers in my area that are 10-20 yards wide and about 2 feet deep. you can put a canoe or jon boat in it but its impossible to shoot and the shot not cross someones property unless youre shooting straight down.

for that matter, a river 50 yards wide will require the same thing. 




T


----------



## Russdaddy (Dec 26, 2014)

Waters of the State, soon to be Waters of the United States. Not waters of the surrounding landowners......If I had state waters running through my property I wouldn't want others on it either but I think they should have the right to use it. That being said I do like the Feet Wet law, pretty easy to understand and follow.


----------



## WOODIE13 (Dec 26, 2014)

Could be worse, on VA tidal rivers, riparian land owner rights apply where they actually own the river bottom out to 800 yds if I am not mistaken.  Toss in the blind laws and it was pretty hectic just to be legal and hunt.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 26, 2014)

WOODIE13 said:


> Could be worse, on VA tidal rivers, riparian land owner rights apply where they actually own the river bottom out to 800 yds if I am not mistaken.  Toss in the blind laws and it was pretty hectic just to be legal and hunt.



Exactly. That is most likely because Virginia has a lot of riparian areas that originated under a King's Grant. The King Granted Rights to the 'bottom muds' in most instances but not all. Oyster harvesting for example.
And people laugh at me for bringing that up. LOL

Also on the Florida thing, I wonder if the law is specific to Residential Lands as you referred.  That could easily make sense and to include Commercial zoning. But to assume including Agricultural zoning , which might assume including all "private" lands defeats the reason of the law. I don't know a thing about Florida Law or other zoning designation so I am just asking.


----------



## WOODIE13 (Dec 26, 2014)

Yep, King's Grant


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 26, 2014)

Throwback said:


> how is that simpler than just not allowing it? there are multiple creeks/rivers in my area that are 10-20 yards wide and about 2 feet deep. you can put a canoe or jon boat in it but its impossible to shoot and the shot not cross someones property unless youre shooting straight down.
> 
> for that matter, a river 50 yards wide will require the same thing.
> 
> T



You can always shoot straight up and down the river, 
(along it's course) and make sure to kill them dead so they fall straight down.


----------



## g0nef1sshn (Dec 26, 2014)

*hmm...*

Is there not one land lawyer, judge, warden, or any of the sort that hunts ducks in this forum? 

Would be nice for them to chime in with what they say. They must all be in Arkansas and dont bother with forums. case closed.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 26, 2014)

g0nef1sshn said:


> Is there not one land lawyer, judge, warden, or any of the sort that hunts ducks in this forum?
> 
> Would be nice for them to chime in with what they say. They must all be in Arkansas and dont bother with forums. case closed.



You are right. We sure been doing a pile of guessin and hopin we are right one way or the other.


----------



## JustUs4All (Dec 26, 2014)

g0nef1sshn said:


> Is there not one land lawyer, judge, warden, or any of the sort that hunts ducks in this forum?
> 
> Would be nice for them to chime in with what they say. They must all be in Arkansas and dont bother with forums. case closed.




They did, but folk didn't like the answer.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 26, 2014)

The Longhunter said:


> You can always shoot straight up and down the river,
> (along it's course) and make sure to kill them dead so they fall straight down.




Good luck with that



T


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 27, 2014)

JustUs4All said:


> They did, but folk didn't like the answer.


 Where? 

With the State Laws , Federal Laws , Laws of Navigation, Laws of Inter and intrastate Commerce and a host of other laws laid out with citations . Then NO. 

There have been no true answers. Someone might quote one little tiny piece of one law that suits their perspective and call it the Gospel But it is NOT. Whether anybody likes THE answer or not; no Answers have been provided thus far.

If you THINK you have THE answer so far then march your self into court, no matter which side you take, and see what happens.


----------



## JustUs4All (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrappy, it matters not that you do not like it.  The GA law regarding trespass has been explained several times, with citations to the controlling case law in similar threads.  Here it is again for the record in this thread:  LANIER v. OCEAN POND FISHING CLUB, INC., 253 Ga. 549 (1984), 322 S.E.2d 494.
In GA, the ownership of the water itself or of the rights to the use of the water has nothing to do with the laws regarding trespass. 
In spite of your belief to the contrary, Federal Laws , Laws of Navigation, Laws of Inter and intrastate Commerce and a host of other laws have no bearing upon what constitutes a trespass in GA.
In GA the right to float on the water is controlled by the owner of the land beneath that water so long as the waterway is not either tidal or was regularly navigable by commercial vessel in the mid 1800s.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Where?
> 
> With the State Laws , Federal Laws , Laws of Navigation, Laws of Inter and intrastate Commerce and a host of other laws laid out with citations . Then NO.
> 
> ...




You admitted in your last post you were guessing. 


T


----------



## Throwback (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> You are right. We sure been doing a pile of guessin and hopin we are right one way or the other.



Here


T


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 27, 2014)

Throwback said:


> You admitted in your last post you were guessing.
> 
> 
> T


Dern right I am guessing. I am not a lawyer nor judge. No one so far has put all the case law together to do anything but guess even if I was a lawyer. No one has described specifics how far up said watershed said violation occurred, the riparian description, the "adjoining wetlands" bed and bank or nothing . So, yes I am guessing.

I have been an expert witness on tiny fragments of cases involving these laws. And , believe me , I have learned to state my objections in the form of a question. and if you read back through the whole thread and comprehend it all , I wonder if you can tell which side of the issue I am on. I have stated some tiny fact and asked a multitude of questions. How many of ya'll hopped to the conclusion that I am one that does not respect private property rights and want to hunt land because I want to?


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 27, 2014)

JustUs4All said:


> Scrappy, it matters not that you do not like it.  The GA law regarding trespass has been explained several times, with citations to the controlling case law in similar threads.  Here it is again for the record in this thread:  LANIER v. OCEAN POND FISHING CLUB, INC., 253 Ga. 549 (1984), 322 S.E.2d 494.
> In GA, the ownership of the water itself or of the rights to the use of the water has nothing to do with the laws regarding trespass.
> In spite of your belief to the contrary, Federal Laws , Laws of Navigation, Laws of Inter and intrastate Commerce and a host of other laws have no bearing upon what constitutes a trespass in GA.
> In GA the right to float on the water is controlled by the owner of the land beneath that water so long as the waterway is not either tidal or was regularly navigable by commercial vessel in the mid 1800s.



Fine. That is great. You are talking about trespassing on land that is private, was private and will likely remain private highground uplands etc. You oversimplify because the question is, is it public waters not private water or bottoms or whatever you dream up.  Who can legally press charges of me trespassing in a "river" or "Waterbody" where I belong? Whether you "want" to own it and pay tax on it or whether you just get your kicks keeping me off the river makes not one Iota of difference to me. Don't Cha SEE????the question??    Where is the LINE? And I am here to say nobody really knows.


----------



## across the river (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Dern right I am guessing. I am not a lawyer nor judge. No one so far has put all the case law together to do anything but guess even if I was a lawyer. No one has described specifics how far up said watershed said violation occurred, the riparian description, the "adjoining wetlands" bed and bank or nothing . So, yes I am guessing.
> 
> I have been an expert witness on tiny fragments of cases involving these laws. And , believe me , I have learned to state my objections in the form of a question. and if you read back through the whole thread and comprehend it all , I wonder if you can tell which side of the issue I am on. I have stated some tiny fact and asked a multitude of questions. How many of ya'll hopped to the conclusion that I am one that does not respect private property rights and want to hunt land because I want to?



I'm not a lawyer, but here is some info from some lawyers and the court of appeals on what is considered navigable verses non-naviagable.  What is extremely clear is you can't legally  wade up an ankle deep river in North Georgia to trout fish, or canoe up a creek to duck hunt if you don't own the land around (and under it).





http://www.ga-lawyers.pro/Zoning-an...ES-WHAT-ARE-YOUR-RIGHTS-AND-LIABILITIES.shtml

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


----------



## Throwback (Dec 27, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Fine. That is great. You are talking about trespassing on land that is private, was private and will likely remain private highground uplands etc. You oversimplify because the question is, is it public waters not private water or bottoms or whatever you dream up.  Who can legally press charges of me trespassing in a "river" or "Waterbody" where I belong? Whether you "want" to own it and pay tax on it or whether you just get your kicks keeping me off the river makes not one Iota of difference to me. Don't Cha SEE????the question??    Where is the LINE? And I am here to say nobody really knows.



Yes they do you just don't like it 



T


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 27, 2014)

Say I own a half mile of riverfront on both sides of a little creek that is a county line . There is a county landing two hundred feet south of my property. That same two hundred feet  is owned by the same guy on both sides of the creek. He takes a notion and decides he does not want me to get to my property for whatever reason, hunting etc, across his so called "land" creek. Get real.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 27, 2014)

Throwback said:


> Yes they do you just don't like it
> 
> 
> 
> T



Wrong there. I only own two acres in GA and I don't hunt it. You can unless you get your kicks out of keeping the neighborhood kids off of it.


----------



## Scrapy (Dec 27, 2014)

Throwback said:


> Yes they do you just don't like it
> 
> 
> 
> T


 Instead of one liners T , why don't you tell us where the line is?  Anywhere you want it to be will not suffice and be deemed the wrong answer. Have at it.


----------



## FASTnSPEEDY (Dec 28, 2014)

Throwback said:


> how is that simpler than just not allowing it? there are multiple creeks/rivers in my area that are 10-20 yards wide and about 2 feet deep. you can put a canoe or jon boat in it but its impossible to shoot and the shot not cross someones property unless youre shooting straight down.
> 
> for that matter, a river 50 yards wide will require the same thing.
> 
> ...


Simply because I know if I'm not shooting over someones land I'm legal. I don't have to worry about was there a sign or not, who owns both sides of the creek or not, do they care if I put an anchor down or not, is this deep pocket on the side of the river navigable or posted or not.

If it's paddle-able you're good.

And the law on shooting over someones property covers the safety side and the property owners interest. There are plenty of swamps which separate the creek from the high water mark which are ok to shoot over.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Instead of one liners T , why don't you tell us where the line is?  Anywhere you want it to be will not suffice and be deemed the wrong answer. Have at it.



I have answered your question so many times on this board I am frankly tired of answering it. People for whatever reason do t want to use a search engine and you want to inject random stuff into the discussion then Admit you have no idea what you're talking about and are just guessing

Goodbye 



T


----------



## The Longhunter (Dec 28, 2014)

Scrapy said:


> Say I own a half mile of riverfront on both sides of a little creek that is a county line . There is a county landing two hundred feet south of my property. That same two hundred feet  is owned by the same guy on both sides of the creek. He takes a notion and decides he does not want me to get to my property for whatever reason, hunting etc, across his so called "land" creek. Get real.





Throwback said:


> I have answered your question so many times on this board I am frankly tired of answering it. People for whatever reason do t want to use a search engine and you want to inject random stuff into the discussion then Admit you have no idea what you're talking about and are just guessing
> 
> Goodbye
> 
> ...



Anyone interested in find the real answer will look up the decisions of the Georgia Supreme Court on Ichauway Creek and Armuchee Creek.  Then you can make the personal decision if you want to be guided by unanimous decisions of the state supreme court, or someone's whose name tells you what he is full of.


----------

