# Stream wading legalities in GA / common practice



## Dr. Strangelove

I'm from NC, so all my past trout fishing has been there, or SC, which has similar laws. In NC, navigable stream means by canoe, wading has never been definitely answered in a court of law, as far as I know. In common practice and tradition, this means you can wade a stream and fish through private land. (not stomp through someones' yard to get to it, just fish through if you are already in the river.)

I see GA law is very different.  I mostly fish public land , but in some places the stream flows through private land as well.

Let's use Helen, GA, as an example.  The Chattahoochee flows through Helen, obviously that is private land. People fish it all the time. A mile or so above Helen, above the raft put in point, there is a stretch that comes out of the WMA, where some folks have "No Trespassing" signs on the road. Is that OK to fish, as long as one stays in the water, as in NC, or does that mean you can't wade the stream?

Can you fish through Helen, with no particular permission, just because tubers use it all the time?

This isn't a pro-trespassing thread, just trying to get my bearings here since I live in GA now.

I'm just trying to stay legal here, not trying to fish where folks don't want me.


----------



## WinMag.300

It is my understanding that if the person has the land posted they should have property rights out to the center of the river.  Helen property may only extend to the river bank, but I am not sure. It really comes down to how the plots are laid out.  If someone owns both sides of the river dont even try it, if they have one side posted, then if they own to river center, you legally cant be in the river on "their side".


----------



## Randy

Most of Georgia's rivers are not navigable by Georgia's antiquated definition of navigable.  Therefore, all of Georgias rivers are mostly privately owned unless it is flowing on public land.  All we can do is use them and take care not to abuse them until such time as the owners post them.  For the most part most Owners are allowing passage.  There are a few especially on the trout rivers where the Owners have posted and do not allow passage.  These are mostly places where they use that part of the river and our fish to make money.  Which is why they have it posted.


----------



## fishndoc

Randy got it right.  If I recall correctly, in the only case to make it to a high court in GA, "navigable" river was defined as one with a tradition of barge traffic.
So, whether we like it or not, most times when we are fishing or even floating on Ga streams, we are guests on someone'e property.  We need to act like grateful guests, and if we see someone who is trashing or abusing the property, say something.


----------



## JustUs4All

fishndoc said:


> So, whether we like it or not, most times when we are fishing or even floating on Ga streams, we are guests on someone'e property.  We need to act like grateful guests, and if we see someone who is trashing or abusing the property, say something.




Fishndoc got it *exactly* right. This would go a long way toward keeping most streams open and available.


----------



## Randy

actually it has been to court twice and ruled oppositly.  So the "jury" is still out.  But do as said in the previous posts.


----------



## JustUs4All

Case citations, please Randy.  I would like to read them both.


----------



## Wild Turkey

Wading in a stream is a violation of the Clean Water Act.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Oh believe me, I've seen land closed to fishing because people just can't not be sorry, driving all over someone's land, leaving trash, etc.

I try to pick up what portable trash I can when I fish.

Sounds like it's like I thought, fish it unless specifically posted.

So, someone could shut down the tubing in Helen just by posting "their" stretch of the river?


----------



## Randy

JustUs4All said:


> Case citations, please Randy.  I would like to read them both.


I'll see if I can find them?  If you have the book "Canoeing and Kayaking Georgia" (which eveybody should have) the cases are mentioned in the front introduction of that book.


----------



## Randy

Wild Turkey said:


> Wading in a stream is a violation of the Clean Water Act.


I don't think so but driving in one is.  Like on a 4 wheeler.


----------



## Randy

Here is one case where the land owners rights were upheld:
http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/ga-menu.htm#river-one

The other case was on the Kitchafoonee I think where the paddlers rights were upheld.  I'll have to see if I can find that?


----------



## Randy

Dang,  I knew we discussed this before!  Right before my eyes....see post #42 in this thread:

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=4625522


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

Seems like someone would take the courts to task under the GSWCC's definition of "state waters" and what relevance the taxpayer and their rights are to that department vs. use of said waters.


----------



## JustUs4All

Randy said:


> Dang,  I knew we discussed this before!  Right before my eyes....see post #42 in this thread:
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?p=4625522




Read post #42 and it cites no court decision.  Several are cited in post #41 and they all say the same thing.  In Georgia on non-navigable waters the right to passage over that water is controlled by the person who owns the land over which the water flows.  There is no conflict in the courts that I am aware of.


----------



## fishndoc

Dr. Strangelove said:


> So, someone could shut down the tubing in Helen just by posting "their" stretch of the river?


Unicoi outfitters did just that for their pay-to-fish section, just downstream of Helen - they own or lease both sides of the river through that stretch.

Actually, with the banks of the river through Helen looking (and smelling) more like a garbage dump than a mountain stream, might not be a bad thing if some Helen landowner did shut them down.


----------



## Randy

JustUs4All said:


> Read post #42 and it cites no court decision.  Several are cited in post #41 and they all say the same thing.  In Georgia on non-navigable waters the right to passage over that water is controlled by the person who owns the land over which the water flows.  There is no conflict in the courts that I am aware of.



I'll have to find the other case.  As I said it seem like it was the kitchafoonee or somewhere in South Georgia.


----------



## throwdown

It's just such a shame, people are absolutely destroying what our kids should have to enjoy for years to come. 

Strangelove, I know this didn't really answer your question, but most of us are still a little confused by the lack of a courts decision.


----------



## Nicodemus

Randy said:


> I'll have to find the other case.  As I said it seem like it was the kitchafoonee or somewhere in South Georgia.





Ichauway Nochaway Creek, in Baker County.


----------



## Tightliner

It can be a percarious situation. I am part owner in a canoe/kayak outfitter that we have run for 30+ years now. When the boom came to north Ga. we ran into an issue with the furren goomers about staying out of "their " river. When push came to shove the small county court ruled on the foundation of "commercially navigable". Bottom line we are a commercial opperation and the river is certianly navigable. A little courtesy and fellowship goes a long way. After we achieved the rights to catty on our buisness, the plaintiffs actually began sponsoring some of our events "with advertising--- of course. Fishing for trout became an OK, but dont dare tresspass to the entery to their property. I too own land on a trout river. If someone asks for access to fish, I say sure, but...... Please practice catch and release (non stocked stream born fish) and dont dare leave trash. People wading down stream are welcome, but I ask that they take only what they need and PLEASE DO NOT keep the brood fish (they taste bad any way ) Ga on the other hand can be a p1ta, Smith Island vs GCA for example. Best advise, learn the locals and show respect..... It will go a lo0ng way!

Later...........


----------



## JustUs4All

I still can't find anything on a decision that the landowner does not control the passage over his land on any waterway that is not navigable by barge traffic.


----------



## big A 235

We ran into this on the Flint River in Upson Co.  As long as you do not drop anchor or get out of the boat you can float and fish the river.  That is what we were told by DNR.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

http://www.georgiariverfishing.com/GAarticles/WhoOwnsRiver.htm


----------



## JustUs4All

big A 235 said:


> We ran into this on the Flint River in Upson Co.  As long as you do not drop anchor or get out of the boat you can float and fish the river.  That is what we were told by DNR.



I suspect DNR got it wrong once again.


----------



## trout man

I would love to see someone float down the Soque and tell the Suttons or Lovells or any of the land owners that they can float and fish as long as they do not get out or drop anchor. That would make my year.  You can not do that. If you or the govt does not own the land, you better have permission to be there. It is private property. people go to jail every week for this reason. You could be next.


----------



## Throwback

Basically, If they pay the taxes on the land under the water, they can stop you from being there. 

As far as the term "waters of the state" goes--It's no different than the state owning the wildlife. Yeah the state owns the wildlife, but that doesn't mean you can go onto private property without permission to pursue them. 






T


----------



## Throwback

JustUs4All said:


> I suspect DNR got it wrong once again.



I suspect this is the way this particular landowner wanted it handled. the vast majority of landowners don't mind fishermen and canoe/kayak traffic, unless it becomes problematic with littering, stealing everything that is not tied down,  drug and alcohol use, setting their woods on fire, cutting trees down, nekkid people running aroud whooping and hollering it up, etc. This is what usually causes them to call and want it stopped. 

 Hunting and yahoos on ATV's they usually have a problem with from the get go. 


T


----------



## JustUs4All

Yep.  Those are the things that get streams posted.


----------



## trout man

post #26 says it all. that is the way it is. even if you pay to stock your part of the river those fish are property of the state when they hit the river. The one thing that gets me is the fact that if all of the private property was open to the public, it would be fished out in no time flat and would be no different that any other water. That is just the mentality of most people here. Not all but most. i worked in AK for three years and never saw one trout that was killed to eat.  There were a lot of fish and big ones. Most of our water is marginal trout water and does not sustain trout year round. There is also not enough food to grow trout like you see on private water.  People want so much for free and do not realize the work that goes into having trophy fish.  At least you have the opportunity to catch a good fish in GA. Go to Dukes Creek.   Just my thoughts. Not trying to make anyone mad.


----------



## Twenty five ought six

Throwback said:


> Basically, If they pay the taxes on the land under the water, they can stop you from being there.
> 
> As far as the term "waters of the state" goes--It's no different than the state owning the wildlife. Yeah the state owns the wildlife, but that doesn't mean you can go onto private property without permission to pursue them.
> 
> 
> 
> T



Are you sure about that, cause I read it on the internet that if you walked down a stream backwards and used a barbless fly made out of all natural materials, you could fish anywhere you wanted to.



Are you saying if you read it on the internet, it might not be true.


----------



## Twenty five ought six

JustUs4All said:


> I suspect DNR got it wrong once again.




Not saying they didn't, and I'm not familiar with the Flint in Upson County, but the lower Flint is a navigable river.

I don't know where the line between navigable and non-navigable is on that river.


----------



## kenmorrow

Then there are the federally declared navigable waterways within GA to muddy up the riparian rights law issues even more!  LOL

The federal Freedom of Navigation Act trumps state law, but only applies to federally declared historically navigable waterways.  What are those?

1.  There is a list.
2.  There is a legal definition:  If one can document that a flowing body of water was ever used for commercial navigation, then the reaches so documented are "navigable."  However, there is a major federal bureaucratic process for getting it listed if it isn't already on the list.  And it usually results in a lengthy and costly federal court battle with some landowner(s), and possibly some environmental groups...maybe even some government entities that may oppose it for a variety of reasons.  Fun, fun, fun!

And what does that mean where the "rubber meets the road?"

It means that navigation cannot be restricted, and that recreational use of the waterway cannot be interfered with so long as the users stay below the "historical mean high water mark" on the bank.  That will most typically be the visible line where grass stops, vegetation becomes sparse, gravel bars stop, tree bark changes colors, etc.  But it isn't always visible to the naked eye in flood plains or places where man-made improvements have been made along the bank.  Regarding the restriction of navigation, this is where that "don't get out or drop anchor" thing comes in.  Navigation doesn't require you to make contact with the bottom.  The stream bed may be privately owned where your boat is.  Attaching your boat (anchoring or tying off) or getting out to wade or "stretch your legs" may be trespassing.  Setting duck decoys, trotlines, or traps also falls into this category because they are all anchored.

GA's riparian rights laws closely follow the federal Freedom of Navigation law in terms of what you can/cannot do as a recreational user.  The only real difference is a slight difference in the definition of "navigable waterway."  And...of course...waters not under federal jurisdiction would be remedied in the GA courts, not federal courts.

The easiest way to tell if water is under federal jurisdiction (thus deemed to fall under the Freedom of Navigation Act) or not is:

1.  Is it regulated by the US Coast Guard?
2.  Is it managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers? (which also puts it under USCG jurisdiction...whether they have a presence or not)
3.  Does the US Fish & Wildlife Service maintain property along the river? (not definitive, but very indicative)
4.  Do barges move cargo up/down the stream, or have they in the memory of any living person?
5.  Are there locks on the waterway (operable or inoperable)?

Ok, ok.  I confess.  Riparian rights law is yet another of my areas of uncommon expertise.  Yes, I just typed all of this off the top of my head without referring to anything.  I've been in the boating to stuff business since I was a teenager in more states than most people have visited.  And I don't like breaking the law.  But I also don't like being run out of places I have a right to be just because I was too lazy to learn the realities governing my craft.  And in the duck hunting business, this stuff takes on added meaning when everyone is carrying shotguns and you're boating in the dark in flooded river bottoms in the dead of winter.  It's a darned good idea to know two things:  where you are and what the rules are!


----------



## trouthound

For a pretty good summary of Ga. law with case cites see:

http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/SandBar/SandBar3/3.1comment.htm


----------



## kenmorrow

Good dig, trouthound!


----------



## Throwback

Here's the bottom line opinion of the author quote from the article with suggestions on how to fix this issue that trouthound posted. 



> The idea that property rights are absolute is obsolete.



T


----------



## MadDawg51

Throwback said:


> Here's the bottom line opinion of the author quote from the article with suggestions on how to fix this issue that trouthound posted.
> 
> "The idea that property rights are absolute is obsolete."
> 
> T



I couldn't disagree with him more.  When a person purchases property, that person should have full authority and control over the property.  Anything less is an invasion of government into personal rights.

Don't get me wrong in this.  I enjoy floating and fishing the streams of GA.  I appreciate those who allow me to float, fish, and even wade in streams on their property.  I wish more would allow it.  But, it is between me and the property owner.  Government needs to stay out of that transaction.


----------



## kenmorrow

MadDawg51 said:


> I couldn't disagree with him more.  When a person purchases property, that person should have full authority and control over the property.  Anything less is an invasion of government into personal rights.
> 
> Don't get me wrong in this.  I enjoy floating and fishing the streams of GA.  I appreciate those who allow me to float, fish, and even wade in streams on their property.  I wish more would allow it.  But, it is between me and the property owner.  Government needs to stay out of that transaction.



There is a difference between our personal/philosophical opinions and _legal_ opinions.  That article was a legal opinion written by a law student at Georgia State.  It may not even be his/her own _personal_ opinion.  But it is based on their reading (research) of case law (evidence), and is a professional opinion - sort of like a doctor's diagnosis.  It can be wrong, but it is based on rigorous disciplines of a profession and reviewed and critiqued according to those standards by their peers.

The point of the author about how the notion that property rights might be absolute is actually obsolete can be seen all around us.  If you have an endangered species on your property, you may not be able to drain the pond, cut the trees down, etc.  If you want to burn your woods, you usually have to get a burn permit from the government.  And they may deny it to you.  If you want to add on to your home, you may not be able to do so because of zoning laws.  If you want to operate a business out of your home, you may not be able to because of zoning laws.  These are only a FEW very common examples.  So while we may romanticize a world in which private property rights and individual liberty trump all, we simply do not live in such a world...nor have we lived in such a world for over a century or more.

If you want to live in a world where individual liberty and private property rights are absolute, you have to live where there is no society - no law, no structure, no provision for common defense, disaster preparedness, public utilities, etc.  You must be truly on your own and anyone else who comes along must be equally free to take from you whatever they are able.  You must defend your own liberties.  Then, and only then, are you _truly_ free.  That makes you an anarchist.

That is ultimately the point of what we call "specific limitations" on human rights and civil liberties.  And it is where the word _civil_ comes from in the phrase _civil libertarianism._


----------



## bowbuck

While this thread became much deeper than the OP's original question the final answer that I have used as a flyfishing guide and employee of a flyfishing buisness for the last decade is this.   If someone owns property on a bank of a stream they own to the middle of the river on the bottom, if they own both sides they own the entire bottom of the river.  Standing in the river without permission is trespassing.  As far as floating it, with the "commerical barge" traffic definition that pretty much rules out floating through private land without permission if someone doesn't want you too.  This only comes into play when someone wants to protect the resources on their stretch of river such as trophy trout.  If a land owner only has a weekend house such as on the lower Chattahoochee in Habersham, they don't seem to care if you fish or float through the river.  On rivers such as the Toccoa River Tailwater, the TVA owns the bottom of the river so once you make access at a public park etc, you can fish as long as you wade.  I have had lots of people written citations over the years for fishing without permission, some were honest mistakes the majority are folks that live in an apartment with rented furniture, drive a leased vehicle and think they are entitled to something in this world just because they are breathing. They have no concept of what it means to own a piece of property or the concept of private property rights cause they have never owned anything in their life.  If anyone thinks it's wrong to own private trout water, just go ahead and pay several 100's of thousands to millions for a piece of property on the river, then spend $5000 dollars a year on fish to keep the fishing at a level that is worth the effort and then spend $30 plus dollars a bag on fish food and use several bags a week.  Put that money out there and see how you feel about all your hard work and money walking off on a stringer to someone that feels entitled to what you have worked hard to achieve. Better yet put alot of the work in for free in an effort to put food on the table for your family and then watch your ability to provide for your family walk off on a stringer cause some jackwagon believes you can't tell him where he can or can not fish cause he's entitled.  If you get your feathers ruffled just turn the whole scenario around and see how you would feel if I poached your biggest buck off your hunting club because I felt entitled to hunt on your land cause "all land should belong to the citzens".  I'll step off the soap box for now.


----------



## MadDawg51

kenmorrow said:


> There is a difference between our personal/philosophical opinions and _legal_ opinions.  That article was a legal opinion written by a law student at Georgia State.  It may not even be his/her own _personal_ opinion.  But it is based on their reading (research) of case law (evidence), and is a professional opinion - sort of like a doctor's diagnosis.  .[/I]



Ken, I think you need to read it again.  It clearly states that is it his opinion in the opening.  Most of the body addresses case law.  But, it transitions to opinion in the paragraph that begins "Recreational boaters should be allowed down non-navigable rivers...."  That is not from any case law.  It is from a belief that society owns the rights to personal property.  You state many instances of government transgression onto personal property.  The fact that they do it does not make it right or acceptable.

We aren't likely to agree on this issue.  And, that is OK with me.  I just firmly believe that property rights should be absolute.


----------



## kenmorrow

bowbuck said:


> While this thread became much deeper than the OP's original question the final answer that I have used as a flyfishing guide and employee of a flyfishing buisness for the last decade is this.   If someone owns property on a bank of a stream they own to the middle of the river on the bottom, if they own both sides they own the entire bottom of the river.  Standing in the river without permission is trespassing.  As far as floating it, with the "commerical barge" traffic definition that pretty much rules out floating through private land without permission if someone doesn't want you too.  This only comes into play when someone wants to protect the resources on their stretch of river such as trophy trout.  If a land owner only has a weekend house such as on the lower Chattahoochee in Habersham, they don't seem to care if you fish or float through the river.  On rivers such as the Toccoa River Tailwater, the TVA owns the bottom of the river so once you make access at a public park etc, you can fish as long as you wade.  I have had lots of people written citations over the years for fishing without permission, some were honest mistakes the majority are folks that live in an apartment with rented furniture, drive a leased vehicle and think they are entitled to something in this world just because they are breathing. They have no concept of what it means to own a piece of property or the concept of private property rights cause they have never owned anything in their life.  If anyone thinks it's wrong to own private trout water, just go ahead and pay several 100's of thousands to millions for a piece of property on the river, then spend $5000 dollars a year on fish to keep the fishing at a level that is worth the effort and then spend $30 plus dollars a bag on fish food and use several bags a week.  Put that money out there and see how you feel about all your hard work and money walking off on a stringer to someone that feels entitled to what you have worked hard to achieve. Better yet put alot of the work in for free in an effort to put food on the table for your family and then watch your ability to provide for your family walk off on a stringer cause some jackwagon believes you can't tell him where he can or can not fish cause he's entitled.  If you get your feathers ruffled just turn the whole scenario around and see how you would feel if I poached your biggest buck off your hunting club because I felt entitled to hunt on your land cause "all land should belong to the citzens".  I'll step off the soap box for now.



But I can stand just downstream of your property line and cast my personally tied dry flies using my custom bamboo fly rod say...oh 70 feet or so into "your" river, achieve the perfect dead drift over _your_ stocked, hand-fed trout, play them expertly to hand, and keep a legal limit - and there's not a darned thing you would do to try and stop me, right?  After all, I too am just exercising my full legal rights as your next door neighbor.  And we're all in this together on this little blue marble, right?  

I agree with you that there is a certain disconnectedness that comes from urbanization and over-civilization which causes folks to have a hard time seeing things from the other fella's point of view - especially when that other point of view is that of the rural landowner, local residents, etc. in popular weekend recreational destinations.  Then again, most city folk fly fishermen don't keep fish.  Research shows that about 80% of stringers are purchased by rednecks and bait chuckers.  

I thought the original poster had a great attitude about this issue, and simply wanted to make sure he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes or making the natives restless.  But this is always a good learning opportunity topic for a whole lot of us.  It usually takes on a life of its own.


----------



## Throwback

> But I can stand just downstream of your property line and cast my personally tied dry flies using my custom bamboo fly rod say...oh 70 feet or so into "your" river, achieve the perfect dead drift over your stocked, hand-fed trout, play them expertly to hand, and keep a legal limit - and there's not a darned thing you would do to try and stop me, right? After all, I too am just exercising my full legal rights as your next door neighbor. And we're all in this together on this little blue marble, right?



actually, that would qualify as fishing without permission, technically. The GA Supreme court has ruled that property owners have exclusive fishing rights to their stretch of the stream. 

T


----------



## kenmorrow

Ah!  So this is like shooting game animals across a fence/property line while hunting.  Cool!  Most states are not that consistent in their application of legal principles between hunting and fishing when it comes to things like property rights law.  Kudos to GA!

You see, I only moved here back in late Feb, myself.  And I've spent almost all of my time fishing the coast or federal property.  So I'm learning some of the "local customs" from this thread, too.  As I said before, this is a subject that has always interested me keenly due to my past professional activities.  But you never know everything about anything.  The minute you stop learning you're dying.  And everyone's observations and opinions can be instructive in some way or another -- even if it is just as the world's best example of how or why NOT to do something.


----------



## allenww

I am one who owns no river property.  Not even just one side.

Nevertheless, I believe that as we grow as a people, I am very glad that many non-navigable waters are in private hands.

"The public", which includes me, can and does destroy without concern, simply by our numbers, without criminal intent.   

In a few instances, states have instituted restrictive rules, but then taxpayers have to pay folks to guard our property, and have to let us in to use our property, which then must be maintained. 

So, even though I can only look at it from the road, I would like to thank the folks who own - and protect - non-navigable waters.  My children will inherit the fruit of their selfish, obnoxious, pusilanious
actions. 

wa


----------



## kenmorrow

Well said, allen, you freeloader.    You start rubber-neckin' when you drive by MY river frontage and I'll charge you for the privilege!  LOL


----------



## JustUs4All

I'll let you cast into my stream if you will let me shoot deer over the line on your side.


----------



## JustUs4All

You have exactly the same right to stand on your land and fish my stream if I have to stand on my land and shoot deer on yours.


----------



## kenmorrow

JustUs4All said:


> You have exactly the same right to stand on your land and fish my stream if I have to stand on my land and shoot deer on yours.



Being from TX, this is one of those subjects that is interesting when you look at differences from one state to another.  That's why I joked about it.

In TX, water rights were initially all about livestock.  So the laws are based on that.  Folks killed each other over blocking flowing water and stuff like that.  Then you had the open range issues with the cattle drives.  

If two guys own adjacent stream frontage in TX, the scenario I outlined would be perfectly legal.  But shooting game across property lines (period) or even retrieving shot game across property lines without permission is very illegal.  And in TX, trespassing on private property with livestock on it is a crime the landowner or his/her agent can defend against with deadly force.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes

allenww said:


> I am one who owns no river property.  Not even just one side.
> 
> Nevertheless, I believe that as we grow as a people, I am very glad that many non-navigable waters are in private hands.
> 
> "The public", which includes me, can and does destroy without concern, simply by our numbers, without criminal intent.
> 
> In a few instances, states have instituted restrictive rules, but then taxpayers have to pay folks to guard our property, and have to let us in to use our property, which then must be maintained.
> 
> So, even though I can only look at it from the road, I would like to thank the folks who own - and protect - non-navigable waters.  My children will inherit the fruit of their selfish, obnoxious, pusilanious
> actions.
> 
> wa



This wasn't an issue 30 years ago, but then the cry baby city dwellers complained that the forestry roads, maintained only for forestry fire equipment, wasn't satisfactory for them to get their Volvo back into God's country. We liked it that way, the folks that could get there managed the natural resources as they should have, but then came along Bill and Al on their not so great eight year adventure and they used everyone's tax dollars to make the national forest available to anyone with a Yugo. This required more personnel to manage the city idjits, and eventually led to most of them closing down to day use only because of the hassle.

So from my perspective, the dang city dwellers and tree huggers can stay in their concrete jungles with their theories of what oughta be, and let us folks that know how to appreciate and manage our natural resources use them and enjoy them. I'm about up to my eyeballs in idiots with theories anyways..


----------



## MudDucker

So much wrong information here to go with a little right.

Basic Georgia law, if it is not a "navigable river", which is defined as one that can support regular barge traffic loaded with freight.  Otherwise it is private.  If it private, it can be restricted by the owner.  

There is no such thing as the "don't drop your anchor law".  Unless it is navigable or State owned, the DNR has no right to grant access.

There is no "middle of the stream" law.  Some property lines cover the entire stream, some cover just the bank.  It depends on what the person's property lines are.

Most landowners didn't care until they found their properties trashed or had their family members witness lewd and lascivious acts.  They did care when canoeing groups sued to take away their property rights.


----------



## MadDawg51

Ken, I'm also from the Great State of Texas (former and possible future nation).  That is likely why I am so committed to absolute property rights.  The land owner owns the property and the water as it flows over his/her land.  But, they cannot restrict the natural flow of water nor can they remove water from the stream.  Now, if you have received the right to remove water from the stream, it is just like property that can be bartered, bought, sold, and traded.  OTOH, That buck doesn't have a natural flow.  So, you can't say, "I shot him while he was on the way to my land.  Therefore, I get to retrieve him."


----------



## Throwback

MudDucker said:


> So much wrong information here to go with a little right.
> 
> Basic Georgia law, if it is not a "navigable river", which is defined as one that can support regular barge traffic loaded with freight.  Otherwise it is private.  If it private, it can be restricted by the owner.
> 
> There is no such thing as the "don't drop your anchor law".  Unless it is navigable or State owned, the DNR has no right to grant access.
> 
> There is no "middle of the stream" law.  Some property lines cover the entire stream, some cover just the bank.  It depends on what the person's property lines are.
> 
> Most landowners didn't care until they found their properties trashed or had their family members witness lewd and lascivious acts.  They did care when canoeing groups sued to take away their property rights.







T


----------



## big A 235

Mud Ducker try that in front of a judge and see where that gets you.  You will still have a ticket to pay.  Been there and done that.


----------



## Twenty five ought six

MudDucker said:


> .
> 
> There is no such thing as the "don't drop your anchor law".  Unless it is navigable or State owned, the DNR has no right to grant access.



Are you sure.  That's not what I read on the internet.


----------



## Reggie Ramjet

Hey non-land owner here. I really enjoy fishing and can understand the land owners opinions, you've got my respect. One difficulty is locating the advertised " over 4000 miles of trout waters in Ga.". 4000 miles?  That's a lotta miles, almost enough to reach California or so. Instead of tempting the fishing community with that slightly exaggerated claim, let's istead try to leagally open up more accessible waters. I do get it, the finances, boundaries, maintenance, roads and other obstacles. Nothing immediately, just a thought to ponder.


----------



## Reggie Ramjet

Reggie Ramjet said:


> Hey non-land owner here. I really enjoy fishing and can understand the land owners opinions, you've got my respect. One difficulty is locating the advertised " over 4000 miles of trout waters in Ga.". 4000 miles?  That's a lotta miles, almost enough to reach California or so. Instead of tempting the fishing community with that slightly exaggerated claim, let's istead try to leagally open up more accessible waters. I do get it, the finances, boundaries, maintenance, roads and other obstacles. Nothing immediately, just a thought to ponder.


----------



## OwlRNothing

I can't help but think it's funny when someone calls out misinformation and then dishes out some of their own. Just read the law(s) guys. That's all you need to know. Anglers have been trying to twist the "meaning" of laws related to access for decades now ( at least ) and the end result is always the same. Don't trust the internet. Don't trust me. Find the regs and laws and trust that to be the truth. The end. Simple as that.


----------



## DOUG 281

I live in NC they can tell you to leave if they own on both sides of the creek or river, but you can float down, and fish is what i was told by the man in green.


----------



## Concrete Pete

big A 235 said:


> We ran into this on the Flint River in Upson Co.  As long as you do not drop anchor or get out of the boat you can float and fish the river.  That is what we were told by DNR.



I would not rely Barney Fife’s legal expertise. 

If they’re wrong, ‘the dnr ranger said it was cool’ is not going to save you from a ticket or whatever in court.

This comment was made in the spirit of helpfulness to anyone that reads this thread (not to be rude to you personally).


----------



## natureman

trout man said:


> I would love to see someone float down the Soque and tell the Suttons or Lovells or any of the land owners that they can float and fish as long as they do not get out or drop anchor. That would make my year.  You can not do that. If you or the govt does not own the land, you better have permission to be there. It is private property. people go to jail every week for this reason. You could be next.


Exactly.  I have heard many stories about those who trespassed there.  Even if only a few are true they have things pretty locked down.


----------



## Concrete Pete

I am a humble wading angler. I don’t own property on a stream. I have to fish public water.

I am 100% in support of private land owners retaining full rights to the streams and the rivers. Until the state commits to managing the streams in the way that they manage Duke’s, this is the only way to preserve the fisheries.

I never fished a spot on public land that wasn’t littered with styrofoam bait containers, beer cans, etc.

This includes spots that are miles back into WMAs.

Non-profit groups like TU work hard to repair this damage and it’s noble work, but they are fighting a war of attrition that is untenable.

Yes, it’s financially tough for working people to afford places like Unicoi’s Nacoochee Bend or Noontootla Farms. However, these are the only places you can go where you won’t see a Bill Dance Dancin Rascals container or Busch Lite Can floating down the stream.

Competition can also push the prices of these private streams down or force them to work out different pricing structures.

I’d love to be able to fish wherever I want, but I realize the practical aspects of maintaining the fisheries into the future are more important.

Until the state starts chopping people’s hands off for getting within 1000 ft of a stream with a single use plastic or styrofoam container, trashy people will continue to do their best to destroy the environment.


----------



## NCHillbilly

DOUG 281 said:


> I live in NC they can tell you to leave if they own on both sides of the creek or river, but you can float down, and fish is what i was told by the man in green.


Yep, that's basically it in NC. If you own one side, you can't keep people off. If you own both sides, you can lock it down, and I understand that it includes floating too, unless it's a "navigable stream."


----------



## Taxman

https://midcurrent.com/conservation/river-rights-north-carolina-style/

Just saw this article today.


----------



## GTMODawg

MadDawg51 said:


> I couldn't disagree with him more.  When a person purchases property, that person should have full authority and control over the property.  Anything less is an invasion of government into personal rights.
> 
> Don't get me wrong in this.  I enjoy floating and fishing the streams of GA.  I appreciate those who allow me to float, fish, and even wade in streams on their property.  I wish more would allow it.  But, it is between me and the property owner.  Government needs to stay out of that transaction.





Few if any landowners in the state of Georgia or any other state has full authority and control over the property.  Most places won't allow you to build anything you'd like without an approval process and an inspection process.  You can't dig a well or build a septic system without the approval of the state and it would be hard to convince the majority of voters in the state that this ain't a good idea.  If a river is deep enough to float a boat it ought to be legal to do so without permission from anyone other than the creator and I would bet were most voters allowed to voice their opinion on this it would be far more popular than not.  It is against the law already to do anything which could damage or otherwise hurt another persons property along said river....if you litter its illegal, if you burn their dirt its illegal, if you are running around naked and creating a disturbance its illegal....roads are universally popular in the state and they were built by condemning or otherwise stripping property owners of some of their right to use for the common good.....the vast majority of voters in the state would vote to do the same to most rivers and creeks in the state if allowed to do so.  The state and local governments already control almost anything that a person can dream of doing with their property and it is pretty widely held opinion that this is just....as would condemning and seizing the stream bed of just about every river and stream in the state for the use of everyone in the state.  If I toss a bag of trash on the side of the road and it lands on the easement or in someone's yard I broke the law...enforce that and do away with private ownership of water and stream beds....the vast majority of voters would vote for it in a minute.


----------



## longrangedog

What if a majority of residents in your county voted to seize your private property, sell it, and divide the proceeds amongst themselves.  Would you be OK with that?


----------



## DOUG 281

where i grew up at years ago we could fish the creek from one end to the other no one said a thing now it's all posted.IF you pull off of the main road the cops will be called.Could hunt any where it was all good but not no more


----------



## Big7

longrangedog said:


> What if a majority of residents in your county voted to seize your private property, sell it, and divide the proceeds amongst themselves.  Would you be OK with that?


Not the same thing at all as wading or navigating a boat and never making landfall except public access points or where you have permission to put in and out.

I'll take my chances and given the opportunity, I'd traverse rivers and streams by boat or kayak and stay off privately owned dirt.

Been doing it for close to 50 years with no issues.

My 2 cents.


----------



## gobbleinwoods

Big7 said:


> Not the same thing at all as wading or navigating a boat and never making landfall except public access points or where you have permission to put in and out.
> 
> I'll take my chances and given the opportunity, I'd traverse rivers and streams by boat or kayak and stay off privately owned dirt.
> 
> Been doing it for close to 50 years with no issues.
> 
> My 2 cents.



Don't try it on the Soque.


----------



## Nicodemus

gobbleinwoods said:


> Don't try it on the Soque.




Or the Ichaway Nochaway Creek down here.


----------



## longrangedog

Big7 said:


> Not the same thing at all as wading or navigating a boat and never making landfall except public access points or where you have permission to put in and out.
> 
> I'll take my chances and given the opportunity, I'd traverse rivers and streams by boat or kayak and stay off privately owned dirt.
> 
> Been doing it for close to 50 years with no issues.
> 
> My 2 cents.



You're wrong on this too. Both are private property issues. You agree with the protection of your private property constitutional rights but disagree with the private property rights of folks whose private property you want to share.


----------



## DOUG 281

they buy a half acre think they own ten


----------



## Concrete Pete

Nicodemus said:


> Or the Ichaway Nochaway Creek down here.



Is it mainly shoal bass down there?


----------



## Nicodemus

Concrete Pete said:


> Is it mainly shoal bass down there?




Shoal bass and largemouth. Unfortunately, spotted bass are making their way down here.


----------



## Concrete Pete

Nicodemus said:


> Shoal bass and largemouth. Unfortunately, spotted bass are making their way down here.



Nice. I need to find a legal way to fish there if that creek has wadeable portions.


----------



## Big7

longrangedog said:


> You're wrong on this too. Both are private property issues. You agree with the protection of your private property constitutional rights but disagree with the private property rights of folks whose private property you want to share.


I may be wrong. I have no reason to doubt you.

The laws have probably changed over the years but it used to be if you had access to a river from a legal put in and stayed in the boat or on foot you were good unless you stepped on someone's bank.

And. It went so far as to allow access to natural lakes provided you put in a river or stream legally to get to them.


----------



## BeerThirty

Difficult situation to regulate as I can understand both sides of the argument. 

Where I grew up you could legally hunt or fish streams through private property as long as you gain access through public property. I shot a good many of wood ducks this way and also found a good many of honey hole fishing spots. My childhood would not be as memorable if I wasn't able to do that.


----------



## DOUG 281

BIG 7 my son was told that by the man in green this year in N.C. IF i was still able to wade i would go fish all they can do is run you off


----------



## Robust Redhorse

Don't do this in Georgia, unless you want to spend the rest of your afternoon with a deputy at the county jail.


----------



## Big7

Just spoke to my county Ranger on the phone.

He said no matter where you put in, if you get to a place where a landowner owns both sides- it's illegal. Period.

I asked about penalties. He said first one is a verbal warning. Read into that what you may.

I'm not going to sweat it much. Been doing it decades. Never seen a landowner or Ranger in smaller rivers and Oconee, Ocmulgee, Altamaha, etc.. are good to go.


----------



## DOUG 281

FISH ON MY FRIEND FISH ON. my uncle fished with no license for years never got checked when he got up around 70 or so he got his license one day got checked the next day


----------



## JustUs4All

Big7 said:


> I may be wrong. I have no reason to doubt you.
> 
> The laws have probably changed over the years but it used to be if you had access to a river from a legal put in and stayed in the boat or on foot you were good unless you stepped on someone's bank.
> 
> And. It went so far as to allow access to natural lakes provided you put in a river or stream legally to get to them.



This has never been the law in Georgia.



DOUG 281 said:


> they buy a half acre think they own ten



I am not real sure what you are meaning to say here but I bought some acres and think that I own exactly what I bought which includes stretches on both sides of two creeks.


----------



## Robust Redhorse

If the landowner has an affidavit filed with the probate court in the county saying they won't intervene if a game warden arrests someone trespassing without WRITTEN permission to hunt or fish, then there is no written warning.

If the trespasser has broken a law other than simply being on the property without written permission (killing an animal, keeping a fish, littering, damaging property, etc.) then it's Criminal Trespassing, which gets a whole lot worse.

https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ga/s...on commits the,person without consent of that


----------



## Concrete Pete

Robust Redhorse said:


> If the landowner has an affidavit filed with the probate court in the county saying they won't intervene if a game warden arrests someone trespassing without WRITTEN permission to hunt or fish, then there is no written warning.
> 
> If the trespasser has broken a law other than simply being on the property without written permission (killing an animal, keeping a fish, littering, damaging property, etc.) then it's Criminal Trespassing, which gets a whole lot worse.
> 
> https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/ga/s...on commits the,person without consent of that



Stuff like this is why I don’t fool around with trespassing.

I’ve met a few land owners who have just gotten completely burnt out on people trashing their property. 

Most live near WMAs. These people have decades of frustration built up and they’ll press charges.

You don’t want any charges you can easily avoid.

Saying, ‘I read on GON that this was ok’ or ‘One time a ranger told me this was ok’ isn’t going to hold up in court.

Don’t be the guy that learns the hard way.


----------



## Robust Redhorse

When you own land on a creek and you have had your livestock and pets killed, fish that you have purchased from a private trout hatchery stolen, your fences cut, beer and liquor bottles littering your property, people camping out and nailing lanterns and hammocks to your trees, etc., maybe you will understand Georgia's laws better.


----------



## Zebco The Clown

Concrete Pete said:


> I’ve met a few land owners who have just gotten completely burnt out on people trashing their property.
> 
> Most live near WMAs. These people have decades of frustration built up and they’ll press charges.



100% this. It's never the one time a trespasser comes through on accident. It's built up on years of bad experiences for the landowner. I regret the one time I went a little overboard on a trespasser, he was mistaken on a few things, but otherwise not doing any harm to anything. But it was the pent up agitation I had with a history of trespassing, theft, vandalism, littering, etc. So the one guy I caught ended up taking the brunt of my frustration at all those other guys, even though he was mostly innocent and confused. As it turned out, he actually had permission from my neighbor but didn't know where the property lines were exactly. I didn't find that out until later, I felt pretty bad for the way I treated him. But, it was a summation of a very long list of bad trespassers that made me snap on him because he was the one I finally caught.


----------



## DOUG 281

where i live they are people that come and buy and try to rule the whole area were we coon hunt at they try to run people off all of the time they try to keep folks from going to the Cemetery's one guy took it upon his self to tear the bridge out cost him a few dollars to build it back


----------



## Zebco The Clown

DOUG 281 said:


> where i live they are people that come and buy and try to rule the whole area were we coon hunt at they try to run people off all of the time they try to keep folks from going to the Cemetery's one guy took it upon his self to tear the bridge out cost him a few dollars to build it back



Do your dogs know where the property lines are?


----------



## DOUG 281

no the dogs don't know or does the people trying to run the show


----------



## Robust Redhorse

I was a Cubmaster with the Boy Scouts several years ago   (before Scouts decided to take a dive off the deep end).  One of the dads of two Cub Scouts in my Pack decided he wanted to take his sons fishing the creek on my property.  

I would have given him written permission in a heartbeat.  

He didn't ask me and there was nothing I could do for him when the Game Warden arrested him for trespassing.  He he had to pay a hefty fine, but I had filed the affidavit, so I couldn't speak up on his behalf.


Everyone - Get WRITTEN permission to hunt, fish or even hike or birdwatch.


Verbal permission doesn't mean anything in GA.


----------



## Concrete Pete

Robust Redhorse said:


> I was a Cubmaster with the Boy Scouts several years ago   (before Scouts decided to take a dive off the deep end).  One of the dads of two Cub Scouts in my Pack decided he wanted to take his sons fishing the creek on my property.
> 
> I would have given him written permission in a heartbeat.
> 
> He didn't ask me and there was nothing I could do for him when the Game Warden arrested him for trespassing.  He he had to pay a hefty fine, but I had filed the affidavit, so I couldn't speak up on his behalf.
> 
> 
> Everyone - Get WRITTEN permission to hunt, fish or even hike or birdwatch.
> 
> 
> Verbal permission doesn't mean anything in GA.



This is one of the few quality posts in this thread. I’ll make sure to get written permission. I’ve always gotten verbal, but now I know why I need it in writing.


----------



## Concrete Pete

Zebco The Clown said:


> 100% this. It's never the one time a trespasser comes through on accident. It's built up on years of bad experiences for the landowner. I regret the one time I went a little overboard on a trespasser, he was mistaken on a few things, but otherwise not doing any harm to anything. But it was the pent up agitation I had with a history of trespassing, theft, vandalism, littering, etc. So the one guy I caught ended up taking the brunt of my frustration at all those other guys, even though he was mostly innocent and confused. As it turned out, he actually had permission from my neighbor but didn't know where the property lines were exactly. I didn't find that out until later, I felt pretty bad for the way I treated him. But, it was a summation of a very long list of bad trespassers that made me snap on him because he was the one I finally caught.



Yep, I hate it for people who weren’t meaning any harm. There’s people on this forum who’ve had their lives threatened for trespassing.

I don’t agree with all that of course.

However, I have seen such egregious behavior I have to take the land owners side.

I think there’s a stereotype of the greedy property owner that needs to be put to rest. True greed is thinking you’ve got a right to something someone else worked for and takes care of.


----------

