# Duck Hunting public waterways?



## Jaz86

I have been duck hunting private land for about 3 yr but have lost acess to that property. Does anyone know if it is leagal to hunt public waterways i.e. creeks rivers. The only regs I have been able to find are for Ga Power lakes.


----------



## krazybronco2

you maybe able to find some information on the corp of engineers website and read the CFR. i would tell you the CFR number but cant remember it right off hand. it may take a while to find the info your looking for cause there is alot of legal terms that take up alot of space. also if i had the pdf saved i would post it but didnt

the reason i tell you this is because im pretty sure that all creeks and rivers are controlled by the corp of engineers.


----------



## across the river

Jaz86 said:


> I have been duck hunting private land for about 3 yr but have lost acess to that property. Does anyone know if it is leagal to hunt public waterways i.e. creeks rivers. The only regs I have been able to find are for Ga Power lakes.



Do you have a boat or are you looking to just walk in somewhere?


----------



## Boudreaux

Google the specific body of water.  Some have their own restrictions, such as Lake Lanier.  

But yes, hunting is available on various public waters.


----------



## Jaz86

Yes, have a boat I plan to use


----------



## 199sth

Previous years we hunted big open creeks on the river, but last year a certain game warden wrote us some slips saying it was not legal to hunt creeks off the river whether or not the water is flowing through....but then he said we could go back fishing? sounds like he was on someones payrole, but I have talked to other g wardens and they said the same thing...


----------



## JMHendley

rivers a re kinda a grey area, for rivers to be considered public waterways, they have to be considered navigable waters, not sure if they changed the law or not, but to determine if there navigable waters the old law said if a 20ft barge could make it then it was considered navigable, in which also public, but if its not then the land owner would own to the center of the waterway, that's how i interpreted it. id look it up on dnr though


----------



## Boudreaux

JMHendley said:


> rivers a re kinda a grey area, for rivers to be considered public waterways,



Not my research, but something good to read:



> http://www.ngaproperty.com/toccoariver.htm
> 
> Georgia Law Regarding
> Landowner Property Rights
> on Toccoa River and Non-Navigable
> Streams and Rivers
> ______________________________________
> 
> HOME
> 
> Disclaimer
> The information on this site should be considered "as-is" and should be verified. The maintainers of this site make an effort, when possible, to try to verify the information, but we are not lawyers and, therefore, we cannot and will not give legal advice. If you need accurate answers, hire an attorney who is licensed in the state in question or feel free to verify the information with the state and federal government. Some of the information provided on this site is directly from http://www.legis.state.ga.us which is an official website maintained by the State of Georgia. __________________________________________________ _________________
> 
> 
> 
> LEGAL RESEARCH BY TRIPP BRIDGES (http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/Nat...3.1comment.htm)
> 
> Tripp Bridges is a third-year law student at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, Georgia. The views expressed below are the author’s own. This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions and positions of the National Sea Grant Law Center and its affiliates.
> 
> Georgia is fortunate to have many rivers that can be used for recreational boating. Canoeing and kayaking are recreational activities enjoyed by many people in the state. These numbers will undoubtedly increase with the population growth of Atlanta and its suburbs. Generally canoeists have enjoyed relatively free access to many of Georgia’s larger rivers, however in recent years there have been some notable exceptions.
> 
> 
> The following two cases exemplify the problems that the public has had in gaining access to some of Georgia’s non-navigable rivers. In Georgia Canoeing Assoc. v. Henry, 482 S.E.2d 298, 267 Ga. App. 814 (1997), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s opinion that the public did not have a right of passage down Armuchee Creek where it flowed through Mr. Henry’s land. The Georgia Canoeing Association was seeking to enjoin Mr. Henry from stopping free passage by the public down the river. In Givens v. Ichauway, Inc., 493 S.E.2d 148, 268 Ga. 710 (1997), the court found that the Ichauwaynochaway Creek was non-navigable, and therefore inaccessible to boaters, even though the appellant was able to navigate a small raft carrying two people, a goat, and a bale of cotton in attempts to prove navigability under the standard of commerce of the nineteenth century.
> 
> 
> As illustrated by the aforementioned cases, current Georgia law does not allow a right of passage for the public down non-navigable rivers. According to O.C.G.A. § 44-8-2 the adjacent landowner owns the bed of a non-navigable river to the midpoint, and if the landowner owns both sides of the river, then ownership extends to the entire streambed. The same is true if the river is a boundary between properties; the landowners both own to the midpoint, and could join together and prohibit passage down the river.1 The legislature passed this law long before the start of any significant recreational boating in the region. This section of the code effectively prohibits the public from using many of Georgia’s scenic rivers. Consideration should be given to changing it to allow a right of through passage down non-navigable rivers.
> 
> 
> At this time Georgia boaters only have a right of passage down navigable waters. Georgia’s definition of navigable is surprisingly restrictive. Under Georgia law, navigable streams are those “capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable.”2 Few rivers in Georgia qualify under Georgia law as navigable due to the fact many barges are over 200 feet long, and few rivers would be able to support such boats.3 This restrictive definition precludes a right of passage on most of Georgia’s rivers, including the Chattooga, Chestatee, and Toccoa, which are frequently used for canoeing.
> 
> 
> 
> GA DNR Q AND A (http://georgiawildlife.dnr.state.ga....xtDocument=421)
> 
> Q: How is navigability defined in Georgia? How does this relate to public access to waterways for the purposes of fishing, hunting, and boating?
> 
> A: This is a complex issue in Georgia because of the difficulty in determining whether or not a stream is navigable as described by Georgia law. The following definitions in Georgia law describe navigable streams and tidewaters:
> 
> O.C.G.A. §44-8-5(a) Navigable stream means a stream which is capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable.
> O.C.G.A. §44-8-7 Navigable tidewater is any tidewater, the sea or any inlet thereof, or any other bed of water where the tide regularly ebbs and flows which is in fact used for the purposes of navigation or is capable of transporting at mean low tide boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade. The mere rafting of timber thereon or the passage of small boats thereover, whether for the transportation of persons or freight, shall not be deemed navigation within the meaning of this code section and shall not make tidewaters navigable.
> These definitions were formulated in 1863 and speak in rather archaic terms. Therefore, the navigability of streams under state law is often decided on a case-by-case basis through court litigation.
> 
> The question of whether a stream is open to the public for fishing, boating, etc., must be determined on its physical characteristics and history, especially for smaller streams. It comes down to whether the state owns the bottom (bed) of the stream or if the adjacent landowner owns it. The state owns the bed of navigable streams and adjacent landowners own the bed of non-navigable streams. If the state owns the bed, the stream is open to the public for fishing, wading, boating, and other public use and the owner of the adjacent land only owns to the low water mark (edge) on the bed of the stream [Official Code of Georgia Annotated (O.C.G.A.) §44-8-5(b)]. If the stream is non-navigable, the adjacent landowner may determine who can and cannot come onto the stream to fish or boat. If different landowners own the land adjacent on either side of a stream, they each own to the thread or center of the main current.
> 
> A good rule of thumb is to always ask for permission to hunt and fish on private lands first to avoid problems.
> 
> 
> 
> QUICK FACTS (not opinions)
> 
> -The Toccoa River is legally classified as a non-navigable river. Opinions may vary on which rivers should or should not be classified navigable or non-navigable, however, the Toccoa river is still legally classified as a non-navigable river as are most rivers in Georgia. The status of navigable or non-navigable is not an opinion left up to individuals to decide upon, it is a legal classification.
> 
> -Property owners that own both sides of a non-navigable stream or adjacent property owners who let the public float through their property are doing so by their own choice. They do NOT have to let you pass (or FISH) through property on rivers classified non-navigable. This is a fact, not an opinion. It can be verified by trying to pass through some of the other rivers in Georgia, just like the Toccoa, that have been closed to passage for years. If you attempt to pass through you will be arrested and/or ticketed. You can verify this by contacting the appropriate authorities and asking if you can pass through or fish.
> 
> -Owning property on non-navigable rivers and streams is how private fishing outfitters legally operate and it is also how the cattle industry is able to legally fence in the river to keep cattle inside their property
> 
> -There are many non-navigable rivers (most rivers in Georgia are classified non-navigable) and streams which have sections closed (and/or fenced) to passage by any means. I.E. golf course's, fishing outfitters, cattle farmers, land owners, etc.
> 
> -Dozens of people are arrested each year for either not knowing the law or knowingly disagreeing with the law.
> 
> -It is your responsibility to know the law. It is NOT the property owners responsibility to explain the law to you if you are trespassing.
> 
> -Just because you have floated through private property before does not mean you can continue to do so after the property has been posted.
> 
> -The property does not have to be posted (keep out, no trespassing, etc) in order for you to be trespassing. If the property owner (or someone authorized) verbally asks you to leave, and you do not leave, then you are trespassing.
> 
> 
> 
> -Remember, these are laws. Not everybody likes every law, but they are still laws non the less and there are consequences for breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the fish(fact)
> 
> Many people will argue that nobody "owns" the fish in the river. They are exactly correct. Per DNR, It is no different than a deer standing on private property that is posted. The land owner does not own the deer, however, while the deer is on his property nobody can harm the deer or kill the deer. Per DNR, this is the same for fish in a river legally classified non-navigable in which the landowner owns both sides of the river and posts the river for "no fishing".
> 
> Disclaimer
> The information on this site should be considered "as-is" and should be verified. The maintainers of this site make an effort, when possible, to try to verify the information, but we are not lawyers and, therefore, we cannot and will not give legal advice. If you need accurate answers, hire an attorney who is licensed in the state in question or feel free to verify the information with the state and federal government. Some of the information provided on this site is directly from http://www.legis.state.ga.us which is an official website maintained by the State of Georgia.


----------



## Jaz86

So, then why would DNR put public boat ramps on a creek tha by this definiton is non navigable?


----------



## king killer delete

We hunt just about all rivers and inlets on the coast with out problems. Now that does not mean you can pull up to someones boat dock and throw out your decoys. The main thing down here is be respectful and pick up your trash.


----------



## nickf11

JMHendley said:


> rivers a re kinda a grey area, for rivers to be considered public waterways, they have to be considered navigable waters, not sure if they changed the law or not, but to determine if there navigable waters the old law said if a 20ft barge could make it then it was considered navigable, in which also public, but if its not then the land owner would own to the center of the waterway, that's how i interpreted it. id look it up on dnr though





Jaz86 said:


> So, then why would DNR put public boat ramps on a creek tha by this definiton is non navigable?



Yea, I've always wondered the same thing about this "law." There are plenty of rivers that loads of people hunt that are not navigable by barge. I think, for the most part, you just have to be in your boat and you should be legal.


----------



## MudDucker

nickf11 said:


> Yea, I've always wondered the same thing about this "law." There are plenty of rivers that loads of people hunt that are not navigable by barge. I think, for the most part, you just have to be in your boat and you should be legal.



You are wrong.  What was posted regarding the law of Georgia is straight up.  If it is not navigable waters, it is illegal to enter without landowner permission.

If the landowner insists, game wardens must tell you to leave or write you a ticket for trespassing.


----------



## Boudreaux

Jaz86 said:


> So, then why would DNR put public boat ramps on a creek tha by this definiton is non navigable?




This is a question that CANNOT be answered here, but hunters biased against the law.

What you NEED to do is address this question to the DNR.  Perhaps they have an agreement with the land owner.  Perhaps when the law was written, the river to which you refer was navigable.

We can play "Perhaps" and "What if" all day long.  If you have a question about DNR actions, ask the DNR.


----------



## Bdub

I called the local DNR here and asked about our specific river and he told me that as long as I could get to the spot by water without leaving my boat i was legal. And I could set up anywhere i was below of the high water mark. Im sure it different for each river


----------



## Boudreaux

MudDucker said:


> You are wrong.  What was posted regarding the law of Georgia is straight up.  If it is not navigable waters, it is illegal to enter without landowner permission.
> 
> If the landowner insists, game wardens must tell you to leave or write you a ticket for trespassing.



Laws were different growing up in Louisiana, so I had a hard time understanding this when I moved to GA.

However, I began to think about this from a landowner's perspective.  Assume you buy a piece of land that has a small river flowing through it, enough to regularly float canoes or jon  boats.  You manage the land well and have great habitat for ducks, deer, turkey, hogs, etc.

Would you want any yahoo floating through your property shooting the game there, possible trampling your resources that you have spent the time and money to upgrade, littering the property?

Now, let's assume that they stay in their boat, as mentioned.  Consider this:  The river bed is drained and now what cuts across your property is an ATV trail.  Would you have no issue with just anyone with an ATV riding that trail across your property, so long as they never got off the ATV?


----------



## Boudreaux

Bdub said:


> I called the local DNR here and asked about our specific river and he told me that as long as I could get to the spot by water without leaving my boat i was legal. And I could set up anywhere i was below of the high water mark. Im sure it different for each river



I'd get that in writing and signed by the DNR agent.  May get you out of a ticket from another DNR agent one day.  If another DNR agent follows the law as written, you just telling him that you spoke to DNR agent X and he said it was OK, you'll likely still get a ticket.

But hey, you can ignore this all you want, but as with everything, you do so at your own risk.


----------



## nickf11

MudDucker said:


> You are wrong.  What was posted regarding the law of Georgia is straight up.  If it is not navigable waters, it is illegal to enter without landowner permission.
> 
> If the landowner insists, game wardens must tell you to leave or write you a ticket for trespassing.





Bdub said:


> I called the local DNR here and asked about our specific river and he told me that as long as I could get to the spot by water without leaving my boat i was legal. And I could set up anywhere i was below of the high water mark. Im sure it different for each river



MudDucker, that's straight from the dnr. And that's what I've always assumed the law was. There are several rivers that are perfectly legal to hunt that are not navigable by barge. This supposed "navigable waters" thing makes no sense. I cannot see any warden writing a ticket to someone for hunting in their boat below the high water mark. Not buying it.


----------



## Boudreaux

nickf11 said:


> MudDucker, that's straight from the dnr. And that's what I've always assumed the law was. There are several rivers that are perfectly legal to hunt that are not navigable by barge. This supposed "navigable waters" thing makes no sense. I cannot see any warden writing a ticket to someone for hunting in their boat below the high water mark. Not buying it.




He ain't selling it.  He is an attorney and is telling you what the law on the book says.  

Your interpretation is irrelevant.  A DNR agent's interpretation is relevant, but you have to hope he agrees with yours. 

Just because a law enforcement officer does not fully understand the law and gives you bad advice and you agree with it because it is what you want to hear does not change what is written on the books as the law.

And arguing here doesn't change what is written in the GA Code.  We are trying to give you some caution based on what the actual law is, but feel free to ignore and hope you continue to run into DNR agents who either don't care or don't understand the law.


----------



## nickf11

Boudreaux said:


> He ain't selling it.  He is an attorney and is telling you what the law on the book says.
> 
> Your interpretation is irrelevant.  A DNR agent's interpretation is relevant, but you have to hope he agrees with yours.
> 
> Just because a law enforcement officer does not fully understand the law and gives you bad advice and you agree with it because it is what you want to hear does not change what is written on the books as the law.
> 
> And arguing here doesn't change what is written in the GA Code.  We are trying to give you some caution based on what the actual law is, but feel free to ignore and hope you continue to run into DNR agents who either don't care or don't understand the law.



I'm not denying that that's what the law says in the books, nor am I trying to argue, and I appreciate the caution. But I have a hard time seeing how this law can be enforcable. I didn't want to name drop a river due to people getting bent out of shape about it but I guess I'm going to have to: The etowah is a perfect example. There are loads of people who hunt and fish the river in jon boats, jet boats, and kyaks or canoes. AND there are public ramps. There is nowhere on that river that would be navigable by a 20+ ft. barge. So what I'm getting out of this is if a dnr officer or a landowner who owns property bordering the river is in a bad mood and wants to ruin someone's day, technically every single person that hunts that river in their boat can get a ticket for trespassing? I just have a hard time believing that it's justifiable to give someone a ticket for trespassing when they're hunting on a public waterway that may not be "navigable" by defenition. Just my $0.02


----------



## Boudreaux

The Etowah may have had a court case that declared it navigable, or it may have been when the law was passed in the 1800's.   

If you look at the Chattahoochee near me, you cannot imagine a barge moving up or down it, but it for some reason is deemed navigable.  

I would check to see if there has been a legal determination on the river that is documented, rather than relying on the word of a DNR agent who may or may not be right.


----------



## Boudreaux

This may help some of you with this topic.



> UNOFFICIAL OPINION U85-8
> 
> 1985 Op. Atty Gen. Ga. 156
> 
> February 28, 1985
> Representative Paul E. Smith
> District 16
> 2 Saddle Horn Drive
> P.O. Box 486
> Rome, Georgia 30161
> Re: Fishing and Public Passage Rights on Non-Tidal Rivers of the State
> 
> OPINION
> This is in response to your request for my opinion concerning whether the Etowah River can be used by various sports enthusiasts even though one owner owns the land on both sides of the river. Inasmuch as the Etowah River is now affected by the ebb and flow of the tides, the following legal discussion relates only to non-tidal rivers.
> The question you pose does not necessarily lend itself to a clear-cut answer. As to fishing rights in nontidal waters, the weight of authority in Georgia is that the right to fish and take fish is a right of profit in lands under the common law and consequently, the fee in the bed of the stream generally carries with it the exclusive right of fishery in the stream. See Lee v. Mallard, 116 Ga. 18<A> (1902); Thompson v. Tennyson, 148 Ga. 701<A> (1919); Bosworth v. Nelson, 170 Ga. 279<A> (1930); and West v. Baumgartner, 124 Ga. App. 318<A> (1971).
> Therefore, under applicable law, if one person owns the land on both sides of a nonnavigable river, then he would own the fee to the bed of that river and would, under the above theory, thereby possess the exclusive right of fishery in that river. O.C.G.A. § 44-8-2 provides that the beds of nonnavigable streams belong to the owner of the adjacent land and if the stream is the dividing line between two parcels of land, the boundary of each owner extends to the thread or the center of the main current of water.
> If that landowner's property abuts on both sides of a navigable river, however, then the chances are good that he owns only to the low water mark on each side of that river and consequently, he would not have exclusive fishing rights between the low water marks of the river. This is so because in 1863, the General Assembly enacted legislation providing that the rights of owners of land adjacent to navigable streams extend only to the low-water mark in the bed of such streams.
> 
> A caveat must be added at this point. If the landowner's property was granted out of the State prior to this 1863 enactment, and the landowner can trace his chain of title back to the original State grant, then the landowner would own the bed of the navigable river and have exclusive fishing rights therein.
> 
> In summary, if a person owns land on both sides of a nonnavigable river then he controls the fishing rights in that portion of the river. However, if the river is navigable then he probably would not possess the exclusive fishing rights between the low water marks of the river.
> 
> From the very earliest times, both in this country and in England, it has been recognized that the public has an inherent right to use all navigable rivers as highways; and this right of navigation extends to the entire surface of the water from bank to bank. Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Sikes, 4 Ga. App. 7<A> (1908).
> 
> If a river is nonnavigable, however, it is considered private property. O.C.G.A. § 44-8-3 provides, to-wit:
> "The owner of a nonnavigable stream is entitled to the same exclusive possession of the stream as he has of any other part of his land. The legislature has no power to compel or interfere with the owner's lawful use of the stream, for the benefit of those above or below him on the stream, except to restrain nuisances."
> 
> Therefore, just as with fishing rights, the right of the general public to boat, canoe or raft on a river hinges on the question of navigability. If the river is navigable, the public may p****upon it as with any public highway. If it is nonnavigable and the adjacent landowner owns the land on both sides of the river, he is entitled to exclusive possession of that stretch of the river to which his property abuts.
> What then is meant by the term "navigable river"? In 1863 the General Assembly, in adopting the first code of the State, enacted a provision defining the term "navigable stream" and this definition is still on the books today. O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5(a) provides, to-wit:
> 
> "(a) As used in this chapter, the term 'navigable stream' means a stream which is capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable."
> 
> Early on the Georgia Supreme Court held that the above definition is controlling in determining whether a river is navigable and thereby subject to public usage as a highway. Seaboard Air-Line Railway v. Sikes, supra at p. 8.
> Therefore, the question of whether a particular stretch of river is considered navigable is a factual one to be decided by a court upon the evidence presented. In this regard, however, it should be noted that in making such a determination, an historical approach may be used, i.e., was the river used or capable of being used for commercial navigation as known and understood by the lawmakers at the time "navigable stream" was defined. Navigability of a stream once established is not destroyed by disuse. Burwell v. Moore, 288 P.2d 841 (1955).
> 
> Consequently, a river's dimensions would not necessarily have to be great in order for the river to be considered navigable. A review of cases from various jurisdictions reveals that some commercial vessels operating from the middle to the turn of the 19th Century would draw as little as 12 inches of water loaded. See State v. West Tennessee Land Co., 158 S.W. 748 (1915). Keelboats used commercially in the 1870's had a carrying capacity of 10 to 12 tons and a draft of two feet. United States v. Appalachian Power Co., 311 U.S. 377, 411 (1940). And in one case it was noted that a steamer with a tonnage of 45 tons and loaded with 20,000 bricks drew only four feet of water. Ingram v. Policy Jury of the Parish of St. Tammany, 20 La. Ann. 226 (1868).
> 
> And finally, it was particularly pointed out in the case of United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co., supra at 416, that the availability of a body of water for navigation is controlling rather than the extent of commerce conducted thereon. There it was observed that the conditions of exploration and settlement of an area explained the infrequency or limited nature of such use of waters as highways of commerce, and that the lack of commercial traffic does not preclude the conclusion that a body of water is navigable where personal or private use demonstrates the capability of a stream for a type of commercial navigation. This could be an important factor when considering rivers above the fall line in Georgia where very little commercial traffic was ever established.
> Unfortunately there is a dearth of cases in Georgia applying the "navigable stream" definition to particular rivers in Georgia. In Seaboard Air-Line Railway, supra, evidence showed that the Canoochee River was "a small, crooked stream, incapable of floating freight or passenter boats, and 'only used for rafting timber and fishing'" and it was declared nonnavigable. By contrast, a stream 75 to 200 feet in width, 14 feet in depth, and open so as to allow "free passage to all water craft running thereon," was held to be navigable. Charleston and Savannah Railway v. Johnson, 73 Ga. 306<A> (1884).
> 
> Therefore, it is my unofficial opinion that many Georgia rivers could meet the definition of "navigable stream" and be subject to public use as a highway of the State. Each must be judged by the characteristics peculiar to it, however.
> 
> I trust that this letter will be of assistance to you.
> 
> MICHAEL J. BOWERS
> Attorney General
> PREPARED BY:
> ROBERT S. BOMAR
> Senior Assistant Attorney General


----------



## Boudreaux

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/277/277.F2d.857.17946.html





> First, the government argues the Etowah River is navigable, and the case is therefore ruled by United States v. Twin City Power Co., 350 U.S. 222, 76 S.Ct. 259, 100 L.Ed. 240; second, it argues that if not navigable, the Etowah was tributary to a navigable river (which is undisputed) and thus subject to the paramount right of the Federal Government's control under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, art. 1, 8, cl. 3,



Looks like there may have been court cases in your particular river, but I would not make the assumption that what applies to one river applies to all in GA.


----------



## BigSwole

So i have a question,

I spoke to DNR on saturday nov. 10th. Asked him the legality of hunting a location. He told me i would be legal, looked at a map and double checked his regulations and said i was perfectly legal to hunt there. 

By chance a different game warden were to come upon me and disagree and say i was illegal, arrest/fine/ticket me. How would that work. I have the original dnr's number in case of any event. I doubt i have any but since we are on the subject ill ask.


----------



## Boudreaux

Perhaps this is why:

• Lock and Dam - This facility, constructed between 
1910 and 1913, was designed to allow boats to travel
upriver to Rome from Alabama. Before its construction Horseleg Shoals often prevented the passage of 
steamboats to Rome. When completed the lock and 
dam created a navigable channel from Rome all the 
way to Mobile Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. The advent 
of railroads, improved roads and other transportation 
advances resulted in the river and lock and dam being 
used very little, and in 1941, the lock ceased operation. But in the heyday of river navigation, steamboats 
carried passengers, mail, supplies and agricultural 
products (especially cotton) from Rome to points 
down river in Alabama.

http://www.coosa.org/files/EQBowl12 Study Guide.pdf


----------



## FOD

If you didn't get out of your boat to get there,and you're below the high water mark,it's legal.


----------



## Boudreaux

BigSwole said:


> So i have a question,
> 
> I spoke to DNR on saturday nov. 10th. Asked him the legality of hunting a location. He told me i would be legal, looked at a map and double checked his regulations and said i was perfectly legal to hunt there.
> 
> By chance a different game warden were to come upon me and disagree and say i was illegal, arrest/fine/ticket me. How would that work. I have the original dnr's number in case of any event. I doubt i have any but since we are on the subject ill ask.



How it would work, in my layman's opinion, is that you'd be going to court. 

The DNR agent who says it is illegal to hunt there has put it in writing - in the form of a ticket.

It'd be up to you to provide evidence contrary to that DNR agent.  

Which is why I said earlier, if an area is in question, get it in WRITING from the DNR that you are legal to hunt there.


----------



## Boudreaux

FOD said:


> If you didn't get out of your boat to get there,and you're below the high water mark,it's legal.




You are wrong to make a blanket statement like that.  READ THE LAW posted above.  It does NOT agree with your statement.


----------



## FOD

I'm not a lawyer,or a LEO,and I might be hardheaded,but like I said,If I got to it without getting out of my boat,I'm gonna hunt it.Ya'll have to be only getting bits and pieces of the law,if this was true,75% of the rivers and creeks in the state would be private.As you stated in one of your previous posts about someone managing a creek and having someone else come in and hunt it,that's one of the perks of waterfront property,you get to meet all sorts of new people fishing and hunting very near your property.


----------



## BigSwole

Boudreaux said:


> How it would work, in my layman's opinion, is that you'd be going to court.
> 
> The DNR agent who says it is illegal to hunt there has put it in writing - in the form of a ticket.
> 
> It'd be up to you to provide evidence contrary to that DNR agent.
> 
> Which is why I said earlier, if an area is in question, get it in WRITING from the DNR that you are legal to hunt there.



Will see about trying to get it in writing, but how do i ask without coming off like a pain in the rear? I have a voicemail from him showing i talked to him with his contact info.


----------



## Boudreaux

FOD said:


> I'm not a lawyer,or a LEO,and I might be hardheaded,but like I said,If I got to it without getting out of my boat,I'm gonna hunt it.Ya'll have to be only getting bits and pieces of the law,if this was true,75% of the rivers and creeks in the state would be private.As you stated in one of your previous posts about someone managing a creek and having someone else come in and hunt it,that's one of the perks of waterfront property,you get to meet all sorts of new people fishing and hunting very near your property.



Have at it.  Just because you don't like it, agree with it, or understand it, doesn't mean it's not what the law says.  Good luck to you.



BigSwole said:


> Will see about trying to get it in writing, but how do i ask without coming off like a pain in the rear? I have a voicemail from him showing i talked to him with his contact info.



I'd simply say that you've been researching and getting conflicting reports about the legality of hunting non-navigable waters, and would like to cover your rear in case a DNR agent isn't as well educated as he is wants to write you a ticket.  Just tell him you want to do the right thing and avoid trouble, and you believe having it in writing will help you do that.  Also, remind him that the DNR, on their own website, recommends carrying written permission to hunt private lands.  Tell him you want to uphold that same standard in the location in question.


----------



## nickf11

Thanks for the info Boudreaux


----------



## Boudreaux

nickf11 said:


> Thanks for the info Boudreaux



Be safe, be legal, and be a good ambassador for our passtime!


----------



## MudDucker

Bdub said:


> I called the local DNR here and asked about our specific river and he told me that as long as I could get to the spot by water without leaving my boat i was legal. And I could set up anywhere i was below of the high water mark. Im sure it different for each river



The person who told you this is wrong.  He is not an attorney and he sure isn't a judge and he is just plain wrong.  He has minimum legal training.

This is an OLD topic and has been beat to death.  In most of Georgia, landowners have not asserted their rights and as long as they don't, the DNR is going to turn a blind eye.  In N. Georgia, many landowners have asserted their legal rights and you will be ticketed and/or jailed for trespass.

You do what you want to do, but I am telling you, all it takes is one landowner who knows the law to get angry and the DNR will start making cases.


----------



## MudDucker

BigSwole said:


> So i have a question,
> 
> I spoke to DNR on saturday nov. 10th. Asked him the legality of hunting a location. He told me i would be legal, looked at a map and double checked his regulations and said i was perfectly legal to hunt there.
> 
> By chance a different game warden were to come upon me and disagree and say i was illegal, arrest/fine/ticket me. How would that work. I have the original dnr's number in case of any event. I doubt i have any but since we are on the subject ill ask.



Neither the State nor the Feds are bound by the improper interpretations of the laws by their employees.


----------



## MudDucker

FOD said:


> I'm not a lawyer,or a LEO,and I might be hardheaded,but like I said,If I got to it without getting out of my boat,I'm gonna hunt it.Ya'll have to be only getting bits and pieces of the law,if this was true,75% of the rivers and creeks in the state would be private.As you stated in one of your previous posts about someone managing a creek and having someone else come in and hunt it,that's one of the perks of waterfront property,you get to meet all sorts of new people fishing and hunting very near your property.



You are wrong and I just one day, we don't see your picture in the newspaper.

If it happens and the Judge sees this post, I'll bet he doubles the fine.


----------



## Souhternhunter17

Hardly if any any rivers above the fall line are deemed as navigable. People hunt, fish, kayak, and canoe down them all the time. Does the DNR expect us to hunt, fish, and kayak just the few rivers deemed " navigable" by law? No, because very few of them know and understand the law themselves.I agree this is a grey spot after alot of research in regards to being able to hunt a location. I honestly think it is up to the game wardens discression in that area, or else we would all have tickets for tresspassing and poaching on almost every river in GA.


----------



## Carl Cooke

yessss i just looked it up and the little tallapoosa is navigable which means i can float hunt it right?  i have a place to put in and take out so looks like im in good shape. Please correct me if im wrong and if you have hunted it tell me where and how and i do not know if im breaking a forum rule or not im new so help me out guys this is my 2nd post. 
thanks


----------



## king killer delete

*Call the GA DNR*



Carl Cooke said:


> yessss i just looked it up and the little tallapoosa is navigable which means i can float hunt it right?  i have a place to put in and take out so looks like im in good shape. Please correct me if im wrong and if you have hunted it tell me where and how and i do not know if im breaking a forum rule or not im new so help me out guys this is my 2nd post.
> thanks



AND ask.


----------



## TurkeyH90

199sth said:


> Previous years we hunted big open creeks on the river, but last year a certain game warden wrote us some slips saying it was not legal to hunt creeks off the river whether or not the water is flowing through....but then he said we could go back fishing? sounds like he was on someones payrole, but I have talked to other g wardens and they said the same thing...



Yep, Got a warning about 4 years ago after killing my limit on opening day in a slough off the Ocmulgee I had hunted for years. Pretty much wrapped that up for me. Yall can have getting up at 3 to beat the crowd and shoot a couple woodies.


----------



## Gaducker

I have been tearin up the rivers and creeks around coweta, heard meriweather, and fayette countys since the early ninetys and yes I have been checked more than you want to know, If I can get in the water with legal access then I would say I am legal,  Yall who want to argue that fact have missed out on alot of good huntin. Or yall are afraid of a ticket from the man,  By the way I have NEVER gotten a ticket.  I got a warning for hunting on the road out of sight of an adult when I was 7 in stewart county in the seventys while dog hunting. 

ITS ALL IN THE HOMEWORK YOU DO PRIOR TO HUNTING CREEKS AND RIVERS.


----------



## king killer delete

If I can get to it by boat on the coast and I am not sitin on some ones dock and I am not shooting in the direction of a house. It  gets hunted


----------



## fishndinty

FOD said:


> I'm not a lawyer,or a LEO,and I might be hardheaded,but like I said,If I got to it without getting out of my boat,I'm gonna hunt it.Ya'll have to be only getting bits and pieces of the law,if this was true,75% of the rivers and creeks in the state would be private.As you stated in one of your previous posts about someone managing a creek and having someone else come in and hunt it,that's one of the perks of waterfront property,you get to meet all sorts of new people fishing and hunting very near your property.



FOD, that is EXACTLY what the law states.  And it's more like 95% or better of the rivers and creeks in the state.  They ARE private, and the only thing that keeps people from getting in trouble more in GA for it is the good graces or ignorance of landowners who allow sportsmen to use rivers that are defined as their property by GA law.

That is the law.


----------



## FOD

And everyone worries about the "hunting laws".Do you fish there?Okay,you can hunt there.Unless it's one of the "special" bodies of water in Ga that has it's own regs.And as far as the 20' barge thing,what happens when water levels fall?1000' across is non navigable to a barge if it's 2' deep.If the corp put up fancy channel markers in a river (100% navigable)and the water falls to 2',who drives the barge up there to put up the "no hunting" signs?


----------



## king killer delete

*Thank you.*



FOD said:


> And everyone worries about the "hunting laws".Do you fish there?Okay,you can hunt there.Unless it's one of the "special" bodies of water in Ga that has it's own regs.And as far as the 20' barge thing,what happens when water levels fall?1000' across is non navigable to a barge if it's 2' deep.If the corp put up fancy channel markers in a river (100% navigable)and the water falls to 2',who drives the barge up there to put up the "no hunting" signs?


----------



## joepuppy

Last year our river dropped out for most of duck season to just over a foot deep in most areas. I put my waders on and went scouting for some still pools to hunt. I was confronted by deer hunters on the bank that said I was tresspassing(in the middle of a dry river bed). I didn't argue, because I did not know the law. I stopped by the local ranger's house the next afternoon after work and explained the entire situation to him. He told me that the full pool mark was considered public access, water or not, thus I could walk/hunt all I wanted in respect to houses and other structures. As long as I stayed below the full waterline and out of the sloughs and creeks I would not be ticketed by GA DNR. Considering he is our area ranger, I went back to doing what I was doing and was confronted by the hunters a second time. With the ranger's phone number saved in my contacts, I offered to clear up the situation this time, and was promptly left alone. That's the only experience I have had with this, but it seemed simple enough.


----------



## JustUs4All

What river were you on in Georgia?  That piece of information would be accurate in tidal waters at the coastand on Altamaha, Savannah, Coosa, and lower Chattahoochee.  For everywhere else in in Georgia it is wrong.  The stream/river beds are owned by private landowners and the waters above them are controlled by the person owning the bed.  The landowners may not object to a trespass, but if they do, I can assure you that the DNR will have little choice in enforcing the law.

Please share the DNR Ranger's number with me.  You can do it via PM if you wish.


----------



## duckkillerclyde

I know OR and WA is different but what I do to see if it is public or not is look at the county property tax records....If nobody is paying taxes (or suppose to be) more than likely it is city, county, state, fed, BLM, national forest, water shed, etc.   Which in most cases in OR and WA makes it open to hunting.  

Don't let the state discriminate hunters from fishermen.


----------



## king killer delete

*Some coastal waters are off limits.*

The state of GA owns the salt marsh. Not a problem hunting most places. The lakes in Ga except for TVA lakes are owned by The U.S. Army Corps of Eng. Which means Fed land. I know on the lakes that are corps lakes you can not own to the high water mark. The corps owns 50 yards past the high water mark. TVA lakes way up state are a whole different set of rules and I think that GA power owns  some lakes that have different rules. In the south property laws are much tuffer than that of other places. If you are not sure go to DNR ask and make sure you get a full name and phone number. You do not want to be standing before a judge trying to make the case that GA DNR said you could  hunt when you do not have his name. Also be careful with the local law not GA DNR. They can cause you allot of trouble up to include an arrest. You may be found not guilty but you may still have an arrest record.  On the coast to own low marsh your family must have a deed from the king. Now that being said there are other situations that folks have a lease from the state. I think that there are some other situations where you can not just pull up and hunt some spots cause folks may have some rights that the state has given them. Like I would not pull up and hunt off some high dollar golf course that bordered the salt marsh. I would not hunt near some bodys house that was on a bluff near the salt marsh and I would not hunt next to somebodys boat dock. You can not pull up on a public beach and start shooting Mergs. Common sesnse goes along way in some of these situations. Just because it works in one state does not mean it works in another. If you go out west and hunt with Clyde he  will keep you with in the law. If you come to the  Ga coast and hunt with me I will keep you in the law. Best practice is know before you go.


----------



## JustUs4All

A DNR agent does not have the power to grant you permission to hunt private property that does not belong to him.  If you are hunting private property in Georgia even if a DNR agent told you you could hunt and you do not also have the permission of the landowner or leasee you will be committing two crimes:  Criminal Trespass and Hunting on the lands of another without permission.   You could be arrested for either or both.  In Georgia that arrest could be made by landowner himself if he catches you there in the process of hunting.


----------



## duckkillerclyde

It's always easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission...


----------



## king killer delete

*I did not say that.*



JustUs4All said:


> A DNR agent does not have the power to grant you permission to hunt private property that does not belong to him.  If you are hunting private property in Georgia even if a DNR agent told you you could hunt and you do not also have the permission of the landowner or leasee you will be committing two crimes:  Criminal Trespass and Hunting on the lands of another without permission.   You could be arrested for either or both.  In Georgia that arrest could be made by landowner himself if he catches you there in the process of hunting.


 What I am talking about is an area that is not posted and is not private property that could be on state or fedral property that is not posted. If you are hunting on Private property you must have written permission. I am talking about areas on large main Rivers ,salt marsh , Lakes that might be in question. And then and only then would I have the DNR agents name and number. But if it is private property and it is posted  you must have written permission, if it is not posted and it is private property you must written permission. You would not go on some ones property to deer hunt with out permission unless you were an outlaw. Now I hunt the Savannah River all the time and there are posted signs at the high water mark. As long as I dont put my foot on the mans property and I am hunting out of my boat blind Im ok. But if I beach my boat and I stand on his bank I am wrong. I have hunted this part of that river since 1978. Been checked by state and Fedral game wardens. Never have had any problems. But I will not step on the land owners land and I would not like it if the he steped on property. The man does not own the river. He owns the land along the river. I respect his land rights. But now this river is open to Navigation all the way to Augusta lock and Dam and then past the lock and dam to the rapids that are rocky on the main channel before you reach the Stephens creek dam.


----------



## JustUs4All

You are correct about tidal marsh and the Savannah is one of the four rivers in Georgia where the State owns the bed of the river for as far up as barge traffic once went.  My concern is the blanket statements in the thread.  Most of the rivers and streams in Georgia which are not in the salt water tidal area not free to access without permission.  There are, in fact, only four, and not the entire lengths of those.  

Along many streams the landowners allow access and have for years.   The Oconee River above Lake Oconee is such a spot.  The landowners there have allowed public access for years.   However, should a person purchase the land on both sides of the Oconee he could prevent access, post it, and charge an entry fee if he wished.


----------



## Fat Albert

duckkillerclyde said:


> It's always easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission...



Gov't don't issue forgiveness... Just tickets.


----------



## JustUs4All

duckkillerclyde said:


> It's always easier to ask forgiveness than it is permission...




Not from the wrong person, it isn't.


----------



## king killer delete

*I am with you on that point*



JustUs4All said:


> You are correct about tidal marsh and the Savannah is one of the four rivers in Georgia where the State owns the bed of the river for as far up as barge traffic once went.  My concern is the blanket statements in the thread.  Most of the rivers and streams in Georgia which are not in the salt water tidal area not free to access without permission.  There are, in fact, only four, and not the entire lengths of those.
> 
> Along many streams the landowners allow access and have for years.   The Oconee River above Lake Oconee is such a spot.  The landowners there have allowed public access for years.   However, should a person purchase the land on both sides of the Oconee he could prevent access, post it, and charge an entry fee if he wished.


 There are still parts of the Savannah river and locations in the salt marsh that are off limits and that was the point that I made about contacting DNR on those areas. The best thing to do in most situations is to know the law, know where you are at and make sure you are in the right when you hunt. Know the rules and follow them is always the best practice.


----------



## FOD

JustUs4All said:


> You are correct about tidal marsh and the Savannah is one of the four rivers in Georgia where the State owns the bed of the river for as far up as barge traffic once went.  My concern is the blanket statements in the thread.  Most of the rivers and streams in Georgia which are not in the salt water tidal area not free to access without permission.  There are, in fact, only four, and not the entire lengths of those.
> 
> Along many streams the landowners allow access and have for years.   The Oconee River above Lake Oconee is such a spot.  The landowners there have allowed public access for years.   However, should a person purchase the land on both sides of the Oconee he could prevent access, post it, and charge an entry fee if he wished.


So if I owned land on either side of the river,I could make people stop driving boats on "my" half of the river?Or better yet if I owned both sides of the river,I could just fence off that section and have a "private river" so to speak? Boy I've heard some whoppers in my time,but that there,if y'all believe all this,y'all might want to take up basket weaving as a new hobby,looks like we trespass everytime we put a boat in the river.Just curious,does is acreage at the bottom of the river documented on the property deed?


----------



## across the river

FOD said:


> So if I owned land on either side of the river,I could make people stop driving boats on "my" half of the river?Or better yet if I owned both sides of the river,I could just fence off that section and have a "private river" so to speak? Boy I've heard some whoppers in my time,but that there,if y'all believe all this,y'all might want to take up basket weaving as a new hobby,looks like we trespass everytime we put a boat in the river.Just curious,does is acreage at the bottom of the river documented on the property deed?



If the river or stream is not considered non-navigable, then yes that is correct.  The property owner owns the river bed.  If you own both sides of a non-navigable river you can legally block access to that section of the river.  Here is an article that explains it.  It is a fishing article, but its still applicable.

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


----------



## GreatWhiteTurkeyHunter

*Maybe this will Help*

I have researched the law and according to it: 

       There is no servitude of public passage imposed upon a stream unless it is navigable as defined in O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5(a):

      a) As used in this chapter, the term “navigable stream” means a stream which is capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable.

   (b) The rights of the owner of lands which are adjacent to *navigable* streams extend to the *low-water mark* in the bed of the stream.

*The beds of non-navigable streams* belong to the owner of the adjacent land. If the stream is a dividing line between two parcels of land, each owner's boundary shall extend to the thread or the center of the main current of the water. If the current changes gradually, the boundary line follows the current. If from any cause the stream takes a new channel, the original line, if identifiable, remains the boundary. Gradual accretions of land on either side accrue to the owner of that side. Ga. Code Ann. § 44-8-2 (West)

    So as far as rivers and streams, if they are considered navigable, then the property owner adjacent to the water has property rights to the low water mark. If the stream or river is not navigable then he owns rights to the center of the river bed. Therefore, if the land owner owns both sides then yes, he can restrict access to that portion of the river. But, no he can't put up a gate and prevent access, if it interferes with other land owners past his land and there use of the water. But if they own everything past that point then yes they can restrict access. 

The case, Parker v. Durham, 258 Ga. 140, 365 S.E.2d 411 (1988), goes into this exact thing (except fishing). 

I have not looked into marshes that are state owned but local DNR could tell you that.


----------



## GreatWhiteTurkeyHunter

Otherwise, it is my understanding that if you can fish it, you can hunt it. So long as you are outside city limits (as many cities have ordinances regarding shooting firearms). 

Also, the boat engine must be shut off.


----------



## joepuppy

The river was the Ocmulgee here in middle GA. I have hunted it for years without a problem until a drought left me with not enough water to put in a boat. I just walked the middle of the river for a couple of miles and watched for ducks in the evening. The people who were questioning me had tower stands set up in the middle of the dry river bed hunting deer and hogs. They were leasing the property from a local farmer. I  contacted Cpl. Allen Mills of the DNR, who is our local ranger, to find out if I was breaking the law. I have always tried to do due diligance when the law is concerned.  He explained to me that the Army Corps of Engineers along with the State of GA managed all waterways. I discussed the old law on the books that speaks of navigable waterways in regards to a barge being able to pass through the waterway. It is basically up to someone to sue you over rights in middle GA to make this stick.  I asked him because short of a lawyer, he would be the one writing me a ticket for tresspassing in this area. He assured me I was not breaking any law that he would address if called. I was respectful to the parties involved and courteous at all times. Just the mention of calling the DNR seemed to make these guys nervous, which led me to believe that they were not 100% legal. On  the Ocmulgee, I have only seem problems when I have left my boat, but this year, I decided to find out where I stood legally on walking up river in water only a foot deep and hunting the still water the main river where ducks would come in the morning and early mid day. I do not know all of what the law says, and far be it from me to tell any one what is right or wrong legally, but I did consult with local law enforcement and tried to cover my bases on what is legal. The law is old and vague, and the rangers I have spoken with tend to use common sense to determine if you have a right to be there or not. I use the same common sense to realize if it is not on the main river, I am probably tresspassing. I try to avoid all confrontations if possible, but in middle GA our rivers are about all we have that is public, and I am not going to let someone take that from me without at least trying to stand up for it. If you decided to irrigate off the river or put up a dam to block the water flow, then the US Army Corps Of Engineers would find you very quickly and let you know who is in charge. They do not care what the law says about being a navigable stream and what not. Ask Lister Harell , who recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for blocking two creeks to build a private lake here in Dodge County. He fought with a team of lawyers and finally realized that The state is not the only entity that controls waterways, no matter how small they may be.  He just messed with two creeks, not a river. Three months later the dam of his lake has been cut and he has filed bankruptsy. I am only someone who stands on the sideline and sees what happens. But for the record, I do not have a tresspassing ticket in 15 years of hunting and fishing. A little homework goes a long way.


----------



## FOD

So they own the dirt under the creek,not the water in it.


----------

