# Flint River being posted? GON article



## lampern (Jun 1, 2022)

https://gon.com/news/no-fishing-signs-posted-on-flint-river


----------



## JWF III (Jun 2, 2022)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that the state will stock your private pond for free. But you are required to open it to the public. 

How could a public river be any different? If the state has stocked the river with fish, they cannot determine where the fish will go. How can any part of the river be shut down as being private property?

Wyman


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 2, 2022)

Just read that this morning. We have similar situations here in NC, like the Rainbow Springs Club that owns a chunk of the upper Nantahala River and doesn't allow fishing access. There are situations like that in north Georgia, too. Up here, if you own both sides of the stream, and it isn't a navigable waterway, you can post it and shut'er down. Sounds like GA law is pretty much the same.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 2, 2022)

JWF III said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that the state will stock your private pond for free. But you are required to open it to the public.
> 
> How could a public river be any different? If the state has stocked the river with fish, they cannot determine where the fish will go. How can any part of the river be shut down as being private property?
> 
> Wyman



It is my understanding that you are wrong.  The State doesn't stock private ponds in exchange for opening the pond to the public.


----------



## Josh B (Jun 2, 2022)

I took a class that said all water is owned by the state unless it’s a concrete pool.


----------



## lampern (Jun 2, 2022)

Where I've seen the Flint River in Albany, its a good sized river. Definitely has to be navigable.

But thats below a dam


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Jun 2, 2022)

The Flint is part of the intercostal waterway, it would be hard to claim it's not navigable.


----------



## Coenen (Jun 2, 2022)

Floated right by those very signs a couple weeks ago. I guess Shoal Bass can't read because they were biting just fine. Had a local guy come down right next to one of the signs and ask how the action was; we exchanged pleasantries, and I floated on down the line. Maybe he wasn't the property owner.

GA needs to revisit riparian rights, and clear up some of the verbiage, just my opinion.




doomtrpr_z71 said:


> The Flint is part of the intercostal waterway, it would be hard to claim it's not navigable.


This is way up in the Thomaston stretch of the river.


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Jun 2, 2022)

Pretty sure the flint is no longer considered navigable north of Bainbridge.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 2, 2022)

Josh B said:


> I took a class that said all water is owned by the state unless it’s a concrete pool.


Do you take that to mean that since the water is supposedly owned by the State anyone can float around on it or fish in it?  Why would a concrete pool be any different from any other means of containment?



doomtrpr_z71 said:


> The Flint is part of the intercostal waterway, it would be hard to claim it's not navigable.



It is not navigable under the definition used by the State of GA in its entire length.  The part that is not navigable by that definition is controled by the person who ownes the land beneath the water.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Jun 2, 2022)

It's long overdue for the state to update what's considered navigable and then define which rivers are and which aren't and at which points. Maybe this will force them to do it.


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Jun 2, 2022)

The state of Georgia has argued this about the Flint and have already lost in court, the Flint is considered navigable https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.natlawreview.com/article/georgia-rivers-are-navigable?amp


----------



## lampern (Jun 2, 2022)

That is by a Federal court.

This is a state and state law issue

And if I am right that portion of the Flint mentioned above is downstream of the dam at Albany


----------



## earlthegoat2 (Jun 2, 2022)

In some jurisdictions, only the land under the water can be owned. The water is still owned by the state. 

Not in GA though. 

So in theory a private lake could still be used for fishing by someone who could manage to access it without trespassing on any private land around the lake. 

Figure that one out without aircraft.


----------



## psedna (Jun 2, 2022)

Remember the issue with Baker County in SW GA and the Joseph Jones Ecological Center (Ichawuay) posting the Nochaway Creek - some guys floated the creek with a raft and a goat to prove it was a navigable stream but lost the argument I believe int he Ga Supreme Court...  Money talks?


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 2, 2022)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> The state of Georgia has argued this about the Flint and have already lost in court, the Flint is considered navigable https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.natlawreview.com/article/georgia-rivers-are-navigable?amp



This is an Federal admiralty case not a State trespassing case.  Apples and oranges here.  If those logs were in my creek it would be interesting to see how the claimant would get them out.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 2, 2022)

psedna said:


> Remember the issue with Baker County in SW GA and the Joseph Jones Ecological Center (Ichawuay) posting the Nochaway Creek - some guys floated the creek with a raft and a goat to prove it was a navigable stream but lost the argument I believe int he Ga Supreme Court...  Money talks?



No, sir.  The Court ruled on the law as it exists in Georgia not as it exists on other places.


----------



## livinoutdoors (Jun 2, 2022)

Free the fish!


----------



## TurkeyH90 (Jun 2, 2022)

I was issued a trespass warning for duck hunting on the Ocmulgee years ago. Found out the GWs that issued it were members of the club bordering that spot.


----------



## psedna (Jun 2, 2022)

You got to give the guy some credit for his efforts!!!  I would side with him...

Excerpt:

In an attempt to show the creek is navigable, Givens floated through Ichauway's leasehold on a styrofoam and wood raft that was four feet wide, sixteen feet long, and drew one foot of water.   He loaded the raft with a goat, a bale of cotton, and two passengers, disassembling the raft and portaging around the dam.   He argues the goat, cotton, and passengers were freight and his trip showed the creek was capable of use for transporting freight under OCGA § 44-8-5(a), despite the presence of the dam.   OCGA § 44-8-5(a), however, requires that to be deemed navigable, a stream must support freight traffic “in the regular course of trade.”   Givens does not claim craft such as his are currently used in the regular course of trade but does contend the raft is representative of craft that were so used in the nineteenth century.   He argues this shows the creek was formerly navigable under the definition, and that once a stream is susceptible of navigation that status is not lost.   He also relies upon this argument to maintain that the creek can be deemed navigable despite the presence of the dam which undisputedly prevents the free passage of boats through the creek.


----------



## across the river (Jun 2, 2022)

JWF III said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that the state will stock your private pond for free. But you are required to open it to the public.
> 
> How could a public river be any different? If the state has stocked the river with fish, they cannot determine where the fish will go. How can any part of the river be shut down as being private property?
> 
> Wyman



The state stocks trout all the time in creeks in the north Georgia mountains, but that doesn’t mean you can just go on private land and fish the portion of the creek that crosses private property because the trout swam up the creek.    You also can’t walk or kayak up a stream off of a navigable river onto someone’s property because you think the fish swam up the creek. Just like you don’t get to walk in the neighbors property because a deer crossed the line.



doomtrpr_z71 said:


> The Flint is part of the intercostal waterway, it would be hard to claim it's not navigable.



Just because part of a river is navigable, doesn’t mean it all is.  The reason Columbus, Macon, Augusta, or any number of cities were founded on the fall line is because that is as far up river as the boats could make it.  Most every river is navigable below the fall line but many are not above it, meaning you are free to duck hunt or fish it in the lower part but not legally do it above.  A lot of the major rivers about the fall line are still used by the public even if not technically navigable because there are multiple land owners that have land on each side an along the bank.  However, once the river skinny’s down and the land owner(s) own both sides and want to restrict access, they have every right to do so on the section they own. Just because you can float a kayak down the creek or river doesn’t mean that the river is navigable or that you can legally be there.


----------



## across the river (Jun 2, 2022)

I guess what, Albany is the major city on the flint.  That was likely as far up as ships could go up river from the gulf, which is why Albany is there.  I know nothing about the area in question, but if its between Albany and the gulf, people can tell him to pound sand.   If it is well above Albany, it is likely non-navigable and he probably has the right to restrict access.  The courts will sort it out if it comes to that, but based on previous court cases, that is likely how it will play out.


----------



## Son (Jun 2, 2022)

Itchuaway creek in Baker county is posted. Itchuaway plantation will have you arrested even for fishing under the 91 highway bridge. Talk about power over a county, that's it. Connections and whoever has the power is what is is.


----------



## JWF III (Jun 2, 2022)

JWF III said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s my understanding that the state will stock your private pond for free. But you are required to open it to the public.
> 
> How could a public river be any different? If the state has stocked the river with fish, they cannot determine where the fish will go. How can any part of the river be shut down as being private property?
> 
> Wyman



I believe where I could be wrong is a change in the law. 

A friend of mine had “trespassers” fishing his pond. He called the law and didn’t confront until DNR was there. And they told him exactly what I posted in my 1st post. And that his grandmother had it done before she passed, and he inherited. And that there was nothing that could be done with them.

This was 15 to 18 years ago. And I do understand things change. That could be the case here.

The only other similar case to this I had heard of was in regards to duck hunting, but in SC. They decided that the property owners didn’t own the water since it was flowing through the property. But that they did the ground beneath the water.

Regardless, it stinks if they’re able to get away with this. And I’m not talking about someone walking on you”re property to go fish it.(Private property should be private.) I’m referring to boating on the river, and a section being closed to fishing.

Wyman


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Jun 2, 2022)

across the river said:


> I guess what, Albany is the major city on the flint.  That was likely as far up as ships could go up river from the gulf, which is why Albany is there.  I know nothing about the area in question, but if its between Albany and the gulf, people can tell him to pound sand.   If it is well above Albany, it is likely non-navigable and he probably has the right to restrict access.  The courts will sort it out if it comes to that, but based on previous court cases, that is likely how it will play out.



And this will be the case that breaks the ga law, the Flint is considered navigable by the corps of engineers all the way to Montezuma, therefore through the definition of navigable waters of the us the Flint is navigable in it's entirety due to the fact that A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.


----------



## across the river (Jun 2, 2022)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> And this will be the case that breaks the ga law, the Flint is considered navigable by the corps of engineers all the way to Montezuma, therefore through the definition of navigable waters of the us the Flint is navigable in it's entirety due to the fact that A determination of navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.



I found the link that lists it as
navigable to Montezuma.  If this spot is below Montezuma and on the main river(and not an oxbow or offshoot creek) then the guy can post it all he wants and it means nothing. He has no right to keep anyone off of the river even if he owns both sides.  If it is above Motezuma, then he has the right to restrict it.  As I said earlier, an entire river is not considered navigable just because part of it is. Not sure where you are trying to pull that the whole thing is navigable from, but that is not correct.


----------



## pbradley (Jun 2, 2022)

My favorite fishing spot in the entire universe is blocked off because some guy owns land on both sides of the Flint.


----------



## across the river (Jun 2, 2022)

For those of you interested, look at the end of this link from the USACE.   It lists rivers and creeks and notice only a section of most are considered navigable, not the whole thing.  If it is tidal, it is navigable.  If it historically moved freight, the part that did is navigable. The part that didn’t, isn’t.  And waterbody was brought up earlier. That is the section that is navigable, meaning you can’t block of part of the river of it is navigable or try to prevent people from being on it within a certain distance of your land.  Water body does not mean the entire river and every creek that is connected. 

https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Portals/61/docs/regulatory/RP84.pdf


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Jun 2, 2022)

across the river said:


> I found the link that lists it as
> navigable to Montezuma.  If this spot is below Montezuma and on the main river(and not an oxbow or offshoot creek) then the guy can post it all he wants and it means nothing. He has no right to keep anyone off of the river even if he owns both sides.  If it is above Motezuma, then he has the right to restrict it.  As I said earlier, an entire river is not considered navigable just because part of it is. Not sure where you are trying to pull that the whole thing is navigable from, but that is not correct.


From the renewed navigable water rules in light of waters of the us/clean water act rewrites 
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...4QFnoECAMQBg&usg=AOvVaw1B01XuF0qriK5KFr47GIk2

The list is pre waters of the US ruling


----------



## Lukikus2 (Jun 2, 2022)

The current navigable laws were inacted from years of surveying and historical data research. You just don't go changing things for personal prosperity. History repeats itself.


----------



## across the river (Jun 2, 2022)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> From the renewed navigable water rules in light of waters of the us/clean water act rewrites
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/regulatory/Navigable%20Waters%20of%20the%20US.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjl5MOajZD4AhXZSjABHX-8AC4QFnoECAMQBg&usg=AOvVaw1B01XuF0qriK5KFr47GIk2
> 
> The list is pre waters of the US ruling



  Waterbody does not mean the entire length of the river.   It means the entire part of the navigable part of the river from high water mark to high water mark.   You can’t block off a section of it as I described below.  If a creek runs into tidal water and the end that dumps in near the ocean is tidal, that section is navigable.  The portion many miles in land that you can only run a kayak or canoe in is not.  Same with rivers above the section considered navigable.  If they went by your logic, every creek that dumped in the river would be navigable.  There are not.


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Jun 2, 2022)

across the river said:


> Waterbody does not mean the entire length of the river.   It means the entire part of the navigable part of the river from high water mark to high water mark.   You can’t block off a section of it as I described below.  If a creek runs into tidal water and the end that dumps in near the ocean is tidal, that section is navigable.  The portion many miles in land that you can only run a kayak or canoe in is not.  Same with rivers above the section considered navigable.  If they went by your logic, every creek that dumped in the river would be navigable.  There are not.


Clearly you have never dealt with the EPA/COE then because that's exactly what the waters of the US rule entails, and is exactly what the navigable waters of the US rule states, logic is not applicable to the COE in my experience and it changes based on election cycles.


----------



## across the river (Jun 2, 2022)

We aren’t talking about building a pond or building a path down to the lake through corp‘s property.  According to the law, and court cases that have already been rules upon, you can restrict access to non navigable waters if you own the land below it.  What you posted is still based on section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors act and states it in the picture when referencing the high water marks.  Clearly states Section 10 there.  From the USACE website the current navigable waters are listed in the tables in the link below.  Guess what the Flint is still listed to Motezuma.



https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Port...vannah District.pdf?ver=2019-06-26-144338-893


----------



## Big7 (Jun 3, 2022)

Yeah.

Somebody rigged up the Hooch in Helen and even got nets up. You have to pay the outfitter to fish it and I don't even think you can fish from the bank.
That's bull chips to me. Nobody should have any more rights to a free flowing river than the next person. Even wading.

I can see if you get on the bank that somebody owns... But the river?

That little mill house where I'm talking about had bubble gum machines with feed you could get for a quarter. Thousands of smaller trout back in the day.

Now they got monster trout and 15- 20 pound Striper at that pool. I KNOW there ought not be Striper that far north.


----------



## fishmonger (Jun 3, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Somebody rigged up the Hooch in Helen and even got nets up. You have to pay the outfitter to fish it and I don't even think you can fish from the bank.
> That's bull chips to me. Nobody should have any more rights to a free flowing river than the next person. Even wading.
> ...



Not sure what you are saying here. Are you upset because you can't launch a boat at Nora Mill dam? 

The nets are probably for catching flotsam from the tubers above, so that the folks that pay to fish there aren't having to fish amongst a bunch of trash. 

As far as the stripers, they can't read regs, and so swim wherever they want to go, which is up from Lake Lanier. 

Different states have different regs. In Wisconsin you can't own a riverbed, so anybody can wade any water they can access without trespassing, which sounds like what you want. I kind of like that reg too, and did take advantage of it in Wisconsin on trip to wade into a golf course that charged to fish the river that flowed through, but we just don't have that here. It just is what it is.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 3, 2022)

JWF III said:


> I believe where I could be wrong is a change in the law.
> 
> A friend of mine had “trespassers” fishing his pond. He called the law and didn’t confront until DNR was there. And they told him exactly what I posted in my 1st post. And that his grandmother had it done before she passed, and he inherited. And that there was nothing that could be done with them.
> 
> ...



I suspect that your "friend" did not tell you the truth.  It is possible that he did not understand what was happening or what he was told.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 3, 2022)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> From the renewed navigable water rules in light of waters of the us/clean water act rewrites
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.swl.usace.army.mil/Portals/50/docs/regulatory/Navigable%20Waters%20of%20the%20US.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjl5MOajZD4AhXZSjABHX-8AC4QFnoECAMQBg&usg=AOvVaw1B01XuF0qriK5KFr47GIk2
> 
> The list is pre waters of the US ruling



This is still apples and oranges.  

The regulation you cite is applicable to the Federal Clean Water Act and has no bearing on the State of Georgia's laws on land ownership and trespassing.

The Federal Clean Water Act is another of those onerous and hateful Federal Laws which caused thousands of Regulations to be published with the intent of removing to the .Gov more of the power of We the People.


----------



## Old Yapper (Jun 3, 2022)

More of this is on the way........(no surprise, human nature never changes.) Give someone power to make too many "rules", give someone power to enforce too many "rules" and these pictures show what you get.


----------



## JakkBauer (Jun 3, 2022)

fishmonger said:


> Not sure what you are saying here. Are you upset because you can't launch a boat at Nora Mill dam?
> 
> The nets are probably for catching flotsam from the tubers above, so that the folks that pay to fish there aren't having to fish amongst a bunch of trash.
> 
> ...


Ill bite on your bait. I think he is just calling out the fact that they created an artificial pellet pig pen on the Hooch to profit off anglers who want an easy fat fish photo which is kind of a joke in the first place. Very much like the Soque. There are also sections on the Toccoa posted up with pellet feeders down that whole stretch although its not a pay to play situation. Until now the only people posting rivers are the ones feeding pellet pigs lol. That makes sense to me to protect what you are feeding even if I dont personally like the idea of blocking someone off of a river altogether. While its no huge loss, removing a section from a river just kind of makes it less appealing to some who might be looking for adventure as opposed to easy pickins. The thing about the Flint however is that these are Shoal bass, not pellet pigs. Personally I dont care for pellet pig fishing as I dont want those fish anyways and wouldnt want to catch a fish you have spent hundreds feeding as that is basically a pet. However when some try to post up our native sportfish that is another story in my opinion.


----------



## Semi-Pro (Jun 3, 2022)

Well farther upriver in Pike co. The county won the battle over the boat ramp at flat shoals. Now the adjacent landowner and neighbors think other wise again and blocked access with rocks and a culvert.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 3, 2022)

I don`t know how far upriver the Flint is classified navigable but I do know that barges did run up the river during the Civil War. They would go as far as where the modern day Broad Avenue bridge is now located in Albany. There was a slaughterhouse located there and beef and pork was processed, salted, and shipped downriver on barges to feed our soldiers. Cotton was also sent downriver from there as well. In this day and time, from right there and on downriver, you can run a good size boat all the way to Seminole.

The river might be classified navigable to Montezuma but I don`t see how any boat could get over Abram`s Shoals which is between Albany and the present HWY 32 bridge, or the Horseshoe Shoals between HWY 32 bridge and the now present dam on Lake Blackshear. Above Blackshear I have no experience but I`m very familiar with the Flint From the Blackshear dam all the way to Lake Seminole. There`s about a mile stretch beginning just below the 32 bridge going upriver a ways where it is almighty shallow and rocky.

All I`ll say about the Ichuaway Nochaway Creek is that is is one absolutely gorgeous waterway and is full of fish.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 3, 2022)

fishmonger said:


> Not sure what you are saying here. Are you upset because you can't launch a boat at Nora Mill dam?
> 
> The nets are probably for catching flotsam from the tubers above, so that the folks that pay to fish there aren't having to fish amongst a bunch of trash.
> 
> ...



No. I'm talking about launching on private land with permission or public ramp and stay in the boat.

Or... Wading in from a private property with permission or from a public place and stay in the water and not get on somebody's private land.

And.. If I had a magic wand, there would be a right of way for a reasonable few feet to walk along if you need to go around a fall or something if that nature.

And... I'm talking about big rivers, especially when they are DNR Enforced. That's OUR tax money and license fees that pays the Rangers and buys the stock fish.

In NO way am I talking about walking up a creek on private land. Just the big stuff.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 3, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> I don`t know how far upriver the Flint is classified navigable but I do know that barges did run up the river during the Civil War. They would go as far as where the modern day Broad Avenue bridge is now located in Albany. There was a slaughterhouse located there and beef and pork was processed, salted, and shipped downriver on barges to feed our soldiers. Cotton was also sent downriver from there as well. In this day and time, from right there and on downriver, you can run a good size boat all the way to Seminole.
> 
> The river might be classified navigable to Montezuma but I don`t see how any boat could get over Abram`s Shoals which is between Albany and the present HWY 32 bridge, or the Horseshoe Shoals between HWY 32 bridge and the now present dam on Lake Blackshear. Above Blackshear I have no experience but I`m very familiar with the Flint From the Blackshear dam all the way to Lake Seminole. There`s about a mile stretch beginning just below the 32 bridge going upriver a ways where it is almighty shallow and rocky.
> 
> All I`ll say about the Ichuaway Nochaway Creek is that is is one absolutely gorgeous waterway and is full of fish.


Unless something has changed since the 90's, Port Bainbridge is/was the countries largest inland port.

I got friends in Bainbridge, Camilla and Climax.

Caught Mullet a few miles up- stream from Camilla  long time ago.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 3, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Unless something has changed since the 90's, Port Bainbridge is/was the countries largest inland port.
> 
> I got friends in Bainbridge, Camilla and Climax.
> 
> Caught Mullet a few miles up- stream from Camilla  long time ago.




Been a good while since I`ve seen a tug and barge on Seminole. The lock is still in operation though.


----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Jun 3, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> This is still apples and oranges.
> 
> The regulation you cite is applicable to the Federal Clean Water Act and has no bearing on the State of Georgia's laws on land ownership and trespassing.
> 
> The Federal Clean Water Act is another of those onerous and hateful Federal Laws which caused thousands of Regulations to be published with the intent of removing to the .Gov more of the power of We the People.


And you honestly think when the lawsuit over this goes to court this won't be part of the argument?  On top of that the 1962 ga attorney generals ruling clearly states that if a river is navigable to a point that it comes in contact with a non navigable lake the individual that owns property has exclusive fishing rights to the low water mark which doesn't apply to boats. Furthermore the federal definition of navigabilty should apply due to the fact that the Flint river is involved in interstate commerce due to the fact the Flint forms the Apalachicola river at the junction of the Chattahoochee and flows into the gulf of Mexico across Florida as determined from the states supreme court ruling in 1997.  The soque  and satilla I can see the definition being upheld not on the Flint.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 3, 2022)

For information purposes only. Here`s a picture of the 3 rivers before the flood gates were ever closed on Lake Seminole. They run together about 600 yards north of the dam.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 3, 2022)

What I think doesn't really matter.  Laws can be changed at any time.  What matters is what the law is at the time the question is raised.  I have tried to help with the understanding of what that law is now. Some posters appear to be trying to have one set of laws apply to a situation where they have no bearing.


----------



## across the river (Jun 3, 2022)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> And you honestly think when the lawsuit over this goes to court this won't be part of the argument?  On top of that the 1962 ga attorney generals ruling clearly states that if a river is navigable to a point that it comes in contact with a non navigable lake the individual that owns property has exclusive fishing rights to the low water mark which doesn't apply to boats. Furthermore the federal definition of navigabilty should apply due to the fact that the Flint river is involved in interstate commerce due to the fact the Flint forms the Apalachicola river at the junction of the Chattahoochee and flows into the gulf of Mexico across Florida as determined from the states supreme court ruling in 1997.  The soque  and satilla I can see the definition being upheld not on the Flint.



If this went to court now, I could win the case for the landowner and I am not a lawyer. The USACE has on there website the current list of navigable waters in Georgia, and lists the point to which it is considered navigable, miles of the river that is navigable, etc…..  The law states that you can restrict access to nonnavigable waters and the court has ruled this in multiple cases.  If you own both sides on the river in non navigable water, you can restrict access.  That is the law, whether people like it or not.


----------



## JakkBauer (Jun 3, 2022)

This argument is always the same about what the law is regarding river rights in GA. The fact is that there are places we are not allowed to go. There are two differing mindsets when it comes to this issue. Those, like me, who wish we were able to travel the land freely on such rivers as humans have done since the beginning of our time here; and those that own property they worked hard to claim that want to protect what they own. Both of these things make sense to me, however I personally am on the side of wishing we were able to use these natural wonders freely. However I do understand that someone who has worked hard for something has the rights to do what they wish with it. It is really an unsolvable problem in my opinion and we must deal with the cards as they lay.


----------



## OwlRNothing (Jun 3, 2022)

Josh B said:


> I took a class that said all water is owned by the state unless it’s a concrete pool.



When you get down to brass tacks, all land and water is owned by government. We just pay rent to them after we "buy it" like a bunch of fools.
Government likes to even use the term "public land" alot. Sounds nice. Isn't true. 

Can you go and farm an acre of taters on the nearest "public land?" 
Set up a fish camp? Make a baseball field? 

It's government land, even if they tell us it's "ours."


----------



## Mexican Squealer (Jun 3, 2022)

Hmmmmm...what?


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jun 3, 2022)

Semi-Pro said:


> Well farther upriver in Pike co. The county won the battle over the boat ramp at flat shoals. Now the adjacent landowner and neighbors think other wise again and blocked access with rocks and a culvert.


so what’s the county going to do about that? Flat Shoals is one place on the Flint I have not explored mainly due to the “history” of landowner issues there. 
Wish the county/DNR would put a real ramp there like they did at the 36 bridge.


----------



## dang (Jun 3, 2022)

Bananaslug22 said:


> so what’s the county going to do about that? Flat Shoals is one place on the Flint I have not explored mainly due to the “history” of landowner issues there.
> Wish the county/DNR would put a real ramp there like they did at the 36 bridge.


I’ve been kindly asked to leave there a few years ago….we had already caught almost 100 fish that morning so we obliged to avoid a conflict


----------



## JROESEL (Jun 4, 2022)

dang said:


> I’ve been kindly asked to leave there a few years ago….we had already caught almost 100 fish that morning so we obliged to avoid a conflict


I was told by a young lady at the little bbq shack right there at the store, that a family member of hers was fishing at flat shoals on a boat, never exited the boat, two wardens were in the trees watching and issued both boys a three hundred dollar fine, they got several that weekend according to her, I don’t think that’s right, if they never left the boat and never put boots on the ground, then they shouldn’t be able to be cited, I hunt the flint and was told by the warden, I was fine as long as we didn’t get out of the boat, I wish there was a warden that would get on here and explain everything in his perspective, since he is the one who would be citing


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 4, 2022)

If a GW told you that with regard to any water in GA that is legally postable then either he didn't know the law or he was lying to you.


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jun 7, 2022)

I'd like to know what prompted the Flint River land owners to do this after all these years.  Shoal bass, in recent years, are beginning to be held in higher and higher regard and are respected by anglers up and down the Flint.  I don't feel as if anglers are abusing that fishery.

Very Frustrating.


----------



## lampern (Jun 7, 2022)

Bananaslug22 said:


> I'd like to know what prompted the Flint River land owners to do this after all these years.  Shoal bass, in recent years, are beginning to be held in higher and higher regard and are respected by anglers up and down the Flint.  I don't feel as if anglers are abusing that fishery.
> 
> Very Frustrating.



Because they can make money off the shoal bass.

Its the primary place to catch one in the entire country.

Its all about the benjamins.


----------



## across the river (Jun 7, 2022)

lampern said:


> Because they can make money off the shoal bass.
> 
> Its the primary place to catch one in the entire country.
> 
> Its all about the benjamins.



So the landowner is supposed to not take the opportunity to make money on the land to recoup some of the costs he has in the purchase cost, possibly interest charges, and property taxes, because a bunch of rednecks want to fish on his land for free?   It is always amazing to me how the people who want someone to “give” them something for free always accuse the people who typically have worked the tail of to aquire whatever it is of being “greedy” for not giving it to them. Just because you fished a place for years or hunted the farm down the road from your parents house for free in 1990 doesn’t mean you have the right to do it now.  Things change.  If the guy wants to lease the land and restrict access on a part of the river that is “ non-navigable”, then he is 100% in his right to do that.   Go fish somewhere else if you don’t want to pay to fish it.  I don’t understand what the big deal is.  There are plenty of spots on water and land that I had access to 5, 10, or 30 plus years ago that I don’t have access to now. Be thankful
you had access for free for the time you had and move on.


----------



## lampern (Jun 7, 2022)

Its no different than the streams managed for private "trophy" trout in the Georgia mountains.

Somebody is paying off landowners to manage for "trophy" catch and release shoal bass trips I'm sure.

So much for that worthless law that declares shoal bass a special state species.


----------



## brunofishing (Jun 7, 2022)

Bananaslug22 said:


> I'd like to know what prompted the Flint River land owners to do this after all these years.  Shoal bass, in recent years, are beginning to be held in higher and higher regard and are respected by anglers up and down the Flint.  I don't feel as if anglers are abusing that fishery.
> 
> Very Frustrating.





Bananaslug22 said:


> I'd like to know what prompted the Flint River land owners to do this after all these years.  Shoal bass, in recent years, are beginning to be held in higher and higher regard and are respected by anglers up and down the Flint.  I don't feel as if anglers are abusing that fishery.
> 
> Very Frustrating.


I know all about flat shoals. I grew up hunting and fishing there, shot my first deer there. The problem was all the party's, trucks and ATV's on the shoals, TRASH, people getting hurt! People were making camps up and down that stretch of river, then they made trails through the woods on the owners land. The only way to stop it was run everyone out! Not so smart people ruined it for everybody!


----------



## Semi-Pro (Jun 7, 2022)

brunofishing said:


> I know all about flat shoals. I grew up hunting and fishing there, shot my first deer there. The problem was all the party's, trucks and ATV's on the shoals, TRASH, people getting hurt! People were making camps up and down that stretch of river, then they made trails through the woods on the owners land. The only way to stop it was run everyone out! Not so smart people ruined it for everybody!


It didn't help the fact that they built a neighborhood of million dollar homes right next to the boat ramp either


----------



## brunofishing (Jun 7, 2022)

Semi-Pro said:


> It didn't help the fact that they built a neighborhood of million dollar homes right next to the boat ramp either


You are correct!


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jun 7, 2022)

That subdivision has its own community boat ramp.  Somebody send Bubba up there to ask for the entrance gate code so everybody can use it.


----------



## lampern (Jun 7, 2022)

You don't have the money to influence anyone in Atlanta

Best that got done was declaring shoal bass a state gamefish and it didn't work.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 7, 2022)

[QUOTE="cowhornedspike, post: 13415275, member: 82081"[/QUOTE]


Well said.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 7, 2022)

lampern said:


> You don't have the money to influence anyone in Atlanta
> 
> Best that got done was declaring shoal bass a state gamefish and it didn't work.



First, you don't know how much money I have.

Second, the money part will come as landowners see that they can make money by shutting off their GA rivers...not just trout streams, (for some reason that seems to be accepted) and eventually there will be enough outcry from that to get something done.


----------



## lampern (Jun 7, 2022)

Good luck.

Outcry doesn't buy political influence to get the law changed.

Money does.


----------



## across the river (Jun 7, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> This is true...for now.
> 
> These streams have ALWAYS been use for travel even before there was such a thing as commercial use or barges.  I believe they should still be open to the public for travel or fishing as long as they are a large enough stream to canoe down.  History should take precedence here from way before there were landowners along these streams.
> 
> ...



So there are two issues here, the law and people's feelings.    How a person feels about the streams and rivers of the state has nothing to do with the law.   FEDERAL LAW prohibits someone from blocking access to navigable waters.  This has been upheld by the Supreme Court multiple times.   If the water is deemed navigable by the federal government, then you are free to kayak, canoe, fish, etc... any of that water from high water mark to high water mark.   The list of navigable water in the United States is published by the USACE, and it tells you how much of and to what point a body of water is considered navigable. This is not determined by the states.  I posted the link a couple of different times above for those waters in Georgia.  The state, Georgia in this case, has absolutely zero to do with that list and those determinations.  Whether or not an Indian kayaked down it before Columbus arrived, has zero to do with it.  How you feel and what you believe, likewise, has zero to do with what water is considered navigable, and what water is not.  

If you feel that people should have access to water deemed as non-navigable by the United Sates Government, then I fully support and encourage you to contact your state representative.  What I am telling you, and everyone else on here, is that the state has no authority to deem that area "navigable" or grant access to it without granting access to every other creek and river that flow through the state that is also non-navigable water.  They can't decide, or at least to the extent that would hold up in court, to grant access to one specific section of a stream or river that is not deemed navigable by the USACE.  That is the situation, whether people  like it or not.  I, and most other land owners, have no desire to see the law changed because people don't want people fishing, kayak, or tubing down their creek, stream, or non-navigable river and dumping liter, camping on, or trashing by any other means their land that they now all of a sudden have people all over.  The law has been the law for many years. It isn't going to change, and if they tried they would face a political death sentence.  If you contact anyone, you should contact Warnock and Ossoff and tell them that you want to extend the navigable waters of the Flint because you can no longer fish the section you used to be allowed to fish, even though you really had no legal access to it.    The owner, or previous owners, have apparently allowed access to that section of the river for others to enjoy in years past, even though they didn't legally have to.  They changed there mind, or leased it to someone who doesn't want to allow it.   It is what is it.  I'm sorry you no longer have access, but I don't get this expectation that people have that the state should change the rules for everyone, because I lost access to a fish spot I never really had the legal right to fish to begin with.


----------



## Concrete Pete (Jun 7, 2022)

Development is sprawling down the highway 85 corridor. This is just the beginning. You’re going to see Woodbury, Gay, and everything close to those places change real soon. Sad.


----------



## across the river (Jun 7, 2022)

Concrete Pete said:


> Development is sprawling down the highway 85 corridor. This is just the beginning. You’re going to see Woodbury, Gay, and everything close to those places change real soon. Sad.



Development has nothing to do with whether water is considered navigable or not and whether you can access it or not.   There are houses all along the coast,  tidal rivers, marshes, major rivers, and lakes, yet you still have every legal right to ride your boat or fish in that water right beside them since it is considered navigable.  The Chattahochee flows through the most developed part of the state and has more miles of navigable water than any other river.


----------



## Concrete Pete (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> Development has nothing to do with whether water is considered navigable or not and whether you can access it or not.   There are houses all along the coast,  tidal rivers, marshes, major rivers, and lakes, yet you still have every legal right to ride your boat or fish in that water right beside them since it is considered navigable.  The Chattahochee flows through the most developed part of the state and has more miles of navigable water than any other river.



Lol the pace of development has a lot to do with whether housing gets built along a river and it has everything to do with the consolidation of ownership rights on both banks. The latter being the reason the can keep people from fishing.

Most of the Chattahoochee is a federal park or state property near Atlanta. It’s called the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area for a reason.

That’s why developers haven’t been able to ruin it yet. As for the areas of the Chattahoochee that aren’t public property, many are indeed posted where the owner controls both banks.

You’re not making the point you think you are and it’s common sense that development is going to negatively impact fishing / hunting rights.


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

Concrete Pete said:


> Lol the pace of development has a lot to do with whether housing gets built along a river and it has everything to do with the consolidation of ownership rights on both banks. The latter being the reason the can keep people from fishing.
> 
> Most of the Chattahoochee is a federal park or state property near Atlanta. It’s called the Chattahoochee National Recreation Area for a reason.
> 
> ...



If the river, or section of river, is deemed navigable by the federal government, you can boat, kayak, fish it etc….., regardless of who owns the land around it.  If the same person owns both sides of the Chattahoochee anywhere below Lanier, you have a legal right to be on it and they can’t say anything about it.  If they post it and tell you to move,  tell them to pound sand.  They obviously don’t have to give you access to the river across their property or stick a public boat ramp on their private place, and they can post the land to prevent you from walking to the river across their land. However, you have the right to put in at any bridge or public access and kayak or ride through and fish it, all of it.  The same with any navigable water. It doesn’t matter if it ends up looking like San Antonio in the future, the water is still considered navigable. 
You can still fish any and all of it. 

Unless the state or feds start selling the public land that currently provides access to those rivers, then developers can develop every piece of private land along the river and it doesn’t impact you at all.   You still have the same access points, you still have the ability to boat, kayak, fish, etc….. the entire length of the river.  What am I wrong about?  

 As I said in a post above, if someone allowed you or anyone access to a piece of non-navigable water in the past, and they sell the property or lease it, that has nothing to do with any legal rights you have to access it. It was essentially a gift to begin with from the land owner.  No different than you buddie’s grandma letting you hunt her farm when you were a kid and then you loosing access when the farm was sold.  While I am sure that is disappointing, it has nothing to do with any legal right you have to be there.   A river being navigable or non-navigable does.   People get emotional about this stuff, but it doesn’t change the legality of it.  I guess I just don’t understand this mindset that people have that they have some “right” to access private areas.   The law hasn’t changed.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 8, 2022)

Pretty much correct except that the definition of navigable is due State law, not Federal.


----------



## doehunter (Jun 8, 2022)

What section is posted no trespassing now?


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jun 8, 2022)

doehunter said:


> What section is posted no trespassing now?


Generally speaking, when you get 200 - 300 yards from the drop at Yellow Jacket all the way to the drop at Yellow Jacket.  Once you get past the drop at Yellow Jacket, you're good.


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> Pretty much correct except that the definition of navigable is due State law, not Federal.



The definition of navigable waters is defined in 33 CFR, which is federal. The USACE states what waterways are navigable and not navigable, not the state.  You wont’t find a “state list.”  The  state law essentially reiterates the federal law that says you have access to navigable waters.   The state can have additional laws that allow additional water rights, but the navigable verses non-navigable is federal.


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> Pretty much correct except that the definition of navigable is due State law, not Federal.



I found the link to the Federal definition in 33 CFR. 

https://www.nap.usace.army.mil/Portals/39/docs/regulatory/regs/33cfr329.pdf


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 8, 2022)

Your referenced rrgs apply to the Corps of Engineers and has nothing to do with GA State laws concerning trespass.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 8, 2022)

Prepare for dissertations, lectures, and a gracious plenty of foofaraw.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 8, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> Prepare for dissertations, lectures, and a gracious plenty of foofaraw.



Yep


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> Your referenced rrgs apply to the Corps of Engineers and has nothing to do with GA State laws concerning trespass.



????????     Federal law gives people the ability to access navigable waters.  What waters are deemed “navigable” is determined by the federal government, not Georgia.   The Georgia law states that you own the land below the river or creek, and can restrict access on non-navigable waterways.    In other words you can’t legally kayak or fish non-navigable water without permission, just like you can’t walk on someone else’s land without permission.  That doesn’t apply to navigable waters due to federal law, so Georgias “trespassing” laws don’t apply.   Not sure how this is confusing.  You can have a section of “non-navigable” river that access has never been restricted on before, but this doesn’t mean Georgia deemed it a navigable in the past.  It just means the landowner or landowners have never tried to restrict access.    If you let people access your land to hike for years and the decide to restrict access because they left a bunch of trash, the law didn’t change, you just started enforcing it.


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> Prepare for dissertations, lectures, and a gracious plenty of foofaraw.



I’m done with this with this one.  Ya’ll don’t listen anyway.  The law is the law.   If you don’t listen to me, you can argue with the judge when you get your ticket.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> I’m done with this with this one.  Ya’ll don’t listen anyway.  The law is the law.   If you don’t listen to me, you can argue with the judge when you get your ticket.




That`s not your problem to worry about.

Good day.


----------



## dang (Jun 8, 2022)

Mercy


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> That`s not your problem to worry about.
> 
> Good day.



I’m not worried about it all, but I’m not the one fussing about not having access. This is a discussion forum, or at least you would think.  A topic comes up, and if it is one that I have done some research on for whatever reason in the past, I provide what I have learned over the years.  If I have no experience or knowledge on it, I don’t.  I even post applicable information to support what I am saying, so people will have the information to read it and learn for themselves.  I looked into all this navigable verses non-navigable stuff years ago trying to figure out where I could legally duck hunt before I actually hunted in spots.   I didn’t just go hunt it and then get mad when someone told me I couldn’t. I figured I would share that information. If you have no I interest it, there’s no skin off of my back. It is just funny to me that no one can provide any evidence whatsoever to support these wild and incorrect ideas they are spouting on here, yet I’m the bad guy.


----------



## Dutch (Jun 8, 2022)

Get the law changed, problem solved.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> I’m not worried about it all, but I’m not the one fussing about not having access. This is a discussion forum, or at least you would think.  A topic comes up, and if it is one that I have done some research on for whatever reason in the past, I provide what I have learned over the years.  If I have no experience or knowledge on it, I don’t.  I even post applicable information to support what I am saying, so people will have the information to read it and learn for themselves.  I looked into all this navigable verses non-navigable stuff years ago trying to figure out where I could legally duck hunt before I actually hunted in spots.   I didn’t just go hunt it and then get mad when someone told me I couldn’t. I figured I would share that information. If you have no I interest it, there’s no skin off of my back. It is just funny to me that no one can provide any evidence whatsoever to support these wild and incorrect ideas they are spouting on here, yet I’m the bad guy.




I reckon you weren`t done with this after all.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 8, 2022)

@across the river 
I am camping and on a cell.  When I get home I will vote the controlling law in Ga for you.  The Fed law is not applicable to trespassing in GA.


----------



## SouthGa Fisher (Jun 8, 2022)

I'm just curious, but what if the COE revisited the definition of "navigable"?

For the record, I see both sides. I do enjoy floating the rivers of Georgia, but I also hate seeing all the trash.


----------



## JB0704 (Jun 8, 2022)

It's prolly not true, as with most things Billy says, but, I've heard about 300 x's in my life that if you can float a boat in and to it you can fish it.  Meaning, if you own access to one part of a pond / creek / river you have rights to fish all of it.  I do know of one property dispute where the primary pond owner begs to differ, but never heard of it being settled through the law.  I think we all know which parts of the soque to not try to test that theory on.  I'm guessing it's about the same as a fella thinking a blood trail = access priviledges.  Just pointing out what is "common knowledge" amongst folks.


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> I reckon you weren`t done with this after all.



I’m done discussing the navigable verses non-navigable stuff.  I’ve posted enough info that folks can figure it out themselves or not.  Snide comments are still fair game.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> I’m done discussing the navigable verses non-navigable stuff.  I’ve posted enough info that folks can figure it out themselves or not.  Snide comments are still fair game.




Noted. Throw all you can afford.


----------



## campboy (Jun 8, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> Prepare for dissertations, lectures, and a gracious plenty of bullhockey.



FIFY


----------



## fishmonger (Jun 8, 2022)

JakkBauer said:


> Ill bite on your bait. I think he is just calling out the fact that they created an artificial pellet pig pen on the Hooch to profit off anglers who want an easy fat fish photo which is kind of a joke in the first place. Very much like the Soque. There are also sections on the Toccoa posted up with pellet feeders down that whole stretch although its not a pay to play situation. Until now the only people posting rivers are the ones feeding pellet pigs lol. That makes sense to me to protect what you are feeding even if I dont personally like the idea of blocking someone off of a river altogether. While its no huge loss, removing a section from a river just kind of makes it less appealing to some who might be looking for adventure as opposed to easy pickins. The thing about the Flint however is that these are Shoal bass, not pellet pigs. Personally I dont care for pellet pig fishing as I dont want those fish anyways and wouldnt want to catch a fish you have spent hundreds feeding as that is basically a pet. However when some try to post up our native sportfish that is another story in my opinion.



Not baiting anything. I also don't care for pellet pigs but being a businessman, I understand why someone that runs a pig pen wants to protect their business. I know for a fact that poaching is an issue for them. As far as the folks that have feeders on the Toccoa, I wouldn't listen to them whine about their fed fish, that is their choice to feed fish on public water, but that doesn't mean that they are their fish, that would be like me claiming to own the birds that come to my feeders, and really even less so because my feeders and the birds are on my property.


----------



## campboy (Jun 8, 2022)

I think it all boils down to this: get ready for more and more of these kind of situations all over the place


----------



## campboy (Jun 8, 2022)

and greed


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 8, 2022)

campboy said:


> I think it all boils down to this: get ready for more and more of these kind of situations all over the place



Yep.  We, as an electorate, have tolerated it since it hasn't normally affected us (just a few miles of small trout streams...we have other places to fish for trout) but this is on a major river and not a small trout stream. 

Folks all up and down the river can start restricting the river from fishing or even passing through and it is my hope that there will be enough uproar over that to get the law changed...and ATR, I'm not talking about the federal navigable designation here which you can't seem to get past, but rather state law.  

Also, despite the comments in many long tirades above, this is NOT something that a single landowner who owns both sides of the river did, but rather an action that different landowners on opposite sides got together and did to stop non-paying access.  That means that is can be done on EVERY non-federal navigable river in GA as it is not necessary for a single landowner to own both sides for this to happen.  Think about that for a minute.


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jun 8, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> Yep.  We, as an electorate, have tolerated it since it hasn't normally affected us (just a few miles of small trout streams...we have other places to fish for trout) but this is on a major river and not a small trout stream.
> 
> Folks all up and down the river can start restricting the river from fishing or even passing through and it is my hope that there will be enough uproar over that to get the law changed...and ATR, I'm not talking about the federal navigable designation here which you can't seem to get past, but rather state law.
> 
> Also, despite the comments in many long tirades above, this is NOT something that a single landowner who owns both sides of the river did, but rather an action that different landowners on opposite sides got together and did to stop non-paying access.  That means that is can be done on EVERY non-federal navigable river in GA as it is not necessary for a single landowner to own both sides for this to happen.  Think about that for a minute.



His 'two landowner' statement is correct.

I really hope this isn't the wave of the future for any river.  Although I will say this - I peruse the Q PUBLIC websites ran by most counties these days to show property lines and such.  In the case of rivers, some counties draw the lines to the middle of the creek/river but some counties stop the property line at the bank of the creek or river so that makes it look as if the property owner does not own to the middle of the river.

This could be a small oversight on part of the Q PUBLIC website/drawing.  Maybe it should be drawn to the middle of the water body in every county.  Just throwing that out there.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> ????????     Federal law gives people the ability to access navigable waters.  What waters are deemed “navigable” is determined by the federal government, not Georgia.   The Georgia law states that you own the land below the river or creek, and can restrict access on non-navigable waterways.    In other words you can’t legally kayak or fish non-navigable water without permission, just like you can’t walk on someone else’s land without permission.  That doesn’t apply to navigable waters due to federal law, so Georgias “trespassing” laws don’t apply.   Not sure how this is confusing.  You can have a section of “non-navigable” river that access has never been restricted on before, but this doesn’t mean Georgia deemed it a navigable in the past.  It just means the landowner or landowners have never tried to restrict access.    If you let people access your land to hike for years and the decide to restrict access because they left a bunch of trash, the law didn’t change, you just started enforcing it.


Stream and water access in each state is regulated by that state's laws, not a federal navigability statute. In some states, the landowner owns the streambed, and can post it as he chooses. In some states, all the waters belong to the public, and no one can keep you out of them as long as you don't set foot above the high-water line onto private land-that's all of them, just not the navigable ones. That isn't controlled by federal navigability lists, it's controlled by state statutes. In NC, if you own both sides of a trout stream that isn't considered navigable, you can post it. In Montana, you can't.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 8, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Stream and water access in each state is regulated by that state's laws, not a federal navigability statute. In some states, the landowner owns the streambed, and can post it as he chooses. In some states, all the waters belong to the public, and no one can keep you out of them as long as you don't set foot above the high-water line onto private land-that's all of the, just not the navigable ones. That isn't controlled by federal navigability lists, it's controlled by state statutes. In NC, if you own both sides of a trout stream that isn't considered navigable, you can post it. In Montana, you can't.



Get ready for a "Federal navigable water" response...


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 8, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> Get ready for a "Federal navigable water" response...


If this section of the Flint isn't on the federal navigable water list, then that subject doesn't even apply in this conversation. It's entirely state law that controls access.


----------



## LIGHTNING (Jun 8, 2022)

Where is this stretch of the Flint at. Does anyone have a map?


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Stream and water access in each state is regulated by that state's laws, not a federal navigability statute. In some states, the landowner owns the streambed, and can post it as he chooses. In some states, all the waters belong to the public, and no one can keep you out of them as long as you don't set foot above the high-water line onto private land-that's all of them, just not the navigable ones. That isn't controlled by federal navigability lists, it's controlled by state statutes. In NC, if you own both sides of a trout stream that isn't considered navigable, you can post it. In Montana, you can't.



I said I was done with this thread, but what the heck.  We are saying the same thing.  

Here is the explanation of the current law for Georgia from a law firm. 

*For non-navigable streams, the boundary line, as discussed above, goes to the thread of the stream.  The owner on either side of a non-navigable river would therefore own the riverbed out to that point, and would have not only the right to use the water, and the riverbed, but would have the right to exclude others from passage, fishing, swimming and boating.*

*For navigable waters, the riverbed is considered in general to belong to the public, *because the boundary is only to the low-water mark.  At common law, grants of land from the state bounded on rivers above tide-water, or where the tide does not ebb and flow, were to the thread of the river.  O.C.G.A. § 44-8-5, providing that where the river is navigable, the rights of the owner of adjacent land extend only to the low-water mark of the riverbed, became effective with the adoption of the Code of 1863, and therefore does not apply to grants that predate that Code.  Parker v. Durham, 258 Ga. 140, 365 S.E.2d 411 (1988).  Hence, as a practical matter, many navigable grants run to the center of the stream, but the public still has a right of passage.  Such owners could prevent the taking of minerals from the riverbed, or from fishing the stream, however.  Even in a latter day navigable stream situation, the owner can prevent fishing down to the low water mark--requiring the fisher to use a boat.


Georgia cannot change what water is considered navigable.  That is under the jurisdiction of the feds, and access is granted by federal law to navigable water regardless of what state it is in.  Georgia also can't just declare that section of the flint navigable as others have said to allow people access.  It doesn't work like that.   


The section is considered non-navigable, so Georgia's law and jurisdiction is applicable to non-navigable water.  I 100% agree. 
Georgia* could* allow access to non-navigable water as others states do, as non-navigable water does fall under the state jurisdiction.  However, they cannot do that without changing the first part above for all non-navigable water in the state.    That won't happen though, because then people are free to kayak any creek they want to and landowners have no desire to have people all over their land.  It would be political suicide if someone tried to do that.  The state can't "cherrypick"  certain sections of water that are currently non-navigabl and grant access without granting access to all non-navigable water.   This is the same thing I said in post #68.  I'm not sure what you think I have said that disagrees with what you said.


----------



## doehunter (Jun 8, 2022)

Bananaslug22 said:


> Generally speaking, when you get 200 - 300 yards from the drop at Yellow Jacket all the way to the drop at Yellow Jacket.  Once you get past the drop at Yellow Jacket, you're good.


Ok thanks


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> I said I was done with this thread, but what the heck.  We are saying the same thing.
> 
> Here is the explanation of the current law for Georgia from a law firm.
> 
> ...


Yes, states can definitely and certainly make their own definition of navigable water separate from the federal list. Many states have, regardless of what you think. It is known fact, and state law.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> Georgia cannot change what water is considered navigable.  That is under the jurisdiction of the feds, and access is granted by federal law to navigable water regardless of what state it is in.  Georgia also can't just declare that section of the flint navigable as others have said to allow people access.  It doesn't work like that.



You did good up to this part which is just wrong.


----------



## tom turkey 2x2 (Jun 8, 2022)

Nick, before the flood of 97 there was a sunken cotton badge in the river between hwy 27 bridge  and Montezuma, could be seen in very low water times. I was told the flood either moved it or covered it up. I believe  in the barge days the river was very different than today . Deeper and not as rough with logs.  This was before the day of massive logging and silting.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 8, 2022)

across the river said:


> I said I was done with this thread, but what the heck.  We are saying the same thing.



No you are not saying the same thing.  He is saying the state can make all flowing water public and you are saying they can't. 
They can't change the Fed designation of navigable water, that's up to the feds to do, but they can change the state designation and open the rivers up to the public more than the fed designation does already.


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> You did good up to this part which is just wrong.




Please tell you lawyer that and see what he says.  Post something concrete that provides I'm wrong. Otherwise, please stop.


https://law.jrank.org/pages/8766/Navigable-Waters.html

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title33/html/USCODE-2011-title33.htm

https://www.epa.gov/wotus/about-waters-united-states

From 33 CFR, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE THING.

a. Effect on determinations. Although *conclusive determinations of navigability can be made only by federal Courts*, those made by federal agencies are nevertheless accorded substantial weight by the courts.

I agree the state controls non-navigable water, and "in theory" the state could decide to allow access to some water and prohibit access on other "non-navigable" water.  They can have a "floatable law" or "kayak able" law and different states have different ownership laws in regards to the actual land up to and below water.  However, they can't tell the federal government that a section of water is now navigable.   For that reason, what you all are wanting on the Flint, ain't gonna happen.   It is what it is.  I anxiously await your literature proving I'm wrong.


----------



## across the river (Jun 8, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> No you are not saying the same thing.  He is saying the state can make all flowing water public and you are saying they can't.
> They can't change the Fed designation of navigable water, that's up to the feds to do, but they can change the state designation and open the rivers up to the public more than the fed designation does already.




Did you completely miss this part in the actual post you are responding to????????? "Georgia could allow access to non-navigable water as others states do, as non-navigable water does fall under the state jurisdiction." Navigable water is already "public", so isn't that exactly what I said?  I said it won't happen. I didn't say it wasn't in the states authority to change the law.   Political suicide I believe is the term I used for the politician that attempted to push it.  I'm glad we agree that states can't change the navigable designation, as others seem to not get that part.    You and I are on the same page in terms of the laws.  I just don't think is a chance they change the law, and you seem to think there is.


----------



## Batjack (Jun 8, 2022)

Oh.. er.. ah.. please excuse me... I thought I was in the political forum. Just pass'n through. Sorry.


----------



## antharper (Jun 9, 2022)

PLENTY of good info in here ! Thanks for sharing . I was raised on the Ocmulgee and if we could get our boat in we fished it . I have seen people try to block access to some of the oxbow lakes , it never worked though


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 9, 2022)

across the river said:


> Did you completely miss this part in the actual post you are responding to????????? "Georgia could allow access to non-navigable water as others states do, as non-navigable water does fall under the state jurisdiction." Navigable water is already "public", so isn't that exactly what I said?  I said it won't happen. I didn't say it wasn't in the states authority to change the law.   Political suicide I believe is the term I used for the politician that attempted to push it.  I'm glad we agree that states can't change the navigable designation, as others seem to not get that part.    You and I are on the same page in terms of the laws.  I just don't think is a chance they change the law, and you seem to think there is.


A state can choose to make a foot-wide creek navigable according to state statute (with absolutely nothing to do with federal navigable designations) if they choose to. The states can't change the federal designation of federally -listed navigable waters, but they can make their own definitions of what is navigable according to state law on any other water not listed by the feds. It's none of the feds business, 10th Amendment and all. Some states consider all state waters legally navigable and open to floating access by the public if you can float a canoe or kayak down them. Some don't. That's why the laws are so confusing when you go from state to state. 

The fed controls the status of federally navigable waters in a state, but the state has plenty of authority to designate access to every other speck of water in the state as they see fit. As you point out, they very well may not choose to do so because of political reasons, but the opposite is also sometimes true. There are whole states like MT where you can't legally block access to flowing water below the high water line, no matter how much land you own around it.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 9, 2022)

tom turkey 2x2 said:


> Nick, before the flood of 97 there was a sunken cotton badge in the river between hwy 27 bridge  and Montezuma, could be seen in very low water times. I was told the flood either moved it or covered it up. I believe  in the barge days the river was very different than today . Deeper and not as rough with logs.  This was before the day of massive logging and silting.




There`s an ancient cotton barge in the river just south of Albany a little piece. It can be seen when the river is real low. A fellow got enough wood off of it to make a frame for some of the arrowheads, spear points, and ivory he`s found in the river over the years.


----------



## Coenen (Jun 9, 2022)

LIGHTNING said:


> Where is this stretch of the Flint at. Does anyone have a map?


Google does. "Yellowjacket Shoals" it'll pop right up.


----------



## brunofishing (Jun 9, 2022)

Coenen said:


> Google does. "Yellowjacket Shoals" it'll pop right up.


Flat Shoals as well


----------



## BassMan31 (Jun 9, 2022)

the issue for me is simple: hunting and fishing have been made a rich man's sport because of these very issues (trespass, land rights, etc.). If we're to ensure longevity of the sport and our shared and cherished heritage we need to get these waterway laws updated to something reasonable.


----------



## 8pointduck (Jun 9, 2022)

BassMan31 said:


> the issue for me is simple: hunting and fishing have been made a rich man's sport because of these very issues (trespass, land rights, etc.). If we're to ensure longevity of the sport and our shared and cherished heritage we need to get these waterway laws updated to something reasonable.


I agree 100%


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 9, 2022)

Nicodemus said:


> There`s an ancient cotton barge in the river just south of Albany a little piece. It can be seen when the river is real low. A fellow got enough wood off of it to make a frame for some of the arrowheads, spear points, and ivory he`s found in the river over the years.


Teeth ? Any teeth. Like shark. Mastodon camel ??


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 9, 2022)

kmckinnie said:


> Teeth ? Any teeth. Like shark. Mastodon camel ??




Yea, Megs and other fossil shark teeth, and I`ve seen a couple of Basilosaurus teeth. Plenty of horse, bison, and camel teeth, and Colombian mammoth and mastodon ivory. Mostly splinters with few short sections of tusk. A late friend of mine had a beauty of a Paleo foreshaft made from ivory. I have a cast of it somewhere.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 9, 2022)

across the river said:


> Please tell you lawyer that and see what he says.   Post something concrete that provides I'm wrong. Otherwise, please stop.



The Federal legal definitions of navigable water that you cite are indeed correct definitions. The problem with your argument is that these definitions are for the purposes of Federal Law.  Federal Law does not encompass Georgia trespass, civil or criminal.  Georgia Law controls that and Georgia has had a definition for navigable waters for many years that is used for that purpose.  No Federal law defines navigable waters for the purpose of trespass in Georgia.  The controlling law in Georgia and a jam up explanation of it may be found in this Supreme Court Decision:
LANIER v. OCEAN POND FISHING CLUB, INC., 253 Ga. 549 (1984), 322 S.E.2d 494.

You might want to have your lawyer read it to you.


----------



## treadwell (Jun 14, 2022)

Just read an Outdoor Life article about a 83 yr old man who has spent 10 yrs trying to open up the trout waters in Colorado. He has shown that the phrase "navagatible for trade"  refers to ANY trade, any size. He found documentation where a trapper kept a detailed log and specifically mentioned the river, it's exact location, his firs, traps, and barter supplies in it. We are talking canoe here. He was able to prove in court the law states "navagatible for trade at time of statehood" and the fact it WAS used for trade. Sad thing though, after ten years, lots of court time, large, very rich influential landowners have prevented him from seeing victory in the fight.


----------



## OwlRNothing (Jun 14, 2022)

There is a reason that we value private property owner's rights here in the eastern United States.

There is a reason that so much land out west is (so-called) "public land."

You get one guess, and no - it has nothing to do with "rich land owners."

I'm always amazed by people who think the eastern US should be just like the western states. Y'all should just move out there and be happy, imho. I mean, I'll admit I'm a little bit torn on this issue, because I wouldn't want to see all the water in the Southeast posted - but there's plenty of trout water besides that one creek or river that you just can't stand it that you can't fish it. Feel me? Out of our aprox. 4000 miles of trout water in GA, I'd guess at least half of that is public water, if not 2/3 of it. Never enough though, is it comrades? PS - do note that I do not, nor have I ever owned land with water on it. I just value private property rights over state ownership in the bigger picture.


----------



## SouthGa Fisher (Jun 14, 2022)

OwlRNothing said:


> There is a reason that we value private property owner's rights here in the eastern United States.
> 
> There is a reason that so much land out west is (so-called) "public land."
> 
> ...



I'm not sure this has anything to do with the 4000 miles of trout water located hours and hours away from the Flint.

So, no, I don't feel you.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 14, 2022)

The law is the same all over GA.  Some folks just want Uncle .Gov to seize somebody else's property so they can fish it is all. Most of those folks would say that Eminent Domain is an abomination and shouldn't be allowed in a free Country.  LOL


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 14, 2022)

I'm not asking the gov to seize someones property, just change the law to make the floatable (canoe or kayak minimum) streams and rivers open to the public for passage and fishing.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 14, 2022)

If the waterway did not meet the GA definition for navigable, that would be a seizure or a taking by the .Gov of the land owner's right to enjoy his property.  

I like going overboard with examples:  This would be no different that the .Gov saying that everyone with a home with over 2 bedrooms would have to make one bedroom available to homeless tansients who wanted to stay there.  The property itself is not taken but the right to enjoy as the owner sees fit is.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 14, 2022)

JustUs4All said:


> If the waterway did not meet the GA definition for navigable, that would be a seizure or a taking by the .Gov of the land owner's right to enjoy his property.
> 
> I like going overboard with examples:  This would be no different that the .Gov saying that everyone with a home with over 2 bedrooms would have to make one bedroom available to homeless tansients who wanted to stay there.  The property itself is not taken but the right to enjoy as the owner sees fit is.



I'm simply saying I would like to see them change the State definition of Navigable to include any running water that is large enough to reasonably paddle down in a canoe or kayak.
They could do this by avg flow/m or avg width etc.  I'm not talking about small creeks that pass through someones property.
Should have been that way from the start as all of the waters I am talking about WERE used as travel routes for as far back as we have history of GA. Should be no different than the highways that were added later...


----------



## boooger (Jun 14, 2022)

Lampern,
‘How much fishing do you do on the Flint River?


----------



## antharper (Jun 14, 2022)

boooger said:


> Lampern,
> ‘How much fishing do you do on the Flint River?


What does it matter ? He’s a member here just like the rest of us and is free to talk about whatever he wants !


----------



## boooger (Jun 16, 2022)

antharper said:


> What does it matter ? He’s a member here just like the rest of us and is free to talk about whatever he wants !


I don’t see where it should matter anything at all to you What I ask him!


----------



## boooger (Jun 16, 2022)

antharper said:


> What does it matter ? He’s a member here just like the rest of us and is free to talk about whatever he wants !


I don’t see where it should matter anything at all to you What I ask him!


----------



## James12 (Jun 16, 2022)

boooger said:


> I don’t see where it should matter anything at all to you What I ask him!



Settle down, or get the phone back from whomever took it from you.  You’re going to get this locked or deleted.


----------



## Nicodemus (Jun 16, 2022)

boooger said:


> Lampern,
> ‘How much fishing do you do on the Flint River?




How long have you fished it?


----------



## JakkBauer (Jun 16, 2022)

Booger : joined 2011, 15 messages, at least 5 are about lampern


----------



## JustUs4All (Jun 16, 2022)

boooger said:


> I don’t see where it should matter anything at all to you What I ask him!



Using that logic, then why would it matter anything at all to you what he asks you?  LOL


----------



## Batjack (Jun 16, 2022)

boooger said:


> I don’t see where it should matter anything at all to you What I ask him!


Wow! It came out before dark... don't no body get it wet!


----------



## across the river (Jun 16, 2022)

SouthGa Fisher said:


> I'm not sure this has anything to do with the 4000 miles of trout water located hours and hours away from the Flint.
> 
> So, no, I don't feel you.



There are two types of water under Georgia Law.   Navigable waters (which are determined by the feds and fall under federal control) and non-navigable water, which is everything else that falls under state law.    This piece of water falls under the non-navigable ( everything else) category, for which Georgia law applies.   Contrary to what some on here seem to think, Georgia cannot just wave a magic wand and say this section is now “navigable” and move this section of the flint over into the navigable waters section of the law with the lower flint, Savannah, and other navigable waters simply to provide people access.   Only the feds can do that. Georgia could change state law to grant access to non-navigable waters under whatever stipulations or rules they made up for them. They could open up all of it and say you are free to fish anything you can float a kayak or canoe down, but then they then have to open up all the non-navigable water in the state that falls under that same criteria. They can’t just pick one small section of the flint and change state law just for that one spot, and say “o.k., you can fish this one section of non-navigable river in the state, but not the other sections of other non-navigable creeks and rivers.”  That is why any change to the rules would impact stream in the mountains nowhere close to the flint.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 16, 2022)

across the river said:


> They could open up all of it and say you are free to fish anything you can float a kayak or canoe down, but then they then have to open up all the non-navigable water in the state that falls under that same criteria. They can’t just pick one small section of the flint and change state law just for that one spot, and say “o.k., you can fish this one section of non-navigable river in the state, but not the other sections of other non-navigable creeks and rivers.”  That is why any change to the rules would impact stream in the mountains nowhere close to the flint.




And that is exactly what I hope gets done.


----------



## across the river (Jun 16, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> And that is exactly what I hope gets done.



 It won’t happen in Georgia, because they won’t go back on a law that has already been in place.  It would also impact too many people and create too much conflict.  A guy spends his lifetime saving to buy a tract of land that has a creek on it.   Builds a house on the creek and then every time he and his wife are sitting on the porch on a Saturday with the kids playing in the yard there is some redneck kayaking in the creek catching three finger bream.   Same with the guy with the cabin on the mountain stream or the other guy with a swampy area off the river that he duck hunts.  It essentially gives people the right to trespass, which is why it won’t happen.  States out west that are 30, 40, 50+ percent public land and sporadically populated have laws like this, but not populated states will little public land and development along most bodies of water.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 16, 2022)

JakkBauer said:


> Booger : joined 2011, 15 messages, at least 5 are about lampern


 And the thread trolling Lampern doesn't even show up because it was deleted.


----------



## 1eyefishing (Jun 16, 2022)

1eyefishing said:


> And the thread trolling Lampern doesn't even show up because it was deleted.


 Someone's shadow account.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 16, 2022)

across the river said:


> It won’t happen in Georgia, because they won’t go back on a law that has already been in place.  It would also impact too many people and create too much conflict.  A guy spends his lifetime saving to buy a tract of land that has a creek on it.   Builds a house on the creek and then every time he and his wife are sitting on the porch on a Saturday with the kids playing in the yard there is some redneck kayaking in the creek catching three finger bream.   Same with the guy with the cabin on the mountain stream or the other guy with a swampy area off the river that he duck hunts.  It essentially gives people the right to trespass, which is why it won’t happen.  States out west that are 30, 40, 50+ percent public land and sporadically populated have laws like this, but not populated states will little public land and development along most bodies of water.



You may have mentioned all of that before...couple of dozen times maybe.


----------



## across the river (Jun 16, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> You may have mentioned all of that before...couple of dozen times maybe.



Yet I’m not the one that seems to somehow believe the state is going to change the law so that you could not only fish this section of the flint but also kayak down Rae’s Creek through the middle of the National or fish any creek on Pine Hill or these other plantations that you could access from the road.


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jun 16, 2022)

Koom by yaaaaah my Lord…..  koooom by yaaaaah…..


----------



## MudDucker (Jun 17, 2022)

The law:

If the Fed says it is navigable, the state can't change that.

The state can define just about anything navigable beyond the fed definition, but that raised fed and state constitutional issues of taking property without proper compensation.


----------



## across the river (Jun 17, 2022)

MudDucker said:


> The law:
> 
> If the Fed says it is navigable, the state can't change that.
> 
> The state can define just about anything navigable beyond the fed definition, but that raised fed and state constitutional issues of taking property without proper compensation.



The state can allow whatever they want on the water under their control, but that water will always be non-navigable.   There is one definition of navigable, and that is the feds and they determine what those waters are. If you have property on a navigable river in Georgia, you own down to the low water mark and have no right to restrict access to it due to federal law.  If you own water on a non-navigable stream or river, you own the land under it to the property line ( the middle) or both side of ot isn’t a line.  You can, under current law, restrict access to the water above you land.  Some states, and Montana keeps getting brought up in these threads, have “Right to Access laws” which  allow you to fish virtually any creek or river you can float down in a kayak, boat, raft, etc…., but that is still non-navigable water and out of federal control.    Georgia could do this, and it would not change property rights or anything.  However, it would virtually give people a right to trespass by floating a river or creek pretty much anywhere they wanted to.  In states that are sparsely populated and have a small population that might be reasonable, but it really isn’t in Georgia. It would be the equivalent of just letting people legally roam through you yard or property, just on a boat.  The floater leave trash, a tree limb falls on the floater and he wants to sue the land owner,  the golf course has to allow the guys to fish the water that flows through, a family has a house on a creek in a gated community and their kids are in the yard when bubba floats by in the yard fishing.  Like I said, it ain’t gonna happen.


----------



## dang (Jun 17, 2022)




----------



## doomtrpr_z71 (Jun 17, 2022)

Assuming the riverkeepers actually go through with the lawsuit will make this a very interesting case, especially since in the past when the state has ruled on navigability it has been on the entire stream.  I mean the state has essentially already said they own the water in this basin anyway, if you don't believe me try and get a surface water withdrawal permit for the Flint River. I mean according to the law you own the water and could build a canal to fill up a pond on your property, but the EPD would tell you different.  Besides for something non-navigable it sure has an awful lot of public boat ramps with one on each side of those shoals.


----------



## antharper (Jun 17, 2022)

dang said:


> View attachment 1158155


You’ll run out of gas first ?


----------



## across the river (Jun 17, 2022)

doomtrpr_z71 said:


> Assuming the riverkeepers actually go through with the lawsuit will make this a very interesting case, especially since in the past when the state has ruled on navigability it has been on the entire stream.  I mean the state has essentially already said they own the water in this basin anyway, if you don't believe me try and get a surface water withdrawal permit for the Flint River. I mean according to the law you own the water and could build a canal to fill up a pond on your property, but the EPD would tell you different.  Besides for something non-navigable it sure has an awful lot of public boat ramps with one on each side of those shoals.
> 
> View attachment 1158211


The state has never ruled on navigability, and there are plenty of bodies of water across the state in which part is considered navigable and part is no navigable.  




https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Port...vannah District.pdf?ver=2019-06-26-144338-893

https://www.sas.usace.army.mil/Portals/61/docs/regulatory/RP84.pdf


----------



## basshappy (Jun 18, 2022)

Why not fish to the signs, then enjoy some good old splashing, swimming, chumming (worms and minnows pretty cheap, toss in a few pounds here and there), bring the grandkids play in the water in the posted areas especially during key times of the year.  Make so much fun that the fish swim up or downstream to get away from all that fun.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 18, 2022)

basshappy said:


> Why not fish to the signs, then enjoy some good old splashing, swimming, chumming (worms and minnows pretty cheap, toss in a few pounds here and there), bring the grandkids play in the water in the posted areas especially during key times of the year.  Make so much fun that the fish swim up or downstream to get away from all that fun.



You don't understand the whole significance of this situation.  The signs may say "no fishing" now ( I haven't seen the signs) but the current law actually allows the different landowners on either side of this river to completely stop all use and passage through there as well.  
Imagine if landowners all across the state decided to do that also since these landowners get away with it ...


----------



## across the river (Jun 18, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> You don't understand the whole significance of this situation.  The signs may say "no fishing" now ( I haven't seen the signs) but the current law actually allows the different landowners on either side of this river to completely stop all use and passage through there as well.
> Imagine if landowners all across the state decided to do that also since these landowners get away with it ...



We completely understand.  There are over 1000 miles of navigable streams and rivers for you to fish, hundreds of thousands of acres of public lakes and ponds for you to fish, yet that is not good enough and you want the government to force people to allow you to fish on top of the land that they legally own and can legally restrict access to if they so choose.  We completely understand.   Maybe you can also request that the guberment also force people to allow you to hunt on their private property because you aren't satisfied with the million plus acres of public land you currently have available to hunt as well.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 18, 2022)

*You are almost as persistent (and ridiculous) as Nate over on the black panther thread...*

This has nothing to do with someone using my house or climbing up in my deer stand.   These rivers have been being used by the public for as long as there have been these rivers.


----------



## basshappy (Jun 19, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> You don't understand the whole significance of this situation.  The signs may say "no fishing" now ( I haven't seen the signs) but the current law actually allows the different landowners on either side of this river to completely stop all use and passage through there as well.
> Imagine if landowners all across the state decided to do that also since these landowners get away with it ...



I do understand ALL THREE SIDES OF THIS STORY.  
1) Property OWNER who owns their property should 100% be able to do whatever they want within the legal system to / with their owned property.  
2) Non-owners want access to either A) owned property to do something (hunt, fish, pass through, etc) B) owned property that was once either not-owned or not restricted (such as someone buying both sides of a stream now able to restrict use)
3) The government who has to interpret and uphold the law balanced with the needs/wants of the public at large (who ultimately put them in their position (career) and can remove them (in many cases).

A long term solution might be best, one that every hunter and fisherman joins in on, and everyone donates money to the cause to A) invest in land of interest, B) create a legal fund for court cases, and C) create a lobbying fund to work and pressure for desired wants.

Imagine if every licensed hunter and fisherman in Georgia donated $25 annually to this group/organization/fund.  There are over 630,000 licensed hunters in Georgia, and over 1,000,000 resident anglers in Georgia.  Let's presume some licensed anglers hold hunting licenses, call it 300,000 just for sake of argument.  That leaves 1,000,000 anglers donating $25 annually and 330,000 hunters donating $25 annually.  So $25 MILLION dollars annually from anglers and another $8.2 MILLION dollara from hunters equals over $33 MILLION dollars annually .... that is substantial and could buy quite a bit of property, support a lot of lobbying, and line the pockets of law firms in court cases.  EVERY YEAR.

But let's halve that number because not every licensed person can or would invest.  $16 MILLION plus annually can still do a lot of good to protect land access.

Remember "we the people"?  Maybe the time to work together is NOW.


----------



## across the river (Jun 19, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> *You are almost as persistent (and ridiculous) as Nate over on the black panther thread...*
> 
> This has nothing to do with someone using my house or climbing up in my deer stand.   These rivers have been being used by the public for as long as there have been these rivers.




The law has been the law for many years and hasn't changed.   Just because their was a landowner, or multiple landowners, on a piece of water that have allowed access and then decides to lease the land to someone else who decides that they do want to restrict access, then absolute nothing has changed, other than you have lost access that you weren't entitled to to begin with.    The law is still the law.  It's like someone in the neighborhood owns a pool that they let everyone use and swim in whenever they want, and then the house gets sold and the people get mad because the new owners don't want to let them use it anymore.  You didn't have to the "right" to it to begin with.   It is the same deal.   If five different people owned the land and no one really tried to restrict access or didn't worry about it,  that doesn't me you had the "right" to be there.   You were  essentially gifted access by being allowed to use it without anyone forcing the issue before.  You had no legal right to be there then and still have no legal right to be there now.   If someone buys or leases out the land owners and decides they don't want you to "use the pool" anymore, don't get all mad about.  Like the guy said above.  You and a bunch of buddies pool your money and lease it yourselves, then allow any and everyone access.   I don't get you pushing to have everyone's pool opened up, just because you neighbor doesn't want you swimming in their's anymore.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 19, 2022)

across the river said:


> The law has been the law for many years and hasn't changed.   Just because their was a landowner, or multiple landowners, on a piece of water that have allowed access and then decides to lease the land to someone else who decides that they do want to restrict access, then absolute nothing has changed, other than you have lost access that you weren't entitled to to begin with.    The law is still the law.  It's like someone in the neighborhood owns a pool that they let everyone use and swim in whenever they want, and then the house gets sold and the people get mad because the new owners don't want to let them use it anymore.  You didn't have to the "right" to it to begin with.   It is the same deal.   If five different people owned the land and no one really tried to restrict access or didn't worry about it,  that doesn't me you had the "right" to be there.   You were  essentially gifted access by being allowed to use it without anyone forcing the issue before.  You had no legal right to be there then and still have no legal right to be there now.   If someone buys or leases out the land owners and decides they don't want you to "use the pool" anymore, don't get all mad about.  Like the guy said above.  You and a bunch of buddies pool your money and lease it yourselves, then allow any and everyone access.   I don't get you pushing to have everyone's pool opened up, just because you neighbor doesn't want you swimming in their's anymore.



Your analogies are ridiculous.   The streams I am talking about were used (read "owned") by the public way before there were any private landowners along them and there should have NEVER been private ownership of them.  That was wrong then and still is now.  
The law needs to be made right and the streams need to be public again.
Go ahead and make another loooong explanation of why I am wrong on this.  I won't read it or respond so you can have the last word between you and me.   I will still participate in this discussion though...just not with you.  Good day.


----------



## across the river (Jun 19, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> Your analogies are ridiculous.   The streams I am talking about were used (read "owned") by the public way before there were any private landowners along them and there should have NEVER been private ownership of them.  That was wrong then and still is now.
> The law needs to be made right and the streams need to be public again.
> Go ahead and make another loooong explanation of why I am wrong on this.  I won't read it or respond so you can have the last word between you and me.   I will still participate in this discussion though...just not with you.  Good day.




Just because "the public used it", doesn't mean it was public water. That is the part you don't seem to be getting.   Unless the land under it was government owned, it was* never *public water, the owners of the land under it just didn't attempt to restrict it, even though they had the legal right to do so.   Say there is a tract of land that the "public" has mountain biked and hiked on for years, and then the land gets sold.  The new owner has every right to restrict the use of the land, even though "the public" has been free to use it in the past. It was private land in both cases, the public just got to use it under one owner and didn't under another.   This is no different.  You don't get "squatter's right" to water just, because you have fished it in the past.


----------



## kmckinnie (Jun 19, 2022)

I just about bet trash is the main reason they cut off travel. With other items of the sort. 
We ruin a good time by not cleaning up by nature.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 19, 2022)

across the river said:


> Just because "the public used it", doesn't mean it was public water. That is the part you don't seem to be getting.   Unless the land under it was government owned, it was* never *public water, the owners of the land under it just didn't attempt to restrict it, even though they had the legal right to do so.   Say there is a tract of land that the "public" has mountain biked and hiked on for years, and then the land gets sold.  The new owner has every right to restrict the use of the land, even though "the public" has been free to use it in the past. It was private land in both cases, the public just got to use it under one owner and didn't under another.   This is no different.  You don't get "squatter's right" to water just, because you have fished it in the past.



OK I was wrong.  I did read it and will respond because you insist on trying to change what I am saying to something different.

The rivers and streams I am talking about were used by the Indians waaay before there was a government to own it.  They were used as travel routes by the earliest explorers to this country.  
Then when a government did come into the picture, it WAS government land until they started letting private owners settle and claim it.  (so yes, it was all government land at one point while the streams were still public travel routes) They have ALWAYS been used for travel routes and should have NEVER been anything but public.  I am ONLY talking about streams that are large enough for canoe or kayak travel and in no way am talking about any property other than those streams.

This has nothing to do with someone wanting to swim in my backyard pool or climb up in my deer stand and hunt or the Federal definition of Navigable water!!

Now please read that all again slowly as that is my position.  It has nothing to do with the more modern history or anything else other than these streams such as the stuff that you keep referring to.  Quit attempting to change what I say to fit your position!!


----------



## across the river (Jun 19, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> OK I was wrong.  I did read it and will respond because you insist on trying to change what I am saying to something different.
> 
> The rivers and streams I am talking about were used by the Indians waaay before there was a government to own it.  They were used as travel routes by the earliest explorers to this country.
> Then when a government did come into the picture, it WAS government land until they started letting private owners settle and claim it.  (so yes, it was all government land at one point while the streams were still public travel routes) They have ALWAYS been used for travel routes and should have NEVER been anything but public.  I am ONLY talking about streams that are large enough for canoe or kayak travel and in no way am talking about any property other than those streams.
> ...




I read it really slow, so let’s make sure I’ve got it.   You think, that because an Indian canoed and fished a stream before the country was founded or the state even existed, that Georgia should now change the current law to allow people to kayak, canoe, and fish that water now.   I read it slooooooow, so make sure I’m correct.  If you go by that logic though, why would you not want to also open up all private land for the public use and hunt as long as people wear mocassions and archery hunt, since the Indians were also doing that all over the land while they were canoeing the creeks.   Makes sense to me. Am I following you logic?


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 20, 2022)

across the river said:


> I read it really slow, so let’s make sure I’ve got it.   You think, that because an Indian canoed and fished a stream before the country was founded or the state even existed, that Georgia should now change the current law to allow people to kayak, canoe, and fish that water now.   I read it slooooooow, so make sure I’m correct.  If you go by that logic though, why would you not want to also open up all private land for the public use and hunt as long as people wear mocassions and archery hunt, since the Indians were also doing that all over the land while they were canoeing the creeks.   Makes sense to me. Am I following you logic?



You read most of it slowly and retained it...  guess you missed this part though because you once again tried to change it to something else,  I had even put ONLY in all caps but you still missed it...  some folks failed in reading comprehension class I guess.  Twisting something someone says to be different is not a good trait...just sayin.

"I am ONLY talking about streams that are large enough for canoe or kayak travel and in no way am talking about any property other than those streams.

This has nothing to do with someone wanting to swim in my backyard pool or climb up in my deer stand and hunt or the Federal definition of Navigable water!!"


----------



## across the river (Jun 20, 2022)

cowhornedspike said:


> You read most of it slowly and retained it...  guess you missed this part though because you once again tried to change it to something else,  I had even put ONLY in all caps but you still missed it...  some folks failed in reading comprehension class I guess.  Twisting something someone says to be different is not a good trait...just sayin.
> 
> "I am ONLY talking about streams that are large enough for canoe or kayak travel and in no way am talking about any property other than those streams.
> 
> This has nothing to do with someone wanting to swim in my backyard pool or climb up in my deer stand and hunt or the Federal definition of Navigable water!!"



Oh, but it does.  I’m not saying that is what you are asking for, but I am saying that once you open the door on stuff like this then that is often what you get.   If the state can go just up and change the current law for everybody because a few people want to fish the flint, and the argument is “well the Indians used it before Georgia existed” then what is to stop some other group from using the same type of reasoning to get laws they want for other stuff that has nothing to do with fishing.   Nothing exists in a vacuum, and although people typically want “more government” to benefit them in whatever particular way they are pushing for, it typically comes back to bite them in another way they didn’t consider when they were pushing for the change.


----------



## LowerAl (Jun 20, 2022)

I know I’m late to the party l, but did anybody find out what kind of goat that fella had on his raft? I think that’s the real issue at hand.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jun 20, 2022)

across the river said:


> Oh, but it does.  I’m not saying that is what you are asking for, but I am saying that once you open the door on stuff like this then that is often what you get.   If the state can go just up and change the current law for everybody because a few people want to fish the flint, and the argument is “well the Indians used it before Georgia existed” then what is to stop some other group from using the same type of reasoning to get laws they want for other stuff that has nothing to do with fishing.   Nothing exists in a vacuum, and although people typically want “more government” to benefit them in whatever particular way they are pushing for, it typically comes back to bite them in another way they didn’t consider when they were pushing for the change.



If someone wants to do that then they need to have-at-it as far as I am concerned.  As for me, I am only talking about streams and if a movement gets going to get the law changed I will support it with my time or finances.  Let those others do the same if they wish but that has nothing to do with my focus despite the fact that you are determined to say it does.


----------



## KLBTJTALLY1 (Jun 22, 2022)

Problem with GA is that the blue necks in Atlanta make the laws for us good ole boys to follow and yeah sometimes they don't make sense. Hopefully that will change soon. In the mean time I say grab your rod, kayak, boat or whatever and have at it. When you get asked to leave do so kindly and forget about it.  Move on to the next spot.


----------



## across the river (Jun 22, 2022)

KLBTJTALLY1 said:


> Problem with GA is that the blue necks in Atlanta make the laws for us good ole boys to follow and yeah sometimes they don't make sense. Hopefully that will change soon. In the mean time I say grab your rod, kayak, boat or whatever and have at it. When you get asked to leave do so kindly and forget about it.  Move on to the next spot.



These laws existed long before the imports to  Atlanta turned the state blue, at least the Northern half. And there are plenty of landowners waaaaaay outside of Atlanta that support the law.  This is also pretty dumb advice considering the fines for fishing without permission fines aren’t insignificant.  Are you going to pay their fine if they get caught?


https://cookcountyga.us/departments-and-offices/probate/payment-of-fines/fish-game-violations/

https://www.cherokeega.com/Clerk-of...hedule-for-Duration-of-Judicial-Emergency.pdf


----------



## B. White (Jun 22, 2022)

across the river said:


> I’m done with this with this one.  Ya’ll don’t listen anyway.  The law is the law.   If you don’t listen to me, you can argue with the judge when you get your ticket.


----------



## across the river (Jun 22, 2022)

Yeah, but I explained in a later post I changed my mind.   You must have missed that one.  I've posted several since then.  Ya'll keep posting so much stuff on here that is just flat out wrong, I feelI might can help the guy that might be mislead by all these lies on here.   Don't want them tell the game warden that they can fish that spot because the Indians did it, or its legal in Montana.


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jun 23, 2022)

I think this thread should actually go in the Kayak/Canoe forum.


----------



## cowhornedspike (Jul 7, 2022)




----------



## cowhornedspike (Jul 7, 2022)

I would link to the GON article but the main GON site is down for maintenance.


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jul 7, 2022)

I think the 'suits' that will end up making this decision realize the huge consequences of allowing waterways to be blocked.  There isn't enough 'police' / DNR wardens on staff to keep up with the 'law breakers' if this is allowed to pass because all of a sudden, most of the waterways in the state may try to be blocked by the landowners.  It would be anarchy and fights(physical) all over the place.

I truly believe they just dont want that headache across the state.  I hope thats the case anyway.

Make Shoal Bass Great Again.


----------



## DAVE (Jul 9, 2022)

Wonder how many times while sitting in his cell Mr. Sam Brewton has thought about his decision to threaten folks floating by his property and what he thinks about not being allowed back on his property. He only has about 8 more years before being released to figure out where he went wrong. He is lucky that his fit of anger did not result in somebody getting killed including himself. I wonder if his family is enjoying his riverside property while he is lock up.


----------



## Bananaslug22 (Jul 9, 2022)

DAVE said:


> Wonder how many times while sitting in his cell Mr. Sam Brewton has thought about his decision to threaten folks floating by his property and what he thinks about not being allowed back on his property. He only has about 8 more years before being released to figure out where he went wrong. He is lucky that his fit of anger did not result in somebody getting killed including himself. I wonder if his family is enjoying his riverside property while he is lock up.


I’ve seen numerous people wading in front of that property over the last few years. Pretty sure it is his family.


----------



## James12 (Jul 9, 2022)

https://gon.com/news/state-weighs-in-on-flint-river-access-controversy


----------



## Robust Redhorse (Jul 9, 2022)

How would you handle someone camping in your yard in front of your house on the PUBLIC Right-of-Way of the road you live on?


I don't see the difference.  
And, there really is no difference.



I have both situations.



I don't want campers in my yard, nor fisherman on the back my property working their way up a tributary of the Chestatee River.

I have had fences cut, dogs killed, property littered, game poached, campsites made, fires started, you name it...


Yeah, most serious fishermen are responsible.

That has NOT been my experience form the general public.


----------



## James12 (Jul 10, 2022)

I don’t know the law and have never looked at it, but in my layman’s mind I can’t wrap my ahead around not letting someone float down past my property in the river I own a lot on.  Camping on or actually getting out to meander around on my place would be different, but the other, that just feels ridiculous.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jul 10, 2022)

Robust Redhorse said:


> How would you handle someone camping in your yard in front of your house on the PUBLIC Right-of-Way of the road you live on?
> 
> 
> I don't see the difference.
> ...


Do you go try to put up gates across the public roadway and try to stop people from driving on it? That's the same as what these folks are doing. If somebody floating down a navigable river in a boat is the same to you as somebody camping in your yard, I don't know what to tell you, nor do I understand your thought process. I own land in two states. Somebody floating a boat past either chunk wouldn't bother me in the least if it bordered a river. If you bought land next to the national forest, would it bother you for people to hunt on that? Same difference. A navigable river is a public resource, not your private playground. I wouldn't buy any property in Montana if I were you.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Jul 10, 2022)

Robust Redhorse said:


> How would you handle someone camping in your yard in front of your house on the PUBLIC Right-of-Way of the road you live on?
> 
> 
> I don't see the difference.
> ...


I suggest you build a dome around your property. Heaven forbid a kayak float down a river you don’t own or a plane fly over your place.


----------



## doehunter (Jul 10, 2022)

Been through there a couple times. Probably never will be back, but I can’t believe this is the ga dnr response to this. I’d say they’ll change there mind before to long.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Jul 10, 2022)

doehunter said:


> Been through there a couple times. Probably never will be back, .


----------



## lampern (Jul 14, 2022)

https://georgiawildlife.com/shoal-bass-state-record-tied-crisp-county-angler

Will this cause more posting of the river?


----------



## Nicodemus (Jul 14, 2022)

lampern said:


> https://georgiawildlife.com/shoal-bass-state-record-tied-crisp-county-angler
> 
> Will this cause more posting of the river?




That`s part of my stomping grounds. I live just a little ways down from the Warwick dam.


----------



## The Original Rooster (Jul 14, 2022)

Seems to me this quote from the GON article settles it unless it goes to court:
_“Landowners along a navigable stream own to the low water mark. The area in question (Yellow Jacket Shoals) is believed to be navigable,” said Col. Thomas Barnard, Chief of the DNR Law Enforcement Division. “We ask that anglers and boaters respect the signage and remain in the river channel below the low water mark. If a person steps onto dry land that is privately owned, they must have permission from the landowner to be on their property.”_


----------



## lampern (Jul 25, 2022)

> Some property owners feed the fish and help grow the fish population. Worley said he knows of landowners on Georgia streams that do private stockings of fish and manage that fishery. He does not want this issue to become so contentious that those property owners are alienated.



https://nowhabersham.com/the-power-of-no-trespass-warnings-on-georgia-rivers-roil-the-waters/


----------



## JakkBauer (Jul 26, 2022)

Oh cool the Chestatee is getting posted now too how fun. Imagine buying property downriver from two outfitters just so you can stand around and cry and play river police all day.


----------

