# Shooting from the River



## sparta391 (Jan 21, 2013)

If you shoot from a sandbar in the river or from a kayak, are you breaking any rules? I figure its public water and I'm not trespassing on any property, but I sure would like to know for sure.


----------



## imac985 (Jan 21, 2013)

I don't see why it would be a problem. I mainly hunt the river and I haven't ever had any issues


----------



## Mistrfish (Jan 21, 2013)

Property is owned to the center of the river, if you are standing on the sand bar and do not have permisson than you are tresspassing.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 22, 2013)

Mistrfish said:


> Property is owned to the center of the river, if you are standing on the sand bar and do not have permisson than you are tresspassing.



Do you have a link for that law?


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 22, 2013)

dawg2 said:


> Do you have a link for that law?



Yea Id kinda like to clear that up too.


----------



## MudDucker (Jan 22, 2013)

There are a LOT of threads about rights to rivers.  Basically, if it is not a navigable river or waterway, which is defined as one able to maintain commercial barge traffic currently or back in the days of cotton, you are trespassing.  On most non-navigable rivers, most LEO's turn a blind eye unless you get up on the bank, but if the owner pushed it, it is illegal.


----------



## bsmithdawg285 (Jan 22, 2013)

*River*

You shouldn't have any problem as long as you are in the river and not on the bank. No river is privately owned.


----------



## bonecollector (Jan 22, 2013)

I asked my uncle last year which is a warden and the answer was as long as you are in a boatin the river and not on any bank or island you were safe problem being you shoot one and he goes on the bank legally your not sposed to retreive


----------



## JustUs4All (Jan 22, 2013)

Four wrongs and two rights so far.

The key to the answer is who owns the land under the water and whether the water itself meets the legal definition of either riparian waters or navigable stream under Federal or State law.  Most tidal areas are covered under Federal law and there is no trespass problem there.  Beyond the coastal areas trespass via water over the lands owned by another is covered by State law.  

In Georgia there is no trespass if one has permission or if the land under the water is owned or leased by the Government (Think Corps property or WMAs).  There is also no trespass if  river or stream is navigable but Georgia uses a very restirctive definition of which rivers were navigable.  A very good discussion of river access rights can be found here:  http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/stewardship:navigability.  
Be sure to read all the way to the part about Georgia being very restrictive in its definition of navigable stream which reads:

“Some states like Georgia have narrowly defined the usual mode of commerce by the ability of a river to convey barges. In Georgia, the courts have relied on an 1863 statute to conclude that “a navigable stream must be capable of transporting boats loaded with freight. The mere rafting of timber or transportation of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable.” Georgia's courts have even defined the width, length, and draft of the barges required under the state's streambed title test.”

This case is a good discussion of how Georgia treats the water over the land as part of the land beneath it for purposes of trespass:  LANIER v. OCEAN POND FISHING CLUB, INC., 253 Ga. 549 (1984), 322 S.E.2d 494.

With all that said, one does not commit a criminal trespass in Georgia when venturing upon the unimproved lands of another unless there is notice given that the land is posted or that the person is prohibited.  So if there is no posted sign one can venture down a river.  Georgia does, however, have a statute against hunting on the lands of another without permission.  

So, if you are hunting on a body of water which is non-navigable by Georgia's definition and the land beneath the water belongs to an individual a game warden may, if he wishes, ticket you for hunting on the lands of another without permission.  Generally they will not so long as you stay on the water, but can if they wish.  

The landowner can prosecute if he wishes whether or not the game warden wants to do it.  You see whether or not the game warden knows the law or wants to enforce it does not make the activity legal and a citizen can always swear out a complaint.


----------



## Souhternhunter17 (Jan 22, 2013)

Talk to your local game warden. Each warden has a different preception of that law... if they actually inforced that law very few rivers in GA would be legal to hunt...We hunt creeks and rivers all the time. All he says is DO NOT GET OUT OF THE BOAT.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jan 22, 2013)

This is correct, but don't aggrivate the property owners.  They are the ones who ultimately control whether or not the law is enforced.


----------



## sparta391 (Jan 22, 2013)

Okay thanks. I was thinking about kayaking to sneak up on ducks in the river, but I might have to stick to wma banks if I do.


----------



## JustUs4All (Jan 23, 2013)

Why don't you go with asking the GW.  
Most property owners on rivers probably do not mind unless you are shooting close to their homes, docks, dairy operations, etc.  The GW in the area is probably very familiar with whether anyone objects.


----------



## brad2727 (Jan 23, 2013)

I honestly learned this lesson the hard way.... We was in a non posted creek, in the boat hunting two seasons ago and myself and two others paid fines totaling $180 a piece! Hunting without permission... He never showed remorse or cared that we didnt know you couldn't hunt out of your boat from your boat in the river... We all had stamps, licenses, exc.....if I had of knew I wouldn't have been there... But he was hellbent on writing a ticket..


----------



## Mistrfish (Jan 27, 2013)

JustUs4All said:


> Four wrongs and two rights so far.
> 
> The key to the answer is who owns the land under the water and whether the water itself meets the legal definition of either riparian waters or navigable stream under Federal or State law. Most tidal areas are covered under Federal law and there is no trespass problem there. Beyond the coastal areas trespass via water over the lands owned by another is covered by State law.
> 
> ...


I find it hard to believe that if your land is not posted then that gives anyone the cause to walk on it.  Not saying your wrong but if thats the case then it should be changed.

I have a place on a river that I wanted to duck hunt for years.  I asked my game warden buddy about it and he said if you touch bottom with the boat then your are tresspassing .  Thast where I got the info and he has since written a few tickets over the years on that area of the river for just that.


----------



## caver101 (Jan 28, 2013)

The Coosa River system has been a hot bed of contention for years over this same issue. We were given warnings from a DNR Officer. He informed us that we were trespassing on property that the land owner did not even own. Per County GIS/tax office, recorded plats and deeds of record said owner has no title to said property. I pulled a few recorded plats and deeds and it appears that Alabama Power owns all land below 565' NOT the property owner (even tho the adjacent land owners use it). I find nowhere on their website that Alabama Power restricts hunting on their land. Is it illegal to hunt on Alabama Power property?

The DNR said we were free to walk outside of the boat in the water getting decoys and birds, but to never have a gun in hand as that would make us illegal at that point. Where is the written law that states that?


----------



## T-N-T (Nov 25, 2014)

If you are legal to fish from the boat are you also legal to shoot from it?
This is such a complex problem that the state has cleared up with laws...


----------



## jay sullivent (Nov 25, 2014)

Mistrfish said:


> Property is owned to the center of the river, if you are standing on the sand bar and do not have permisson than you are tresspassing.



Not true. If you are within the high water mark, you are in the river


----------



## jay sullivent (Nov 25, 2014)

Well, thats how it works on the Savannah river, I think there's different laws on different rivers


----------



## K80 (Nov 25, 2014)

jay sullivent said:


> Not true. If you are within the high water mark, you are in the river



This is not true, I own to the middle of the river behind my house.  

I will complain only if you shoot a duck and do not retrieve it off of my land.  Seriously, if you shoot it get it, I don't wont it back there rotting...  

If I catch you multiple times on my sandbar or bank, my complaint will be that you didn't call me so that I could join you.

Now if you are a dill hole, I'll ask you to leave and not get back on my and for any reason.


----------



## Throwback (Nov 25, 2014)

sparta391 said:


> If you shoot from a sandbar in the river or from a kayak, are you breaking any rules? I figure its public water and I'm not trespassing on any property, but I sure would like to know for sure.





MudDucker said:


> There are a LOT of threads about rights to rivers.  Basically, if it is not a navigable river or waterway, which is defined as one able to maintain commercial barge traffic currently or back in the days of cotton, you are trespassing.  On most non-navigable rivers, most LEO's turn a blind eye unless you get up on the bank, but if the owner pushed it, it is illegal.




what mudducker says is correct. 

T


----------



## Throwback (Nov 25, 2014)

jay sullivent said:


> Not true. If you are within the high water mark, you are in the river





jay sullivent said:


> Well, thats how it works on the Savannah river, I think there's different laws on different rivers





that is true if the savannah river is  legally "navigable." 

pretty much all of the rivers north of the "gnat line" aren't.

T


----------



## Throwback (Nov 25, 2014)

JustUs4All said:


> Four wrongs and two rights so far.
> 
> The key to the answer is who owns the land under the water and whether the water itself meets the legal definition of either riparian waters or navigable stream under Federal or State law.  Most tidal areas are covered under Federal law and there is no trespass problem there.  Beyond the coastal areas trespass via water over the lands owned by another is covered by State law.
> 
> ...





the large print/underlined part isn't completely correct. 

one can also be charged with "criminal trespass" if they go onto someone else's property "for an unlawful purpose" 

if you go onto someone elses property to hunt without permission you have then went onto their property to "for an unlawful purpose" which means you have also committed the crime of criminal trespass--AND YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH BOTH CRIMES.

also, THERE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR LAND TO BE POSTED IN GEORGIA TO BE CHARGED WITH HUNTING WITHOUT PERMISSION OR FISHING WITHOUT PERMISSION, as well as other activities. land in Georgia is considered posted by law. 




> 16-7-21.  Criminal trespass
> 
> 
> (a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.
> ...


----------



## Throwback (Nov 25, 2014)

dawg2 said:


> Do you have a link for that law?



44-8-2.  Nonnavigable streams -- Rights of adjoining owners; principles when stream is boundary; accretions 


   The beds of nonnavigable streams belong to the owner of the adjacent land. If the stream is a dividing line between two parcels of land, each owner's boundary shall extend to the thread or the center of the main current of the water. If the current changes gradually, the boundary line follows the current. If from any cause the stream takes a new channel, the original line, if identifiable, remains the boundary. Gradual accretions of land on either side accrue to the owner of that side.


----------



## Throwback (Nov 25, 2014)

further reading that is pretty much accurate

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

T


----------



## bowhunter8 (Nov 25, 2014)

Me and Southenrhunter17 got tickets for this 2 years ago! do not get out of the boat!!!


----------



## Throwback (Nov 25, 2014)

and while im at it

44-8-1.  Ownership of running water; right to divert or adulterate water 


Running water belongs to the owner of the land on which it runs; but the landowner has no right to divert the water from its usual channel nor may he so use or adulterate it as to interfere with the enjoyment of it by the next owner.


----------



## Throwback (Nov 25, 2014)

bottom line--if someone owns it and is paying taxes on it and that person ain't you---stay off it. 


T


----------



## hoythunter1861 (Nov 26, 2014)

I know that DNR "lurks" around here. It would be nice of them to make at least a "generalized" rule of thumb. It'd also be nice to see GON do a type of expose' or such on it. And yes, I agree that each person should call the warden who patrols that area, but at the same time, there are threads like this every single year on here. Just my thoughts


----------



## Scrapy (Nov 26, 2014)

Mistrfish said:


> Property is owned to the center of the river, if you are standing on the sand bar and do not have permisson than you are tresspassing.



In your wildest dreams , fantasias , .  Misterfish;  please trace for me your family heritage/linage in a direct line and show for me why mr. Fish  would have been a direct descendent of the Kings' Bottom Muds (sandbar if you will' . wheich leads to de next question/ who de Cracker? who yo daddy?? Sand bar ??????? Middle of de rivah??  May I Please ax you , in all such sincerity, where in the world ?? Licence to cut hair  , trim nails , sell real estate even ,  ;;;   Now you are a giving  law adwise .  Cause you took a Course sponsored course .? I rear back and scratch my ribs laughing at that stupidity.  State law owns land to the center of the river . Except back River for very obvious historical purposes . Then it became center of Back River  for State purposes . However ,  There is agreement between states as should be.  Our Governor recently recognized /congratulaletd Georgia on accomplishing their must have Environmental  impact Statement on deepening and widening  the Savannah Harbor before SC could jump never ending hoops laid out by no acount SC State Governments , Brainchilds of of Former, ( with Goog Reason) state governors that got waylayed and side cast by me as a voter . And then there are GrrennPeices  Activists.. Do you think that any old maid with an ounce of common sense has more faith in County Governernment? v State Governmenment?? v Federal government??   Old maids ain't dumb  but ya'll been  at de same dangum stupidity class warfare since the 1930s  . Gee Haww,   Manedy. I am ready to learn something new  line dance wise moire risky than the Charleston.  Same old same old, tax and spend, Big Brother Democrapts .


----------



## Scrapy (Nov 27, 2014)

Throwback said:


> bottom line--if someone owns it and is paying taxes on it and that person ain't you---stay off it.
> 
> 
> T



Quote , You might be right and you might be WRONG.. You own an acre on the GA side paying tax  of the River and I own land on the SC side .. We decide amongst our heathen selfs that we will charge a toll  to any one passing our boundaries. LOLLOL LOL . The Feds step in , our toll bridge gits out of commission before our heart beat twice . Get my drift?  Lots of cotton shippied seaward on rafts . Caled interstate commerce Clause . Left wide open to be misinterpreted by judges to make a profit for themselves .. However, It then became a "duty of the State" somehow , to protect the "Waters of the State" for the use and enjoyment of the "people of the State." wWhich for sure enough cleared up any questions about Cajuns in loosianna crawfishing. But also me in SC in former broken ricefields since the Storm of 1898  that nobody has "Paid taxes on " since then . TRill some New Money Yankees again on the second invasion aftermath of the Great Drepression  and aftermath  the began to pay tax on. Keep in mind nuveau rich or possibly even Yankee aristocrats but they cannot show an unbroken, even , if that, chain of tittle back to the King's Grant properties propieters .  Sowhat you claim their , I admonish. 

T , at any and all other times I would agree with you . If it ain't yours, stay off of it.  If you find a rusty 30-30 been leaning on the side of a tree in a thicket , ax youself? is it your? If not, then it is not yours and stay off of it. 

I got absolutely no problem with my cousins 15,000 acres of oysters that they own because they got a more direct chain of title they hung onto somehow after the the revolution,  as Loyalists with Patriot Uncles  I am sure and even through the Civil War . And after the Civil War they had to fight again as frontiertsmen to keep it.  Goes back to "bottom muds " and  the King's Grant which  you must honor. If you refuse , then my  Savannah , Ogeetchie and Ocmulgee River is not yours. Keep your self off of it . One way or the other T, But not Both beaucat .


----------

