Throwback
Chief Big Taw
actually, that would qualify as fishing without permission, technically. The GA Supreme court has ruled that property owners have exclusive fishing rights to their stretch of the stream.
T
Welcome Guest!
Stream wading legalities in GA / common practice
- Thread starter Dr. Strangelove
- Start date
actually, that would qualify as fishing without permission, technically. The GA Supreme court has ruled that property owners have exclusive fishing rights to their stretch of the stream.
T
kenmorrow
Senior Member
Ah! So this is like shooting game animals across a fence/property line while hunting. Cool! Most states are not that consistent in their application of legal principles between hunting and fishing when it comes to things like property rights law. Kudos to GA!
You see, I only moved here back in late Feb, myself. And I've spent almost all of my time fishing the coast or federal property. So I'm learning some of the "local customs" from this thread, too. As I said before, this is a subject that has always interested me keenly due to my past professional activities. But you never know everything about anything. The minute you stop learning you're dying. And everyone's observations and opinions can be instructive in some way or another -- even if it is just as the world's best example of how or why NOT to do something.
You see, I only moved here back in late Feb, myself. And I've spent almost all of my time fishing the coast or federal property. So I'm learning some of the "local customs" from this thread, too. As I said before, this is a subject that has always interested me keenly due to my past professional activities. But you never know everything about anything. The minute you stop learning you're dying. And everyone's observations and opinions can be instructive in some way or another -- even if it is just as the world's best example of how or why NOT to do something.
I am one who owns no river property. Not even just one side.
Nevertheless, I believe that as we grow as a people, I am very glad that many non-navigable waters are in private hands.
"The public", which includes me, can and does destroy without concern, simply by our numbers, without criminal intent.
In a few instances, states have instituted restrictive rules, but then taxpayers have to pay folks to guard our property, and have to let us in to use our property, which then must be maintained.
So, even though I can only look at it from the road, I would like to thank the folks who own - and protect - non-navigable waters. My children will inherit the fruit of their selfish, obnoxious, pusilanious
actions.
wa
Nevertheless, I believe that as we grow as a people, I am very glad that many non-navigable waters are in private hands.
"The public", which includes me, can and does destroy without concern, simply by our numbers, without criminal intent.
In a few instances, states have instituted restrictive rules, but then taxpayers have to pay folks to guard our property, and have to let us in to use our property, which then must be maintained.
So, even though I can only look at it from the road, I would like to thank the folks who own - and protect - non-navigable waters. My children will inherit the fruit of their selfish, obnoxious, pusilanious
actions.
wa
kenmorrow
Senior Member
Well said, allen, you freeloader. 
You start rubber-neckin' when you drive by MY river frontage and I'll charge you for the privilege! LOL
You start rubber-neckin' when you drive by MY river frontage and I'll charge you for the privilege! LOL
I'll let you cast into my stream if you will let me shoot deer over the line on your side.
You have exactly the same right to stand on your land and fish my stream if I have to stand on my land and shoot deer on yours.
kenmorrow
Senior Member
Being from TX, this is one of those subjects that is interesting when you look at differences from one state to another. That's why I joked about it.
In TX, water rights were initially all about livestock. So the laws are based on that. Folks killed each other over blocking flowing water and stuff like that. Then you had the open range issues with the cattle drives.
If two guys own adjacent stream frontage in TX, the scenario I outlined would be perfectly legal. But shooting game across property lines (period) or even retrieving shot game across property lines without permission is very illegal. And in TX, trespassing on private property with livestock on it is a crime the landowner or his/her agent can defend against with deadly force.
Miguel Cervantes
Jedi Master
This wasn't an issue 30 years ago, but then the cry baby city dwellers complained that the forestry roads, maintained only for forestry fire equipment, wasn't satisfactory for them to get their Volvo back into God's country. We liked it that way, the folks that could get there managed the natural resources as they should have, but then came along Bill and Al on their not so great eight year adventure and they used everyone's tax dollars to make the national forest available to anyone with a Yugo. This required more personnel to manage the city idjits, and eventually led to most of them closing down to day use only because of the hassle.
So from my perspective, the dang city dwellers and tree huggers can stay in their concrete jungles with their theories of what oughta be, and let us folks that know how to appreciate and manage our natural resources use them and enjoy them. I'm about up to my eyeballs in idiots with theories anyways..
So much wrong information here to go with a little right.
Basic Georgia law, if it is not a "navigable river", which is defined as one that can support regular barge traffic loaded with freight. Otherwise it is private. If it private, it can be restricted by the owner.
There is no such thing as the "don't drop your anchor law". Unless it is navigable or State owned, the DNR has no right to grant access.
There is no "middle of the stream" law. Some property lines cover the entire stream, some cover just the bank. It depends on what the person's property lines are.
Most landowners didn't care until they found their properties trashed or had their family members witness lewd and lascivious acts. They did care when canoeing groups sued to take away their property rights.
Basic Georgia law, if it is not a "navigable river", which is defined as one that can support regular barge traffic loaded with freight. Otherwise it is private. If it private, it can be restricted by the owner.
There is no such thing as the "don't drop your anchor law". Unless it is navigable or State owned, the DNR has no right to grant access.
There is no "middle of the stream" law. Some property lines cover the entire stream, some cover just the bank. It depends on what the person's property lines are.
Most landowners didn't care until they found their properties trashed or had their family members witness lewd and lascivious acts. They did care when canoeing groups sued to take away their property rights.
MadDawg51
Senior Member
Ken, I'm also from the Great State of Texas (former and possible future nation). That is likely why I am so committed to absolute property rights. The land owner owns the property and the water as it flows over his/her land. But, they cannot restrict the natural flow of water nor can they remove water from the stream. Now, if you have received the right to remove water from the stream, it is just like property that can be bartered, bought, sold, and traded. OTOH, That buck doesn't have a natural flow. So, you can't say, "I shot him while he was on the way to my land. Therefore, I get to retrieve him."
Throwback
Chief Big Taw
Twenty five ought six
Banned
Are you sure. That's not what I read on the internet.
Reggie Ramjet
Member
Hey non-land owner here. I really enjoy fishing and can understand the land owners opinions, you've got my respect. One difficulty is locating the advertised " over 4000 miles of trout waters in Ga.". 4000 miles? That's a lotta miles, almost enough to reach California or so. Instead of tempting the fishing community with that slightly exaggerated claim, let's istead try to leagally open up more accessible waters. I do get it, the finances, boundaries, maintenance, roads and other obstacles. Nothing immediately, just a thought to ponder.
Reggie Ramjet
Member
OwlRNothing
Senior Member
I can't help but think it's funny when someone calls out misinformation and then dishes out some of their own. Just read the law(s) guys. That's all you need to know. Anglers have been trying to twist the "meaning" of laws related to access for decades now ( at least ) and the end result is always the same. Don't trust the internet. Don't trust me. Find the regs and laws and trust that to be the truth. The end. Simple as that.
Concrete Pete
Senior Member
I would not rely Barney Fife’s legal expertise.
If they’re wrong, ‘the dnr ranger said it was cool’ is not going to save you from a ticket or whatever in court.
This comment was made in the spirit of helpfulness to anyone that reads this thread (not to be rude to you personally).
Last edited:
natureman
Senior Member
Exactly. I have heard many stories about those who trespassed there. Even if only a few are true they have things pretty locked down.
Concrete Pete
Senior Member
I am a humble wading angler. I don’t own property on a stream. I have to fish public water.
I am 100% in support of private land owners retaining full rights to the streams and the rivers. Until the state commits to managing the streams in the way that they manage Duke’s, this is the only way to preserve the fisheries.
I never fished a spot on public land that wasn’t littered with styrofoam bait containers, beer cans, etc.
This includes spots that are miles back into WMAs.
Non-profit groups like TU work hard to repair this damage and it’s noble work, but they are fighting a war of attrition that is untenable.
Yes, it’s financially tough for working people to afford places like Unicoi’s Nacoochee Bend or Noontootla Farms. However, these are the only places you can go where you won’t see a Bill Dance Dancin Rascals container or Busch Lite Can floating down the stream.
Competition can also push the prices of these private streams down or force them to work out different pricing structures.
I’d love to be able to fish wherever I want, but I realize the practical aspects of maintaining the fisheries into the future are more important.
Until the state starts chopping people’s hands off for getting within 1000 ft of a stream with a single use plastic or styrofoam container, trashy people will continue to do their best to destroy the environment.
I am 100% in support of private land owners retaining full rights to the streams and the rivers. Until the state commits to managing the streams in the way that they manage Duke’s, this is the only way to preserve the fisheries.
I never fished a spot on public land that wasn’t littered with styrofoam bait containers, beer cans, etc.
This includes spots that are miles back into WMAs.
Non-profit groups like TU work hard to repair this damage and it’s noble work, but they are fighting a war of attrition that is untenable.
Yes, it’s financially tough for working people to afford places like Unicoi’s Nacoochee Bend or Noontootla Farms. However, these are the only places you can go where you won’t see a Bill Dance Dancin Rascals container or Busch Lite Can floating down the stream.
Competition can also push the prices of these private streams down or force them to work out different pricing structures.
I’d love to be able to fish wherever I want, but I realize the practical aspects of maintaining the fisheries into the future are more important.
Until the state starts chopping people’s hands off for getting within 1000 ft of a stream with a single use plastic or styrofoam container, trashy people will continue to do their best to destroy the environment.
