Welcome Guest!
Flint River being posted? GON article
- Thread starter lampern
- Start date
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
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
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.
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
Senior Member
I took a class that said all water is owned by the state unless it’s a concrete pool.
doomtrpr_z71
Senior Member
The Flint is part of the intercostal waterway, it would be hard to claim it's not navigable.
Coenen
Senior Member
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.
GA needs to revisit riparian rights, and clear up some of the verbiage, just my opinion.
This is way up in the Thomaston stretch of the river.
Last edited:
Mexican Squealer
Senior Member
Pretty sure the flint is no longer considered navigable north of Bainbridge.
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?
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
Mayor of Spring Hill
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
Senior Member
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
earlthegoat2
Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
No, sir. The Court ruled on the law as it exists in Georgia not as it exists on other places.
livinoutdoors
Goatherding Non-socialist Bohemian Luddite
Free the fish!
TurkeyH90
Senior Member
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
