Important meetings on fishing access- Flint River

[lampern]

Public Hearings On River Access And Fishing Rights

The issue of fishing access and what constitutes a navigable waterway will be the topic at upcoming public meetings. The first hearing is in Meriwether County at 10 a.m. Oct. 4 at the Towerhouse Farm Brewery in Gay. Anyone wishing to provide public comment must first be put on the agenda by...

gon.com

 

[BassMan31]

GA should do like Montana has done. any water not bound on all sides by private land (land-locked pond) is free and open for public recreation up to the high water mark.

 

[Ruger#3]

GA should do like Montana has done. any water not bound on all sides by private land (land-locked pond) is free and open for public recreation up to the high water mark.

In AR one cant go ashore but can float through private property. Several of the best fishing streams alternate between public and private property. Generates a bunch of fishing tourism.

 

[lampern]

Georgia lawmakers to tackle fishing rights issue |

capitol-beat.org

 

[lampern]

10/04/2023

10:00 AM

Study Committee on Fishing Access to Freshwater Resources (House)

Towerhouse Farm Brewery, 18736 GA-85, Gay, GA 30218

 

[lampern]

10/12/2023

9:00 AM

Study Committee on Fishing Access to Freshwater Resources (House)

Habersham EMC, 6135 GA-115, Clarkesville, GA 30523

 

[basshappy]

This is it. This is the opportunity to provide insight, share opinion, and make a positive impression on fishing navigatable water in GA. Hope everyone who enjoys fishing registers for one of these meetings and shows up to speak.

 

[Bananaslug22]

Georgia lawmakers to tackle fishing rights issue |

capitol-beat.org

Well written article with a simple straight-forward line of thinking and goal - just give us a map colored green or red and lets be done with it.

Personally, I hope that map has more Green than Red....but I would respect the Red.

#ShoalBass

 

[cowhornedspike]

I've said this before but here is the definition of "navigable" I hope they come up with more or less. If it meets these criteria then it WAS used historically as a navigable travel route long before we were here.

Any river or stream that can be travelled by boat including a canoe or kayak, other than an occasional portage over a shoal, blockage, or deadfall, either natural or manmade, should be considered to be navigable and therefore open to the public for fishing, hunting, boating, or traveling.

Obviously the term "occasional" would be the key and could be defined in several ways. I would suggest it to mean an average of 2 (or you pick another number) blockages per mile over a 5 mile stretch not to include any man made blockages.

It should not be ok to go around these blockages by getting onto private property along the bank.

 

[lampern]

If anyone can find the other meeting dates it might be helpful.

I only found two

 

[cowhornedspike]

So who went to the meeting yesterday?

 

[lampern]

I can't access this article but here you go if you can:

First Fishing Access Public Meeting Draws Crowd

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGvM_Y544vU A crowd spilled outside the building and vehicles filled the available parking during the first public meeting of the Georgia House of Representatives Study Committee to discuss fishing access to rivers and streams. The meeting was held yesterday, Oct...

gon.com

 

[longrangedog]

The property owners side of the issue is that property that they purchased and have paid property tax on and is legally "private property" requiring permission from the owner to access is seen as somehow unfair to the non owner who thinks they have a right to fish on any flowing water that they want to fish on. Changing this law , OCGA 44-8, which has been in place for decades will constitute taking their private property rights away. A key concept to understand about this argument is the distinction between navigable and non-navigable waterways. Both sides are represented in the meeting.

 

[BassMan31]

The property owners side of the issue is that property that they purchased and have paid property tax on and is legally "private property" requiring permission from the owner to access is seen as somehow unfair to the non owner who thinks they have a right to fish on any flowing water that they want to fish on. Changing this law , OCGA 44-8, which has been in place for decades will constitute taking their private property rights away. A key concept to understand about this argument is the distinction between navigable and non-navigable waterways. Both sides are represented in the meeting.

meh you don't own the water, simple as that. it's not a "fundamental issue." this comes down to folks buying up river property so they can control who fishes there when, where, and how. invariably that turns into some guides locking up desirable areas of the river in order to charge premium to take folks on trips.

 

[basshappy]

This is a point I hope every attendee brings up, and writes to their elected officials about. Does the water in question receive stocking from the GA DNR? Those stocked fish are public fish, for all licensed fisher people, and under 16 fisher people. How can a land owner say NO you may not fish the fish that you as a license holder are allowed to fish for, but you see they swam to my area and no fishing for you.

That and where does that water come from up stream? Public source?

If you don't own the water and you don't own the fish how can the law forbid you from fishing.

 

[cowhornedspike]

This is a point I hope every attendee brings up, and writes to their elected officials about. Does the water in question receive stocking from the GA DNR? Those stocked fish are public fish, for all licensed fisher people, and under 16 fisher people. How can a land owner say NO you may not fish the fish that you as a license holder are allowed to fish for, but you see they swam to my area and no fishing for you.

That and where does that water come from up stream? Public source?

If you don't own the water and you don't own the fish how can the law forbid you from fishing.

They already passed the law that says it is legal on all Navigable water.

The only thing in question now is the definition of "Navigable".

I have no problem with not being able to fish, canoe, or even travel on private non-navigable water, even if some of the fish in there were stocked by the state...as long as the navigable definition is expanded to what is reasonable and NOT the garbage definition that they have been using in the past.

 

[chiefbaron]

...as long as the navigable definition is expanded to what is reasonable and NOT the garbage definition that they have been using in the past.

I attended most of the meeting in Habersham today. I thought it was interesting and informative. It was well attended by the public with some folks standing in the back.

The study committee will struggle to define “navigable”. The federal and state definitions differ and the law for property owner rights are confusing going back to 1830s land grants/lotteries (according to the SELC lawyer).

I hope they come to some common sense solution and can be put on a map that everybody can agree to.

The local Now Habersham media posted a couple of articles that provide more info on the first two public meetings.
1st public meeting
Habersham Meeting

 

[JustUs4All]

How can a land owner say NO you may not fish the fish that you as a license holder are allowed to fish for, but you see they swam to my area and no fishing for you.

The same way that a land owner can say NO to your hunting doves even though the doves belong to everyone as does the air over and owner's land through which they fly.

 

[basshappy]

The same way that a land owner can say NO to your hunting doves even though the doves belong to everyone as does the air over and owner's land through which they fly.

They is a big, and key, difference though, between my and your examples. The water that flows downstream from a source not owned by the property owner is the water of the state (or perhaps now the Feds), and that water flows through the property boundary of the land owner. How do we have legal access to float and fish become and after the private landowner, but somehow magic happens and that moving water magically ceases to exist for all between two points.

 

[JustUs4All]

The air that the doves fly in is also air of the state or the feds and it flows through the boundary of the land owner. There is no magic, only the law. Some want to change the law and have the State seize the property rights of the land owners and give those rights to others. We usually call that redistribution of the wealth and don't like it at all.