Important meetings on fishing access- Flint River

[NCHillbilly]

The people that ruin it are when I go to my property and there are beer bottles, worm cups, blunt wrappers, cigarettes butts all on the river bank.
I understand why they're trying to restrict access.
Oh forgot to mention all the appliances they chunk off the bridge.
People sux.

I think we can all agree about the undesirability of those people. I don't want those folks on my property, either. I think we also realize that those people are not most people floating down a river. Those types would be the ones trespassing over the land, not float fishing. Not what we're talking about here. The riverbank is not the flowing water of the river. Those are two totally different issues.

 

[JustUs4All]

Except that it is not possible to provide public access to only the well behaved part of the public.

 

[NCHillbilly]

Except that it is not possible to provide public access to only the well behaved part of the public.

That is why we have laws against bad behavior. Following that logic, all national parks, national forests, public highways, and such should be shut down in case somebody misbehaves. And the folks he is referring to are the ones who don't care if it's legal access to begin with.
You don't punish everybody for the actions of a few. Maybe we should ban guns because some people shoot other people with them?

 

[JustUs4All]

So, do you disagree with my statement?

I disagree with yours at #261 that the issues are different. They are not different. They are inseparable if you allow the good fishermen you allow the trashy boaters, and there my logic ends.

My statement is not that the water shouldn't be open, only that it is not so innocent a matter as your prior statement framed it to be. It was really not necessary to discuss all the national parks, national forests, public highways, the banning of guns or any other such diversion.

IMO, all water in Georgia that can be reached from the Ocean in a johnboat with a 9hp outboard without portage should be public. But the decision is not up to me and the issue is not a simple one. My principal focus in this discussion has been the problem that would arise if the State decided that it was OK to take property rights without compensation.

 

[BassMan31]

But since all of a sudden it involves fishing —land theft is ok

lol. who's stealing land? we're just making sure your ownership only extends to the land and not the water that flows over it.

 

[BassMan31]

Meh—you own the access to it and have for decades. This had been settled law in Georgia for probably 100 years or more. Just because modern “sportsmen” have decided they want legal access to it and politicians are bending to their request doesn’t make it anything different than a land grab. If you want the rights attached to the Land pay the current owners—tax free.

"settled law." lol. i got some news for you about how law works: ain't none of it ever "settled." "sportsmen" have decided land owners have right to only their land and we request the state take this view with regard to fishing the river. sorry you bought river access thinking you could make a good $$$. it was a stupid investment. thank you also for proving my point. why do you have so much trouble catching shoalies? they're pretty aggressive almost always.

 

[Semi-Pro]

Did this have a resolution?

 

[NCHillbilly]

So, do you disagree with my statement?

I disagree with yours at #261 that the issues are different. They are not different. They are inseparable if you allow the good fishermen you allow the trashy boaters, and there my logic ends.

My statement is not that the water shouldn't be open, only that it is not so innocent a matter as your prior statement framed it to be. It was really not necessary to discuss all the national parks, national forests, public highways, the banning of guns or any other such diversion.

IMO, all water in Georgia that can be reached from the Ocean in a johnboat with a 9hp outboard without portage should be public. But the decision is not up to me and the issue is not a simple one. My principal focus in this discussion has been the problem that would arise if the State decided that it was OK to take property rights without compensation.

They are absolutely very different issues. The comment I was answering was about people fishing on the bank leaving beer cans, worm cups, cigarette butts, and such. Meaning, they came from the land and are sitting on the river bank fishing. And are trespassing. This discussion is about people floating down the river in boats. These floaty people are not the people causing the issue of riverbank fisherman worm cup and cigarette butt and beer bottle litter. Two totally different issues. Access is already ruled out and illegal for people bank fishing on private land without permission.

 

[cowhornedspike]

They are absolutely very different issues. The comment I was answering was about people fishing on the bank leaving beer cans, worm cups, cigarette butts, and such. Meaning, they came from the land and are sitting on the river bank fishing. And are trespassing. This discussion is about people floating down the river in boats. These floaty people are not the people causing the issue of riverbank fisherman worm cup and cigarette butt and beer bottle litter. Two totally different issues. Access is already ruled out and illegal for people bank fishing on private land without permission.

Mostly agree with you but when we float down a river it is not uncommon for us to stop on a sandbar and fish a while. We don't leave our trash though but others might.
Yes we are likely trespassing even though the land is not posted and no one has ever made an issue out of this practice.
I can see how some landowners could blame this on floating access.
Doesn't change my opinion though that the law needs to be changed asap. Like you said, trashy people are everywhere and we should not all be punished because of a few of them.
Comparing this to the similarities in the gun argument is clearly appropriate despite JUFA saying that it is not.

 

[JustUs4All]

it is not only the bank fishermen who can leave a mess. I watched it for years on the Oconee below Watkinsville.

 

[NCHillbilly]

it is not only the bank fishermen who can leave a mess. I watched it for years on the Oconee below Watkinsville.

No, it's not exclusive for sure, but at least around here, the bank fishermen are definitely 100x worse about littering than the boat fishermen.

 

[longrangedog]

They are absolutely very different issues. The comment I was answering was about people fishing on the bank leaving beer cans, worm cups, cigarette butts, and such. Meaning, they came from the land and are sitting on the river bank fishing. And are trespassing. This discussion is about people floating down the river in boats. These floaty people are not the people causing the issue of riverbank fisherman worm cup and cigarette butt and beer bottle litter. Two totally different issues. Access is already ruled out and illegal for people bank fishing on private land without permission.

Some of these floaty people pull their canoes and kayaks up on your bank, build fires, crap on, and litter your property with beer cans, toilet paper, paper plates and such. It's not theirs so why should they clean up the mess they make? They leave it for you, the landowner, to clean up.

 

[FloridaFF]

Would a fur trapper in a canoe be considered as commerce?

No.

 

[FloridaFF]

Did this have a resolution?

The HR 519 Study Committee report (not legislation) is due this December.

 

[NCHillbilly]

Some of these floaty people pull their canoes and kayaks up on your bank, build fires, crap on, and litter your property with beer cans, toilet paper, paper plates and such. It's not theirs so why should they clean up the mess they make? They leave it for you, the landowner, to clean up.

I think you are exaggerating quite a bit and indulging in some hyperbole, for that matter. I don't think that's the problem at all, or anywhere close to it. The problem is that the rich guy doesn't want other people floating past his land, and he wants the publicly-owned fish for himself, so he can charge people big money to fish there. I am a landowner too, btw, just not the rich, greedy, yankee type.

 

[Scorpio]

I spoke with some people who were at the meeting in Pike county. They said it was concluded that wade and float fishing were permitted at Flat Shoals and that float fishing was permitted at Yellowjacket. I was at Flat Shoals the other day and all of the "no trespassing" signs were gone. I assumed they had been washed away in the last flood, but now it appears that they were removed.

All that said, the antiquated law still needs to be changed. The most effective way to test a law or idea is to think it through to the worst case scenario. In this case, if everyone who owned land on the banks of a river decided to be disagreeable, there would be virtually zero river fishing in the entire state.

 

[livinoutdoors]

No.

Seems like they should be though huh? Half this country was built with fur trade money.

 

[Bananaslug22]

I spoke with some people who were at the meeting in Pike county. They said it was concluded that wade and float fishing were permitted at Flat Shoals and that float fishing was permitted at Yellowjacket. I was at Flat Shoals the other day and all of the "no trespassing" signs were gone. I assumed they had been washed away in the last flood, but now it appears that they were removed.

All that said, the antiquated law still needs to be changed. The most effective way to test a law or idea is to think it through to the worst case scenario. In this case, if everyone who owned land on the banks of a river decided to be disagreeable, there would be virtually zero river fishing in the entire state.

Who concluded that? Having a resolution at the end of these meetings is news to me.

 

[NCHillbilly]

I spoke with some people who were at the meeting in Pike county. They said it was concluded that wade and float fishing were permitted at Flat Shoals and that float fishing was permitted at Yellowjacket. I was at Flat Shoals the other day and all of the "no trespassing" signs were gone. I assumed they had been washed away in the last flood, but now it appears that they were removed.

All that said, the antiquated law still needs to be changed. The most effective way to test a law or idea is to think it through to the worst case scenario. In this case, if everyone who owned land on the banks of a river decided to be disagreeable, there would be virtually zero river fishing in the entire state.

It's basically the same situation as the investment ranch owners out west trying to block legal corner crossing access to large parcels of public land that are checkerboarded between private parcels, so they can charge folks big money to hunt their "exclusive" public land tracts. That whole house of cards is coming down in flames, too.

 

[RedHills]

It's basically the same situation as the investment ranch owners out west trying to block legal corner crossing access to large parcels of public land that are checkerboarded between private parcels, so they can charge folks big money to hunt their "exclusive" public land tracts. That whole house of cards is coming down in flames, too.

(Sidebar fact)

Ranch owner.

Iron Bar Holdings LLC and its owner, Fred Eshelman of North Carolina.....Billionaire