Another step to stopping fishing and river access.
- Thread starter Fordman
- Start date
i bet most of the waters are not considered navigatable {sp} ,if i owned property & had a creek that ran thru it i wouldnt want folks trespassing to fish it,on the other hand if it is a stream thats listed as navigatable they can stay in the water & off my property.i seen several folks come on here claiming they could hunt & fish any creek in Tn,wrong on all counts.i own no large amount of property but im not selfish enuf to think a wet spot gives me the rite to trespass,i dont know how many states are set up like Tn but i would have thought most were,mike243
comprifleshooter
Well-Known Member
I agree Mike. I do own property that has a nice wade able creek. I caught some kids fishing it last year and a guy gathering bait/crawfish. I just let them know that just because it is accessible from a main Highway and a side road it is trespassing. Someone also came and took several scoops of gravel too.
B.D.
Well-Known Member
Troy, sadly things are moving in the wrong direction. For years I've been saying that Tennessee should move in a direction closer to Utah and Montana for public access to streams, and now Utah has moved closer to Tennessee.
Taxpayer dollars are used to manage fisheries even where those fisheries cross private land. That's especially true for trout streams - look at all the places where landowners' property values are increased because TWRA stocks creeks like Mill, Pine, Sink, Charles, etc.
I don't think it's unreasonable that the public have a right to access those streams up to the high water mark. Legally, wildlife is "held in the public trust" and doesn't belong to the landowner.
Saying we can allow access only to "navigable" streams opens a big can of worms because the law is a mess as far as clearly defining what a "navigable" stream is supposed to be.
bd
Taxpayer dollars are used to manage fisheries even where those fisheries cross private land. That's especially true for trout streams - look at all the places where landowners' property values are increased because TWRA stocks creeks like Mill, Pine, Sink, Charles, etc.
I don't think it's unreasonable that the public have a right to access those streams up to the high water mark. Legally, wildlife is "held in the public trust" and doesn't belong to the landowner.
Saying we can allow access only to "navigable" streams opens a big can of worms because the law is a mess as far as clearly defining what a "navigable" stream is supposed to be.
bd
B.D.
Well-Known Member
I should add - I think a good compromise would be giving a tax break to landowners with streams, in exchange for them allowing an easement so people could wade the stream to fish.
It could be set up similar to the Walk-in Hunting Land programs in Kansas and other states where farmers get a financial benefit for allowing the public access to their land for hunting.
bd
It could be set up similar to the Walk-in Hunting Land programs in Kansas and other states where farmers get a financial benefit for allowing the public access to their land for hunting.
bd
stillinscrubs
Well-Known Member
B.D. said:
BD,
Doesn't belong to the land owner, or the commercial fisherman.
And I agree with your other thoughts on the matter.
grapple
Well-Known Member
Back Home said:
Wisconsin is a liberal state. There laws are set up so that you can walk within the high water mark on any stream. I agree with it. Why would the state stock these little creeks if the only people that can fish them is the land owner that boarders it. I don't think it has anything to do with the politics followed but the people ensuring their politicians are doing what they want. If you don't talk to they will do what ever they want not what you want.
I was stopped by a land owner as I was standing in and fishing a stream stocked with trout. If the public doesn't have the right to fish these streams then we need to stop stocking them. Public money for private enjoyment.
I can see both sides. Some properties could have their value increased because it has a creek/stream running through it. I grew up fishing several small streams in middle tn. 25 years ago, seemed people didn't care if you were wading down a creek. A little different today. I would love for my boys to grow up fishing the same creeks I did, just got to work a little harder at it these days and getting with owners of the land.
Baxter83
Well-Known Member
mike243 said:
I agree
Our property had one of each type, navigational and non-navigational. The Elk river on one side of it and a year-round running tributary creek along another end of the property. We had to fix and repair fences at least twice a year on the Elk river side due to fisherman crossing over it in several places to walk to better fishing holes by means of our property. People would come onto our property on the stream side to fish it too, but since there were far less people who did that we never had problems with it. So I can contest that this is very problematic to land owners who have livestock for sure simply because it's easier to jump up on the bank and walk rather than through the water.
On the other hand, if people would just respect others property it wouldn't be a big deal to walk down the edge of a creek or stream regardless of where it was. But this is a classic case of the ignorant few screwing it up for the rest of the good folks.
B.D.
Well-Known Member
Unless your fence was inside the high water mark, I have no sympathy for the people you're talking about - they were trespassing no matter how you write the rules.
The saddest part about this is we're looking at a problem that has largely been created by idiots who trash the streams. In a lot of places, landowners wouldn't mind people coming through to fish if the people would treat the land with a little respect.
bd
The saddest part about this is we're looking at a problem that has largely been created by idiots who trash the streams. In a lot of places, landowners wouldn't mind people coming through to fish if the people would treat the land with a little respect.
bd
Baxter83
Well-Known Member
Not even close to the high water line so yes, you could consider them tress passers, but we didn't care as long as they crossed over and back without damaging anything. Like you said, it's the idiots that don't respect the property that screw it up for the rest of the good folks that are just out to have a good time.
TennesseeRains
Well-Known Member
B.D. said:
Exactly.
My uncle had a creek running through his property down to the Seqatchie river. The absolute best place to catch catfish just happened to be right in front of his barn.
People would routinely wade the creek up from the river and fish - he didn't care as long as they didn't get to messing around with his cattle.
One night he got up to get a drink of water and noticed a HUGE bonfire right in front of his barn. He ran out barefooted and with nothing on but boxers - just in time to put out the fire as it had crept up and caught the tire of his tractor on fire.
Dudes either built a fire - or threw out a cigarette - and nearly burned his barn and equipment up! he suffered 2nd degree burns on his feet, legs, and arms fighting the fire.
Idiots.
