Can you access the river?

[CRC]

Muddy NC rules governing river access leading to disputes

Anywhere a boat can float, access to rivers is supposed to be public. But anglers and boaters find that landowners often see things differently.

carolinapublicpress.org

A recent clash between a landowner and several recreational users on the North Mills River in Henderson County highlights the blurry rules that govern who may or may not use North Carolina’s waterways that flow through private property.

 

[DBCooper]

That rope was a dumb move.

 

[ABolt]

The gates, ropes and other barriers that enable land owners to declare sections of a public river as 'theirs' are ridiculous. How can someone claim to own a piece of river and charge fees to fish "their" water? I'm sure it helps if you are the mayor of the town.

I like the way they handle this situation out in Wyoming. The landowners own the land, thus the property on either side of a river and the stream bed itself. However, the water is public, so anyone can float down the river to fish, canoe, kayak, etc. as long as they don't drop anchor or wade.

Seems fair - fishermen and other outdoorsmen have access to the state-owned water as a fishery and mode of transport, without actually trespassing. However, drop anchor or get out of your water craft, and you can be fined for trespassing.

 

[Troutbum82]

The gates, ropes and other barriers that enable land owners to declare sections of a public river as 'theirs' are ridiculous. How can someone claim to own a piece of river and charge fees to fish "their" water? I'm sure it helps if you are the mayor of the town.

I like the way handle this situation out in Wyoming. The landowners own the land, thus the property on either side of a river and the stream bed itself. However, the water is public, so anyone can float down the river to fish, canoe, kayak, etc. as long as they don't drop anchor or wade.

Seems fair - fishermen and other outdoorsmen have access to the state-owned water as a fishery and mode of transport, without actually trespassing. However, drop anchor or get out of your water craft, and you can be fined for trespassing.

Eggzacklee!

 

[Loganwayne]

The gates, ropes and other barriers that enable land owners to declare sections of a public river as 'theirs' are ridiculous. How can someone claim to own a piece of river and charge fees to fish "their" water? I'm sure it helps if you are the mayor of the town.

I like the way handle this situation out in Wyoming. The landowners own the land, thus the property on either side of a river and the stream bed itself. However, the water is public, so anyone can float down the river to fish, canoe, kayak, etc. as long as they don't drop anchor or wade.

Seems fair - fishermen and other outdoorsmen have access to the state-owned water as a fishery and mode of transport, without actually trespassing. However, drop anchor or get out of your water craft, and you can be fined for trespassing.

from what i understand this is how NC is as well.

 

[CRC]

The North Mills is not a big stream, not a small stream either though

 

[DBCooper]

from what i understand this is how NC is as well.

Makes sense.

Something tells me we aren’t hearing everything. People are probably getting out and loitering on his property.

 

[Loganwayne]

Makes sense.

Something tells me we aren’t hearing everything. People are probably getting out and loitering on his property.

Nantahala river above the lake is private for several miles. But you also couldn’t float a raft through it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JONOV]

Makes sense.

Something tells me we aren’t hearing everything. People are probably getting out and loitering on his property.

It's interesting because there are rivers where that isn't the case; the state owns to the high waterline. IE, the Neuse River...

I know because I wanted to fish an area of the river where the land was privately owned on both sides...I called the GW and he said if you're under the high water line you're fine. It was low water so I could walk quite a ways. I also know that there are smaller bodies where the "if your paddle touches bottom you trespass."

 

[Bailey Boat]

I "educated" myself when I lived in Colorado about streams and such. The landowner may own both sides and therefore owns the bottom but never owns the water. As I fished these streams I found that as long as I stayed in the canoe the landowners didn't seem to mind my being there. If I wanted to linger in a spot I tied up to a snag or a branch overhanging the stream they didn't seem to mind that either. It was when you get out that problems arise.
I had a landowner come up one day when I was tied to a log having lunch. He asked what I was going to do with the trash but when I held up a plastic bag he just smiled and bid me a good day and left. I felt that if you were civil with them problems didn't seem to come up as often. Now I will admit that when I open my mouth to speak the "south" comes pouring out and I've gotten the old "you ain't from around here are ya" more than I care to admit but mostly in a good way.

 

[nccatfisher]

There are some big creeks in the mountains there have been some terrible disputes over. Every one I have paid attention to it wound up the landowner wound up loosing. They owned the land, but as long as the people stayed in the water they were good. All these you could float a tube etc. down.

 

[ellwoodjake]

What about when a private party dams up a public river, makes a lake and then keeps folks off of it? How is this a fair use of public resources?

 

[wncdeerhunter]

Makes sense.

Something tells me we aren’t hearing everything. People are probably getting out and loitering on his property.

Has more to do with dumping nice trout in there and then guiding paying customers. Doesn’t help business if people come and fish them out

 

[DRS]

Navigable waters, state laws vary. I have researched some cases in NC. One key case the judge ruled that the property line was the current water level. Sounds about right to me.

 

[Mack in N.C.]

well it shows you right off the bat that the landowner is wrong as he has removed the rope and no trespassing signs. He will lose this one as well if he decides to keep this up. Who's up for a float????

 

[rlpsystems]

What’s the water temp?

 

[NCST8GUY]

An ole timer once told me he believed the NC law was if a man pans for gold starting in a creek in the Piedmont, so long as he never steps out of the water, he can legally pan that water all the way to the sound.

That ole timer told me lot's of his "thought's" come to think of it.

 

[UpATree]

My neighborhood HOA owns a nice lake in Cary. A few homeowners have property on the lake, and there is a boat ramp for the other residents (it is off limits to non-residents, and residents must have a decal on their boat). I use the ramp and fish the lake. One homeowner put up a sprinkler that's activated by a motion detector and pointed it so that any boater that comes near his property gets sprayed. He was out there one day and we had some words; he said fishermen would get their lures stuck in his dock and he was afraid his granddaughter would step on them.

I thought about filling a super soaker water gun with Roundup and doing a number on that expensive landscaping, but after I cooled off, I complained to the HOA and they made him take it down--he owns the shoreline but cannot deny the use of the lake to the other residents. He turned it off but left it in place, I guess thinking its presence would deter some boaters. Then one day it was vandalized.

 

[alt1001]

That rope was a dumb move.

I drive by that rope everyday. It’s 7 feet above the water, not blocking anyone from floating through.

These are folks whom have always accessed these rivers without worrying about whose land they were crossing (I know and respect many of them but feel they are wrong on this subject). That’s an old mentality that although harmless many years ago, just doesn’t apply today. Now Jason wants to clean up his stretch and run an outfitting business from his land, which is perfectly legal, and everyone wants to cry foul. I know Jason and Eric as well and they have done everything per guidance from NCWRC as I talked to a warden about it when this fired up back in September. This stretch of river isn’t navigable as on any given day in any given watercraft you aren’t making it more than than a 10-30 yards on any give stretch of the upper Mills River without the need to get out and push or carry. I know, I grew up in Mills River and have kayaked it all and I’ll challenge anyone who would like to throw a kayak or tube on the Davis farm and think they, in the rivers natural state, will float through without the need to exit the watercraft. It won’t happen and per the law isn’t “navigable in fact”.

Even so, nobody’s access to float was ever stopped and Jason said he never wanted to stop anyone from doing so. Where the rope was placed was at a bridge (which is where the picture was taken from) where people jump out of a truck and walk his land in. That is completely illegal as there are no high water mark laws in N.C. that give you access to the riparian owners land.

In my personal opinion as a public land advocate and lifelong fly fisher, if this were as cut and dry as they would like to believe then there would be no need for NCWRC landowner’s PMTW program. Why would the NCWRC need landowner’s permission to make navigable waters public? Especially if those waters already have access from a public right of way? Like the East Fork of the French Broad or the West Fork of the Pigeon? Both of those rivers are as “navigable” as the Upper Mills River. As a teenager I was once told by a warden that I couldn’t stand in a river and fish on a river much bigger than this stretch. This is how the NCWRC has always enforced mountain river laws.

To me this is a case of a farmer who never governed his land per the law, until he did and now everyone wants to cry foul play.

 

[alt1001]

well it shows you right off the bat that the landowner is wrong as he has removed the rope and no trespassing signs. He will lose this one as well if he decides to keep this up. Who's up for a float????

Read my post above.

 

[alt1001]

It's interesting because there are rivers where that isn't the case; the state owns to the high waterline. IE, the Neuse River...

I know because I wanted to fish an area of the river where the land was privately owned on both sides...I called the GW and he said if you're under the high water line you're fine. It was low water so I could walk quite a ways. I also know that there are smaller bodies where the "if your paddle touches bottom you trespass."

IIRC, the Army Corps of Engineers has a national high water mark standard that was ruled on by SCOTUS that any river used or that was ever used as a mode of travel for the purpose of commerce, has a high water mark law that applies. This didn’t apply to logging as many mountain rivers had to be dammed and released before there was a flow heavy enough to move timber as their natural flow didn’t allow it. That’s why on your bigger rivers, the high watermark law applies.

 

[alt1001]

The North Mills is not a big stream, not a small stream either though

There are 2 forks to the Mills. The North Fork of the Mills is small. You can barely tube small stretches that the government had to renovate on their land. You aren’t tubing through this stretch and you sure as heck aren’t paddling.

The South Fork is bigger but still not navigable by paddling on most days. It’s shallow. You might get lucky after a hard rain. You can paddle below the confluence of the 2 but this dispute is happening above the confluence.

 

[alt1001]

Makes sense.

Something tells me we aren’t hearing everything. People are probably getting out and loitering on his property.

Exactly.

People were crossing his property or the neighboring properties without permission.

It was never about paddling. The narrative was changed to paddling because they believed there was a high water mark law that applied to rivers that could be paddled, and that it would justify the rights they thought they had of crossing land without permission or standing on the side of the river which is private property. That’s where they were wrong.

From what I know about the situation is that in the past it wasn’t enforced by the landowner’s. It doesn’t mean that they were wrong to enforce it now. Poaching and trespassing has long been an issue here.

Like I said, I know parties involved on both sides of the dispute and I respect both but from what I was always told by NCWRC and how it’s enforced by the NCWRC here in the mountains, I don’t feel like the farmer is wrong.

 

[DBCooper]

I drive by that rope everyday. It’s 7 feet above the water, not blocking anyone from floating through.

These are folks whom have always accessed these rivers without worrying about whose land they were crossing (I know and respect many of them but feel they are wrong on this subject). That’s an old mentality that although harmless many years ago, just doesn’t apply today. Now Jason wants to clean up his stretch and run an outfitting business from his land, which is perfectly legal, and everyone wants to cry foul. I know Jason and Eric as well and they have done everything per guidance from NCWRC as I talked to a warden about it when this fired up back in September. This stretch of river isn’t navigable as on any given day in any given watercraft you aren’t making it more than than a 10-30 yards on any give stretch of the upper Mills River without the need to get out and push or carry. I know, I grew up in Mills River and have kayaked it all and I’ll challenge anyone who would like to throw a kayak or tube on the Davis farm and think they, in the rivers natural state, will float through without the need to exit the watercraft. It won’t happen and per the law isn’t “navigable in fact”.

Even so, nobody’s access to float was ever stopped and Jason said he never wanted to stop anyone from doing so. Where the rope was placed was at a bridge (which is where the picture was taken from) where people jump out of a truck and walk his land in. That is completely illegal as there are no high water mark laws in N.C. that give you access to the riparian owners land.

In my personal opinion as a public land advocate and lifelong fly fisher, if this were as cut and dry as they would like to believe then there would be no need for NCWRC landowner’s PMTW program. Why would the NCWRC need landowner’s permission to make navigable waters public? Especially if those waters already have access from a public right of way? Like the East Fork of the French Broad or the West Fork of the Pigeon? Both of those rivers are as “navigable” as the Upper Mills River. As a teenager I was once told by a warden that I couldn’t stand in a river and fish on a river much bigger than this stretch. This is how the NCWRC has always enforced mountain river laws.

To me this is a case of a farmer who never governed his land per the law, until he did and now everyone wants to cry foul play.

I didn't say it was a dumb move.....because it's dangerous.

I said it's a dumb move (the rope) -- because it has ZERO legal basis.

 

[sky hawk]

Exactly.

People were crossing his property or the neighboring properties without permission.

It was never about paddling. The narrative was changed to paddling because they believed there was a high water mark law that applied to rivers that could be paddled, and that it would justify the rights they thought they had of crossing land without permission or standing on the side of the river which is private property. That’s where they were wrong.

The signs ought to be placed on dry ground then, if the issue is trespassing on their land. Putting signs on a rope across the stream seems like they're asking for a fight.

This issue is contentious nationwide for a reason. Two different perspectives, and a lot of variability in onsite conditions and navigability. IMO, they should clarify these laws in NC. I think the right balance is if you're claiming navigability, you have to remain in your craft. Step out and you're trespassing. No wading unless you have permission to be on adjacent land. Forget about high water line stuff. If it's too small to float without getting out - you're trespassing.

 

[alt1001]

I didn't say it was a dumb move.....because it's dangerous.

I said it's a dumb move (the rope) -- because it has ZERO legal basis.

It does if it’s deemed a non-navigable water. Same reason a property one mile above him is allowed to have a timber dam exist on the same stream, thus hindering navigation.

 

[turkeyfoot]

The signs ought to be placed on dry ground then, if the issue is trespassing on their land. Putting signs on a rope across the stream seems like they're asking for a fight.

This issue is contentious nationwide for a reason. Two different perspectives, and a lot of variability in onsite conditions and navigability. IMO, they should clarify these laws in NC. I think the right balance is if you're claiming navigability, you have to remain in your craft. Step out and you're trespassing. No wading unless you have permission to be on adjacent land. Forget about high water line stuff. If it's too small to float without getting out - you're trespassing.

This I agree 100% with putting it across river is just asking for problems if it was around here someone woulda done cut it down. But Alt is saying that section river is not navigable so no one should be able to go under rope anyway

 

[alt1001]

The signs ought to be placed on dry ground then, if the issue is trespassing on their land. Putting signs on a rope across the stream seems like they're asking for a fight.

What if this stretch of river is in fact non-navigable? Then it’s placed correctly but either way, landowner’s on both sides want to keep people from trespassing on their land from the road, which is the real issue. The placement of the signs is debating semantics, nobody was ever blocked from floating nor asked to leave the river from a watercraft.

 

[alt1001]

But Alt is saying that section river is not navigable so no one should be able to go under rope anyway

Bingo. This debate was not brought about because of a paddling issue. The paddling issue arose because that’s what determines fishing rights for the general public and this justifies use of the riverbed.

 

[turkeyfoot]

Bingo. This debate was not brought about because of a paddling issue. The paddling issue arose because that’s what determines fishing rights for the general public and this justifies use of the riverbed.

I'm still surprised no one has cut it down though