Can you access the river?

[DBCooper]

We've just gone full circle, now haven't we?



It is open to interpretation which is why there is an issue. The state, as far as I know, doesn't have a list of waters that have been deemed navigable or non-navigable. That's where NC fudged all of this up. They should have just went with the Army Corps of Engineers definition like Virginia does.

This is interesting to me, because I wade NC mountain streams .... and I’ve always assumed I was OK - as long as I didn’t get out of the water.

So..... the landowner has determined (how convenient!) that the water is non-navigable?

I was on his side, til now. He sounds like a prick.

 

[alt1001]

This is interesting to me, because I wade NC mountain streams .... and I’ve always assumed I was OK - as long as I didn’t get out of the water.

So..... the landowner has determined (how convenient!) that the water is non-navigable?

I was on his side, til now. He sounds like a prick.

Do what now? I've stated MANY times that the landowner did nothing without guidance from the NCWRC. No, he did not decide on his own, he sought the proper instruction but even outside of that, the forks of the Mills River have never been socially accepted as a navigable waters anyway.

As for you jumping in and thinking you can wade wherever, that is false. Unless you're on the French Broad, Tuckaseegee, Nantahala or in a national forest, it'll be at the landowners discretion and that's exactly how even the NCWRC operates. They too seek permission on non-navigable waters which is nearly every river not mentioned above (per how it's regulated).

 

[DBCooper]

Do what now? I've stated MANY times that the landowner did nothing without guidance from the NCWRC. No, he did not decide on his own, he sought the proper instruction but even outside of that, the forks of the Mills River have never been socially accepted as a navigable waters anyway.

As for you jumping in and thinking you can wade wherever, that is false. Unless you're on the French Broad, Tuckaseegee, Nantahala or in a national forest, it'll be at the landowners discretion and that's exactly how even the NCWRC operates. They too seek permission on non-navigable waters which is nearly every river not mentioned above (per how it's regulated).

View attachment 37792

Luckily, I know where I can fish and where I can’t. The NCWRC lists which streams are accessible.

“Socially accepted”?

Lol

“If a body of water in its natural condition can be navigated by watercraft, it is navigable in fact and, therefore, navigable in law, even if it has not been used for such purposes”.

So, can you float a canoe or kayak on it?

Sounds like somebody’s pissed their fishing hole is being accessed.

 

[JONOV]

I like PA’s standard which says if it was ever used for commercial transport, it counts. Was this rover ever used to float timber?

 

[alt1001]

“Socially accepted”?

Lol

Carry on.

When there's no guidance, what is it that you suggest otherwise? Look no further than Raleigh if you have issues with it but there's no need to be smartass when landowners in particular communities have always enforced it a certain way based on certain beliefs and have never been told otherwise.

This isn't an issue just with this farmer either, there are no trespassing signs all up and down this river. It happened to me just a couple years ago when I had permission from one landowner and the landowner from across the river began questioning me. Same river not a half mile from the farm. It's never been accepted nor has it been enforced as a navigable river to the general public.

 

[alt1001]

I like PA’s standard which says if it was ever used for commercial transport, it counts. Was this rover ever used to float timber?

I've read that timber floating has been challenged in some circles, and is not applicable because many streams had to be dammed at the headwaters and then released for the timber to have enough flow to move. That is not a river in it's "natural state" per the state's court ruling. Crazy I know, but that's something I alluded to earlier. To answer your question however, I do not think this river has ever been used for timber harvests.

Until the state creates a standard that leaves no room for interpretation, and comes out with a list of what is and what isn't, this issue will always exist.

 

[Mack in N.C.]

Those rivers have historical precedence on their side because of their commercial use. When it comes to mountain streams, there has to be a threshold between what constitutes whether or not “a body of water in its natural condition can be navigated by watercraft" and whether it cannot.

Commercial use is not always just barges, bateaus, etc. Commercial use has sometimes been set as nothing more than floating logs down a stream . Small mountain streams can be a grey area .

D idnt one guy on the tuck have a battle like this and I think he lost. Hopefully we do not become like georgia or virginia as they have less public water right than we do. One example is portions of the flint and Itchawaynotchaway creek...

 

[Mack in N.C.]

I can tell you we do not want the state to set a standard.

 

[DBCooper]

When there's no guidance, what is it that you suggest otherwise? Look no further than Raleigh if you have issues with it but there's no need to be smartass when landowners in particular communities have always enforced it a certain way based on certain beliefs and have never been told otherwise.

This isn't an issue just with this farmer either, there are no trespassing signs all up and down this river. It happened to me just a couple years ago when I had permission from one landowner and the landowner from across the river began questioning me. Same river not a half mile from the farm. It's never been accepted nor has it been enforced as a navigable river to the general public.

I'm asking why you think the default is "whatever the guy putting up signs says it is"? I don't doubt for a second that there are landowners up and down the river who've posted signs at the creek. Hell, I've got a neighbor who posts SOMEONE ELSE'S land (because no one calls him on it....and he wants to hunt it by his lonesome). Does that mean they're right?

I typically side with landowners on almost everything. But, if it's not their land.......or, there's a provision that allows others to access it......I don't. I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I just think it's strange that you admit there's been no resolution to the access issue (other than farmers' "certain beliefs" and landowners who've "always enforced it a certain way".....but, know you're right about it.

Like I said.....it sounds like people are just pissed that others can access "their" fishing spot.

I'm curious....what does LE say, when landowners call to have fishermen arrested for trespassing? Or, do they just threaten it?

 

[Mallard Cutter]

At the risk of wading off into something, no pun intended, I understand that landowners can post their property against trespass. With that being said I believe that if its a stocked stream using funds to provide the fish there should be some access provided to the stream on a limited basis such as stay in the water, high water mark , etc. Otherwise using NCWRC money to stock someones private stretch of water should be stopped and no fish stocked in that stream. It would be similar to having NCWRC stock elk on my property, at no cost to me,. and then letting only me hunt them . I know apples and oranges but I'm sure you see my point. I believe in the landowners rights to do whatever they want with their property but if there was a rule about limited access it would be nice, I have heard stories about people camping out , scooping up creek rock to use for landscaping at their house and other idiots doing stupid stuff other than fishing. I'm not advocating access for idiot stuff but just for fishing stocked waters. I'm probably going to get blasted so go ahead. Have a Merry Christmas

 

[lasttombstone]

I have no idea how it is done but I doubt that the WRC puts the fish in on someone's posted property. You can't control where the fish will swim to and I doubt that they will all stay on someone's stretch of posted land, regardless of the access. I've never been trout fishing and only waded in a western NC stream at a campground once so I don't have a dog in this fight.

 

[bag12day]

At the risk of wading off into something, no pun intended, I understand that landowners can post their property against trespass. With that being said I believe that if its a stocked stream using funds to provide the fish there should be some access provided to the stream on a limited basis such as stay in the water, high water mark , etc. Otherwise using NCWRC money to stock someones private stretch of water should be stopped and no fish stocked in that stream. It would be similar to having NCWRC stock elk on my property, at no cost to me,. and then letting only me hunt them . I know apples and oranges but I'm sure you see my point. I believe in the landowners rights to do whatever they want with their property but if there was a rule about limited access it would be nice, I have heard stories about people camping out , scooping up creek rock to use for landscaping at their house and other idiots doing stupid stuff other than fishing. I'm not advocating access for idiot stuff but just for fishing stocked waters. I'm probably going to get blasted so go ahead. Have a Merry Christmas

And that’s exactly what happened in the 30 and 40s in eastern nc especially Roanoke basin with turkeys and deer. They got stocked on private property with no appreciable public access until the state got some game land leases decades later. I hunted one of those private areas in Bertie growing up and I was awful nice but not good use of public monies. I agree with your take on stocking trout. No public access no fish... and generally that’s the case

 

[turkeyfoot]

This is interesting to me, because I wade NC mountain streams .... and I’ve always assumed I was OK - as long as I didn’t get out of the water.

So..... the landowner has determined (how convenient!) that the water is non-navigable?

I was on his side, til now. He sounds like a prick.

Its true you can't wade through private unless its navigable I know of quite few trout steams I can wade so far then have get out drive up road and get back in water. Most every one these sections were closed to public because of idiots littereing or other stupid things on bank like building fires. Luckily lot landowners in mtns still allow you to wade through. There are actual signs that WRC puts up at access points saying this section landowner is allowing access for purpose of fishing only

 

[turkeyfoot]

At the risk of wading off into something, no pun intended, I understand that landowners can post their property against trespass. With that being said I believe that if its a stocked stream using funds to provide the fish there should be some access provided to the stream on a limited basis such as stay in the water, high water mark , etc. Otherwise using NCWRC money to stock someones private stretch of water should be stopped and no fish stocked in that stream. It would be similar to having NCWRC stock elk on my property, at no cost to me,. and then letting only me hunt them . I know apples and oranges but I'm sure you see my point. I believe in the landowners rights to do whatever they want with their property but if there was a rule about limited access it would be nice, I have heard stories about people camping out , scooping up creek rock to use for landscaping at their house and other idiots doing stupid stuff other than fishing. I'm not advocating access for idiot stuff but just for fishing stocked waters. I'm probably going to get blasted so go ahead. Have a Merry Christmas

they don't stock the posted stretch its not difficult to find spots fish are put in they'll be green/white sign at all them and open to public there are lot landowners that still allow access

 

[turkeyfoot]

I have no idea how it is done but I doubt that the WRC puts the fish in on someone's posted property. You can't control where the fish will swim to and I doubt that they will all stay on someone's stretch of posted land, regardless of the access. I've never been trout fishing and only waded in a western NC stream at a campground once so I don't have a dog in this fight.

you are correct I've helped out few times and only stock where has public access

 

[turkeyfoot]

I'm asking why you think the default is "whatever the guy putting up signs says it is"? I don't doubt for a second that there are landowners up and down the river who've posted signs at the creek. Hell, I've got a neighbor who posts SOMEONE ELSE'S land (because no one calls him on it....and he wants to hunt it by his lonesome). Does that mean they're right?

I typically side with landowners on almost everything. But, if it's not their land.......or, there's a provision that allows others to access it......I don't. I don't have a dog in this particular fight. I just think it's strange that you admit there's been no resolution to the access issue (other than farmers' "certain beliefs" and landowners who've "always enforced it a certain way".....but, know you're right about it.

Like I said.....it sounds like people are just pissed that others can access "their" fishing spot.

I'm curious....what does LE say, when landowners call to have fishermen arrested for trespassing? Or, do they just threaten it?

If they call its a trespassing ticket and if it's posted most likely no warning because of so many issues landowner has had in past. Most the landowners are not being jerks its the littering public that cause the issues . and in some cases not than littering I've heard cases of people sneaking in to hunt acting like only fishing cases of theft among other things.

 

[DBCooper]

If they call its a trespassing ticket and if it's posted most likely no warning because of so many issues landowner has had in past. Most the landowners are not being jerks its the littering public that cause the issues . and in some cases not than littering I've heard cases of people sneaking in to hunt acting like only fishing cases of theft among other things.

I’m asking a specific question. With as many issues that are reported, hasn’t a precedent been set?