Today's bust

[WETT]

Diving in GA. today. On private property with permission. Land owner owned both sides of the creek. Using a dredge and looking for some mastadon teeth in which this place is famous for. Several officers were hiding in the woods on a high bank listening and watching. Searched everything. I am still unsure of what the laws are. I don't believe the DNR are even sure either. Several of the things mentioned during our conversations, contradicted the law. I will say this.........the officers were very professional and very polite. I almost wish that I hadn't treated them rudely. I would love to talk to someone to determine what is legal and what is not.

[old creek warrior]

check out the Ga. historic Preservation divisons web site.In the Water or On the Beach:

. It is legal to collect artifacts with the permission of the landowner in privately-owned waterways.



If the body of water you're interested in is owned or managed by a local or federal government agency, contact that agency for their policy on artifact collecting.

To collect artifacts or metal detect on beaches along the coast of Georgia, it is also necessary to first determine ownership of that land and ask permission. Beaches may be private or owned by a governmental agency. To determine who the landowner is, you might start by contacting the DNR Law Enforcement Region VII Office in Brunswick, telephone: (912) 264.7237, address: Suite 201, One Conservation Way, Brunswick, GA 31520.

For a detailed description of the laws as they apply to Georgia's waters, follow this link http://www.gashpo.org/content/displaycontent.asp?txtDocument=153



.
The End

Print | E-mail

[old creek warrior]

If you were on private prop. and had landowner permission i don't see how they could say anything.I probably would have got a little rude also

[sean2008]

.....they also stated it was a navigable waterway, and this place was no different than a infamous creek in baker count......so???

[Newt]

So what happened?
Newt

[sean2008]

they handed out a couple of tickets and a couple of warnings and went rite on theyre way

[Archaic]

they handed out a couple of tickets and a couple of warnings and went rite on theyre way

tickets and warnings?? for what?

[sean2008]

tickets for life jackets and registration........on 10 ft boat with trolling motor in waist deep water, and wrote warnings for "collecting artifacts"... and for the record no one possessed any artifacts just a worn out tooth

[Hernandoman]

I would at least make a call and possibly a formal complaint up the ladder to a regional commander with DNR and request a formal inquiry and official position in writing from the DNR. If they fail to respond satisfactorily, notify your local State Representative and State Senator. If that doesnt seem to elicit a proper response, contact the State Attorney General's Office and file a complaint. I dont think they should get a "free pass" if they acted inappropriately and pressure can be applied if you courteously use the resources available to you. There's always the Letter to the Editor option to the larger newspapers in your area as well. With state budget shortfalls, employee furloughs, etc... State Government resources could certainly be better utilized than by harrassing someone acting legally on private property.

[old creek warrior]

Probably gonna have to go ahead and pay the fines for life jackets and no registration.In georgia any boat that has any means of mechanical propulsion this includes trolling motors must be registered....stupid but its the law.

[Newt]

Probably gonna have to go ahead and pay the fines for life jackets and no registration.In georgia any boat that has any means of mechanical propulsion this includes trolling motors must be registered....stupid but its the law.


And any vessel including kayaks have to have life jackets on board.
Newt

[WETT]

Having trouble sleeping thinking about all of this.
1. Some sherrifs coming out of the woodwork and falsely identifying themselves as DNR officers.
2. I don't believe a sherrif has the authority to just start searching everything in our boat and start asking me questions. After doing so, they then called DNR to come out to the scene.
3. I received a warning ticket for illegal collection of artifacts, which I signed due to me not wanting to "*%#$!*%#$!*%#$!*%#$!" anyone else off with my mouth. One of the Sherrif's was not happy with my attitude but I did not have any artifacts on me. We clearly stated we were looking for fossils. Why would my ticket say that? Maybe illegal use, improper use or misuse of a device to collect fossils would have been better descriptive?

[WETT]

I totally agree on paying the fines. What sucked is that we had the proper amount of flotation devices for the amount of people in the boat but took them out and had them placed under the dredge for additional flotation. Due to them not being in the boat, someone got a ticket. I am just bothered by signing that warning ticket with that description on the bottom. I was fearful that if I refused, I would make it harder on the people with me and they would suffer from me being disagreeable.

[old creek warrior]

That totally sux Wett.I think you got jerked around and lied to.It's always been my understanding that if the land owner owns the land on both sides of the creek he also owns the creek.

[old creek warrior]

Public Access to Non-Navigable Rivers - Ideas for Change in Georgia: A Comment

Tripp Bridges, 3L

Tripp Bridges is a third-year law student at the University of Georgia School of Law in Athens, Georgia. The views expressed below are the author’s own. This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions and positions of the National Sea Grant Law Center and its affiliates.

Georgia is fortunate to have many rivers that can be used for recreational boating. Canoeing and kayaking are recreational activities enjoyed by many people in the state. These numbers will undoubtedly increase with the population growth of Atlanta and its suburbs. Generally canoeists have enjoyed relatively free access to many of Georgia’s larger rivers, however in recent years there have been some notable exceptions.

The following two cases exemplify the problems that the public has had in gaining access to some of Georgia’s non-navigable rivers. In Georgia Canoeing Assoc. v. Henry, 482 S.E.2d 298, 267 Ga. App. 814 (1997), the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s opinion that the public did not have a right of passage down Armuchee Creek where it flowed through Mr. Henry’s land. The Georgia Canoeing Association was seeking to enjoin Mr. Henry from stopping free passage by the public down the river. In Givens v. Ichauway, Inc., 493 S.E.2d 148, 268 Ga. 710 (1997), the court found that the Ichauwaynochaway Creek was non-navigable, and therefore inaccessible to boaters, even though the appellant was able to navigate a small raft carrying two people, a goat, and a bale of cotton in attempts to prove navigability under the standard of commerce of the nineteenth century.

As illustrated by the aforementioned cases, current Georgia law does not allow a right of passage for the public down non-navigable rivers. According to O.C.G.A. § 44-8-2 the adjacent landowner owns the bed of a non-navigable river to the midpoint, and if the landowner owns both sides of the river, then ownership extends to the entire streambed. The same is true if the river is a boundary between properties; the landowners both own to the midpoint, and could join together and prohibit passage down the river.1 The legislature passed this law long before the start of any significant recreational boating in the region. This section of the code effectively prohibits the public from using many of Georgia’s scenic rivers. Consideration should be given to changing it to allow a right of through passage down non-navigable rivers.

At this time Georgia boaters only have a right of passage down navigable waters. Georgia’s definition of navigable is surprisingly restrictive. Under Georgia law, navigable streams are those “capable of transporting boats loaded with freight in the regular course of trade either for the whole or a part of the year. The mere rafting of timber or the transporting of wood in small boats shall not make a stream navigable.”2 Few rivers in Georgia qualify under Georgia law as navigable due to the fact many barges are over 200 feet long, and few rivers would be able to support such boats.3 This restrictive definition precludes a right of passage on most of Georgia’s rivers, including the Chattooga, Chestatee, and Toccoa, which are frequently used for canoeing.

[WETT]

Wow! The censoring is good on this website. See above. That wasn't even profanity that I put in the text and it still was bleeped out.

[Hernandoman]

I am not sure which word it tried to bleep out but it can be circumvented if someone is determined to get around it, LOL!

I think these waterway issues are still vague and applied inconsistently to suit some LEO's agenda at the time.

I think it's still worth the effort of a complaint up the ladder and/or the other paths I suggested.

By the way fellow Georgians, Roy Barnes was just in Bainbridge campaigning with a few other gubernatorial candidates. Hes the flaming liberal governor that let these anti-collectors have their way and signed the current laws in place. Barnes also allowed the appointment of Ray Luce and David Crass to HPD and State Archaeologist, both of which brought their anti-collecting agenda here from Ohio. When Sonny is gone, the dogs will no longer be held at bay.

COUNT ON IT

[runswithbeer]

hey guys i've been trying to figure this out also. This is what i've learned, i think. Its only legal to collect artifacts from GA private property...(landfinds) any artifacts from underwater (submersible cultural environment) that have been underwater for more than 50 years (even bottles and bricks) can only be removed if you hold an archaeological liscense from the state, . Which in GA is nearly impossible to obtain unless ur a UGA arch student. I talked with a few people (DNR and UGA Archaeologists) via email about this subject and all said that i needed to speak with local law enforcement. Which is like talking to my 2 year old. Hey the real money must be in water logged cypress and pine....check out the impact fees on DNRs website. Fossils thats a diff subject collect all u want from any waterway and DNR can scratch ur boyz because they can't say anything. Kinda like school.....Just what i've learned, probably isnt right just the way i c it.

[WETT]

That is exactly what they told us after everyone had calmed down. They claimed that many man hours have been put in on and ongoing investigation. Someone is illegally removing logs from that creek and they have been trying to find out who it is.

[runswithbeer]

hey wett what area of the state? i think Logs can only be removed on the flint and swaunee ( i think thats spelled right). Those are the only 2 listed in the law. its like 10K for the permit and 50K oer 2 mile stretch of water plus % of revenue on sale. WOW GA trying to make a buck or 2

[Jeff Barnes]

I was always told that in non navigable waters all you need is written permission from the land owner. In navigable waters you need a permit from the state or Corp of engineers or some govt. agency, dont know which but your not going to get one. The way I understand it the Notchaway isnt navigable and the Notchaway plantation owned both sides of the creek which is why that plantation in Baker County was able to block the creek off to fisherman or whoever. If you try to go on the creek that this plantation owns both sides of you can be arrested for trespassing. Im sure some members here remember when some guy tried using a barge to navigate the creek with a bale of cotton and a goat on it so as to prove it was navigable but all this got him was locked up I think. The Flint is navigable up to the broad Street bridge in Albany. So from there down you need a permit from the Corp. of engineers. From there up you need written landowner permission. The DNR in Albany explained it to me that way back before the Law took effect. In non navigable waters (north of Albany on the Flint) they also said if someone bought an acre of land on both sides of the river across from one another they could put a fence across the Flint because the landowner owns to the middle of the river. Im no lawyer and this may not be exactly right but its been my understanding since before these laws took affect 6 or 7 years ago. It sounds to me like your creek is non navigable and you need landowners written permission, but like I said Im no lawyer and laws change over the years. Although I wish you good luck

[george]

It's all a bunch of crap anyways. All we are doing really is renting a place to sleep, making money, spending money, and putting money in other peoples pockets.

[WETT]

I found out today that one of the people, that first confronted us, was a DNR officer. So I cannot say anything about that. Once again, I would like to stress, all officers involved were totally professional and very courteous. I do not want to make any enemies. What I am taking from all of this is that no one seems to know definitely, what the law is. Not even the DNR officer writing the tickets. He did mention a phone no. / website to call and find out. I think someone has purposely made a "grey area" within the laws so it can swing either way to benefit the state. It is simply not black and white.

[old creek warrior]

Yes the laws have a lot of grey areas when it comes to this.They must have really been watching that place real close.I started hunting at age 6,i'm now 43 and have never been checked by dnr while in the field in 37 years,crazy.The two counties i hunt in are patrolled by one officer and his dog and that's a lot of area to cover

[george]

Well Florida is saturated with FWC officers. I was fishing on Lake Jackson a few months ago and got checked twice within 10 minutes. The second officer didn't even know there were other officers on the lake. That was 3 officers in 10 minutes. How much $ does that run, not considering running one tunnel hull and an airboat.

[Hernandoman]

WETT, no doubt these guys are trying to do their job and with the "vaguery" in ownership of waterways and definitions of "navigable" being less than clear, it does make for a somewhat awkward position.

True, it does give the officers some latitude maybe, and possibly gives a gateway to look for other violations. Sounds like this was the case in your incident, thus the warning ticket on the artifact related "offense".

All of the DNR officers I know are good guys and I have never been treated unfairly. As a matter of fact, some of them feel the same way we do about these laws and would love to see them changed as well, although they cant say much in public.