Is this legal ?

[Bruiser]

doesnt fit definition

[Killer]

Somebody basically dumping trash in the Trinity from this picture so yea not legal even if he was trying to keep people from boating up this cut

[ren087]

If he owns both sides of the bank, I would say he can do what he wants.

[BitBackShot]

If he owns both sides of the bank, I would say he can do what he wants.

This has nothing to do with it, but judging from that picture, that stream isn't public property and I'd probably side with the landowner. Could be misleading, but honestly, what's the point of pissing the guy off if it's borderline. Tell you son to bowfish somewhere else.

[GarGuy]

Judging by the width of it, I would say NO, that is private property and what he does on his private property is his business. It takes a stream bed of 30ft to qualify as public.

Not true. that stream is navigable in FACT. no 30ft requirement. Public water and not legal to put up a navigation obstacle..

[GarGuy]

If he owns both sides of the bank, I would say he can do what he wants.

nope

[Tuffbroadhead]

Not true. that stream is navigable in FACT. no 30ft requirement. Public water and not legal to put up a navigation obstacle..

You might want to actually read the act...I cant tell you from fact not assumption .. it has to have a stream bed 30ft wide to be public, the Act and navigable definitions dont come into play till it reaches that width. Matter of fact, it can be a dry stream bed that is 30ft and it still falls under the Act.


That property pictured is PRIVATE property

Navigable by Statute
Under a law dating from 1837, a stream is navigable so far as it retains an average width of 30 feet from its mouth up. The width measured is the distance between the fast (or firmly fixed) land banks. A stream satisfying the 30 foot rule is sometimes referred to as “statutorily navigable” or “navigable by statute.” Under a court decision, the public has rights along a stream navigable by statute just as if the stream were navigable in fact.

Measurement of Stream Width for Navigability by Statute
The entire bed is to be included in the width, not just the area covered by flowing water. The bed extends all the way between the fast land banks. These are the banks which separate the stream bed from the adjacent upland (whether valley or hill) and confine the waters to a definite channel. Further, stream segments having a width of less than 30 feet do not defeat the stream’s navigability by statute, so long as the stream’s width maintains an average of 30 feet or more.

And that does not even cover the 50% gradient regulation set forth by the state.

[tradtiger]

Trust Garguy.

[Tuffbroadhead]

Trust Garguy.

I'm 100 percent sure my local wardens know the law, especially Ronald Mathis and the other 4 that will quote the above references

[CaptainDave]

Grey area at best either way. Just my opinion, but I would just find another place to fish and leave it at that.

[okrattler]

I'd move it and keep moving it until he dams it up with a bunch of junk. Then the gar and carp can't get through and you could really massacre the hell out of em.

[Rack Ranch]

This has nothing to do with it, but judging from that picture, that stream isn't public property and I'd probably side with the landowner. Could be misleading, but honestly, what's the point of pissing the guy off if it's borderline. Tell you son to bowfish somewhere else.

[WItoTX]

I would say it's questionable, but I would still call wardens for potentially polluting the river with trash and find a different spot to fish in the meantime. Don't know the exact law, but if I dump oil in my section of the river, and it flows down to your section of the river, and you get sick. I get in trouble. I don't see how this is any different.

[AntlerCollector]

trust facts.

fify

[Quackerbox]

I swear, you guys have no sense of humor at all.

agreed

You might want to actually read the act...I cant tell you from fact not assumption .. it has to have a stream bed 30ft wide to be public, the Act and navigable definitions dont come into play till it reaches that width. Matter of fact, it can be a dry stream bed that is 30ft and it still falls under the Act.


That property pictured is PRIVATE property

Navigable by Statute
Under a law dating from 1837, a stream is navigable so far as it retains an average width of 30 feet from its mouth up. The width measured is the distance between the fast (or firmly fixed) land banks. A stream satisfying the 30 foot rule is sometimes referred to as “statutorily navigable” or “navigable by statute.” Under a court decision, the public has rights along a stream navigable by statute just as if the stream were navigable in fact.

Measurement of Stream Width for Navigability by Statute
The entire bed is to be included in the width, not just the area covered by flowing water. The bed extends all the way between the fast land banks. These are the banks which separate the stream bed from the adjacent upland (whether valley or hill) and confine the waters to a definite channel. Further, stream segments having a width of less than 30 feet do not defeat the stream’s navigability by statute, so long as the stream’s width maintains an average of 30 feet or more.

And that does not even cover the 50% gradient regulation set forth by the state.

I aint reading the whole statute but....if it says 30 feet. But it seems to say 'average'. What if that cut opens up to 100' wide right after that narrow part? Ive launched in the colorado river at a public ramp thats maintained by the state where the river isnt 30 foot wide

Ive also seen where a fella put barbed wire across a cut leading off the ICW that was only accessible by airboat. The GW was contacted and the wire was cut. Then the landowner drug cars off into it. He got fined