Land Owners?

[silvercreek]

So I guess you can accesss from the TVA property, wade out to the middle of the river and cast to the other bank, as long as you do not cross the middle of the river. Oh boy.

[Grannyknot]

Originally Posted by silvercreek

So I guess you can accesss from the TVA property, wade out to the middle of the river and cast to the other bank, as long as you do not cross the middle of the river. Oh boy.

Yes, and as long as your fly does not touch the bottom during retrieval.

[silvercreek]

I only fish dries. See, even the law recognizes the pure form of flyfishing. Just joking. I've slung my share of wooly buggers, etc.

[Byron Begley]

Little River is designated navigable but I thought that dated back to the days of logging and commerce. I was not aware of the private act. In our one instance two years ago an angler was wading on a section of Little River, the land owner owned both sides of the river and local law enforcement responded to the call. The angler was not cited but asked to leave. I think there are other threads and posts about that situation on this board back then.

Byron

[silvercreek]

I've tried to find that act through FindLaw etc, but can't. I'd like to read it in it's entirety

[gutshot]

I saw it as a scanned document from the harvard library / law review from 1907. Google is so hit or miss I wouldn't waste the time looking for it again.

That being said I am sure that this weak law is ripe for challenege if any fishing organisation would step up to the plate for angler's rights.

[waterwolf]

Most places it is the high water mark. I had a similar situation on the Clinch a few weeks back with an ignorant landowner. I decided discretion was the better option, rather then fight someone who lacked the mental capacity to understand the law, no matter what his deed said, which is superceeded by eminent domain/state law/county law/federal law. Take your pick.

Sometimes it just isn't worth the battle...

[BlueRaiderFan]

Originally Posted by waterwolf

Most places it is the high water mark. I had a similar situation on the Clinch a few weeks back with an ignorant landowner. I decided discretion was the better option, rather then fight someone who lacked the mental capacity to understand the law, no matter what his deed said, which is superceeded by eminent domain/state law/county law/federal law. Take your pick.

Sometimes it just isn't worth the battle...

Wolf, so after all of this, what exactly is the law in Tennessee...I understand the navigable part, but can I get out of the boat and wade and what about the high water mark?

[jarrod white]

as a landowner on a heavily fished river, I will say that anybody who says that you cannot wade in the river because he owns the river bed is a bone head!
I am not going to open my place to the public, but I will never tell somebody that they can't wade on my side of the river. I would also say that if one is caught by generation, he would be welcome to stay on dry ground until the water is safe to enter, or leave by crossing my property. People will always be people, and that means we will always have idiots in this world.

JW

[gutshot]

Originally Posted by BlueRaiderFan

Wolf, so after all of this, what exactly is the law in Tennessee...I understand the navigable part, but can I get out of the boat and wade and what about the high water mark?

This is from a Tennesse court of appeals ruling and explaination of that ruling from 2001. This sounds pretty solid to me, although I cannot find the exact code or a definition of low water mark in the code.

In Tennessee, where a waterway is “navigable” in the legal sense, it is deemed to be held by the state in trust for the citizens. State ex rel. Cates v. West Tenn. Land Co., 127 Tenn. 575, 158 S.W. 746, 752 (Tenn. 1913). As such, neither the waters nor the lands underlying them are capable of private ownership. Id. at 747. “Under Tennessee law title to the bed of a navigable stream, to the low-water mark is publicly held and belongs to the State.” Uhlhorn v. Kaltner, 637 S.W.2d 844, 846



This is the most powerful statement in the entire paper, in my opinion, as it would decimate the rich man's ability to have a private act remove the waterway from the public's trust. Can TU, TWRA, or another organization dedicated to sportsman access to resources fight the south holston designation?

The rule in Tennessee has always been that the question of navigability of a stream

is one of fact which must be determined by a jury.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/...rfreesboro.pdf