Is this legal ?

[GarGuy]

no its not in FACT

If a boat can float it, its navigable in fact according to the Texas Supreme court. This includes , hunting,, fishing, and pleasure boating.

[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

Im quoting the statute and the Texas Supreme Court. If your wardens tell you different, they need to read the statute.

[redfishted]

We were told that if you could navigate it at normal stage, you were good to go, this area was easily accessible at normal level before it was blocked, our previous GW even gave us the elevation that was the normal water level. We have a new game warden that spends a lot of time in this area, however I do not know his stance on this issue.

[Calrob]

For sure someone threw that junk in there? Or is it maybe stuff thats floated down? Maybe talk to the guy that you think did it.

[bloodtrailer28]

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

You still a 100% on this tuff?

I've met more than one warden who didn't know his head from his ***

[lovemylegacy]

That would classify as litter.

[simsknives]

I’m not sure about bow fishing but if it’s there during duck season it can be labeled as hunter harassment.

[Tuffbroadhead]

TuffBroadhead, you quoted the paragraph defining "navigable by statue." There are two types of navigable listed in the statute. The other is "navigable in fact". that means a boat can navigate it. This is clearly the case with this stream or he would have no need to block it. Under streams that can be navigated in fact, there is no stream width mentioned nor required in the statute.


read it from the start and you will see your error.

Not a error, the Navigable by Fact relates to depth that's why it has been contested for shallow waters such as floating a log or even seasonal use during rainy season and is the very reason Navigable by statute was also raised and the 30 ft average streambed stated in the statute.

Its really cool how it all interlocks, Seasonal dry streambeds can be utilized for commerce during rainy seasons if they meet the 30ft average, what is even cooler is during the hot summer months when that same 30ft average streambed is bone dry, its still open for use by the Navigable by statute law. Both FACT and STATUTE come into play at separate times for different reasons.

What really adds mud to the water is the Texas 50% gradient guidelines for the defining point of Public and private land when dealing with the above waterway issues.

My question to the OP, in the picture. Is that open body of water in the background a pond on a persons private property?

And those of you that are bringing up the 30 ft average, I'm by far the best at guessing, but it dang sure looks like in the OP's picture you can clearly see from one end to the other of that cut, and at best it might make a 15ft average.

[Tuffbroadhead]

We were told that if you could navigate it at normal stage, you were good to go, this area was easily accessible at normal level before it was blocked, our previous GW even gave us the elevation that was the normal water level. We have a new game warden that spends a lot of time in this area, however I do not know his stance on this issue.

Then your best bet is to give him a call brother and get his opinion on it

[redfishted]

Not a error, the Navigable by Fact relates to depth that's why it has been contested for shallow waters such as floating a log or even seasonal use during rainy season and is the very reason Navigable by statute was also raised and the 30 ft average streambed stated in the statute.

Its really cool how it all interlocks, Seasonal dry streambeds can be utilized for commerce during rainy seasons if they meet the 30ft average, what is even cooler is during the hot summer months when that same 30ft average streambed is bone dry, its still open for use by the Navigable by statute law. Both FACT and STATUTE come into play at separate times for different reasons.

What really adds mud to the water is the Texas 50% gradient guidelines for the defining point of Public and private land when dealing with the above waterway issues.


My question to the OP, in the picture. Is that open body of water in the background a pond on a persons private property?

And those of you that are bringing up the 30 ft average, I'm by far the best at guessing, but it dang sure looks like in the OP's picture you can clearly see from one end to the other of that cut, and at best it might make a 15ft average.

That open body of water is where they go to bow fish, which connectes to the main channel by the channel that has been blocked

[070700]

You still a 100% on this tuff?

I've met more than one warden who didn't know his head from his ***

I guess u got caught before!

[Tuffbroadhead]

That open body of water is where they go to bow fish, which connectes to the main channel by the channel that has been blocked

So you are saying that is a pond that is on private property and is separated from the river by that drainage, my wardens would roast me for trying to get access to that.

[redfishted]

So you are saying that is a pond that is on private property and is separated from the river by that drainage, my wardens would roast me for trying to get access to that.

Not a pond really, just a wide spot in the creek before it drains into the channel, you can boat through it for quite a ways

[monsterspike]

that looks like private property to me. the lo is going to have the upper hand here, with the local interpretation, at a minimum. i doubt its worth taking it to supreme court, esp while waiting in jail on armed trespass violation.

[Tuffbroadhead]

I dont know what you call a pond but from the wonderful satellite that looks ALOT like a pond and that drainage would be a overflow from that pond, I did however cover up the names for ya..

PS....Dont ask how I did that..


I think a landowner would be in the drivers seat on this one..maybe not who knows