per tpwd

Under a 1929 law popularly known as the “Small Bill,” the state in some situations has relinquished to the adjoining landowner certain property rights in the bed of a navigable stream. However, the public may still use these navigable streams.

"some", not all. There's a lot more to it:

"The beds of navigable streams are generally owned by the state, in trust for the public. Most of the land alongside navigable streams is privately owned. The beds of non navigable streams are usually privately owned, and public use of the stream may be forbidden by the private landowner. However, the state owns the beds of perennial streams, regardless of navigability, where the original land grant was made under the civil law prior to December 14, 1837.

Under a 1929 law popularly known as the “Small Bill,” the state in some situations has relinquished to the adjoining landowner certain property rights in the bed of a navigable stream. However, the public may still use these navigable streams. The law’s major effect was to give some adjoining landowners the royalties from oil and gas under the stream bed. Significantly, the Small Bill declared that it did not impair the rights of the general public and the State in the waters of streams. Thus, along a navigable stream, even if the landowner’s deed includes the bed, and taxes are being paid on the bed, the public retains its right to use it as a navigable stream. The Small Bill also retained the state’s sand and gravel interests."

"“[O]ur decisions are unanimous in the declaration that by the principles of the civil and common law soil under navigable waters was treated as held by the state or nation in trust for the whole people.”
State v. Bradford, 121 Tex. 515, 50 S.W.2d 1065, 1076 (1932)"

I didnt say all, I said “some situations”. I also stated, ownership didnt allow for public travel restriction. Regardless stream beds change tax rolls don't until challenged. Landowners do have subsurface rights also.

It is what it is. TX is a lot more public friendly then alot of states. Which is ironic being as deeded as we are. always been to narrow of a margin error for me to ever consider hunting it, plus just feels like trespassing. I feel same away about landlocked public in some places.

^^^^^

This correct.

It is quite possible for some land owners to 'own' the property pay taxes on it, yet the public has access to it up to the Gradient Boundary.

This all came about because of certain legalities that were in effect when properties in Land Grants were acquired. These allowed for ownership of the river/steam bed. The 'Small Bill' statute was enacted to insure use by the public on ALL navigable streams.

So a landowner could manage their ranch by supplemental feeding, specific animal harvesting and numerous other effort, just to have a boat load of yahoos drift through and shoot their limits of deer on land he owns any pays taxes on?

If that is correct, then I'm pleased with this legislation.

This correct.

It is quite possible for some land owners to 'own' the property pay taxes on it, yet the public has access to it up to the Gradient Boundary.

This all came about because of certain legalities that were in effect when properties in Land Grants were acquired. These allowed for ownership of the river/steam bed. The 'Small Bill' statute was enacted to insure use by the public on ALL navigable streams.

Last edited by flintknapper; 37 minutes ago.

I'm good with that. I'm all about private property rights. The question of "ownership" of the land within the Gradient Boundary has always been interesting to me, and at times vague. I just knew where I could and could not go and hunted by the rules. If I truly owned it, I wouldn't want anyone using it at all.

That’s exactly what it is and we’ve had it happen every year, I misunderstood the new bill but I’m happy as heck to see it. I have no issues with waterfowl hunters on the river but blasting rifles when they don’t have a clue where their shooting has been a bunch of BS not to mention getting to deer hunt on property they’ve never paid a dime for and basically mooching off everything we’ve done.

It would seem like a lack of due diligence on the landowners part if they were not aware their property abuts a navigable waterway. Buyer beware!

Wildlife belongs to the state, so who is the moocher again?

Yep, that’s where I’m at with it too.

I was very aware of the situation when we purchased the land and you’ve never heard me complain about it one time because that was the law but if the state wants to do the landowners a favor and stop the nonsense then I’m very much ok with it. For the freeloaders loosing the right to hunt someone else’s land for free then all I can say is go buy your own place.

I didn’t make the laws, I just follow them and it worked for the river dwellers for a long time but as everything in life a few DA’s screw it up for the mass’s.

As I stated above I do understand completely from the land owner/personal property rights side of things. You own the land, you coddle the animals, state says pay the tax and then let everyone use it benefitting from land owners money and hard work. I do not like being told what I can and can not do on my property. Having said that, my property abuts public hunting land and I want it to always stay public. Yes there is trash that happens and yes many people who use public land are disrespectful and will trash and shoot out a place but I still want it there for everyone to use. The high power rifle argument could be made, bullets go a long ways. But hunting with a bow or shotgun slug IMO should not have been included. While some land owners are cheering, overall I feel like this is a huge loss for public land users in Texas. What is next? No fishing? No ducks? Can of worms has been opened in a big way. If you have considered a South Texas kayak trip, I would do it sooner rather than later. This wreaks of a first step in closing off some of the most beautiful country you will ever lay eyes on.

Of course you and Bobo are the resident Nazi's.

^^^^^^^


Any animal taken (or a shot discharged) within the Gradient Boundary would be legal for the non-land owner (public). Anything ABOVE the gradient line would be illegal as it belongs to the land owner and is private property. It would literally take a surveyor to establish that line in a legal dispute.

So the Land Owner could indeed be doing a lot of work to benefit the wildlife and his/own hunting efforts....only to have that wildlife travel below the land owners property (see gradient boundary illustration) and be 'fair game' for anyone using the public resource.

It is very much up to the 'hunter' to be self policing and aware of the boundaries in order to be 'legal' in such situations.

Where I live (Deep East Texas) we have no small amount of what we call 'River Rats' that run the rivers here (Especially the Angelina) and shoot deer anywhere the river takes them. They love it when the river is up and floods onto private property (low lying Oak Stands). This presents an issue for Land Owners along the river and has been going on for generations.

The newly passed law does not affect accessibility to public waterways....but DOES (after Sept. 1st) restrict hunting to Shotgun only and no slugs.

The Land Owner on the other hand may use any legal weapon (with respect to season and game) on his/her own property to include the distance down to the Gradient Boundary is my understanding.

I have mixed feelings about the new law. I tend to favor Land Owner concerns but also want public access to hunting/recreation on our waterways to remain as unrestricted as possible.

Sadly.....I think 'abuse' of the right to use the waterways is the reason we are seeing new restrictions.

This doesn’t close anything. People can still operate boats in these places. While doing it though, the days of sniping deer on the bank on property someone else owns are over.

So everyone that was hunting riverbottoms was a thief in your book. And on top of that dangerous with a firearm? "not to mention getting to deer hunt on property they’ve never paid a dime for and basically mooching off everything we’ve done." Funny did you pay a dime on the public property? Were you mooching off said public property in your "everything we've done comment? What were you doing on said public property? Join your Nazi friends. This type of thought process you people have is pure jackassery.

And that is exactly what happens on East Texas Rivers by folks either ignorant of existing laws or who willfully disobey them.

"Sadly.....I think 'abuse' of the right to use the waterways is the reason we are seeing new restrictions."

Read the comments of the land grabbers, The Nazi's so to speak. I think we are seeing the new restrictions because of private property owners doing what they can to take what is not theirs. Sadly.

And somehow you think the people who are breaking these laws are going to be affected by the new ones? This will only effect the law abiding citizens.

That is utterly the most ignorant post in this thread. You think another law will make any difference to actual poachers? Too funny. This will only effect the law abiding as that is who respect the law.

kind of like TPWD trying to Eminent Domain a private ranch?

unlike TPWD this ruling doesnt reverse ownership, just methods of use. Still allows for “navigation”

No....hunting public streams/rivers can certainly be done safely and legally. And is (was) a viable resource for folks to hunt as a matter of need or convenience. Exercising proper precautions when using high powered firearms applies equally everywhere.

As for 'mooching' unless under high fence....the animals are free to roam anywhere. Unless the private property has an abundance of other water sources....then chances are good at some point wildlife will use the river. So it is to be expected a hunter might encounter the game he is after there.

Though the Land Owner (adjacent to the waterway) may have put in a lot of effort to enhance the game in the area....that is by 'choice' and it should be understood that some of those animals will stray into areas accessible by the public.


There is no need for 'tension' between the two parties WHEN things are done legally.

^^^^^

Here is what I think.

As with many other things (gun laws for example) the misuse/abuse of the few eventually cause legislators/LEO to cast a wide net.

Yes.....'hard core' poachers will continue to do what they do and hope to get away with it.

However, by restricting the types of weapon/ammo one may have while 'lawfully' engaging in hunting...any person found in possession of Rifle, Bow or Pistol (with some exceptions) will automatically be suspect. This gives LEO more latitude to engage possible poachers.

Albeit at the expense of the Law Abiding. So again.... the Law Abiding suffer for the actions of the Lawless. No argument it is an inequity.

The correct solution would be to make penalties for the infraction (breaking of the law) so severe that it would cause one to pause to begin with.

But lord knows we won't do that.

I hunt properly define federal public all over the US, Ive never felt the need to hunt a property boundary based on the half way point of a State Government deemed navigable stream bed…. lol

Lol, Nazi hates land owner rights, they were founded on the socialist dream. Sounds more like yourself. Navigable steam/river law was based off travel not hunting to begin with. But thats what most socialists do they mitigate property rights until its communal. Private ownership is discouraged. To each according to their needs from each according to their ability

Yep.