Murky waters: First of likely many Roanoke Times stories on Jackson River controversy
Although I’ve had a few short pieces on the most recent Jackson River access controversy here on the blog, my first Roanoke Times piece came out just today.
As I worked on it I used the working headline “Murky waters” and that headline stayed. (It’s fairly rare that a writer’s suggested “hed” stays on a story.)
As I did my reporting the one thing that seems a sure thing about this case was this: It isn’t easy.
Now, the folks on both sides of this case feel strongly about their position. But both sides have compelling arguments.
So, the stage seems set for a long, fascinating (at least from a legal and journalistic perspective) road ahead here. For what it’s worth, the Kraft v. Burr case stretched over about four years.
Because I plan (and hope) to be covering this as a news story, I’m staying out of the opinion game. Well, I’ll offer one opinion: The Jackson River is a great wild trout river, so it’s no wonder it’s generated access fights.
My goal for this is to cover the story objectively, and to avoid being sued while on the river for “research”!
That said, who is willing to offer thoughts on how this case might turn out?
July 31, 2011 - 9:11 AM
Good story. Just to be technical, this case is about “use” of a public river versus “access” to a river. “Access” fights traditionally paint a picture of the public trampling across private land to get to water, leaving bait buckets and beer cans in their wake, which is a turn-off to many possible supporters. This case impacts how the citizens of Virginia can use a public resource, entering it at public access points and staying below the high-water mark. This difference makes the impact of this case potentially more far-reaching.
One thing that perplexes me is this: If the documents (grants and deeds) which the plaintiffs are using to support their claim are public, why didn’t they 1) attach them to their complaint, and 2) why don’t they just lay them out for all to see…and this would all go away. It’s not like they can lob a seceret “bombsheel” into the courtroom to win this case.
Great article Mark ! This case could go either way. Its a shame that it got to this though.I’m sure the property owners(Feldenzers) bought their land with the developers assurance that they would have their own private stream section.
The 3 fishermen in question seemed to have been using out-dated information due to recent land purchases,etc..
On a situation like this, it’s always better to err on the side of caution…Don’t confront or provoke a landowner…chances are, he has been confonted or provoked in the past!
Kings Grants on non-navigable rivers are very complex, and I’m afraid somene will be spending a lot of money on this one…
I plan to “float” this section soon. And I will be reading the signage on the banks also !
I just moved to the Roanoke area and took up fly fishing this past year – I love it. I have gone up to the Jackson River a few times and caught TONS of wild trout. I have been parking at the Indian Draft access point and working DOWN STREAM from that location. Is where I am fishing part of the disputed area? The story, while very good, didn’t lay out EXACTLY where the disputes arise along the Jackson.
To “TakeTheFly” – they likely didn’t attach the deeds to the complaint because at this point in litigation it is not necessary. This is only the “pleading” stage. The plaintiffs merely have to plead sufficient facts to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The deeds/grants will certainly be produced during the discovery phase.
Many thanks,
t.
Good question. My bet is they do not have clear evidence of the connection to the grant. If they did, why not bring it in play when the issue was “just” trespassing and naturally, why not bring it in now. The claim at this point appears to be rooted in “paying taxes” on the river bottom. Given where property lines are, that is probably reasonably easy to prove but does that support the notion of “ownership”? Beats me! Mark’s comment earlier (elsewhere) suggested that the court directed the fishermen to “prove” the state owned the bottom and they had legal right to walk it. Following that, he added that the property owners were left having to prove they owned it. (That’s my take on his comments.) Seems like a standoff. I personally cannot believe that even if they have been and are “paying taxes” on a parcel which would include a surface area size including that land below the water it results in the courts conclusion that they owned the bottom. So Mark, I’m wondering what you may see as the “next steps” by both parties.
Since when did we as a country, once again, start recognizing the authority of the King of England to establish property rights? Even if we did recognize the authority of the crown (sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?), I seriously doubt the riverbed and banks are in the same location as it was in the 18th century.
I am all for property rights and protections, but a navigable river is not a piece of property, nor should the riverbed be considered one citizens (or corporate entity) personal possession. The Jackson River could be considered a navigable waterway, open to the general public for legal activities, and should be protected as such by the State of Virginia.
This really sounds like a classic case of the “Have’s” and the “Have not’s”. In reality, not so different from the “Crown” in the 18th century!
With our legal system, who KNOWS. But I am certainly hoping for public use of that section to be granted.
Given how out-of-touch folks (esp. kids) are with our natural resources, I just worry about partitioning up our waterways and how that might further exile folks from the water. If you haven’t experienced our water systems and how critical they are to our existence, you may not care to protect them.
Two weeks ago I spent THE best day with my kids canoeing down Craig Creek. My kids got out and swam parts, and if we were licensed to fish, they might have enjoyed fishing. If I had to be aware of where we could/couldn’t wade and swim it would have have been a huge loss.
So imagine our waterways chopped up piecemeal and the precedent that would be setting.
I don’t fish, but I think of those who do as being on unofficial waterway patrol. I would welcome folks who fish to keep an eye on things – spot industrial pollutants, crime scenes, who knows?
That said, I might not be so excited to have hundreds of shrieking tubing folks going past my quiet waterfront cabin.
Thanks for taking on this story, Mark. I’ll definitely be following it.
Take the fly – Point taken on “use” vs. “access.” I’ll keep it in mind down the line. That said, I think, for all intents and purposes, access = use. As for my reasoning for not getting into the “missing deeds,” New to Va. answered that question in his comment.
Johnny – I agree that it appears a history of encounters between the parties in this case may have contributed to this getting to this point. But I do understand why, because the anglers truly believe they were in the right, they were not willing to back down. The reality is there is water on the Jackson that could never be proven to be kings grant (private) water, yet is still posted as such. Maybe we can coordinate on that float?
New to Va – There’s actually a detailed map in today’s paper. Not sure why it didn’t make it into the online package. But the section in question ends well above the Indian Draft access point.
Al – You won’t let me get away with saying they both have to prove it, will you? Both sides contend the burden rests on the other. Ultimately, I think both will refer to everything they have to prove their point. I guess we’ll see when the testimony starts.
JHT2 – You’re not the first to bring up the interesting aspect of recognizing the authority of a monarchy that, ultimately, was not recognized as having authority here. I’m waiting for someone to introduce deeds and grants from Chief Powhatan. That would really make this interesting!
Cort – Sounds like you and the kids had a great day on Craig Creek — which, by the way, is another waterway where there have been some access/use disputes. I’m glad you didn’t have any. You bring up an excellent point about the potential long-term risks of privatizing natural resources. Many of those owners would, no doubt, be excellent stewards of the resource they own. But we all know there is strength in numbers when it comes to ultimate protection. By the way, no matter how this turns out there could still be hundreds of shrieking tubers going through this section because the navigability is not in question. In fact, were fishing to ultimately “banned,” perhaps the river would become a tubing/paddling mecca. Wouldn’t that be ironic?
Mark: Not taking any issue with your articles at all. You have been, IMO, the best source for an outside interested party to get any idea of what’s going on. Dargan, on his(?) web site suggested that the landowner was standing on the asumption that the land was theirs (with proof they say they have but apparently won’t reveal but maybe it’s not yet time to offer said “proof”). He further suggested that if the court willed it, the fishermen would have to prove their point and at the same time suggesting the landowner DID NOT have to prove ownership. It’s a critical issue BUT I will accept your conclusion that both have to “prove” it. Or maybe better said that one or the other will prevail if “proof” is real and acknowleged by the court. I’m still betting neither side will offer conclusive evidence based on actual deed histories. If this issue is ever decided, it will be shaken out of the dust of legal cases and however it lands on the table will answer the issue. Of course, either side could find themselves unwilling to spend the money to go forward given the uncertainty of the outcome. Lawyers LOVE stuff like this. You know I don’t think I would ever peresonally do it but it might be neat to have a few hundred anglers ready to float down and walk the river bottom and see if the landowner is willing to take action against all. BTW, if there are people out there willing to support the cause go to:
http://www.virginiariversdefensefund.org/
Just read a comment on the VRDF web site that indicates the judge apparently decided that this past Monday was not the time to address the “evidence” but the way it reads is that “they” (landowners) either have it or they don’t. Read it here:
http://southriverflyshop.com/blog/91/
May be resolved sooner that I thought. Shows what I know!
Al wrote: “You have been, IMO, the best source for an outside interested party to get any idea of what’s going on.”
Al – That made my day. Thanks so much. Also know that I appreciate your insightful comments and questions.
It would seem to me that the public’s use of the water was reinforced when Gathright Dam (a public dam) instituted a water release protocol (with public water) that made possible this cold-water fishery (with trout stocked with public funds.
We read a lot about “takings” when it comes to government action and its impact on private land. Well, in this case we seem to have ourselves a “givings” where the public investment overwhelmingly benefitted a private entity.
In reading the article it seems like the owners are upset that they are paying taxes on the river bottom hence they should be able to dictate who walks on that property… I don’t blame them. However, knowing the economic boom potential the Jackson River has on an otherwise depressed area… if I were in the county. I would push for the government to forgive the taxes on the disputed river bottom. Its a win-win. The fisherman get to fish and the “owner of the river bottom” won’t have to worry about a tax bill!!
An interesting article and discussion, as a Jackson river front property owner, I am always interested in what others have to say about this situation. It is not hard to trace land ownership back to the origins of grants from the King. It just takes time and energy to research through the deeds and records. When the state declared the river navigable it should have closed the case, but Judge Byrd in 1995 helped to continue the argument with the whole land grant business. I believe that the river is a public resource and should be managed as a public resource. The state of Texas manages a river program similar to the Jackson; the Guadalupe River in south Texas, it is a managed cold water river that provides recreation for all. If the county and state want to develop the recreational and business resources that can come from this river they need to settle the river bottom use crisis. Do people at Smith Mountain Lake or Buggs Island Lake own the water line no! As a land owner I have a right to protect my land, it stops at the water edge.
On the other side of the argument, the land owners should be relieved of tax debts from the river bottom. This could be handled with state legislation and the courts would not need to intervene. This is a state matter and our elected representatives need to seek settlement of this issue.
Having grown up in Covington and fished/floated the Jackson practically all my life, it’s very sad and disappointing to see Alleghany County residents apparently choosing to side with an “implant” and the almighty dollar to the potential detriment of their fellow Alleghany County residents and fishermen/outdoor enthuiasts statewide.
On a similar note, has anyone estimated how much money North South Development stands to lose if the courts side in favor of the fishermen? I would think that the “implants” potentially have legal leverage to turn around and sue NSD in an effort to void their “agreement” with the River’s Edge if it’s determined that the section of river in question is fishable for the public.
By the way, I have my fingers crossed that the Virginia court system rules in a manner similar to Montana. =)
Scott: I don’t think the issue existed at the time the dam was constructed but only surfaced later and probably had the state/fed govt recognized it they would have done some things differently. Like what??? Does the term imminent domain come to mind. Wonder if that might still be a possibility.
Matt: I have had the same thoughts about the single property owner and NSD. Had I purchased this property being told it was private and then find floaters, swimmers and waders in “my back yard” I think there would be a very good case for me to re-negoitate the price from NSD. Actually, the good Dr may also realize that his $600,000 property in 2006(?) is only a $300,000 property in 2011. Bad investment…let me out!
David P: What is the specific name of the grant in question?
Mark is there the legal opportyunity for a bill to repeal Kings Grant laws and return navigable waterways to the commonwealth? Let the People decide, you know?
If the state can use Eminent Domain to seize land for highways and hospitals, how is it that the state is castrated in cases like this?
Matt — Good points. Something I’ve been mulling is just what the value difference would be in River’s Edge properties if the river was/is/will be public.
Might the lots be worth 10 percent less? Fifty percent less? I really don’t have a sense. Maybe a realtor reader can add some insight.
By the way, the listed prices of the 33 properties range from $175,000 to $425,000 (for one of the Feldenzer lots). I assume the prices are for the lots (most about 3/4 of an acre) only. They have sold six and have two more under contract.
But, yes. If the defendants prevail, it would seem those who were promised “over four miles” of private trout stream might have reason to take legal action against NSD.
John – I suppose the the General Assembly could try something like that. Don’t think they would, though. Would be extremely risky, politically.
In the court documents on North South Development LLC v. Garden that the Virgina Rivers Defense Fund posted, I don’t see discussion of claims about riverbed ownership one way or the coming up during the acquisition of the Smith Bridge access by the Forest Service (or the creation of the whole national forest along the river in the 1930s) or the construction of the old Smith Bridge, of which one pier clearly stands on the riverbed. Were these acquired by eminent domain or by adverse possession?
The landowners say they have been paying taxes levied for riverbed property, which would be state acknowledgment of their property right. In some jurisdictions — I don’t know in VA and should check my own deed — dry-land owners lots may extend to the center of streets, so be taxed, despite the owners’ having granted perpetual easements to the government for travel on the street and sidewalk. In what respect is wading the riverbed like using that roadway or sidewalk?
Folklore and fuzzy generalizations from other places notwithstanding, it’s not clear from state statute that the navigability of the waterway is relevant to Virginia’s ownership of (most) river- and creekbeds on behalf of the public. The Code of Virginia § 28.2-1200 doesn’t distinguish: “All the beds of the bays, rivers, creeks and the shores of the sea within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, not conveyed by special grant or compact according to law, shall remain the property of the Commonwealth and may be used as a common by all the people of the Commonwealth for the purpose of fishing, fowling, hunting, and taking and catching oysters and other shellfish.”
IF “creek” legally includes freshwater streams, brooks and other permanent watercourses, not only tidal creeks, then a lot more water would be wadable by anglers than would be covered by the rule of thumb about navigability. THAT would really open a can of worms to owners of adjacent lands and in-stream barriers.
I’d like to hear from a disinterested land attorney or law professor on all this…
The argument from the American Revolution is simply fatuous (though note that the plaintiffs also rely on grants from the Commonwealth). The Revolution was fought much more about securing the rights of individuals than to promote democratic rule. The newly independent states confirmed the property rights of their citizens that had existed before the Revolution. If — without compensating the landowners — the states had invalidated property rights created in the colonial period, the state governments might have satisfied populist yammering but the taking would have been at least as arbitrary as British actions.
As a Kings Grant landowner (not on the Jackson) let me offer a different perspective. The tax issue doesn’t bother me because we all have to pay taxes regardless of whether or not we have river property. The fishing issue doesn’t bother me because there are certainly enough fish to go around. What does bother me is the overall lack of respect and consideration for others in all facets of our society, including river rights.
For the most part the river users I’ve encountered are friendly and just passing through which is totally fine with me. However, the old saying “one bad apple spoils the bunch” is absolutely alive and well today. I’ve had people throw their trash, primarily beer bottles and cans, along our stretch of water. The broken glass is dangerous and litter in general is disrepectful. I’ve also found where people think our beach is the perfect place to pull over and use the bathroom and no, I’m not talking about urination. I understand that emergencies can occur but seriously, don’t these losers have enough sense to at least use rocks or something to dispose of their “droppings” a few feet away in the brush where nobody walks? Then we have those groups that think “no trespassing” is code for “come party” and they park themselves on the beach with their loud, obnoxious yelling which is generally peppered with profanity and vulgarity. I’m no prude, but sometimes we have guests with children and they don’t need to hear stuff like that.
As of now, those of us with Kings Grants are within our rights to restrict access to our stretches of water. I do not advocate barring people from floating/passing through because that’s unreasonable. I do advocate the right to restrict people from stopping on the property because unfortunately you can’t weed out the trashy folks from the respectful ones. I wait to see how this situation turns out but overall it doesn’t matter because there will always be people who think they are above the law and are self-entitled regardless of what the legislation says.
The developers of this property are trying to save their investment. They have been selling these properties for the past couple of years stating to buyers that they have exclusive rights to the river. (Editor’s note: Section removed because it does not meet Roanoke.com Standards of Use agreement.) They are $capitalizing on the fact that this is a great river with wild trout in it . The trout wouldnt be in there if they hadnt been stocked and managed by the department of ganme and inland fisheries. Also when the first kings grant dispute happened some years back I thought that a number of other property owners tried to jump on board of that case and were denied. The rivers are for everyone to enjoy not just a select few. Greed and a poorly executed business plan are what is driving this. “River Carpetbaggers”. Wealth is not just about money. Is VA really a commonwealth? Hopefully an answer will be in favor for the Common wealth of the citizens of VA. “You never stand in the same water twice” Izzac Walton The stream bed changes constantly as well.
Maybe DGIF needs to build fishing wiers (sp?) below the disputed section and only stock that area. That way, public-owned fish could not swim back upstream to “private” water. Or maybe a second dam. Then instead of a “private” river, they could own a “private” lake.
Mark, seems you’ve run over a yellow jacket nest while mowing the lawn. Glad to see the depth and range of comments on this board, most of which support the public’s right to continue using the Jackson. While we all gravitate to becoming armchair lawyers and legislators and lobbyist when an issue that is personal to us emerges, I’d like to bring everyone’s attention back to the fact that there is a law suit in progress, which if not won by the defendants, makes many of these other ideas/solutions to the “bigger issue” more problematic. In legislative and judicial worlds, the more that is done, the harder it is to undo. The defendants in this case are normal Davids, and they are fighting well-funded Goliaths. What they need is resources, or more litteraly said, donations to their defense fund. Justice in court room is not typically about “truth,” but the “best truth money can buy.” We saw that happen in Kraft v. Burr. I challenge all readers who are contributing to the intellectual and academic debate, to also give to the actual defense. The anglers’ sight is http://www.virginiariversdefensefund.org.
Kim – You’re right that a few slobs do the rest of us a disservice. But, again, this isn’t about people setting foot on the bank. That is clearly trespassing and no one is claiming otherwise. Would people who stop to wade (to fish) be as disrespectful as someone willfully trespassing on land? I’m sure there are slobs who would find a way to pitch a beer can or worm container while wading, too. Unfortunately.
H20 – If you have any questions about why I removed that segment of your comment, please contact me directly.
I may have missed this in the comments and responses, but did the landowners have to prove ownership of the river bottom in order to be subject to local property tax, or was that somehow assumed by the county? This seems crucial, because one of the landowners’ key argument–at least according to Mr. Taylor’s July 31 article–is that paying taxes on the river bottom should afford them rights to restrict use.
Mark , Its all good. Cant remember exactly what was deleted………I apologize for posting something that was not appropriate for the blog……. Thanks I wish you would have also edited my typos too. H2o
I just can’t see why this is any different than fishing in Smith Mountain Lake. You can boat right up to someone’s dock and fish around under and through the dock that somebody built on private property, and they can’t say a thing about it. Yeah, you are trespassing if you are standing on the bank, and maybe that’s what the developers were selling when they marketed the real estate and never thought about navigable traffic. This NEEDS to go to general assembly and legislation NEEDS to do away with Kings Grants. There’s a big reason I did not watch the English wedding on TV, I’M NOT ENGLISH!!!
The defendants are claiming to have only “color of title,” which means they will show the court maybe an original grant or two and then possibly their current title (or tax map) to the river bottom, and say we have “it” all the way down the line. To technically “own” the river bottom they must have an uninterrupted chain of deeds to the river bottom from a crown grant to the current title, for if that chain is broken (in any one transaction along the way) the Virginia statue, which doesn’t allow for ownership of river bottoms, kicks in. However, the sticky wicket here is that they are going to hide behind a standard that was established in Kraft v. Burr which put the burden on the angler (Chuck Kraft) to disprove the ownership claims of the landowner since both parties did not claim ownership of the river bottom. If both parties claimed to own the river bottom then the judge would make both parties show all their evidence and then would decide. This is what is so terrifying about Kraft v. Burr, especially in the hands of greedy people and a judge who only concerns himself with case law versus practical application of law. If the judge only follows Kraft v. Burr, then the plaintiffs could be bluffing and if the defendants can’t raise enough money to do an extensive title research, the judge could grant the injuction b/c the defendants couldn’t “disprove” the claims made by the plaintiff. I have heard that many of the records might have been stored in the Fincastle courthouse which burned down a few years back, making any extensive title search nearly impossible. If this happens then nothing is stopping the next landowner from seeking an injunction against some hapless angler or boy scout, who won’t fight back, to virtually privatize their stretch of river. These things have a way of spreading like a virus.
John H: We see it the way we see it because we are fishermen. If we were landowners or developers we would see it the other way. Rights of ownership is pretty much defined in law. Unfortunately in this case, if the landowner links his property to the grant specifically and directly, they will prevail. BUT, contrary to the views expressed by some, I don’t feel if they win it is going to impact fishing anywhere other than the specific section of the Jackson and maybe with some additional sections. The reality is that any landowner anywhere who can trace the link to a similar grant has always had the ability to restrict people from walking on “their river bottom”.
Still wondering if anyone can name the specific grant in this case????
Al,
According to the legal documents at the Virginia Rivers Defense website, the grants that the plaintiffs claim support their privatization of that section of the revier are the Abercromby Grant filed in 1760 and the Man Grant filed in 1789. One can access these grants in the Virginia Library’s database at http://lva1.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/F/?func=file&file_name=find-b-clas30&local_base=CLAS30. The language is the King’s English and the writing is old script, but you can magnify them each and read them pretty well. They certainly convey a lot of land, but unless I am missing something, you need to be a pretty imaginative developer to read anything like streambed ownership or exclusive fishing rghts into them. In the grants in the Kraft case, both streambeds and fishing were specifically mentioned in the major grant. So if the plaintiffs win this case, it seems it will take a very generous reading of the grants in favor of the plaintiffs, which is why (in my view) what makes this case so important for public rights on other rivers.
Ben: THANK YOU VERY MUCH! I will read them. Funny however, I went back to a paper done by some people at VT in 1999 which identified the grants of the Kraft v Burr case as “William Jackson grant of June 1,1750 and then a second grant to a “Richard Morris in 1769″.
That can be found in the paper, “Inland Recreational Fishing Rights in Virginia: Implications of the Virginia Supreme Court Case Kraft v Burr.”
I think the web address may be http://www.vwrrc.vt.edu/vwrrc.htm
I scribed this from the paper, not posted as a link.
Ben, You hit the nail on the head. As much as the plaintiffs wish their land was part of the crown and commonwealth grants which were the subject of the Kraft v. Burr case, it isn’t. However, this hasn’t stopped them from using a much more lenient standard (“color of title”) to sue the anglers in hopes a judge will let them hide behind the part of Kraft v. Burr which said, since both parties don’t claim ownership of the stream bed, the onus was put on Chuck Kraft to disprove the claims of the parties who claimed to own the land. In Kraft v. Burr the land owners had grants which specifically referenced stream beds. In this case no one can find the evidence of “stream bed” being mentioned.
At the end of the day, the possibility exists for the plaintiffs to win this case without ever proving in court they own the river bottom. That is why the case is so dangerous, because this civil suit tactic could spread to land owners who “wished” they’d owned the bottom and attempt to make is so by suing an ussuspecting, poorly financed party. A boy scout for example.
If issued, this injunction is as good as a cable across the river. Folks had better take this as seriously as if someone were trying to run cable across their river.
To clarify on the Jackson in particular, in the Kraft case the river was found to be navigable by the court based on the US Corps of Engineers assessment. PERIOD. DONE. FINISHED. Navigable waterways are under the jurisdiction of the US GOVERNMENT NOT THE KING OF ENGLAND. The water and beds are OWNED by the respective states. If there is any ruling otherwise then there is a fox in the henhouse but politics have made this an issue for decades in this state. I’ve spoken with several state officials about this over the years and most are on the peoples side, but as one person explained, “they know it’s a problem and something needs to be done but nobody wants to stick their neck out and make any waves”. It’s all about politics and money, the common man doesn’t stand a chance. Do you think the AG is going to PO some wealthy landowners that could contribute to his election fund? Or any politician? Judges are appointed in this state not elected, gee think there’s any political influence there? The CA in Bath bragged about charging a group of Boy Scouts with trespass for canoeing the Cowpasture, the Boy Scouts! One of the oldest conservation groups in the country! One man I interviewed was threatened with trespass by a state warden for parking on the side of a state road by a bridge, claiming the road and bridge was only an “easement” on private property. Blueprints from VDOT western district office show a 22 ft state OWNED right of way from the centerline outward at either side of the road including the bridge. As a VDOT engineer explained, “you don’t think the state would be dunb enough to spend a million bucks on a two lane bridge placed on an easement do you?” Most of the state from Fairfax to the mountains was a land grant at one time, whats next, we can’t use the Shenandoah, James or Potomac. Wake up Virginians.
on the lighter side…..an email from a fellow angler;
“oh yeah i can see it now, it’s 1790 and having survived the Revolution a veteran of the Virginia militia is pulling his canoe along a stretch of the Jackson, heavily laden with his trade of furs and game he enjoys the peace and solitude of the river and mountains. Suddenly, out of a small field a farmer appears proclaiming angrily, hey! You can’t do that! Thats my river and I have a grant from the King to prove it!
First off I want to say, Thank you.
Your column and blog is a huge asset to outdoors men, women and even tourism in our area. I truly believe your column and blog helped to advance the Sunday Hunting Bill in the Legislature this year due to your readership and stance.
I know my fishing buddies from the Charlotte area ask me to forward them your Thursday reports before deciding on making a trip to the New, James or staying in NC for the weekends.
Secondly I am looking at planning a trip to the Jackson, below the dam for a float and fish soon. I have no knowledge of the river other than the “Crown Grant” issues and I am not exactly sure which portions of the Jackson River should be off limits. I have a few friends that are novice floaters that want to take a trip and I thought the Jackson might be suitable for a couples outing for mostly floating and some fishing. I could float the river and scout for a future more serious fishing float for the boys.
If you have any recommendations for put in/take outs and areas to avoid I would certainly appreciate any
advice or suggestions.
Thanks again for all the hard “work”.