Perfect answer. Funny how that works, huh?

and another thing, by keeping people out you arent conserving anything for the kids, cause they will never see it.

And then you have Oklahoma where the Indian tribes lay claim to the waters. That does make it complicated.

Pretty simple in New Mexico, since I have been fishing at a young age, you can fish any stream, river - the riverbed is public. Someone may own the land adjacent so you may not go trespassing on their land, but there is plenty of national forest land around to gain access.

Really has not been a problem. I have a lake house and the Army Corp controls the shoreline, works too.

I kayak a lot and it always amazes me the "vibe" on different rivers. I've been on rivers here in TX where the property owners are way cool and inviting. I work the TX Water Safari most years and on the entire 260 mile course there is only about 3 miles of shore that the owners do not allow race functions on their property (which is their perogative).

I've also been on rivers where you find barb wire strung across river beds, right of ways blocked, and encountered some irate landowners while on the water. The law says any navigable waterway is fair game. You'd actually be surprised what constitutes navigable in some streams.

I totally understand where a landowner would not want his place trashed out like above.

Its just gonna take mutual respect by sportsman and landowners. If you are found trashing a place you should no longer be allowed to buy a sporting license.

The creekbed on my property was deeded to my family when they aquired it in 1873. Back then they deeded to the center of the creek so if you owned both sides you owned the creekbed. The state took possession of most of the riverbeds back when, but not all of the creeks. If and when our family sells it to someone outside the family the creekbed will automatically become state property.
As far as if there is water under the public crossing yes if the creek is full you can FLOAT down the creek but it is not legal to Walk in on someones property on the bank to fish without the landowners permission. The problem is that people think that if a creek crosses under a public road that is an access point. That is generally not true either the property under every bridge is not public or public access.
I do wish people would respect property but to be honest it is a lot of bad apples. Probably not the people on this forum but most that come in on my litter at the very least.

Pretty much spot on with the way I think and the things I've seen. Unfortunately seen barbed wire barricades all too often. I understand wanting to keep the knuckle heads and flat out criminals out, but the good guys are normally the ones asking for permission prior to and the bad guys are the ones that are not gonna be stopped by things like that. I've had fire arms fired in my direction when I was perfectly within my rights. Even after I have called the authorities, said land owner still looked at me cross eyed while brandishing their weapon. I don't go back to places like that even if I'm within my rights. No use being right and dead just to not catch fish.

I also agree with you sir, people shouldn't be strolling on your property like they own it. There are a bunch of knuckle heads and flat out criminals who are just bound and determined to do wrong. I would say that the Navigable Waterway laws allow for folks to float the water and portage out and in as briefly as it takes to get around an obstacle. Over all, I would say you're correct. Too many bad apple ruin things for every one. Land owner and Sportsman (or sportswoman, sorry ladies).

My brother-in-law and I were fishing a stretch of Mary's Creek just outside of Benbrook a few years back. We put his little two man bass buster in off a highway bridge were folks fish from the banks regularly. As we made our way upstream while fishing a German shepherd was following us along the bank growling and barking. We started to get a little nervous as the dog seemed quite aggressive so we moved along as fast as his little TM would push us. The land owner came down to the creek and began to become irate and said we were trespassing and he was gonna call the law if we didn't go back and get out of the creek. After a heated debate and an exchange of a few choice words we left. We called the game warden when we got back home, he said it was obviously a navigable water way and there was nothing the guy could do, plus he would go by and speak with the gentleman about the issue....well the GW called my B- in-law the following day, now he's saying it's not a navigable water way and the land owner does in deed own it???? Not exactly sure what transpired between them or how a landowner can own the water that borders his property on one side but whatever, we just never went back.

What defines a waterway as Navigable? I have heard several different things. One rule that I heard is that if that piece of water averages 30 feet wide from bank to bank (not water line to water line due to fluctuating levels) from it's headwaters to its mouth, then that is considered navigable. But I don't know if that is right at all.

There is only one official navigable waterway in North Texas and that is the Red River. Rivers are considered public waters as are lakes. But creeks unless connected to a lake or river are not considered navigable. Most GW know this some don't.

Not entirely true.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications...igability.phtml
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/navigation/
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/nonpwdpubs/water_issues/rivers/navigation/kennedy/
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/landwater/water/habitats/rivers/

And as for the Red River. Other than a short half section below Denison Dam, the entire Red River is in Oklahoma. The state boundary is the Texas side Bank.

Actually you are looking the wrong direction. West of the south east corner of the panhandle all of the Red River is in Texas. North of Childress west. There isn't much water but it is still considered a navigable waterway. It is even legal to hunt the riverbed there on foot as long as you stay in the boundries of the riverbed.

What is interesting comparing the Virginia case to Texas is this. The arguement in Virginia is the landowners are claiming they own the river bottom based on grants dating back to King George II in the 18th century. Texas already recognizes historical land grants, but our State's historical land grants favor to to the public side of the arguement. If the landowners win in Virginia, it might only give further case law to recognize Texas's recognition of our old land grants for determining ownership to the State/public. "Texas owned the beds of all perennial streams, regardless of navigability, whether grants of land adjacent were made by Spain and Mexico prior to March 2, 1836, or by the Republic of Texas prior to the Act of [December 14,] 1837, by virtue of the civil law of Mexico. ..."

From:
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications...hipofbeds.phtml
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.