# QLD Gold Coast/Bass Secret spot no 3



## mehi (May 25, 2009)

I hit one of the many small creeks in the Gold Coast hinterland this morning, no more than a hundred yards into the 
paddle I picked up my 1st Bass using a sml Heddon tiny torpedoe it went 44cm, another hundred yards and I came up 
against my 1st obstackle for the morning, fallen trees and rapids had to carry the yak 30 yards, in this small pool
I hooked another 2 Bass 38cm and 36cm, then comes obstackle no 2 another yak carry of 40 odd yards I catch one more 
Bass in this pool this one goes 41cm, and thats when all hell breaks loose, out of the bush comes a great big black bloody dog
the bastard knocks me out of the kayak, lucky for me the water was only 2ft deep. Then this tosser come down to the waters edge
and tells me to f#$K off that he owns the river, at this stage I thought f$#k this I'm going home, lucky for him I dont post up where my
secret spot no 3 is. Too many Big Bass in this section to tell every one scored a 50 plus there a year ago.

Cheers Dave


----------



## Maca (Aug 29, 2008)

Is it actually possible to own a river?

PS. Nice fish.


----------



## wongus (Feb 12, 2006)

Nice fish.. pity about the local ********.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Dave , great work , now mate , take yourself down to cash converters and buy an old banjo , then off to St vinnie de Pauls for an old cardigan , button it up incorrectly and take the whole kit with you , you wont have an ounce of trouble i can assure you after that :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plasman (Aug 27, 2008)

Ha ha a couple of nice locals there Dave.
I'm sure we can get together a banjo playing band and give this very posessive alleged river owner a couple of new hips too if he likes to own things.
Just jokes :lol: 
You sure it was a dog? It could have been his missus ;-) .


----------



## mojofunk (Nov 1, 2006)

Its not possible to own a river/creek. The land owner cant stop you from being there unless they have a mining lease (pretty much no one has one). The ******* was full of shit. He only owns the land from the high water mark. Land owners cant stop you from legally fishing a creek or river that runs through their property. The waterways are for everybody. I know land owners get the shits because yobbos leave unused bait and rubbish lying around but I wish they could be a little more understanding.


----------



## kayaksportsmark (Apr 1, 2009)

mojofunk said:


> .......... I know land owners get the shits because yobbos leave unused bait and rubbish lying around but I wish they could be a little more understanding.


Damn Yobbos ruin it for everyone.

Sounds like the guy and his dog are Yobbos and maybe patrolling their crop. 
Can you become his friend and get some bootleg gulpjuice?


----------



## clarkey (Jan 13, 2009)

kayaksportsmark said:


> [
> Sounds like the guy and his dog are Yobbos and maybe patrolling their crop.
> Can you become his friend and get some bootleg gulpjuice?


mmmmmmmmmm gulpjuice only 3 days to go
what an a$*hole do you reakon he set the dog onto you,if so tell the council and i bet they say it's not his land
anyhow nice fish
clarkey


----------



## Decay (Feb 25, 2008)

Nice fish, Do we have any lawyers in the AKFF that would like to go for a paddle down the same creek, maybe he could set the land owner straight :twisted:


----------



## dishley (Jan 20, 2009)

I'm no lawyer but i'd like to set him straight.


----------



## tonyp (Sep 27, 2008)

Hi Dave,

I think I know your water way as I live here and sneak around during the week in our small Gold Coast streams.

Below is a cut and paste from one of my club members whom got the info from the the Dept. Natural Resources and Mining and has been confirmed by a contractor whom surveys such area's. Read and take what you like but it interesting read. 
I doubt the dickwart with the dog has any ownership but they always think they do. 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boat and canoe access to rivers.

That part of a river, creek or stream that extends upstream from the tidal limit is a "watercourse" under the Water Act 2000. 
In terms of tenure, watercourses under the Water Act fall into two categories, watercourses that form the boundary, in whole or part, of (adjoining) land and those that do not form the boundary of land.

Accordingly, in common language, watercourses are referred to as "boundary" or "non-boundary" watercourses.

Under the Water Act (s21), the bed and banks of a "boundary" watercourse are declared to be, and always to have been, the property of the State. That is, the land that comprises the bed and banks (the channel) of a "boundary" watercourse is State land, the tenure of which is distinctly separate from the adjoining tenure which could be, for example, freehold or State leasehold. The tenure of the land comprising the bed and banks of a "boundary" watercourse is 'unallocated State land'.

However, in those instances where a watercourse is a "non-boundary" watercourse, the land comprising the bed and banks is contained within the tenure of the adjacent land. That is, the tenure of the land that comprises the bed and banks is same as that of the adjacent land, eg freehold or State leasehold, and is indistinguishable from that adjoining tenure.

The Water Act (again s21) gives certain rights over the State land in a "boundary" watercourse to the owner of the adjoining land. These rights are:

* the right of access to the part of the bed or bank that adjoins the owner's land for the owner and the owner's family, employees, etc and stock;

* the right to graze stock on the part of the bed or bank that adjoins the owner's land;

* the right to bring an action against a person who trespasses on the part of the bed or bank that adjoins the owner's land (as if the adjoining owner were the registered owner of the bed and bank).

The Act does not need to establish similar rights in respect of "non-boundary" watercourses, because those rights in any event sit with the tenure holder, i.e. with the owner of the land.

The Department's interpretation of what these land ownership arrangements mean for boating on water in watercourses is:
For "boundary" watercourses - water in "boundary" watercourses, i.e. water on the State land comprising the bed and banks, may be traversed by (third parties in) boats, however a boat may not be anchored to, or landed on, that part of the bed or bank to which the owner's land adjoins, and boat occupant/s may not alight onto such land, without the consent of the owner of the adjoining land. In the absence of consent, anchorage or landings would represent trespass which the owner of the adjoining land could remedy in accordance with the right given under s21 of the Act.

For "non-boundary" watercourses - water in "non-boundary" watercourses, i.e. water on the land comprising the bed and banks that is contained in the tenure of the adjoining land, may not be traversed by (third parties) in boats without the consent of the owner of the land that contains the watercourse.

Its worth noting that the "boundary" or "non-boundary" status of any particular watercourse is not necessarily distinguishable on the ground and furthermore, that the "boundary" or "non-boundary" status of a watercourse might not be consistent along its length. Indeed, it is the case that some relatively minor creeks are "boundary" watercourses, while there are some sections of major rivers that are "non-boundary" watercourses - for example, there are some sections of the Condamine River that are "non-boundary" and the Condamine River - North Branch is a roughly equal split along its length.

Against this background, and notwithstanding that water in "boundary" watercourses may be traversed by boats without the consent of adjoining landowners, the department's advice to persons seeking to boat on any watercourse is that they should always, in the first instance, approach the owner of the adjoining land and co-operate with the owner to meet any requirements that the owner might have, for example, in relation to the non-disturbance of stock and avoidance of infrastructure such as fencing or pumping equipment.

While the information is based on the department's interpretation of the statutory position, it is not legal advice. If you require legal certainty, it would be appropriate for you to obtain independent professional advice.


----------



## dishley (Jan 20, 2009)

So do landowners have the right to let there cattle to the waters edge in a boundary situation?


----------



## Dodge (Oct 12, 2005)

Dave sounds like an electric cattle prod, and a hard hat, might be an asset up that creek....and nice fishing mate.


----------



## stitcho (Jun 29, 2007)

Nice work Dave. Great looking spot, nothing like bass in skinny water.

- D.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

dishley said:


> So do landowners have the right to let there cattle to the waters edge in a boundary situation?





tonyp said:


> The Water Act (again s21) gives certain rights over the State land in a "boundary" watercourse to the owner of the adjoining land. These rights are:
> 
> * the right of access to the part of the bed or bank that adjoins the owner's land for the owner and the owner's family, employees, etc and stock;
> 
> ** the right to graze stock on the part of the bed or bank that adjoins the owner's land;*


Sorry to hijack, probably worthy of a separate topic. Freehold title gives more rights than a lot of people realise. A block of land adjacent to a watercourse is no different to a house block adjoing another house block, you have the right to stop people at your boundary if you wish. If you aren't at the boundary to stop them they have free access to your front door to ask permission to enter. Living in a country where we have so much open space is a great thing, however we should respect the fact that not all open space is public (banjo resonating in background)


----------



## mehi (May 25, 2009)

Well guys,

I have now had 24hrs to think about the incident with this Bloke, and I can sort of see his point, he walks over the 
top of this bank and see's a soaking wet Kayaker smacking the absolute shit out of his dog with a paddle. For one the dog was 
doing his job, and the so called land owner was protecting his property. I would of loved to have seen my face when cujo came over the bank.

I for one thought I had every right to be there but after speaking to a mate who is a Lawyer, with out going into specific details, in some cases
it is tresspassing. But not in this case, my mate will look into it and hopefully find the appropriate documentation, I will then post it up when we 
are absolutely sure of the Laws relating to this incident.

Cheers Dave


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)

Nice report, makes for an interesting read...

You didnt mention the 'Smacking the absoloute shit out of his dog' before though?

I would have left too.


----------



## mehi (May 25, 2009)

paffoh said:


> Nice report, makes for an interesting read...
> 
> You didnt mention the 'Smacking the absoloute shit out of his dog' before though?
> 
> I would have left too.


it's funny how you reflect on things that happen, and relise that you are partly to blame, but it was a reaction that I think most 
people would of done given the circumstances( and when I say smacking the shit out of the dog,figure of speach. I was just defending myself,
I was actually hitting the water more than the dog.)

Cheers Dave


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

YOu didn't mention that you got stuck into his dog, now that's a totally different story! I would have kept hitting until the dog, no excuse for being attacked by a dog regardless of where you are....imagine it was an innocent child.

Yep, definitely banjo country!


----------

