tjm

If DNR can't fund them as Parks transfer them to MDC as Conservation Areas. State Park near me has never had any development except a short hiking trial, closed to hunting trapping and fishing even though it has creek frontage, a few thousand acres designated Natural Area and the recreation that takes place there is evident by the 'rubber' in the parking lot.

oh,no; old news is fake news Ain't it? Yep demographics would be all them dang boaters, huh? I've said they were all lowlife maggots ever since the first time a wake filled my waders.

fishinwrench, did you send a link to the local agent?

Bet they can't spell genius either. They know now the comments section covered that.

yessir

Were they in the Zone area? been 30 years since I fished there so don't recognize the hole) Because he said Niangua River below Bennet, and the MDC site says " Catch-and-release rules do not apply to fishing in the winter on the Niangua River... All regular-season rules and regulations regarding licenses, permits and possession limits are in effect, however, and brown trout cannot be kept unless they are 15” or more in length. " I may have missed it but did they refer to Cricket or this forum? Again because MDC says that stretch is good for bass and rock bass. I don't think this thread is what got them there.

That will generate some school funds. Can they take the boat too like in other crimes? Criminals will be criminals and poachers will poach, since they were violating the gig law in a couple of ways this doesn't really have anything to do with legal giging, does it? I believe it comes from allowing the use of boats on that water. A background investigation for all boat registration might keep some criminal types from that kind of poaching.

Wonder what % of Mo. fishermen are primarily catch to release fishermen, never handle fish out of the water, never kill fish, never give fish boat rides , barbless single hook guys? heck count the release to die guys too and the ones that use lures with multiple trebles Would that number of permit sales pay for the research and management of all the fisheries? Acquisition of more access? How many people come through the state each year that buy a short NR permit would buy one if catch to release were mandatory? How many kids never start fishing because of don't keep laws? That one is impossible to guess.

Prohibit boats too, I can kinda see where that would help; but it wouldn't be very popular. Do they prohibit boats in Indiana?

Not been there and don't plan to go, had to search "Dream Stream" though, as I had never heard of it. Pics look like a canal (no shade either) running through a dessert so the scenery is different than Norfork. Ad said they sometimes get salmon, so thats different. 3.8 miles Co. or 5 miles Ar. If I had a choice right now, I'd go to Ar. But if I had never been west I might chose differently. Good luck.

math challenged? So, prohibit a method, say worm dunking that was mentioned, (gig/bow/ Treble hooks/whatever) and the folks that practice that method will not buy permits, get it? Loss of revenue, see? Heck, they might even turn around and prohibit your method or mine. The current extra special smallmouth management says I cannot keep any pan size smallmouth on the nearby river, why would I buy a permit to fish if it's illegal to keep them? Again loss of revenue. Keep the trend going and soon only the few will have to pay all the cost of fish management, straw and camel?

Them cat fish only got that big because there were no gig fishers on that part of the Mississippi and Missouri. Now you posted that there will be a rush to gig that area. Then there will be no more carp left there either.

This how I would expect it to work from the study I did. Prosecutor has to look at the facts and at all those precedents then determine if the case is valid or not. Next instance will be treated the same way, just as the Scotus has directed. Actually I think very few trespass cases go to court, I saw numbers somewhere once and iirc it was only couple hundred statewide in that year and total fines were like $7000. Given size of the state and number of incidents I hear of I was surprised. That may been just number fish and wildlife related.

On the subject of access, I heard rumor a number of years ago that the canoe rental people were behind the closing of row access, guy told me that they wanted all floats to go through them, money involved he said. Suppose that might be true?

Average joes buy more licenses than trophy joes do, y"all need to stop and thank them for paying most of the management cost so that you can play. Trophy management just might cost that support if the regulations are too slanted against them. Personally I have no real desire to catch just large fish, rather catch many fish; big ones count the same as tiny ones when you are there for the act of fishing in a beautiful place. No lake in the world has good fishing, none. And if you have to have to measure it in inches or in pounds, you have missed to point.

It depends, some places (state wide?) 12"-6 fish, some places (special management areas, some or all?) 15"-1 fish. https://huntfish.mdc.mo.gov/fishing/seasons/species this list some of the special management areas https://mdc.mo.gov/search/google-appliance/special%2Bmanagement%2Bareas I think the theory is keep adding more regulations and making them harder to find til only catch and release folks bother to buy a permit.

Got any ideas for a solution to the access problem? I think the elimination of parking is deliberate, small enforcement budgets and lots of complaints (not just the few idiots, the many idiots) brings a county to the point where economics play a part. "No parking" signs didn't work so they remove the possibility. I know a couple places where the state road row is wide enough that you could in the past drive down the ditch bank to the stream under the bridge that the state removed the access. (I assumed at county request.) Case law is (in my understanding) only applied in the courts, in this case it would be a guide for the prosecutor to press trespass charges or not to and to the court in deciding the charge. But it would not prevent a landowner from filing charges, if a charge is filed I believe the sheriff is obliged to make an arrest, isn't he? Navigability does play a large part, not because of the obvious reasons though, navigability at time of state hood determined who owns the stream bed and thus has bearing on land adjacent. Then fifty eleven prior decisions both at federal level and in similar state cases are compared with the facts . As to whether a stream meets requirements as an easement, in an A.G. opinion in 1971 John Danforth suggested the prosecuting attorney for the given county was "in the best position to make such determination" then lists a number of rivers in Mo. that had been judged as navigable or as to easement for the prosecutor to use as comparison. Danforth said that in Elder it says "Each case involving a river must be decided with reference to it's own facts". I don't think size of stream bed or discharge rate is necessarily the determining factor.

I thought Elder v Delcour made it clear that the decision applied only to that stretch of that river, thought it referred to a SCOTUS ruling that essentially required individual assessment for each stream. But I'm not a lawyer and there were so many "if this" "maybe that" and "judicial notices" that I'm probably mistaken. Did the Supreme Court of Mo write into their decision that it applied to all waters of the state? Is that decision actually a law or is it the reference to which a court might look for guidance?

My neighbor provided a couple 50gal barrels for trash once, he'd move them from the gravel bar to the dumpster area with his tractor and paid the trash company to haul it. That lasted a couple months til some folks emptied the trash on the bar and stole the barrels. Knowing what I've seen happen on some nearby creek land, I would not give ten cents an acre for a farm with a creek flowing across it, unless it was for immediate resale.

Why is it that we are losing access, in your opinion?

Fairly good article, Trout Addict, but leaves me unsure of what they said. Navigable rivers in Mo. are the Missouri River, the Grand River and the Mississippi River if I recall what I researched some years ago. Mo. DNR 300 page summation of Missouri's water laws; http://dnr.mo.gov/pubs/WR51.pdf Several years ago I found this blog (which the article links also) to be the most help in my (sort of) understanding of the mess; https://styronblog.com/law/harry-styrons-missouri-stream-law/ follow all his links and be prepared to spend some time with it. If the stream is considered a public way then come the arguments over waters edge or high water mark and where the high water mark and where that is located. Locally that seems to change with each case or perhaps with each Prosecutor. And do the log jams affect navigability? Last case I heard about apparently the land owner could prevent a canoe from portaging around or from removing the logs, but that was just what I got from a third party. Case can also turn on what is the "ordinary condition" of the water in question. Not long ago I could cross a popular float stream and not wet my feet; is this navigable? When the creek moves over 50-100 yards from a flood what rights/boundaries/row/privilages does that change? Does a list exist of waters that are legally canoe navigable? I found none. If not then it remains one case at a time. Land owner has to press charges and prosecutor has to take it through the courts, most often this is more trouble than people want; so they just bluster and threaten. I think the land owner has to post the stream side every 100 feet or purple paint it to actually call it posted, but I'm not clear on that, it may suffice to post both sides of the stream at the entry point. I can show you purple paint on the guard rail of a US highway row. Haven't tested it's legality. Other posted signs within the county road rows.

One that big probably has all the contaminants that you need for month or two any way, I like the 11" better to eat.

Banging on doors and asking permission sometimes works in this kind of situation. Hand guns were mentioned, handguns can be construed as provocative; I mention hunting ducks as a legal option, If the stream is actually a public way. In camo with shotguns you can always argue non provocation. Jus out doin a bit o huntin.

Research the history of the creek, chances are the man is right, Mo. stream law is non existent, except case law; which if I understand it means each instance or dispute has to be tried separately, but if you can find that the stream portion was used historically for commercial use or transport of goods to market, then we can claim it as a public thoroughfare. Stream use is not up to MDC as an agency, they provide access to water on property that they own, it is up to us to figure the rest of the stream out. In general if the stream was meandered when the land was first surveyed stream use is public. I am not sure, but I don't think any streams in the Ozark region were meandered, most land deeds run under the streams and land owners pay taxes on every inch of it. Eleven miles at average width of fifty feet works out about 67 acres that the guy is taxed on at the same rate as good crop land year after year after year, with zero benefit. If the stream was not used historically as a thoroughfare, we would be trespassers, if we entered it without landowner permissions. Any of you have a yard? Maybe an acreage? Do you want uninvited strangers to come there and use it as their own? Just think about it. Your property, your privacy, your liability if the stranger gets injured while on your property; still want those peckerheads in your yard doing who knows what? If you have a tent would you enter a random yard in town and set your tent up? Cook your diner there? Would you stand up for my "right" to do so? What Mo. needs badly is a legislated/codified stream law that is universal. On streams where the land is currently deeded the state could take the stream bed to a high water point as public by eminent domain and pay the land owners for it at going price of good crop land. State could then take access lands as well and people could Legally use these waters. Get the float clubs, the fish clubs, the conservation clubs and maybe the hunters all involved as a coalition. Call write email all the legislators, go see the governor.

Nice weather for it. Sounds like a good time. Nearly a lost art, haven't seen any giggers in years. Don't know of any one who grabs either.