fiveweight

If greater enforcement is not practical, a similar effect should be obtained by increasing the cost of noncompliance. Obviously not everyone is rational, but some violators are, and to them the cost of a one in twenty chance of getting caught with a fifty dollar fine is much less than a one in twenty chance of getting caught with a thousand dollar fine (just for hypothetical reasoning).

The smallest hooks I've found are 30, tried tying some little gnat-like flies on them and had the same problem - they tend to bend when you are working with them. The same thing happens when you fight fish even if they don't slip out they unbend. I may have caught a small stocker bow or two at one of the tailwaters but they're mostly just for fun. Now, 24s and we're talkin. Dries of all sorts, but usually it doesn't need to get any more complicated than a thread body, no tail, no wing, and a couple turns of hackle or CDC on top. I find more than that and they get weighted down too much by the thread, and even when they do float they don't fish as well as when they are really sparse. 24 also makes a great baetis nymph with a micro sized black bead head and a strip of olive scud back cut in half length wise, wrapped around the shank and tied off with olive thread. I've had some killer days with that fly and not a bad hookup rate either for such a tiny thing (maybe 50%). One thing I think about those little micro flies, no matter what style you tie if you can get away with it, a scud bend hook holds fish the best.

Some great points brought up. I really hate that the law is so ambiguous and interperited differently in different states. I would have to think that if anything kayakable under normal conditions is considered navigable, that would include the section you mentioned, especially with the "obstacles" clause described in NORS. Maybe it's just my point of view, but it sure seems a lot of kayakable stream is considered private by the landowners and fishermen tend to access water relatively conservatively. I would imagine it would only open up water to clarify by the navigability test, but either way I would prefer to know strict limits rather than worry about conflict. And though I'm not yet a landowner on a stream, some day when I am in the market for a piece of streamside property I would prefer that the law be clarified at that point so I can accurately assess the situation with those considerations and not have to worry about potential conflicts. So it would ultimately be beneficial to everyone for this whole mess to get cleared up. Regarding the use of "river", "creek", or "fork" to name waterways, those are arbitrarially assigned. There is no strict definition of what is a river or a creek. Point and case, go to northern Wisconsin and regionally most streams I would think of as creeks are called rivers by name. It's probably a regional thing and as Al mentioned, the stream doesn't change names just because you venture farther up. Also, a lot of "rivers" start with shorter and smaller streams than some of the feeder creeks - the main branch is sometimes simply identified because it was the most familiar or geographically significant when the first map was drawn.

Here, too: http://www.adventuresports.com/river/nors/states/mo-law.htm

From information I have read in various sources, that is not correct that a river is automatically private until deemed navigable. It sounds like the MDC agent either did not know the exact law or was just looking for the convenient way out, or just said something they heard or what sounded like common sense. After all, they have to enforce thousands of laws and can't memorize them all. I think he was wrong about that and I hope you write to the MDC office to get confirmation because it sounds really bogus. I would try to find the original source of the facts listed on this site and present them to MDC if I were you. http://www.nors.org/us-law-menu.htm - click the link "river fact or fiction" to see what's below. Other links are good too. Misconception: A court, or government agency, designates rivers as legally navigable. If a river isn't officially designated, it isn't legally navigable. Fact: The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "rivers that are anvigable in fact are navigable in law." If a river is physically navigable, it is legally navigable. No court or agency has to designate it as such. Misconception: Only certain large rivers, capable of navigation by motorized ships carrying commercial freight, are legally navigable. Other rivers, where they flow through private land, belong to the surrounding landowners. The public may be allowed to run such rivers in some cases, but may not touch the banks. Fact: Even rivers that are physically navigable only by canoe, kayak, and raft are still legally navigable. (The courts have also ruled that commercial recreational river trips qualify as commerce). Because they are legally navigable, such rivers are held in trust for the public by the states, for navigation, recreation, and fisheries. The land along them is public land up to the ordinary high water mark (which can be quite a distance from the water--it's the land where the vegetation and soil show the effects of water.) The public can use this land for walking, fishing, resting, camping, and other non-destructive visits. Misconception: If a landowner's property deed includes the land around a river, and makes no mention of the river being public, then the river is private. Fact: Public ownership of physically navigable rivers, including the land up to the ordinary high water mark, pre-dates property deeds. What the property deed says or doesn't say about the river is irrelevant. Misconception: Rivers that flow through federal land (National Parks, National Forests, etc.) belong to federal agencies, whose "river management plans" can determine when, and if, navigation and recreation will be allowed. Fact: Physically navigable rivers that flow through federal lands are still held in trust for the public by the states. River management plans must preserve the public's paramount rights to navigate and recreate on these rivers. Misconception: Since the state "owns" the river and the land up to the ordinary high water mark, the state can sell or give away the river to private owners for various projects or private uses. Fact: The state does not actually own the river, it holds it in trust for the public for navigation, recreation, and fisheries. The state is obligated to preserve the river for these public benefits. Misconception: Public ownership of physically navigable rivers varies from state to state, as do the public's rights to canoe, kayak, raft, walk along, and otherwise visit such rivers. Fact: Public ownership of physically navigable rivers is the same in all states. It's a U.S. Supreme Court standard, and it includes those rivers that are physically navigabale by canoe, kayak, and raft. The public's right to visit additional non-navigable streams (those too small for even canoes, kayaks, and rafts) does vary from state to state, but this variation only applies to those small streams.

This has been a topic of interest for me for years. What I have learned, boiled down to a couple sentences, is that all navigable waterways are protected by a federal act and held in trust by the states. That means that while each state is required to respect public right of use for navigable waterways, the test of what is "navigable" is ambiguous and interperited differently by each state. Additionally, certain states have laws which restrict access to streambed and shoreline up to the high water mark for the landowner, and though these laws are enforced at a state level, their legitimacy is controversial. Fortunately in Missouri and Arkansas, I believe anything considered navigable is accessible up to the high water mark. In Wisconsin, for example, a navigable waterway is more clearly defined as any stream capable of floating a small craft like a kayak just one day per year. Recreational tourism is a form of commerce that fulfills the requirement, and that includes kayaks and canoes. That means any dranage ditch which gets flooded and runs into a river is fair game all year long. Basically, everything capable of holding fish in Wisconsin is fair game so long as you keep your feet wet and access the water from a public access. Some states take different interperitations, but most Missouri trout streams would likely fit the definition of navigable if tested, in my opinion. By my understanding, in Missouri, the waterway is not unnavigable de facto - it is simply untested. It is still either navigable or not whether it has been tested through a judicial decision though. This does not mean an ignorant landowner cannot try to have you arrested, and it does not mean an enforcement officer would not necessarially follow through (after all, they probably don't know for sure either). It just means that until a judge who looks at the federal act and the state definition of navigability decides one way or another on any particular waterway, it is left undefined. Furthermore, the judge is not designating the stream navigable or not, it is simply their job to determine whether a stream meets the test of navigability. This should be an objective decision based solely on the state test of navigability. Having said that, any waterway capable of being canoed should meet the test of navigability in Missouri if it came before a judge and that includes just about anywhere you'd be likely to fish for trout. I strongly recommend visiting the site nors.org. Particularly the links from this page: http://www.nors.org/us-law-menu.htm They used to have a section describing how the law is tested in each state, but the site seems to be missing that information currently. Here is an interesting tidbit from that site suggesting you don't necessarially need thousands of dollars to fight a tresspassing offense on navigable water: "The Chicago Whitewater Association (www.izarea.org/cwa) reports that a man was ticketed for fishing on a section of river running through private property. Although the absent property owner had not complained about the activity, a Department of Natural Resources official ticketed the man anyway. The fisherman took his complain to court, where the judge found him not guilty because the state had not shown beyond a reasonable doubt that he had violated any law. His defense was based on sections 18 and 26 of the Illinois statutes protecting the right of the people to have access to all navigable waterways, regardless of the ownership of the adjoining banks."

Where did you see the number 290 per mile? The figure I heard from a conservation agent a few years ago was under 100 for the entire stream by some census they took. Maybe that only counts adults or just the ones they caught, but I don't think of it as a high density stream by any means. I sometimes find a few fish but there are also large stretches of water with no fish so like you said, the pools are a good spot. Smallies = bonus!

How did you find out what their planned generation was for the next day? Is there a resource somewhere?

We had a great trip. I had called our outfitter to make sure the forest service had cleared the trees you were talking about and they had. The upper section was a little hairy in a fully loaded canoe from the Ponca Bridge to a little below Kyle's. Actually, that stretch of whitewater above Kyle's sank us. We researched and scouted it, picked our best line, and it still wasn't enough. There were about 20 unavoidable waves about 2-3 feet tall and each one put a few more gallons in the canoe until we were completely submerged halfway through. Luckily we were staying at Kyle's the first night and were able to dry everything out. Our outfitter told us we wouldn't catch anything with the water up and cold, but we found a few smallies here and there throughout the upper section and more as we got around Ozark, slowing down a bit as we got in deeper water until Carver.

Wow, that's great information. I'll make notes to take with us. Was Kyle's to Ozark the entire stretch you floated, or just the notably dangerous section? Also, the thought just occurred to me: We plan to camp on gravel bars like most other Ozark streams. But are there ample gravel bars to camp on throughout the entire Ponca to Carver section, or does it happen to be hard to find safe high places like on the Eleven Point? I really don't want to camp at designated campgrounds, but don't know what options there are.

Thanks Deltaqueen. The first link didn't work but the second was quite informative. Bobber, thanks for the response but I'm a little confused. You say "unless we do get some rain you better be thinking the middle river", but then you warn about getting trapped in a flash flood because the river rises so much with rain. So under what conditions would the upper section be canoeable. And when you say the upper section is class III, do you mean Ponca down for a few miles or above that? Yes, we are using an outfitter to shuttle my car so they maybe can tell me if the river isn't in good condition on the day-of, but the lady there also wasn't real informative when I asked about current conditions so we'll have to use good judgement. I just don't want to drive five hours down and find out we can't go.

I'll be moving away from Missouri but first want to take one last great trip through the Buffalo, one river I've never done before. I need some help for river levels - levels to watch for on gauges or how much rainfall it will take to make us change our plans. Here's what we have planned - float Ponca to Carver a week from tomorrow, for 4 days (April 25-28). I know the water level is good right now for floating and decent for fishing, but it can change before next week. We really want to fish, and fly fish if possible but that requires non-muddy water. With some rain in the forecast, how much can the river take before it would be less than ideal to float and fish? Also, we aren't good at packing light. My canoe is big, but heavy too. We're experienced, but will there be any obstacles we need to watch out for with a heavy load? Any advice is appreciated.

Wow, those are amazing. Can you give any info on them? Which ones were from where or when?

Vic, I still have some of that husky dubbing you gave me a few years back. It kinda stinks now but makes a good base for buggers or white leeches. My roommate's dog used to jump on my lap while I was tying. I have a few tan Jack Russel caddises that have seen fish. Similar to deer hair but doesn't flair out as much as belly fur and is straighter and shorter than buck tail. It would probably make great stoneflies. Also have a red squirrel tail someone gave me. It's coarser, bushier and longer than the body fur you'd use to dub a GRHE but makes nice wings on classic wets.

How tall a person are they made for?