Chief Grey Bear

I have been thinking the same thing for a few years now. There are options that should explored especially, I think, by smaller towns. I have thought of a couple of different options that I think would be viable.

My favorite color this time of year!!!! I'll keep in touch.

I hear that!

I wish you two would have picked a different day. I would have loved to have met up with you both. But I will be hunting this weekend. I will have some time tomorrow though.

Have a great time. No need to worry about the forum. Barney, I mean ness is on patrol!

I offered to give you a hug.

Ummm, no. I understood just fine. You said I was familiar with the place. No I am not as I don't need to copy some else's work. I do my own material, not have some one else provide it for me. Now come over here and I'll give you a big ol' hug and make it all better for ya.

Nope. I do all of my own work. That is funny coming from you. You have not contributed one bit to this thread.

Hey TF'85, I just saw your interest. That is freaking funny!!!! You're a good sport. Keep it up buddy!!!!

I really thought you would see the humor in that. And technically I didn't call you a dickweed. So I am only one name up on you. So call me another one and we will be even. Would that make you feel better Nancy Boy??

I am sorry ness. I have hit your sensitive feelings again. Here is a box of tissue you Jackwagon.

Phil hasn't left on his trip yet. So take your Jr. Ranger Forum Secret Monitor badge off.

A managed hunt and hunting on Conservation land are two totally different things. If you hunt a MDC mangaged hunt you do have to purchase a Managed hunt tag. But you do not have to purchase any special tags to hunt on Conservation land.

Where do you keep coming up with this stuff???? Ehh, maybe. But you shut down stream fishing because the land is not public on both sides and you will loose a butt load of money. I don't have current figures but even though these are 10 years old, it is very eye opening. Top 10 Fishing States Ranked by Resident Retail Sales Florida $4,412,241,741 Texas $3,366,961,760 Minnesota $2,832,442,963 California $2,677,352,981 Michigan $2,099,582,373 Pennsylvania $1,794,966,426 Wisconsin $1,754,539,873 South Carolina $1,492,735,367 North Carolina $1,204,118,689 Missouri $1,179,604,443 That is Billion with a "B"

Don't ever take down the dams!!!!!!!!! You do that and then I will have to share all of these rivers and creeks with all of them Yahoo's! No thanks.

I have floated it. And I plan on do another float on it.

Not to access. Which I don't have a problem with. It is 1/4 acre of land. If that. I like floating to and from there though. Now if he would have tried to stop me from floating through there or if you could legally access it from that area, I would have just laughed at him.

Lets take a different look at commerce. How much do fishermen contribute monetarily to the economy of Missouri? Isn't that commerce? They buy snacks, meals, gas, lodgeing, tackle, line, license, canoe rentals, shuttles.... You can a lot to that list. That all contributes to the commerce produced in this state. And it all comes from the waterways of this state.

I would more than happy to wait! But truthfully, this man is in the right. When putting in or taking out at this spot you actually get on his property. It is a very, very small part of his property but, none the less it is his. I have decided that even though this has been a long established put in/take out spot, there are plenty of other floats to take.

Excellent find Dano. I am with you and Al too.

Thanks for taking the time and effort to research and post that information. It does take a lot of time and dedication. I too have spent a lot of time reseaching this for some clarification. And to me, it seems very cut and dried that we do in fact have a right to fish and float these waters. But that may be because that is what I want it to say because I want to fish these waters. I certainly believe that I have no right to walk on to some ones land and fish their pond or lake. Even if the MDC stocked their waters. Or even access the creek from their land without their premission. And I do draw the line at the smaller creeks. If I can still pee across it at my age, then I probably better not fish it. But one other thing to remember, and I will have to look it up to see how it goes exctally, but, in the Wildlife Code Book it does state that any stream stocked with fish is open to fishing. So now all of these creeks that were at one time stocked with trout......ehhh, this could turn into another 8 page discussion. May not want to go there.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Navigable+Waters The vast body of federal regulation concerning navigable waters frequently gives rise to litigation, and in many cases the courts have the difficult job of determining whether particular bodies of water are navigable (and thus subject to the law or regulation in question). Lakes and rivers are generally considered navigable waters, but smaller bodies of water may also be navigable. Attempting to address years of problematic litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1979 created four tests for determining what constitutes navigable waters. Established in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S. Ct. 383, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332, the tests ask whether the body of water (1) is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, (2) connects with a continuous interstate waterway, (3) has navigable capacity, and (4) is actually navigable. Using these tests, courts have held that bodies of water much smaller than lakes and rivers also constitute navigable waters. Even shallow streams that are traversable only by canoe have met the test. Federally owned?? Not sure. I do consider the Feds to be the controlling authority. Much like airspace over the US. Does the US really OWN it? Or just control it?? I don't doubt that for a minute!!!! I guess it really just boils down to how each fisherman-landowner wants to comprehend it. In the book published by the MDC, Paddlers Guide to Missouri, there are over 50 streams promoted for floating. Now there is no doubt that these must going through private land. If that is true then, is the MDC promoting trespassing? Or does the public have the right to use the streams of Missouri for fishing and recreation??? It wouldn't matter if it only effected only what you owned, you are not allowed to change, alter or impede the flow of any stream. Without proper authority anyway. But if that land is yours and you claim the stream as yours, why can't you? I say you and yours in a generic way. I don't mean you personally. How can you not be familiar with SBBMA streams and in the next sentence state that as far as you know not every stream has a SBBMA on it???? The point being that SBBMA's were created for fishermen. They are really of no use to a landowner. The vast majority of landowners do little fishing on there own property. And doesn't that term have an auspicious ring to it. Landowner. Not streamowner. Sorry, it just popped into my head. You may disregard that comment. SWEET! When do you want to meet up!!

Why do you keep brining up land only scenarios? We are talking about streams. I think that is where a lot of your confusion stems from. There is no comparison. Sweet. We agree. That is all I have been saying. But what is a public/float stream. I don't know of any city, county, or state owned streams. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:besiZ5XQKfIJ:www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/vmqmp/vwqm-intro05.pdf+missouri+waterway+tresspass+laws&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us page 8. Well,let me clear it up for you. I don't think there needs to be a law. I never signed up saying that. The law has, in my opinion and that of the MDC and MoDNR via the Missouri Supreme Court, already said that it is open. Have you read the court ruling? But hey, by all means since you all the land in, on, and around the stream, build a dam and make yourself a lake. And you will soon find out just what you own. Has anyone gained legal access above or below these places and tried it?? I did notice you quietly tip toed by this question: And the final sentence of this quote says it all. It states that because there is a SBBMA on that stream, you do not have the right to trespass on STREAM FRONTANGE. Now, if the stream was private, why whould there be a SBBMA on that stream????

I didn't leave out anything. My quote, as I stated before was from the MoDNR. Not your link from the MDC. So it is blantanly obvious you are not paying attention. You are trying to combine two interpitations of the law into one that fits your argument. And it ain't working on me. But lets just take a look at your quote above. The first sentence is to guide people to MDC access'. No where will you find that it says you can not access a stream from a county road. You know as well as I do that there are also alot of fords still in use in Missouri. Can one not access there?? The very first sentence that I have highlighted in red for you states that one must respect the landowners along the route that you are going to fish or float. Note that fishing and floating are seperate. Could that be the open door for wade fishing???? Now the next sentence that I have colored for you is very key. Especially for the next sentence. But it states that STREAM FRONTAGE is private. Not the stream. Much like frontage along the road. Not the road. And the final sentence of this quote says it all. It states that because there is a SBBMA on that stream, you do not have the right to trespass on STREAM FRONTANGE. Now, if the stream was private, why whould there be a SBBMA on that stream???? What about fishermen? Some are better stewards of the land that the owners??? I notice you didn't address Outside Bend and post on how landowners trash the land. BTW you used to or maybe still do, a lot or some float fishing??? Did you contact every landowner along the way to see if you could float??

I read just fine. I would suggest that you open your eyes and quit pretending you are the final authority. You did read this little tidbit right?? What about fishing Missouri’s rivers and streams? Public use of Missouri’s float streams often causes conflict with private landowners. Public access to Missouri’s streams has been controlled since 1954 by Elder v. Delcour, a case decided by the Missouri Supreme Court. Navigable rivers and streams are open to all legal use by the public and fall under the control and jurisdiction of the federal government. Case law defines a navigable riveras “one that as a matter of fact is susceptible of being used in its ordinary condition, as a highway forcommerce over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in customary fashion.” (Sneed v.Weber, 307 S. W.2d68, and Elder v. Delcour, 269 S. W.2d17).In the Elder v. Delcour case, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that a public fishing right exists upon Missouri’s small, floatable streams. The court ruled that since the ownership of the fish in the stream is vested in the public, the public has a right to fish and to take fish from the streams in a legal manner. The court ruling held that persons floating or wading in the upper Meramec River, following legal entry into that stream, were not trespassing. The Elder case has been accepted as precedent throughout the state and represents the controlling authority concerning public use of Missouri rivers and streams. Continued lawful and ethical use of Missouri’s waterways will help ensure that right for future Missourians. If you like I can explain it to you if you need some help. But like Big E said: but a simpleton like me translates it as "if you can get your canoe down it, it's public." If I've got two public accesses five miles separated by private property, and there's a single pool too deep to wade through, I'll put my canoe in and drag the riffles.