Terry Beeson

Now that there's funny I don't care WHO you are... While democracy is generally viewed as the majority rule, it's not just that simple and there can actually be "tyranny of the majority." While the majority of American oppose certain things, the rights of a few should outweigh the wishes of the many. One example might be the rulings about Nativity scenes on "public property." Now, I'm not for these rulings and I do believe that Nativity scenes should be allowed on public property such as a courthouse lawn, city park, etc. However, the reasoning against it is that while it is OK with the majority, there is a minority whose civil rights are violated by such displays. Now, do I agree with this ruling? NO... I don't see this as violating anyone's civil rights. I merely used it to explain the reasoning. I'm sure there are better examples, but can't think of one right now. However, do you see the reasoning behind the "rights of a few vs. the wishes of the many?" Political Science 101

I'm speaking of managed hunts. Since my hunting is done in Arkansas, my comment was more directed toward the regulations there where you have to draw a special tag to hunt on a Wildlife Management Area during muzzle loading or rifle season. I was assuming (I know... I know...) that the Missouri Managed Hunts were very much the same when it comes to MDC Conservation Areas. Maybe I'm wrong about that. FC... I don't think we have that long... Just raggin' ya, bud... I hope you get a piece of paradise.

Al, I agree with this statement TOTALLY... As I keep saying, my issue is NOT with anglers in general. The last seven words of your post say a lot. What I keep hearing from many is that they "think" there will be no problem. I feel I'm just looking at it from a much deeper voice of experience than some. In all honesty, I think all our time and efforts would be much better spent preventing the closing of the streams used by the public than trying to open up new ones.

That's them in Idylwilde's picture...

The same thing can be said for hunting and otherwise recreation oriented land. As I see it, the court rulings, especially the US Supreme Court ruling, would not allow this sort of thing on these waters you describe. Therefore, it could be challenged in court. In all honesty, I would like to see this challenge just to clarify things. But what organization is willing to do this? Certainly not TU. However, if this is legal, and I'm not saying it is, then I find nothing wrong with it. To me it's no different from a person buying up land to open an exclusive hunting ranch. I might not like it. I might have hunted on that land for years, but, as we all know, things change. Is this not a part of what makes America what it is? Is not private ownership and the American Dream still something we like to cling to? I guess I could argue that this law would be one step toward socialism, but I'll refrain from spouting that bubble... Plain and simple, there is a very small minority that are affluent enough to afford this luxury, but if I remember right, they have that constitutional right. My fear is much the same in the opposite direction. If this law were to be enacted, I fear it would soon negate any rights the landowner does have. Would I have to keep my cattle from drinking the water? Would I have to allow hunting and swimming as long as you stay in the stream? Don't just up and say "no" because the point is the law would have to be very specific to disallow a lot of things. The answer is NOT to enact a law in my opinion. I think the better answer is for the government to purchase more public accessibility. However, that would mean more taxes and higher permit fees. So I assume most would be against this. Of course the BEST answer would be to specifically label each and every stretch of stream bed as navigable/floatable/public and enact a law that says if it's not so labeled, then it is private. Good luck on that one as well... And Eric... Please add the phrase "in my opinion" to your last sentence. Again, you appear to be making conclusions you can't back up. The "defense" would love YOU for that one. In MY opinion, that does NOT define navigability. Define commerce? Look back at Troutfiend's comment on that one. Again, ambiguity... I will let TF answer your mistakes on the redwoods and Flint Hills. But here's a hint... ever see a home or farm in the middle of a National Forest?

Exactly, my friend... Both posts... VERY WELL put... As for the "filing the papers..." I would never put that on your back alone. But I can't believe the ACLU or other entity has not already done this... or maybe they see it as a waste of time and effort.

My dad ran a fire plow for the US Forestry Service for several years back in the 60s. it's sad that some people are so guided to start a fire in a time like this. Accidents do happen, but if it's blatant, then I hope they catch them and prosecute. Fishing sounds good still! I think I need to come over and see if you need any Hendrix stuff...

First of all, if you "know I have the right to be there" then you, sir, need to explain to the court system and the rest of the world how you can KNOW and then say "whatever the letter of the law is this week?" No, my friend, in some cases you do not KNOW. You are interpreting the law as you see it. Then you say in one sentence that your attitude is never to hell with the landowner, and then later say that if he kicks you off, he's a jerk. I think I understand what you are saying, but it does sound ironic. IF you are obviously in floatable water, then he has no right to run you out of the stream. But is he a "jerk?" I would say he's just attempting to protect his interests and has interpreted the court rulings differently than you. And I'm saying that this is the case if this is NOT an obviously open stream. If you are on the North Fork of the White, then yes, he's in the wrong. And, you do make a better phrasing later where you say you "feel" you are in the right. Give the land owner the benefit of the same instead of just labeling him a jerk. Maybe he thinks you are one for your civil disobedience. Your statement of "That's wrong" is rather strong as well. YOU THINK it is wrong. That's your opinion. Is it wrong for these people to form the exclusive club? Is it wrong for Dogwood Canyon, Rockbridge, Spavinaw Creek in Arkansas and others to do the same? You say "If we don't have a stream access law, this guy can have his way." Why is it your opinion that this is wrong? I'm not saying it is RIGHT, but I'm not seeing a reason it's wrong. In my opinion, there are many things wrong in this country. I think it's wrong to collect sales taxes on a used car that has already had sales tax collected when purchased new. I think it's wrong that I no longer have a very nice paying job because the company I worked for decided to close the plant and move operations to China, not to mention the one that I lost because the division was moved to St Louis. Maybe if these things had not happened, I could join the club in Pennsylvania... I think it's wrong that I have to have a special tag in order to hunt deer on a conservation area. That's my opinion because it affects me personally. But that does not make it absolutely wrong. "In the years to come, I want my children and my grandchildren to be able to fish these streams." I want my grandkids to be able to have a place to fish and hunt myself. I don't think anyone is against that. But that is the reason we have the government programs in place to assure public land. That's why Johnny Morris can't buy a section of Lake Taneycomo and close that area to all but BassPro employees to fish. That's why those brown signs around Missouri announce public fishing access on many streams are there. In no way am I advocating privatizing all streams and waterways. There is no stream access law in Missouri now. The challenge has been made for someone to access Dogwood Canyon via the highway bridge. I don't actually think that is necessary, but if someone would challenge this in a courtroom, then you can talk about the need for such a law. To my knowledge, this has not been challenged and my opinion is there is no need for such a law. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would be in such a case. I'm waiting on Troutfiend to file the papers... I think many land owners, me included, see the part of your post about the streams being very precious to you very reassuring. Most landowners have the same feelings and actually want to protect them. Give me the benefit of the doubt that there are streams not already considered floatable by the MDC definition that would be damaged with such a law in place. I will give you the benefit of saying there would be some that would BENEFIT from conscientious anglers fishing the stream.

Now the question is begged... You said if you come to a creek and there is 3" of water flowing, you consider this accessible. So how do you know this is not "usually dry?" And what would be considered "usually dry" and "some flow?" Ambiguity again. But I appreciate your concession to the point. Maybe you are beginning to see my point. To me, the court decisions negate the need for a written "law" that would be just as, if not more ambiguous as the rulings. While virtually impossible, the only way to satisfy all parties would be for the government to designate what is floatable, and that ain't happ'nin' for a variety of reasons. But it IS obvious that both the DNR and MDC have the designation on many miles of stream as shown in the regulations and "where to fish" portions of their documentation. Now, does the lack of any mention of X creek in this documentation mean it is not floatable/navigable under the court rulings? I could use the logic of some that yes it does. But in reality, I don't know... But, I have to tell you, that even though the creek running through my place is not continually flowing, I think if I took you to a couple of pools, you might change your mind... (But don't tell my neighbors down there that don't already know that... ) I just wish I could get down there more and fish it myself.

And from your post, I can tell you have never owned property with a small stream running through it. And since I don't own property in Missouri, yes I am a fisherman just looking for a place to fish and I find PLENTY of places to fish on streams with MDC accesses. Again, you guys want to talk apples and oranges. I'm not talking about any stream that is normally fished. I'm speaking of small, much of the time non-flowing creeks not normally fished that, if this law came into effect, would become a "public sidewalk" as has been suggested. If a conscientious angler wants to fish these small creeks, I see no problem. But this law could, as I have said before, open up a huge can of worms that most of you would complain about. Again, don't take me wrong as many of you have. I'm not against fishing these waters. I'm against opening up every little ditch as a "public sidewalk." Public, and even private funding is stretched now when it comes to enforcement, maintenance, and conservation efforts for the streams and lakes that are obviously public. Are you willing to pay more taxes to help pay for more "sidewalks" now? Or will it be the land owners responsibility? That's just one of the worms you're suggesting. Trying to find a place to fish? Maybe you should go to the list of forums on this site. There are THOUSANDS of miles of streams in Missouri that obviously are perfectly legal to fish. And, Eric... my "manifest destiny dystopia?" First, I object to using the term "dystopia." It proves to me your lack of respect. And if you read your history, you will find that the Manifest Destiny doctrine is why you are allowed to own your home. Even if you rent, someone owns that property due to Manifest Destiny. Maybe in a utopian society, the government would give us all a place to live and we would be happy with it. Seems to me there are countries that do just that. No, I'm not going to change your mind. As you stated earlier, you will interpret the laws "liberally" which certainly is a gamble. May you do so without suffering any consequences.

You can't guarantee the first part. As you state it, the "majority" will be fine. But that is is not the 100% mark. Eric, I can't tell you why some people leave their trash in the stream, or go over the legal limit, or shoot deer from the road at night, or rob liquor stores, or commit murder, or bungee jump. But some people do. And your next statement is "well, they are breaking the law." And you would be right. But if you are so keen on fishing a stream such as this, what is wrong with going and asking the landowner for permission? (Given that it IS private or even as you put it, "ambiguous.") It would appear that you don't want to ask permission as suggested by the MDC. If it is "ambiguous," and you roll those dice, and you are arrested for trespassing, would you then stop? While I've indicated an invitation to come and ask and I will show you where the best fishing is on the creek running through my place, you have exuded an attitude of "I don't care about the land owner, I'm going to fish there if it's right or wrong, because I 'think' I'm in the right. Screw the land owner." That type of attitude, my friend, is exactly why land owners are against such a policy. Now, as for the Meremac or countless other streams in Missouri that are OBVIOUSLY floatable and accessible to the public, the owner of the property through which it runs has an understanding (or should have. I know there are a few who will throw rocks at you on the Little Red in Arkansas if you are fishing behind their house.) that there will be floaters and wading anglers coming down the stream. As for me, I will continue to act conservatively and respect what I don't KNOW is mine. Hey Duane... I'll meet you and Chief down there, but I'm staying up on the highway and watching.

You know, looking back at this thread, I started realizing one thing... We strayed away from my original intent... yes, me included. My actual "fight" is not with fishing or the court rulings. My objection is with making a law that opens up public access to these smaller streams. This came to light while reading Al's post (thank you Al and Chief both for devoting time to research.) The court ruling is very murky as are the interpretations quoted by all of us. But it is clear to me that if there is some confusion and need for the murk, then there must be something to the idea that some streams are private. My fear is that this law would bring about a presidence that will be detrimental to these small streams and the adjoining land. You want it simply for fishing. You are a good steward. But it would open up the stream to everyone, and that's where the problem comes in. Not the 90%, the 10%. And, yes, that's the sad truth. By the way... Your own your own going to Dogwood Canyon... Good luck...

I beg to differ. The comparison comes from the definition of what is private streambed and what is public. I contend that the streambed on my property would be considered private land due to my contention that it is not a navigable stream under the US Supreme Court ruling. You differ in the interpretation. If I am confused, you are as well. In general, what you have said is that YOU define a public/float stream as ANY stream that has flowing water. If you read the US Supreme Court's rulings, this is not the way it is defined. However, I do agree with you that there is much confusion over this. Would you agree that there are Federally owned streams? Do you consider ANY streambed to be private? Thank you sir. In all honesty, both the DNR and MDC, and the MO and US Supreme Courts for that matter, have made sure to keep this issue at arm's length. Otherwise, there would not be any confusion. In order to keep from any blame, the documentation both of us used is blatantly "politically correct" to keep them from having either party object to what they say. It's just vague enough to keep us arguing while they sit back and say "you're both right..." I would agree that I did not see anything saying you individually voted "yes" on this issue. However, your statements certainly make it appear that way. I think the only disagreement we have, sir, is the definition of a float stream, and as Troutfiend indicated, that issue is NOT settled and in all honesty, neither of us can claim we are absolutely correct. Both out opinions are just that... opinions. As for building a dam, I addressed that earlier in stating that what I do to the stream, be it public or private, is subject to how it affects others upstream and downstream, so building a dam would not be in my best interest as it would probably be illegal due to these effects. Using your own logic, I would have to say that there is nothing in that statement that says it is NOT private. As to why there would be an SBBMA on that stream if it were private, there are many public programs that are on private land. Wildlife habitat programs helping farmers provide habitat is just one. But not being familiar with SBBMA streams, I can't say that there are any on what I would consider private streambeds. But, my friend, that last sentence certainly does NOT "say it all." As far as I know, not EVERY stream has a SBBMA... I would invite you to enter the stream via the highway bridge at Dogwood Canyon and then wade down to fish for the trout there. Don't just sneak in. Make it plain what you are doing. Be sure to tell them that you are not a paying guest and you walked in from the bridge. I'm sure there would be some clarification forthcoming that would settle this matter for us both.

First of all, let me answer the part about stewardship. Yes, in fact, some anglers are better stewards than some land owners. I never said they were not. I saw no need to address OB's post since that part is true. But with that logic, you should be able to plant a garden on my land just because you are a better gardener. Secondly, yes I do some float fishing and wade fishing. But I access the streams at MDC or other publicly designated fishing accesses. I have never, nor will intentionally ever access a stream that I do not KNOW is a public/float stream. But I've never said you should not be allowed to access a float stream via a highway right of way. Thirdly, I posted a link to what I was quoting while you simply put words on a post. Your failure to post a link to the MoDNR page you quoted does not give one the ability to reference the same page. I have looked on the DNR page without success, so I would ask that you reference with a link. (Not to say it is not there... just that I could not find it.) Lastly, I am confused as to why you think there is a need for a law that was the subject of this thread since the MSC and USSC apparently have negated the need for this. As I now interpret it using your logic, since all water in Missouri eventually winds up in the Mississippi River, I have automatic access to any and all water to fish. Don't keep me off your pond as long as I take a route where the spillway runs to the nearest ditch or creek or where the water drains into it. That part of the land is no longer private since somewhere downstream I'm sure there is a section that is at least 3 inches deep. Troutfiend... You have brought forth some very valid points. I failed to say that actually, the US Supreme Court has final authority... Well, not FINAL authority... God has that. But on this issue it would be the USSC. Another point well stated, Troutfiend. How do Dogwood Canyon, Rockbridge, and similar places exist if they are not private?

I like the fact that you conveniently left out: "Obviously floatable means the stream segments that have property maintained for the purpose of allowing public access to the stream, such as Missouri Department of Conservation access sites. Obtaining legal access does not eliminate your responsibility to respect private property while fishing or floating. The majority of Missouri’s stream frontage is privately owned. The establishment of a Special Black Bass Management Area does not automatically give an angler the right to trespass on privately owned stream frontage." No, I'm not the final authority... The Missouri Supreme Court is. You seem to think YOU are the final authority as well, Chief. Neither of us is. My issue is respect to the land owner. As I keep reading several of these posts, it seems that many have little or no respect for the land owner. It's not a matter of whether or not you trash the stream or cause damage. It's a question of respect for others, which seems to be disappearing these days. "If I can get my canoe down it, it's floatable" is NOT what MDC or MSC says... Sorry. "If I've got two public accesses five miles separated by private property..." Then, yes Eric... I interpret it that you have floatable water in that case, IF the public access is maintained for that purpose (which leaves out parking by a bridge.) Never said you didn't. In fact, if you read the Crane Creek thread, I indicated I interpret this to mean Crane Creek is floatable with this definition and the dairy farm and other land owners on Crane are most likely wrong to keep you from wading down the creek. But if there is no public fishing access MAINTAINED FOR THAT PURPOSE on the stream, you are trespassing as I interpret it. Hey Ducky... Let's buy a hover craft and then we can duck and goose hunt ANYWHERE!!! Hey... I guess we can hunt for ANYTHING (legal) using that logic!!! I see our freezers filling up already!!!

Clean your glasses or go back to English class, Chief... Or at least clarify that the stream must be a FLOATABLE stream as defined by the Missouri court system. Again, you take license where there is none...

I'll buy that one OB...

That analogy is even weaker... A sidewalk is built with public funds to protect pedestrians and keep them from having to walk in the street and risk being hit by traffic. Public domain/easement is legally granted due to that fact and, if I'm not mistaken, the right of way for the street includes the sidewalk. The government did not build nor do they own the streams (or sections thereof) in question. I will have to agree that Crane Creek is certainly a "gray area" in that MDC and the city of Crane have established public access points on the creek. I would have to say that this, especially due to the fact that MDC "advertises" Crane Creek, would make the creek a "float stream." Now, educating the landowner in question might be a stretch. Read this from the MDC website. As I read this, the landowner is not justified in keeping you from wading if you access from the park or other public access. However, asking permission is still the best course of action and most sportsmanlike. Anyone ever ask this guy for permission? If so, what did he say? I'm just curious.

Great find, Gavin!!! Thanks for sharing... Brought back a few memories for me... Packing a Ruger for snakes and perverted hillbillies... By the way... That one guy shore did have a purty mouf!!!

I'm sending ALL of you a bill for allowing your water and fish to come through the creek on my property... While I agree the landowner should be considerate enough to put up signs advising against trespassing, I'm wondering why he should HAVE to do that in order to earn the respect of anglers. Is it not pretty obvious you are leaving the city park and entering private property? I don't have to put up a sign in my yard telling you it's trespassing if you walk up to my door. I suppose I was just raised to respect others and what they have.

That bunch of low lives? Just kidding... You are right, Gavin. They are a great bunch of folks... very active. Idylwilde... Send me an email - tbeeson(at)hotmail(dot)com and I'll get you some help.

Gavin... Have you tried Pac Fly's new version of this type indicator? With the screw in top? Good idea!!!

It doesn't say you can't use night crawlers on Taney just below the dam either Chief. Therein lies the problem. Many folks buy a tag (hunting or fishing) and think that gives you the right to do anything you want to capture your prey. Al, once again you have been the voice of reason. The idea you have is good brain-storming. As I stated, I'm not against people fishing on these streams, I'm against the government opening up the streams to public access without regard to problems these landowners may have. The stream that runs through my property enters on the northeast corner of the property and the access would have to be at that point just south of the bridge. This is a cattle farm, so there is a fence that crosses the stream at this point. In my younger days, I have spent countless hours repairing that fence due to heavy rains washing the fence away. But in addition, I spent many hours repairing it after being cut or tampered with by people wanting to hunt or fish along the creek. Another liability... A cow gets out due to the fence being damaged... Said cow is rammed by a driver on the highway causing damage to the vehicle and the person. Who's liable? The court has said the landowner for failure to maintain proper fencing... It's happened. So, how do you deal with that? Guys... Please don't think I have a personal vendetta against anglers in general or even any single person. It is just that this type of law can open up a large can of worms that nobody seems to care about. I keep reading "I don't think" in many posts. I don't THINK there would be a big problem, but history proves that there WILL be a big problem somewhere with this. The great stewards of the streams are not the problem, but if they are such stewards and sportsmen, then they should have no problem with the status quo. Another point... Let's say that someone accesses the creek legally and then decides they want to walk over to your private pond and do some fishing. How many of you think the county sheriff's department will bother sending a deputy out to deal with this?

Is that Tim Homsley in the third pic there? Great pics!!!

Then let the government purchase the streambed just like they did the public land. To be quite clear about this, I am not trying to keep people from fishing in the stream. I don't object to people fishing in the stream IF they ask permission and I know they are there. What I object to is the government forcing this down my throat... As for the street point... You're more than welcome to drive down the highway and county road that boarder the land. I pay the taxes to keep those roads up, just like you pay taxes on your house to pay for the street. As for the liability issue, it's already happened to a few friends of mine. So, yes there are courts where that will happen. You call me "unsportmanlike" and I am against angling "in general?" No... I'm just not a bleeding-heart liberal who wants everything given to him on a platter. There are plenty of streams with public access. Don't tell me I'm looking through rose-colored glasses when you are doing the same. What is "unsportsmanlike" is wanting the government to pass such a law so you won't have to simply ask permission. And, no OB... I didn't "grow"(?) the water, or stock the fish, or the deer, or the turkey, or rabbits, or quail, or squirrels on the land. And the matter of them being "public resources" is a point well taken. But again, you want access to the creek to catch the fish to be mandated by the government because of that. Well, the next step is to also allow the public on the land to hunt those "public resources", or just admire the beauty of the bluffs that line the creek. And I did not plant the walnut and pecan trees on the land either. Does that mean I should allow you to come in and harvest the walnuts and pecans every fall? Still there is nobody willing to say WHY they want this other than it should be their "right." Let me get my copy of the Bill of Rights and see where it says that... We all have the right to our opinion. I think it's time we agree to disagree on this one... Meanwhile, I'm going to go ask Smalliebigs if I can go fishing on his place... and have a few beers with him...