Use Of Public Waterways Includes Streambeds - Even On Private Land

[flyfishmaster]

I have seen a few mention "Purple Paint". What is the significations for it?

later

FFM

[mosouthpaw]

I have seen a few mention "Purple Paint". What is the significations for it?

later

FFM

purple paint is considered in many many states as the equivelant of "no trespassing, hunting, or fishing" Its used to post property in lieu of signs. Means the same thing as a sign in the eyes of the law.

http://www.qdmaforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1072.html

[Chief Grey Bear]

Well JD, he didn't really get bent out of shape so I kept my cool too. I did tell him that it is a public waterway and that I do have a right to fish it but, that I would respect his wish and travel back the way I came. I did also tell him though that I will be back and I will fish it. He didn't say a word and we walked off.

Then while fishing Jenkins earlier this year, a land owner stopped by to see how I was doing and said "Just don't leave me any trash." I told him would not be a problem and thanked him for his kindness.

[jdmidwest]

Chief, most will be like the second guy, and I would be the same if you cross my property in the creek also. The other guy new he was bluffing. The most memorable bluff I have saw is the guy above the handicap access on the Norfork River in Salesville, the sign at the river states that it is a rifle range, keep out. Makes you nervous, but is harmless. I saw a guy putting one up on his land this weekend on the Spring River in Ark that stated "Beware of Snakes."

Call his bluff next time and up it one, have him ask for someone on the force that you know when he calls the law and hand him the phone.

Float by in a kayak, it is a real conversation starter.

[Guest kevinkirk]

I am getting ready to buy some land on the Ark river in Kansas. When they irrigate from the wells alongside this river, it goes dry and then the 4x4's and others drive up and down the river tearing up jack and shooting everything in sight. Its a mess. If they walked in where everyone could see deer etc. it would not bother me so much. Cant tell you how many times I have sat there for hours only to have someone drive up the river bed right at sundown and ruin it.

[Guest kevinkirk]

I thot the purple paint meant you were a Kansas State Fan and all K-state fans were welcome. hah. It means keep out. But send me my govt check from YOUR tax dollars.

[Quillback]

I never had heard of the purple paint thing, now I know.

[jefly77]

Does the "navigable" term apply to Crane Creek? The section just above the upper Wire Road access has a brand new private property sign in the middle of the creek, below the mean high water mark. Can I legally wade the creek through his land if I access it from the bridge or the MDC land?

Jefly

[shadman]

[

I myself have recently been cited for trespassing on Jenkins Creek in jasper county. I made a call to the MDC office in springfield b4 ever entering the water. The landowner saw me and my brother in the stream and became very violent and obscene! all we were doing was wading for perch to use as limbline bait for cats in another river. i myself love wading for smallies and recently been doing well at wading for cats and i never leave a trace that i was there, i have no desire to trespass, litter, or even keep the fish i catch. i usually carry a pole and a small tackle box that fits in my pocket, and a bottle o water. thats it,,, but to my point.. there is a loophole in missouri law.

there are 3 classifications of missouri streams... PUBLIC NAVIGABLE PUBLIC NONNAVIGABLE PRIVATE NON-NAVIGABLE. most of our streams fall into the catagory of public non-navagable which MO law states is any stream that u can float a small watercraft on such as a canoe and the old law even mentions if u can float a log down it as well. this is what the springfield office told me as well, so i waded that stream which was clearly large enough to float a canoe down,,, well im here to tell u now that that info is incorrect,,!! yes the law is correct but only if a stream has been designated as such which requires a state judgement. this is a major flaw that needs to be fixed

[ozark trout fisher]

I thought this would be a good topic to post. The article below indicates the ruling that allow the public to set foot down on streambed, even if it is on private ground.

This is great news for fishermen that have always wanted to get out of the boat and fish a specific hole for an hour or two. But I know the current land owners will not be happy. What are your thoughts?

Here is the article: Utah court ruling

Utah Supreme Court: Use of public waterways includes streambeds - even on private land

By Stephen Hunt and Brett Prettyman

The Salt Lake Tribune

Article Last Updated: 07/18/2008 07:19:00 PM MDT

Posted: 7:18 PM- Fishing enthusiasts are giddy over a Utah Supreme Court decision that allows the public onto streams that flow through private property.

"This is something that will just make the angling community do back flips," said Ed Kent, chair of the Utah Anglers Coalition, said of Friday's ruling. "This is going to open corridors of extremely productive waters to anglers that have only been accessible to individuals who gained permission from friends to fish private land," Kent said.

The court decision stems from an incident eight years ago, when a rafter was cited for trespassing after walking in the bed of the Weber River owned by a handful of Morgan County ranchers. But Friday's unanimous ruling allows Utahns to walk on the beds of all streams and rivers, no matter who owns the land beneath them. The high court said that without the ability to touch stream bottoms, members of the public cannot effectively enjoy their right to recreational activities on state waters, all of which are owned by the public. The only caveat is that water users must behave "reasonably," "cause no unnecessary injury to the landowner," and "engage only in lawful recreational activities," according to the ruling.

"It's an exciting decision," said attorney Robert H. Hughes, who successfully argued the case before the high court in April. "I'd call it a landmark decision in the body of law on public waters."

But attorney Ronald Russell, who represents a number of ranchers with land adjacent to the Weber River, said the high court has opened a nasty can of worms that will create new legal issues. "What are reasonable and unreasonable uses?" asked Russell, quoting from the court decision. "What is necessary and unnecessary injury to the landowner?"

"What is the 'stream bed,' and where does it begin and end? At different times of the year you have high water and low water."

Other states have defined the streambed as everything within the high water marks. Russell noted that until now, Utah law governing recreation on public waters pertained only to floating and boating. "Once you take away the floating requirement," Russell said, "it opens up streams never opened in the past." Even streams as small as a trickle will be fair game for people who want to fish or wade, he said. "If you can lawfully get to the water, you can walk up and down it as long as you like," Russell said. "If I had a stream in my backyard, I'd be concerned."

Russell predicted the newly created problems will be solved case-by-case by more litigation, legislation that overrules the high-court's decision or a combination of the two.

The ruling resolves a long-standing dispute between a Roy couple, Kevin and Jodi Conatser, who regularly float and fish on the Weber River, and landowners along a five-mile stretch of the river beginning near the town of Peterson.

"Right on! Sweet! How great!" Kevin Conatser exclaimed Friday after learning the court had ruled in his favor. "Fishermen are going to love me!" Conatser said that during past trips down the river, landowners have shadowed him on ATVs, offered to fight him and one even threatened to kill him. "Now we can float down that river without being worried about getting shot by that farmer," he said, adding that he might raft the river this weekend.

"A good float on Sunday," he mused. "That's a good idea."

Attorney Hughes cautioned that the ruling does not allow people to walk the banks of streams that are adjacent to private land. And streams crossing private land may only be accessed from locations that are open to the public.

Landowners named in the lawsuit include Wayne Johnson, Duane Johnson, Randy Sessions, Clark Sessions, Michael McMillan, Lynn Brown, Gerald Stout and Shane E. Matthews. Calls to several were not answered or returned on Friday.

Russell said his clients merely want to protect their property. He said trespassers had damaged fences, barns and irrigation structures.

The Conatsers' legal battle began in June 2000, when they were cited for trespassing by the sheriff after Kevin Conatser intentionally left his raft to walk in the Weber River and fish, and to move fencing strung across the river by a landowner, according to Friday's ruling.

The Morgan County Justice Court found the Conatsers guilty of trespassing. But when the Conatsers appealed to the district court, prosecutors dismissed the charge, citing "uncertainty" regarding the couple's status as trespassers.

Meanwhile, the Conatsers filed a civil suit against the landowners, seeking a judicial answer to whether they had a right to walk in the river.

Second District Judge Michael Lyon ruled against the Conatsers, finding they had the right to touch the river bed only to assist in floating, such as freeing a raft that was stuck.

A 1982 Utah Supreme Court ruling established the public's right to use any surface water for recreation, so long as legal access exists. "State policy recognizes an interest of the public in the use of state waters for recreational purposes," according to the 1982 ruling.

Later,

FFM

This is awesome, happy for the citizens of Utah. Hope this is soon affirmed in Missouri. Think of how it would expand our fishing opportunities.