City Park Public Access

[ozark trout fisher]

I believe it is considered a lesser offense to trespass on unmarked private property than it is to trespass on marked property, but it is still technically your responsibility to know.

I will not bring into this how I feel about stream access laws, but I will say that if a landowner doesn't bother to post a stretch of stream on his property, you can probably get away with fishing it, even if the stream may not qualify as navigable, so long as you enter at a public access, never leave the stream, and act like a gentleman. I understand that is not the letter of the law, but it has been my experience. I am not advocating that others break laws (even if the law does make it a little unclear as to what a navigable stream is), this is just the way I choose to handle it on the streams that I fish. I do not know anything specifically about the situation on Crane Creek.

[drew03cmc]

Odd, I thought it was the landowners responsibility to post no tresspassing signs (or purple marks on trees/fenceposts)... Right?

On that aspect, I cannot comment, but ignorance does not exonerate someone. I am sorry officer, I didn't know the speed limit was 70. Tough, you are still getting a ticket.

[troutfiend1985]

On that aspect, I cannot comment, but ignorance does not exonerate someone. I am sorry officer, I didn't know the speed limit was 70. Tough, you are still getting a ticket.

Now hold on, we're crossing hairs. Speeding is a strict liability crime, thus your state of mind is not a defense. So in a speeding context, your theory works. However, tresspassing is an intentional crime by common law(I don't have the MO statute in front of me but I can't imagine it not having intent as an element). This makes the situation different. Yes, ignorance is generally no defense. However, in a situation where you actually do not know, nor is the area demarcatted, you might have a claim that you did not have the necessary intent to be convicted of the crime or tort of tresspassing. However, you would have a lot of arguing to do, and I am too lazy to look up the statute. But this is the reasoning I was confused about the area not being marked better. I wonder if MDC would mark out the area better?

[Trout Commander]

Now hold on, we're crossing hairs. Speeding is a strict liability crime, thus your state of mind is not a defense. So in a speeding context, your theory works. However, tresspassing is an intentional crime by common law(I don't have the MO statute in front of me but I can't imagine it not having intent as an element). This makes the situation different. Yes, ignorance is generally no defense. However, in a situation where you actually do not know, nor is the area demarcatted, you might have a claim that you did not have the necessary intent to be convicted of the crime or tort of tresspassing. However, you would have a lot of arguing to do, and I am too lazy to look up the statute. But this is the reasoning I was confused about the area not being marked better. I wonder if MDC would mark out the area better?

Trespassing sure is a crime of absolute liability.

Additionally the land does not have to be marked (trespassing in the 2nd degree). If the land IS marked/once the owner asks you to leave you are commiting a class B misdemeanor (first degree trespassing).

[FishinCricket]

Trespassing sure is a crime of absolute liability.

Additionally the land does not have to be marked (trespassing in the 2nd degree). If the land IS marked/once the owner asks you to leave you are commiting a class B misdemeanor (first degree trespassing).

Maybe I am reading this wrong?

http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5690000140.htm

[Trout Commander]

You are reading that correctly. Just not reading all of my post: http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000140.HTM

Thanks for finding those statutes, I was going on memory from a few semesters ago .

[Trout Commander]

I mean http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5690000150.HTM

[ozark trout fisher]

Of course none of this would be a concern if like Montana, Missouri passed a law declaring all perenially flowing stream-beds to be public property. Whatever else you may say about that, it would clear up a lot of unnecessary confusion. The fact is, most fisherman I know do wade-fish on private property, and constantly have to worry about a landowner calling the sheriff, even though they are not hurting anything at all. Stream access laws are just too complicated for most anglers to adequately understand them, and I think that landowners definitely take advantage of that. I also understand that Crane is not a navigable stream, and therefore not even a legal gray area. Still I think landowners keeping anglers out of a section of Blue Ribbon trout water is at least an ethical gray area.

I know I will be roasted for that, but I feel pretty strongly about stream access issues.

[troutbum479]

i had a landowner call a sheriff while wade fishing little sugar creek. Assuming that i wasn't breaking the law since i entered the water via low water bridge i wasn't worried about trespassing. Landowner pulled up on a four wheeler and said he called the sheriff to have me arrested.Five minutes later the sheriff pulled up and called both of us to his truck. After checking my fishing license the sheriff asked what the problem was.The landowner told the sheriff that i was trespassing.The sheriff simply asked me where i entered the water and told the landowner and i that i was legal to fish the water as long as i enter via public property.Little sugar is classified as a non navigable stream as is Crane creek.So what is the law for Crane creek?

[FishinCricket]

i had a landowner call a sheriff while wade fishing little sugar creek. Assuming that i wasn't breaking the law since i entered the water via low water bridge i wasn't worried about trespassing. Landowner pulled up on a four wheeler and said he called the sheriff to have me arrested.Five minutes later the sheriff pulled up and called both of us to his truck. After checking my fishing license the sheriff asked what the problem was.The landowner told the sheriff that i was trespassing.The sheriff simply asked me where i entered the water and told the landowner and i that i was legal to fish the water as long as i enter via public property.Little sugar is classified as a non navigable stream as is Crane creek.So what is the law for Crane creek?

Sounds like a case of practical law vs letter of the law?

A sensible sheriff at any rate...