Stream Access Law

[ozark trout fisher]

This is a topic that came up in another thread,and I thought it was deserving of its own.

Montana has a stream access law that goes something this... The stream-beds of any perennial streams are considered public property, and not just those of navigable rivers. Any natural creek, stream, or river with year-round flows is included. Anglers must still enter the stream in at a public access point or get permission, but after entering the stream, it is legal to fish in private land, so long as they stay below the high water mark. Let me make this clear- This law would not allow anglers to cross private land to access a stream, just to access the stream at a public area, and use the stream-bed to walk in to private areas without going above the normal high water mark. So, a simple yes or no (or not sure) question. Would you support such a law?

[Buzz]

Yep.

[highroller2145]

Yup

[eric1978]

Yip.

[Flyflinger]

You bet

[Smalliebigs]

nope

[troutfiend1985]

I voted yes, but I have a bias. I don't have land next to a stream, and I think that if we all had worked our whole lives to buy land buy a stream then I think we might have a different view.

I just would like to know what the purpose of a yes vote is. Mine was that I want access to other streams, but I don't know if that is a legitimate reason to want a law like this.

[Outside Bend]

As an angler I've reaped the benefit of stream access laws like Montana's, and as a landowner I've had to deal with trespassing, poaching, illegal dumping, ATV's, and abuse of stream corridors. I'd like to see Missouri adopt more liberal public access laws because I feel like the public has a right to use our streams, but there is an associated cost to landowners. Many western states have easements and other agreements with landowners, where they are paid to provide public access to hunt and fish on their property. I'd be very interest to see Missouri adopt a program like that.

[Justin Spencer]

I would say yes but it could cause problems with partiers on the big floating rivers, some of our best gravel bars are right in front of a house or cabin and I can see why they would not want that on their property. For fishing and camping I think it would be great, but no way to differentiate the two.

[gotmuddy]

If everyone respected the land like they should then this law is moot. However, too many people do not. I voted yes and I believe arkansas already has a law like that