Stream Access Law

[jdmidwest]

How would you define the "High Water Mark"? Is it where the stream ends and the land begins?

If you were to define a high water mark on the creek that runs thru my property, you would have access to all of the creek bottoms and my fields also. It is normally a stream that you could wade across a riffle and not get more than a shoe wet, less that 1/2 knee deep. But in flood stage, that same riffle may be 100's of yards wide. Almost all of the streams are the same way. If you follow that train of thought, someone could leave the stream, cross a few fences and be out in the middle of my fields on dry land and still be "not Trespassing".

I think what we have now is more than adequate, and more liberal than most states.

[duckydoty]

Unfortunately, 99.99% of us will never be able to afford to purchase a stream, regardless of how hard we work.

99.9% of us will never own a hunting ranch in the flood plains of the Mississippi River, or a fortune 500 company either.

The nice thing about Missouri, we have many access points to navigatable waterway where we can float and fish.

[Outside Bend]

What makes a body of water or non nav. water way any different than the rock or field or hill that god created.

Opening a non nav. water way is taking away from the land owner that has purchased the land and water way with the understanding from the Missouri Supreme Court that it would be his and only his to fish or fence as he pleases. This might have been the reason for this landowners purchase of the property with the waterway running through it. Just as some people purchase land with a pond or lake on it. Should we push for a law mandating that the state gain easements to the lakes and ponds so the public can fish them???

There was no mis-understanding in your post to me and it was perfectly clear. At the public right of way, it would be fine to fish, but if the water way falls into the catagory of non nav. waters then access to areas further down stream in my opinion should not be granted for the reason that the land owner owns the land under the water and the person wanting access to this water would have to be standing on the land owners land, which happens to be under the water.

Sorry, just one of the perks of working hard to obtain a dream. Like I said earlier, I'm not a land owner, but sure do hope that someday I'm able to own some property with a small stream running through it. I'd like to maintain some control who has access the the property I might own, including the land under the water that might be flowing through it.

Creating a stream access law doesn't prevent landowners from accessing the streams running through their property. You're not taking anything from anyone.

I guess it's a difference in philosophy. Historically, many streams were in the public domain- they were routes of trade, travel, commerce. To me, a landowner deciding who gets to travel in a stream corridor is like an adjacent landowner determining who gets to travel your local county road or highway. That's just the way I feel about it, though.

[eric1978]

What makes a body of water or non nav. water way any different than the rock or field or hill that god created.

On the other hand, what makes a navigable waterway any different from a non-navigable waterway, other than size? Don't sit there and tell me you never get out of your boat when floating navigable waterways through private property. Technically, that's trespassing, too.

If you want to deny me access to a creek that runs through your property, fine. But if I access that creek two miles downstream from a neighbor's property or a public access, I should be able to wade and fish that creek until the creekbed runs dry and turns into a hollow. I know that's not the law, and that's why I said "should."

This "American Dream" argument about owning your own stream one day is a slippery slope. Not only are the odds long against us that we'll ever have the money for our own private fisheries, but you keep pushing landowner's rights instead of angler's rights, and eventually we'll all be false casting on our front lawns and tying our tippets to the neighbor's dog for a tug on the line.

Some things should remain available for everyone to use, not just the rich...and that includes streams, big and small. They are a finite resource and it's not right that they should be gobbled up by the most fortunate among us to the exclusion of the rest.

[Al Agnew]

Guess I'll weigh in on this one...

As we can see from the responses, it's a sticky question. I totally understand the landowner's point of view when it comes to the smaller streams. Consider, however, that historically most of those smaller streams were fished by whoever wanted to, no questions asked. I still know many creeks that are that way--but they are getting fewer precisely because there are too many inconsiderate pinheads out there these days, and landowners are having more and more problems. A lot of the older landowners whose families have owned the land for generations still let people alone when they fish the creek, because it's always been that way, but with all the problems, they are having to close down access.

But the "new" landowners, especially the guy with a lot of money who buys up a long stretch of creek, tend to be pretty militant about closing off the creek for purely "selfish" reasons...they paid for it, by God, and they figure they should have exclusive use of it. And so the angling public "loses" another stretch of creek.

Now, this has been happening long enough that, as a couple of people have mentioned here, owning a piece of creek automatically means it's yours and yours alone.

Like I said, it's a tough question. It seems to work pretty well in Montana. But in Montana there are long sections of streams that flow through a checkerboard of public and private lands, and even the wading size streams often have marked public accesses, so the landowners seem to take it as a matter of course that anglers are going to be wading up and down their creek. And as much as it pains me to say it, in Montana there seems to be a lot more ethical anglers. Even the accesses are generally pretty clean, and you almost never see trash and vandalism away from the accesses. I wade fish the Boulder River, a stream a little smaller than the Current below Montauk, and I've been on it a lot. Every piece of it I've waded has been private land, with various public accesses, some developed and some just bridge crossings with questionable parking. I've never seen any trash, never run afoul of a landowner, have never heard of landowners along the river complaining about problems.

I don't know for sure what the difference is between Montana anglers and Missouri anglers. And actually, a lot of the problems landowners in Missouri have is not with real anglers but with the party slobs who might be carrying a fishing rod just in case they figure out how to catch a bunch of mostly illegal bass, and the poachers who are MORE likely to catch a bunch of undersize bass or otherwise break the law. I fish a number of small creeks where I've never asked the landowners for permission, mainly because I haven't been able to find them, but unless the landowner is on the creek at the right time and sees me, he'll never know I was there except for footprints on a gravel bar. And that's the way EVERY angler should treat a stream and the property around it.

So, like I said, it works well in Montana, but I know the realities in Missouri, and I'm afraid it wouldn't work so well in Missouri until we can somehow weed out a lot of the bad apples that are causing landowners problems already.

I don't know the answers.

[Smalliebigs]

Al, I totally agree you there is a very small percentage of people that are creating a bad situation for a lot of anglers. Personally I would love for people like you and just about everyone on this forum to come to my place and fish your brains out, especially if you brought your kids.There is nothing I would like more than a bunch of kids getting their shot a nice stream smallie on the Brazil creek.It's just that rare occasion when some pin head as you put it does something like dumping their used car batteries on my land or cut a hole in our metal barn we built with a torch to steal tools I could only assume, you get kind of vigilant about your land.

I would never want to block off the creek from good anglers that only leave footprints and take only photos.I just like to know who's there and when, thats all. I have to admit Al, I have done the same thing you speak of and have fished what I know is private property and did not take the time to find owners....I'm guilty... sometimes it's down right impossible to find the land owner if they exist at all. I don't think some of my fishing buddies realize the process I have gone thru to get permission to access in some of the places I take them to.It can be very hard to find someone to get permission to access at all, but when you do show that respect you would be suprised what you will get in return.I found an old gentleman down on the Little Piney that owns thousands of acres of land in several counties on many streams. I guess he liked the fact that I sought him out and explained my backround and my agenda and he has given me keys to four of his farm gates that access the Little Piney, upper, upper Gasconade, Osage Fork of the Gasconade and the upper Big Piney.Now, I send him a large gift certificate to Citizen Kane's steak house every year at Christmas and he comes up to St.Louis with his wife and we go out for one of the best steaks in town, but is well worth it. Now, a lot of you are saying all of those streams are navigable, but knowing I have full permission to access thru Walter's farms make me feel better about it.

Also Al, the fact that Montana's population is about the same as Clayton, Missouri lends to the fact that there are way less pin heads so the laws there can be the way they are, there just isn't as many people fishing up there as there is here.There are streams up there going untouched for years, I envy you buddy, going between Montana and Missouri, your are truly living the dream a lot of us on this forum have in the back of our minds.

[ozark trout fisher]

Should we push for a law mandating that the state gain easements to the lakes and ponds so the public can fish them???

No we shouldn't. First, all lakes and ponds (with the exception of a couple oxbows) are man-made, and so a landowner would seem to have complete control.

Secondly, such a law would create a new set of difficulties not present in a stream access law. You would have to go across a landowners property reach the lake/pond presumably, which no one is advocating to be allowed.

As Eric said, the vast majority of us will never earn enough to buy our own little creek. It's just not going to happen. Dream all you want but it will never be a reality for me or most people I know.

[ozark trout fisher]

How would you define the "High Water Mark"? Is it where the stream ends and the land begins?

If you were to define a high water mark on the creek that runs thru my property, you would have access to all of the creek bottoms and my fields also. It is normally a stream that you could wade across a riffle and not get more than a shoe wet, less that 1/2 knee deep. But in flood stage, that same riffle may be 100's of yards wide. Almost all of the streams are the same way. If you follow that train of thought, someone could leave the stream, cross a few fences and be out in the middle of my fields on dry land and still be "not Trespassing".

I think what we have now is more than adequate, and more liberal than most states.

The mean high water mark does not mean the highest a stream ever gets. It only includes the area that is below the "stream bank". Basically the the stream itself and the gravel bars, nothing else. This law would by no means allow someone access to your fields in the creek bottoms.

And Al Agnew is right. It is our responsibility to leave no trace whatsoever that we are on the stream, public or private. Some fisherman don't act that way, and that's why this is even a problem to begin with.

[Terry Beeson]

It's clear to see that by the votes, most of you have never owned land with a stream running through it. I do... And I tell you that I will fight this tooth and nail. NOT because of "partying" or because I'm greedy or because I worked hard to have my own place, but rather because this opens up another avenue for liability of the landowner.

Now bear with me... I'm talking about streams that are NOT considered navigable. A navigable stream is a different matter.

Navigable streams are exempt from liability due to the fact that this is considered either public property or public easement (in Arkansas, so don't call me on MO laws.) But the stream running through my property is not considered navigable. So if a law such as this were enacted, any Tom, Dick, or Harry could walk down the stream bed, fish, float, hunt, flash, drink, pick up trash, pee in the water, bird watch, take pictures, encounter aliens, audition for American Idol, or whatever and as the land owner, I would be liable for any accident or injury.

Now if Ducky asked if he could fish in my creek, and he was injured and sued me for damages, I would be upset, but not nearly as upset as I would be if it was someone who just wondered in because "God made this stream, so it's mine..." AAAANNNKKKK... wrong answer... Our forefathers did away with that when we drove out the Native Americans, right or wrong... Sorry, but the US government says that it is MY and my wife's land, including the stream bed. The land has been in my family for almost 150 years, so I'm not a "new" landowner.

And, sorry, but just because you access the stream "2 miles downstream" does NOT give you the right to fish any and all of that stream (talking again of "non-navigable" streams again.) That to me is like saying I should be able to drive through your yard to get to the next street over since I'm accessing your yard from a public street.

The vast majority of people are considerate and there would be no problem with them accessing the stream for any reason. But to open things up to anyone and everyone, in my opinion, is just plain WRONG. That's why we have the public accesses and waterways.

For years my father dealt with too many people who thought it was their "God-given right" to hunt and fish on his farm. He spent a lot of money stocking waters with fish for us to catch, only to have "neighbors" decide to help themselves since "Arkansas Game and Fish stocked them." They never believed the money for those fish, along with fish food, came out of my dad's pocket, NOT from their fishing license or taxes.

If something like this comes about, and if it rains in your pool, I will be the guy dropped from a crane into your pool to take a nice relaxing swim. I'm not taking anything away from you. You can swim in it too. Don't mind that yellow warm water over there. God made it, so it's OK...

Sorry to be so "militant"... But just because it's flowing water does NOT mean it is or should be public.

[eric1978]

But to open things up to anyone and everyone, in my opinion, is just plain WRONG. That's why we have the public accesses and waterways.

Hypothetical...

What if all the public waterways were sold off to private citizens, and you couldn't afford to buy (or weren't lucky enough to inherit) your own section of stream...would you be singing the same tune? I doubt it.

I guess the "I got mine" attitude is human nature, but it sure is sad.