Stream Access Law

[Smalliebigs]

Sorry, as a landowner with a river running thru it I don't have confidence in people to treat my section of the river or Brazil Creek and Meramec River in my case as though it was their own property. I worked way to hard in maintaining and purchasing this property to allow any old gaper to trespass and stomp on thru my land.Come talk to me and let me get to know you and you will have access for a lifetime. I know virtually all of you on this forum are not the sort of people I am worried about. It's been a ton of hard work and time on my family's part to maintain this land and preserve it as it once was. I know this sounds brutal on my part but the land is a part of me and I take deep pride in it, I'm just saying walk a mile in another man's shoes and see how you feel about it.

[ozark trout fisher]

I worked way to hard in maintaining and purchasing this property to allow any old gaper to trespass and stomp on thru my land.

No one is proposing that anyone be able to step onto your land without your permission. This law would strictly apply to stream-beds below the high water mark.

The laws that are currently in effect would allow anglers to use the Meramec River below the high water mark anyway. Brazil Creek, under current laws would at least be a gray area where I've been on it (maybe navigable, maybe not probably depending on the county judge and/or prosecutor). So you don't stand to lose much if any privacy or control over your property if this law were passed.

[Smalliebigs]

Ozark, you are not the type of person I am worried about, I know you are a stuart of the river or stream. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If you think Brazil creek is navigable your nuts and in my opinion your'e not thinking of the streams best intrest.If you were to take a canoe or a kayak down Brazil creek you would be dragging it 90% of the time tearing up the stream bed and silting the creek up, this type of behavior would not be helpful for any of the species of animals that live in the stream bed.

If your law was to go into effect there has to be a true easement that is the states property that extends out from the river bed that exempts any liabilty to the land owner also the county shouldn't be allowed to tax you on the land underneath the water on either side of the stream bed.Hey I wade fish a ton just like you, I just take the time and energy to find the landowner and talk to them and get their permission to access.

By us the Brazil creek has one bridge off HWY N it's apporox three miles up stream from us, it's a public highway there may be an easement??? to get my land you would have to hike a pretty good way down through many of my nieghbors land and I wouldn't recomend that considering their attitudes.Personally I don't care as much about people wading the Brazil to catch some smallies and releasing them, I care more about the gravel mining operation up stream from me that is destroying a beautiful creek's habitat for smallies.We will always diagree on this one Ozark sorry....if the laws change so be it I will abide by them, I just like to know the people who's land I am using and like to get their permission before I do it.

p.s. right about now your saying hey you wade fish and your tearing up the stream bed....well I use all the cation I can and always go slow and always try to get out on a sand bar or the bank wherever possible so as to be the least disruptive to the stream bed as possible.I know I'm sounding like a tree hugger here but that is how I am...ask the people I fish with

[troutfiend1985]

I think this is what land owners are worried about. Shitter was full.

[ozark trout fisher]

Ozark, you are not the type of person I am worried about, I know you are a stuart of the river or stream. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. If you think Brazil creek is navigable your nuts and in my opinion your'e not thinking of the streams best intrest.If you were to take a canoe or a kayak down Brazil creek you would be dragging it 90% of the time tearing up the stream bed and silting the creek up, this type of behavior would not be helpful for any of the species of animals that live in the stream bed.

If your law was to go into effect there has to be a true easement that is the states property that extends out from the river bed that exempts any liabilty to the land owner also the county shouldn't be allowed to tax you on the land underneath the water on either side of the stream bed.Hey I wade fish a ton just like you, I just take the time and energy to find the landowner and talk to them and get their permission to access.

By us the Brazil creek has one bridge off HWY N it's apporox three miles up stream from us, it's a public highway there may be an easement??? to get my land you would have to hike a pretty good way down through many of my nieghbors land and I wouldn't recomend that considering their attitudes.Personally I don't care as much about people wading the Brazil to catch some smallies and releasing them, I care more about the gravel mining operation up stream from me that is destroying a beautiful creek's habitat for smallies.We will always diagree on this one Ozark sorry....if the laws change so be it I will abide by them, I just like to know the people who's land I am using and like to get their permission before I do it.

p.s. right about now your saying hey you wade fish and your tearing up the stream bed....well I use all the cation I can and always go slow and always try to get out on a sand bar or the bank wherever possible so as to be the least disruptive to the stream bed as possible.I know I'm sounding like a tree hugger here but that is how I am...ask the people I fish with

I hear your opinions and they are all absolutely valid.

I agree that there needs to be a provision in the law that would exempt landowners from any possible liability from an anglers fishing. You are absolutely right there that if that wasn't included, it could be a real problem for landowners. You seem to truly care about the streams that flow through your land and I have nothing but admiration for that.

By the way, I'm with you about the gravel operation. It really sucks the life out of that little creek.

[duckydoty]

I voted no even though I do not own land next to a non navigatable water way. My opinion is (and it is just an opinion) there are plenty of navigatable water ways in Missouri that offer the public many chances at wade or float fishing. These smaller creeks if it is a dream to own give us something to work hard for in hopes of one day that dream coming true. By keeping them private, we the public have to be granted permission to fish by proving and maintaining our own stewardship of the waterways.

To take this from someone that has worked hard for it would be wrong.

[ozark trout fisher]

I voted no even though I do not own land next to a non navigatable water way. My opinion is (and it is just an opinion) there are plenty of navigatable water ways in Missouri that offer the public many chances at wade or float fishing. These smaller creeks if it is a dream to own give us something to work hard for in hopes of one day that dream coming true. By keeping them private, we the public have to be granted permission to fish by proving and maintaining our own stewardship of the waterways.

To take this from someone that has worked hard for it would be wrong.

I guess I just see this from a slightly different angle.

As I've mentioned, I'm not advocating that anyone be able to cross land to get to the stream (unless, of course permission is granted), just to walk up the stream below the high water mark. I know I've repeated myself several times on that count, but it's really important to be clear. I think a misunderstanding of that point is why some landowners are opposed to such a law.

I guess I just don't see a waterway being opened to public fishing as "taking away" from anyone. Landowners that have put in work to better the stream should be applauded. It is a noble effort, and I do not want to offend or hurt conservation minded folks in any way. But a stream is a natural body of water, placed there by geologic forces or God, (depending on your viewpoint on an altogether different issue that is irelevent here) The stream was never anyone's to own in the first place, so I just don't see how it can be taken away. That's just the way I see it, and I don't particularly expect my viewpoint to matter to anyone else. I do not at all mind that some disagree with me on this. That was expected. I was just kind of testing the water(no pun intended) about a very specific point with this thread and poll.

[Mitch f]

I guess I just see this from a slightly different angle.

As I've mentioned, I'm not advocating that anyone be able to cross land to get to the stream (unless, of course permission is granted), just to walk up the stream below the high water mark. I know I've repeated myself several times on that count, but it's really important to be clear. I think a misunderstanding of that point is why some landowners are opposed to such a law.

I guess I just don't see a waterway being opened to public fishing as "taking away" from anyone. Landowners that have put in work to better the stream should be applauded. It is a noble effort, and I do not want to offend or hurt conservation minded folks in any way. But a stream is a natural body of water, placed there by geologic forces or God, (depending on your viewpoint on an altogether different issue that is irelevent here) The stream was never anyone's to own in the first place, so I just don't see how it can be taken away. That's just the way I see it, and I don't particularly expect my viewpoint to matter to anyone else. I do not at all mind that some disagree with me on this. That was expected. I was just kind of testing the water(no pun intended) about a very specific point with this thread and poll.

I would have to agree with Smallie on this one. When your wading a stream it is sometimes very hard to stay in the stream bed. I think if you counted every time when you were wading and had to get out of the stream bed because of deep water or you just wanted to approach a rootwad from a different side of the river, you would be surprised how many times you were out of the stream bed. A friend of mine has about 300 yards of river frontage on Joachim creek in Festus. Several times he has had to confront people Trespassing and dragging bass on a stringer 20 yards off the river because it was easier walking. Some people just don't care about other people's property.

[eric1978]

These smaller creeks if it is a dream to own give us something to work hard for in hopes of one day that dream coming true.

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

[duckydoty]

I guess I just see this from a slightly different angle.

As I've mentioned, I'm not advocating that anyone be able to cross land to get to the stream (unless, of course permission is granted), just to walk up the stream below the high water mark. I know I've repeated myself several times on that count, but it's really important to be clear. I think a misunderstanding of that point is why some landowners are opposed to such a law.

I guess I just don't see a waterway being opened to public fishing as "taking away" from anyone. Landowners that have put in work to better the stream should be applauded. It is a noble effort, and I do not want to offend or hurt conservation minded folks in any way. But a stream is a natural body of water, placed there by geologic forces or God, (depending on your viewpoint on an altogether different issue that is irelevent here) The stream was never anyone's to own in the first place, so I just don't see how it can be taken away. That's just the way I see it, and I don't particularly expect my viewpoint to matter to anyone else. I do not at all mind that some disagree with me on this. That was expected. I was just kind of testing the water(no pun intended) about a very specific point with this thread and poll.

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.