Stream Access Law

[stlfisher]

Does anyone know what percentage of streams are private and what percentage are public? I have no problem with private land as long as there is enough public land that is available. I would be interested to know the split.

[exiledguide]

Yes

[Trout Commander]

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.

I will start my post by saying I relate to and validate your feeling.

However, your analogies are weak sauce and your argument has more holes than cheese from Sweden. You, or your pappy or his pappy did not build "your" stream but "I" built my pool your talking about soiling yourself in. Additionally this discussion is about a change of law, by the same government that ran the Indians off of their land, not people deciding one day that its OK to wade in your creek and doing it, so by your reasoning you should support the law after it is changed by the same government right???

Also, one would have to think that if all streams were yo become accessible to the public that they would also have the same applicable liability laws as the navigable streams now do.

Again, I will say that I would be against the law were I in your shoes, based purely on feeling but your argument to back your feelings is weightless.

[Terry Beeson]

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.

OK... So what if all the public lands were sold off and you were not lucky enough to buy your own land to hunt... or have a picnic... or hike... or play softball... or... the list can go on and on and on.

Why is it you want access to this anyway? Everyone that has talked this up has projected a "God-given right" to do so, but is that really why? Do you think that buying a fishing permit or hunting permit should give you that right? So tell us, folks... Why do you want this right?

You say the "I got mine" attitude is human nature... Well, I suppose the "I want what he has" attitude is as well. I am not against you or anyone else fishing on my property, I'm against the government saying that anyone and everyone can access it because they came in from the bridge.

I pay taxes on the property I own. I pay other taxes as well. Those taxes are there to provide PUBLIC amenities like roads, bridges, police and fire protection, parks, etc... AND fishing access. Last time I checked, none of that tax money went to make any improvements to the stream on my property. It went to put fish and build docks etc. on the lakes and rivers that are PUBLIC.

Yes, I would be singing the same tune. As I said, that's why we DO have public land...

I guess it boils down to this... Maybe the original inhabitants of this country had the best idea after all.

[Outside Bend]

I pay taxes on the property I own. I pay other taxes as well. Those taxes are there to provide PUBLIC amenities like roads, bridges, police and fire protection, parks, etc... AND fishing access. Last time I checked, none of that tax money went to make any improvements to the stream on my property. It went to put fish and build docks etc. on the lakes and rivers that are PUBLIC.

You mean aside from the NRCS, Department of Agriculture, state/university extension offices, CRP/WRP, using public funds and resources to stock private impoundments, and the fact that MDC has an entire division devoted to helping private landowners using public funds, right?

[Terry Beeson]

However, your analogies are weak sauce and your argument has more holes than cheese from Sweden. You, or your pappy or his pappy did not build "your" stream but "I" built my pool your talking about soiling yourself in.

It is not a question of who "built" what... It is a question of ownership. In YOUR analogy, I should be able to trespass on your property because you didn't "build" it...

Also, one would have to think that if all streams were yo become accessible to the public that they would also have the same applicable liability laws as the navigable streams now do.

While you have a valid argument, the fear I have would be that this would NOT be part of the law. I "think" laws should be this way, but many times they are not.

Additionally this discussion is about a change of law, by the same government that ran the Indians off of their land, not people deciding one day that its OK to wade in your creek and doing it, so by your reasoning you should support the law after it is changed by the same government right???

As I stated, I would fight this tooth and nail, but if it became law, then, as in all cases, yes, I would respect it. I might not like it, just like I don't like many laws, but I will respect it. I don't think the government has the right to say I have to wear a seat belt, but I do because it's the law.

Weak argument? Holes? Not really...

I would have to ask then, why would you be against this law?

[Terry Beeson]

You mean aside from the NRCS, Department of Agriculture, state/university extension offices, CRP/WRP, using public funds and resources to stock private impoundments, and the fact that MDC has an entire division devoted to helping private landowners using public funds, right?

Again, the property I own is in Arkansas, so the MDC argument may be in Missouri, but AGFC does not stock privately owned water unless the landowner pays. MDC helping private landowners using public funds... I would need more information on that one since I'm not familiar.

In the sixties the COE built a watershed dam on the stream to help control flooding, but this made no improvement to the stream that benefits me since it's downstream. In fact, my land now floods where it never did before (according to my dad.) But it was for the good of the public at large. This benefits private land owners downstream, sure, by preventing crops from being flooded out or other damage to their property.

As for the NRCS, DOA, etc. These programs and regulations are set to benefit the overall water basin and farms (just as in the case of the flood control dams by COE.) I can't dump toxins in the stream just like you can't dump them in your driveway because it will affect things downstream. Looking at these programs, the justification is that there is a benefit to the public in general. While you and I may not agree on every one of them doing so, that is the intent. Paying farmers not to grow a certain crop is meant to help the public, but you and I both know the farm subsidy system is abused just like all government programs.

I know I'll never with the argument... but I stand by my principles.

[eric1978]

By the way...to respond to your initial argument about liability...

I find it very difficult to believe a judge or jury would hold you responsible for an injury incurred by a trespasser. Yes, technically you are liable for anything that happens on your property, but c'mon, let's be realistic...it would never hold up in court. It would be like a bank robber suing the bank because he broke his ankle fleeing from the cops.

OK... So what if all the public lands were sold off and you were not lucky enough to buy your own land to hunt... or have a picnic... or hike... or play softball... or... the list can go on and on and on.

Land is not nearly as limited a resource as flowing water, so I reject the premise of that comparison. There is so much public land available that you could wander off into the wilderness and not see another person for years if you so desired. That's not true of streams.

Everyone that has talked this up has projected a "God-given right" to do so, but is that really why?

I don't consider anything a "God-given right." I just believe that there are certain things in society that should be available for everyone to use, regardless of how wealthy or lucky you are. How about roads? Should it be illegal for you to pass through my neighborhood since I paid the taxes that contribute to their construction and maintenance, and you didn't?

Yes, I would be singing the same tune.

I doubt that, but in the case you're really being honest, I'll have to assume then that keeping people off of "your" stream is more important to you than angling in general. I call unsportsmanlike conduct on that one.

I guess it boils down to this... Maybe the original inhabitants of this country had the best idea after all.

Agreed.

And look Terry, I do sympathize with your position. My family had property on the Huzzah for a number of years, well above where the liveries put in floaters. The section of stream that ran through our property was marginally floatable at best, and the number of pools that would be over your head upstream from us I could probably count on two hands. If the Huzzah stayed the same size that it was at our property all the way to the confluence with the Meramec, it would not be considered a navigable stream.

But we did have floaters (dragging their canoes for the most part) and waders come through ocassionally, and I will admit that it was a bit of a thorn in my side that they were able to get the same enjoyment out of something for free that my family had paid for. But not only did they have the legal right to be there, I wouldn't have run them off anyway, unless they were breaking some other law like littering, poaching, or disturbing the peace through noise pollution, etc. Why? Because I would hope that when the tables were turned, and I was exploring new water that I didn't "own," I would be extended the same courtesy from others.

We also owned the property on which Shoal Creek (a different Shoal Creek) ran into the Huzzah. The entirety of that creek, which was not much more than a trickle with a few waist-deep pools, was absolutely non-navigable. It was mine. I owned it, and the last eighth of a mile or so was one of my favorite little places to wade around in the summer with my ultralight and catch 12 inch smallies all day long. One day, making my way back downstream to our house, I encountered a father and young son walking up from the Huzzah, where they were on a short float. My first instinct was to be a prick and scold them for trespassing, but I thought better of it, and stopped to chat with them. They were nice guys, and the father explained to me that he was very sorry to be on my property without permission, and that they were only looking for a small creek to play around in, since he wanted his son to have as much fun as he remembered having as a kid in little creeks like this one. He told me how hard it was to find a place to explore and avoid the party crowds on the weekend, since everything seemed to be private or overrun with drunks. I told him I knew exactly what he meant, and that they were welcome to stay and fish, and I realized at that moment that places like Shoal Creek were too special to keep to myself.

And here's the more important thing to consider...The small streams in question that this thread is about are in no real danger of being overrun with undesirable people. The weekend partiers will almost always stick to the larger streams with canoe rentals, the meth-heads are more interested in getting into your shed than they are wading through your creek, and the local drunks are too lazy and uninterested to look for new places to get hammered and blast AC/DC...the gravel parking lot under the bridge is good enough for them. I would imagine that your experience has been similar to mine, in that very few of the people you've encountered on your stream have been a threat to you or your property in any way, and that most folks who would wade upstream two miles from a public access to find fish would be enthusiastic enough anglers to know not to litter or otherwise disrespect the adjacent property.

Speech over.

[Smalliebigs]

I'm right there with you Terry...keep the stupid goverment and it's pathetic regulations off my land and out of my life. The MDC is doing nothing for Brazil Creek and nothing about a gravel mining operation upstream from us. I stocked the 11 acre pond on our land not the MDC, we had a fish farm out of Salem,MO stock the pond. I find it hard to believe that people on this forum would think it's their right to fish our pond merely because it's there in Missouri and you have a fishing permit. We have a different situation than you we have a creek and a river.There isn't a darn thing I can do about the river other than watch the dung float down stream and shut my mouth. The creek on the other hand is not navigable in my opinion..others may disagree with me on that and I will protect MY section of the creek tooth and nail. I will say this again I wouldn't have problems with any OAF members fishing thru there just ask me first and tell me when you are going.I would like to meet you and share a beer or two or maybe five or six

[Outside Bend]

I'm right there with you Terry...keep the stupid goverment and it's pathetic regulations off my land and out of my life. The MDC is doing nothing for Brazil Creek and nothing about a gravel mining operation upstream from us. I stocked the 11 acre pond on our land not the MDC, we had a fish farm out of Salem,MO stock the pond. I find it hard to believe that people on this forum would think it's their right to fish our pond merely because it's there in Missouri and you have a fishing permit. We have a different situation than you we have a creek and a river.There isn't a darn thing I can do about the river other than watch the dung float down stream and shut my mouth. The creek on the other hand is not navigable in my opinion..others may disagree with me on that and I will protect MY section of the creek tooth and nail. I will say this again I wouldn't have problems with any OAF members fishing thru there just ask me first and tell me when you are going.I would like to meet you and share a beer or two or maybe five or six

Smallie, it's a shame your stream is being degraded by gravel mining, but you may not be getting any response from MDC because you're barking up the wrong tree. DNR is supposed to be the one taking care of water quality issues in the state. And your example illustrates the point perfectly- if Brazil Creek was in the public domain, private landowners wouldn't have the right to do in-stream gravel mining.

No one's saying the public should be able to fish landlocked ponds, with fish stocked by the landowner. But you didn't stock the fish in the creeks, and you didn't grow the water that flows there. They're a public resource, and the public ought to be able to access them.

If you want to argue the public shouldn't access those streams because there's bad apples out there who will ruin the stream, fine. I've seen plenty of LANDOWNERS use their streams as dumping grounds. I've seen numerous landowners tearing up stream bottoms with ATVs, with tractors, with backhoes. I've watched landowners cut down every single piece of vegetation from the streambanks, because it gives them a more picturesque view of the stream. I've watched landowners mine gravel out of "their" streams. I've watched landowners straighten streams, I've watched landowners throw levies up alongside streambanks, excacerbating flooding elsewhere. I've watched landowners run their livestock through streams, and I've watched banks collapse as a result. Mineral Fork is one of those quasi-navigable streams, and the vast majority of the stream is in private ownership. And it's one of the trashiest, most denuded smallmouth streams I've fished in the Ozarks. Compare that to places like the upper Current, which is primarily public ownership. You'll see garbage- soda and beer cans, fishing line, etc. But you see far fewer tires, refrigerators, car bodies, cattle in the stream, ATVs in the stream, and gravel mining operations. There's bad actors in every crowd- just because you own the land next to a stream doesn't mean you're any more responsible a steward of that stream than the guy who wants to spend a day fishing there.

The argument ignores the fact that there are benefits to public access- the more people who are able to use a resource, the more people who are invested and concerned about it. You get Stream Teams, you get advocacy. When you have to start going up against folks like Tyson and gravel miners and the Farm Bureau- folks who do far more damage to our states' streams than a few beercans and worm boxes, it's nice to have those advocates.