Stream Access Law

[Smalliebigs]

Outside, I agree the Current River is beautiful in the fall and winter, but in the summer it's a joke!! full of freaks puking on sand bars and and fliping canoes left and right. Gene @ Akers has told me of the insanity that exist in the summer and I have witnessed it a few times myself.I will agree the hoosiers have basicly destroyed the Mineral Fork it's rediculous and full of trash compared to the Current.The Brazil Creek is still pristene and beautiful for most of it's length.I totally agree with you there are landowners who are guilty as hell of destroying the stream bed whether it's on purpose or due to their own ignorance.

Do I want the feds to designate Brazil Creek as a national scenic waterway???? sure if they buy my land from me for a legit price. We already had to buy the land back from them when they took it thru iminent domain in order to darn up the Meramec.

By the way we called the DNR and their response is oohhh so swift...give me a break state or federal agencies are not the ansewer to everything.We also own the land under the water on both sides or at least we are taxed on it, not just up to the stream bed.

We have our own stream team it's our family and I will take any advocates I can get. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any state or federal agency to help in any fashion.

[Mitch f]

Outside, I agree the Current River is beautiful in the fall and winter, but in the summer it's a joke!! full of freaks puking on sand bars and and fliping canoes left and right. Gene @ Akers has told me of the insanity that exist in the summer and I have witnessed it a few times myself.I will agree the hoosiers have basicly destroyed the Mineral Fork it's rediculous and full of trash compared to the Current.The Brazil Creek is still pristene and beautiful for most of it's length.I totally agree with you there are landowners who are guilty as hell of destroying the stream bed whether it's on purpose or due to their own ignorance.

Do I want the feds to designate Brazil Creek as a national scenic waterway???? sure if they buy my land from me for a legit price. We already had to buy the land back from them when they took it thru iminent domain in order to darn up the Meramec.

By the way we called the DNR and their response is oohhh so swift...give me a break state or federal agencies are not the ansewer to everything.We also own the land under the water on both sides or at least we are taxed on it, not just up to the stream bed.

We have our own stream team it's our family and I will take any advocates I can get. I'm not holding my breath waiting for any state or federal agency to help in any fashion.

There are few government agencies that I have faith in. When I heard response form the DNR it didn't surprise me.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Here is what the MoDNR has posted on their site concerning this subject. Pretty cut and dried but I am sure opinions will vary.

What about fishing Missouri’s rivers and streams?

Public use of Missouri’s float streams often causes conflict with private landowners. Public access to Missouri’s streams has been controlled since 1954 by Elder v. Delcour, a case decided by the Missouri Supreme Court. Navigable rivers and streams are open to all legal use by the public and fall under the control and jurisdiction of the federal government. Case law defines a navigable riveras “one that as a matter of fact is susceptible of being used in its ordinary condition, as a highway forcommerce over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in customary fashion.” (Sneed v.Weber, 307 S. W.2d68, and Elder v. Delcour, 269 S. W.2d17).In the Elder v. Delcour case, the Missouri Supreme Court concluded that a public fishing right exists upon Missouri’s small, floatable streams. The court ruled that since the ownership of the fish in the stream is vested in the public, the public has a right to fish and to take fish from the streams in a legal manner. The court ruling held that persons floating or wading in the upper Meramec River, following legal entry into that stream, were not trespassing. The Elder case has been accepted as precedent throughout the state and represents the controlling authority concerning public use of Missouri rivers and streams. Continued lawful and ethical use of Missouri’s waterways will help ensure that right for future Missourians.

[Greg]

Outside, I agree the Current River is beautiful in the fall and winter, but in the summer it's a joke!! full of freaks puking on sand bars and and fliping canoes left and right. Gene @ Akers has told me of the insanity that exist in the summer and I have witnessed it a few times myself.I will agree the hoosiers have basicly destroyed the Mineral Fork it's rediculous and full of trash compared to the Current.The Brazil Creek is still pristene and beautiful for most of it's length.I totally agree with you there are landowners who are guilty as hell of destroying the stream bed whether it's on purpose or due to their own ignorance.

I think that's true of not just the Current but ANY of the popular float streams in the summer isn't it? It's been my experience that the Current, Meramec, NFOW, James, and even the Gasconade are just not pleasant places to be in the summer. Even on a weekday. Just too many drunks and other unpleasant folks around.

But would the same type of thing happen on a smaller type of stream like we are talking about here? I seriously doubt that. I just don't think those types of people would be interested in the type of physical activity required to wade and fish a small creek/river or float it (walking and dragging through the low spots).

My family owns a large farm up by Jasper/Carthage MO. No stream on the property but there is a large pond. We've always let locals fish the pond and have had very little difficulty.

Greg

[Terry Beeson]

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.

Then let the government purchase the streambed just like they did the public land.

To be quite clear about this, I am not trying to keep people from fishing in the stream. I don't object to people fishing in the stream IF they ask permission and I know they are there. What I object to is the government forcing this down my throat...

As for the street point... You're more than welcome to drive down the highway and county road that boarder the land. I pay the taxes to keep those roads up, just like you pay taxes on your house to pay for the street.

As for the liability issue, it's already happened to a few friends of mine. So, yes there are courts where that will happen.

You call me "unsportmanlike" and I am against angling "in general?" No... I'm just not a bleeding-heart liberal who wants everything given to him on a platter. There are plenty of streams with public access. Don't tell me I'm looking through rose-colored glasses when you are doing the same. What is "unsportsmanlike" is wanting the government to pass such a law so you won't have to simply ask permission.

And, no OB... I didn't "grow"(?) the water, or stock the fish, or the deer, or the turkey, or rabbits, or quail, or squirrels on the land. And the matter of them being "public resources" is a point well taken. But again, you want access to the creek to catch the fish to be mandated by the government because of that. Well, the next step is to also allow the public on the land to hunt those "public resources", or just admire the beauty of the bluffs that line the creek. And I did not plant the walnut and pecan trees on the land either. Does that mean I should allow you to come in and harvest the walnuts and pecans every fall?

Still there is nobody willing to say WHY they want this other than it should be their "right." Let me get my copy of the Bill of Rights and see where it says that...

We all have the right to our opinion. I think it's time we agree to disagree on this one...

Meanwhile, I'm going to go ask Smalliebigs if I can go fishing on his place... and have a few beers with him...

[troutfiend1985]

Smallie, have you contacted a lawyer about a possible nuisance? Maybe you could get an injunction.

While there are probably benefits to having public use of lands, look at how well a lot of these streams are conserved in the hands of a private land owner. I'm pretty sure the Apache trout are a good example of this, and there is no way those fish would be alive if all streams were public.

I'm surprised that I haven't really heard anyone say that in some situation we would be taking away a persons right to property. That is really what would be happening with a law like this, you would make it harder for an individual to protect their right to property. I would love to have access to all water, but from the landowners eye, there’s no legitimate legal reason to do this. Instead, we are wanting the government to exercise its power of eminent domain. Do we really want to do that? Check out the New London situation and tell me that doesn't make your blood boil.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pfizer-abandons-site-of-infamous-Kelo-eminent-domain-taking-69580497.html

So, what about the private trout parks, and how those would be handled?

[ozark trout fisher]

Eric 1978, Outside Bend and others have made my point as well or better than I could. I don't really have anything to add.

Just one thing. There are over 500 views of this thread, and just over 30 votes. Although from my perspective it does look favorable, that is simply not a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions. I am frankly trying to determine whether it is worth taking the next step-possibly in the form of a petition to send to the state capital. This is the only way I know to get an idea of how the Missouri fishing community (the basis of any effort to enact a stream access law) feels.

If you have an opinion, please vote. Either way.

[eric1978]

Let me get my copy of the Bill of Rights and see where it says that...

Actually, it's guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence..life, liberty and the pursuit of fish.

As much as I'd like to get into the political debate you're luring me into, I'll resist. Suffice it to say, you misunderstand liberals. Nonetheless, I wish the government would buy up all the streams.

[Al Agnew]

We hashed out Elder vs. Delcour a while back, and part of that decision was interpreted by some to say that if a stream was good fishing, the public had a right to fish it. Now that isn't the way the decision is being utilized in determining whether you can legally fish small, non-floatable streams, but there would be a pretty decent chance that at some point a court could decide it that way. We aren't that far from it.

The landowner owns everything but the water and the fish and other critters in it in Missouri, and that's true even on the floatable streams. But the landowner doesn't own the water and the fish, which could be construed to mean that the public has a right to access the stream in order to get to those fish. Fortunately for landowners, that isn't the case right now.

But that's a huge contrast from ponds, where the landowner owns everything including the water and the fish in it.

In some ways I agree with Eric, in that if you own a piece of creek a couple miles from the nearest public access, the chances of whoever it is coming up the creek to your land while fishing being a bad apple is pretty slim. On the other hand, if you own the creek right near the bridge, you've probably already run afoul of the slobs and pinheads and criminals that seem to be so much more prevalent these days. On the other other hand, if you just recently bought that piece of land next to the bridge, you should have understood from the beginning you were going to have that problem.

Just for fun, let's come up with possible solutions to this whole problem. Here's a scenario...the state designates a section of creek as "fishable". All the landowners on that creek are contacted and informed that their creek is "fishable"...and they have the right to be compensated for the use of it by the public. All of us who want to fish said creek must buy a tag that is strictly for the use of that creek, access the creek only at designated public access points, and fill out our name, address, and tag number and drop it in a box at the access every time we fish it. The tag money is split up among the landowners. If you're caught on the creek without a tag, you're trespassing, and the landowner has the right to demand to see the tag and record its number at any time, as do conservation agents and law enforcement people. In addition, each watershed should have "stream keepers", which is a little different from the stream teams we have now. The stream keepers should be a group of people consisting of tag holders and landowners who not only get together regularly to do clean-ups, but also voluntarily patrol the accesses watching for illegal activities and reporting them to law enforcement.

Sounds pretty complicated and maybe utopian, doesn't it? But if things keep going the way they are, we're either going to have to come up with solutions something like that, or we're going to just say all the streams are private, because the number of people using the streams is getting larger and the pinhead ratio is climbing, too.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I already buy a tag. And nowhere on that tag does it say "For fishing on state owned waters only".

Now I will say that I am in total agreement private ponds and lakes are off limits. And begrudgingly add thoses stocked with fish from the MDC.