Stream Access Law

[Al Agnew]

The only problem with asking permission is that often these streams are owned by several different landowners in a given stretch of three or four miles. I often wade up to four miles in a day, and go across several different landowners' property. It's sometimes not even easy to find where the landowner who owns the property at the access lives, and it's often not easy to find landowners who may be through a locked gate and several miles down a private lane to a spot that's two miles down the creek from the access.

If you ask the landowner at the access and get permission, that doesn't mean you have permission from the next landowner along the creek. And in fact, if you wade up the creek onto the next owners' land and he doesn't want you there, it might even cause friction between him and the landowner who gave you permission.

Because of these problems, my usual procedure is to look at the access, which is usually a bridge crossing. If there is an obvious place to park and there aren't any no trespassing signs or purple paint, I figure that it's probably okay to fish it from there, and when on the stream, as I said before, I stay in the creek or on the gravel bars. I usually go by myself on these small streams, and I don't tell people where they are. I even pick up any trash I see around the access. On the other hand, if there is a house near the access, near enough that the people living there are likely to see my vehicle parked there, I ask their permission--even if the access is posted with all kinds of purple paint and keep out signs...and more times than not, they readily give me permission.

[fishinwrench]

if there is a house near the access, near enough that the people living there are likely to see my vehicle parked there, I ask their permission--even if the access is posted with all kinds of purple paint and keep out signs...and more times than not, they readily give me permission

Yeah well, you're a clean cut ultra-polite little guy that drives a politically correct vehicle. Some of these other neanderthals pulling up in their dirty, dented old 4X4's with dual glass pac's might elicit a different response

[eric1978]

It's sometimes not even easy to find where the landowner who owns the property at the access lives, and it's often not easy to find landowners who may be through a locked gate and several miles down a private lane to a spot that's two miles down the creek from the access.

Exactly. I've asked landowners for access to streams many times before...usually it's granted, sometimes it's not. But I don't usually seek permission from landowners of adjacent properties to public accesses for the above reasons...unless their house is right there on the stream, or it is visible from the road and the gate's not locked. I don't have a problem with asking for permission, but if I can't see a house from where I'm fishing, then they can't see me, and they'll never know I was there. Plus, frankly, I don't have the time to drive all over the planet trying to lock up permission from every landowner in the county so I can quietly slip through a creek. I rarely get the time to fish, and I'm not gonna waste those precious moments on fruitless door-knocking expeditions.

And I'm not changing your mind, Terry, and you're not changing mine, so I'm not wasting any more time with this argument either. Good luck with your little personal manifest destiny dystopia.

[ozark trout fisher]

In case my last post wasn't clear, maybe this one will be. Terry, you may well be the nicest guy on earth, willing to let any nice looking fisherman fish your stretch of stream if they ask permission. And I appreciate that. But, heaven forbid, say you have financial trouble and have to sell the place. The guy who buys it starts an expensive fishing club/developement, and won't let anyone in who isn't a member that can pay the fee of several thousand dollars. And that can happen. Look up the Spring Ridge Club in Pennsylvania. Formerly open "just ask permission" water is closed to all but a wealthy few. If we don't have a stream access law, this guy can have his way. That's wrong.

[Terry Beeson]

...but this post really shows me that you don't seem to know what it't like to be the fisherman that doesn't own property on a stream....

And from your post, I can tell you have never owned property with a small stream running through it. And since I don't own property in Missouri, yes I am a fisherman just looking for a place to fish and I find PLENTY of places to fish on streams with MDC accesses. Again, you guys want to talk apples and oranges. I'm not talking about any stream that is normally fished. I'm speaking of small, much of the time non-flowing creeks not normally fished that, if this law came into effect, would become a "public sidewalk" as has been suggested. If a conscientious angler wants to fish these small creeks, I see no problem. But this law could, as I have said before, open up a huge can of worms that most of you would complain about. Again, don't take me wrong as many of you have. I'm not against fishing these waters. I'm against opening up every little ditch as a "public sidewalk."

Public, and even private funding is stretched now when it comes to enforcement, maintenance, and conservation efforts for the streams and lakes that are obviously public. Are you willing to pay more taxes to help pay for more "sidewalks" now? Or will it be the land owners responsibility? That's just one of the worms you're suggesting.

Trying to find a place to fish? Maybe you should go to the list of forums on this site. There are THOUSANDS of miles of streams in Missouri that obviously are perfectly legal to fish.

And, Eric... my "manifest destiny dystopia?" First, I object to using the term "dystopia." It proves to me your lack of respect. And if you read your history, you will find that the Manifest Destiny doctrine is why you are allowed to own your home. Even if you rent, someone owns that property due to Manifest Destiny. Maybe in a utopian society, the government would give us all a place to live and we would be happy with it. Seems to me there are countries that do just that.

No, I'm not going to change your mind. As you stated earlier, you will interpret the laws "liberally" which certainly is a gamble. May you do so without suffering any consequences.

[eric1978]

I'm speaking of small, much of the time non-flowing creeks not normally fished that, if this law came into effect, would become a "public sidewalk" as has been suggested.

I'll return momentarily to make this concession...

If your creek is usually dry, I see no reason to open it for public use. If your creek is usually dry, it is without a doubt non-navigable. If your creek is usually dry, I would have no desire to access it, with permission or without. And if your creek is usually dry, it's not your creek this thread is about. I wouldn't worry about your creek if I were you...I think we're all talking about streams that have at least some flow year round, which is when the navigability question comes into play.

[Terry Beeson]

I'll return momentarily to make this concession...

If your creek is usually dry, I see no reason to open it for public use. If your creek is usually dry, it is without a doubt non-navigable. If your creek is usually dry, I would have no desire to access it, with permission or without. And if your creek is usually dry, it's not your creek this thread is about. I wouldn't worry about your creek if I were you...I think we're all talking about streams that have at least some flow year round, which is when the navigability question comes into play.

Now the question is begged... You said if you come to a creek and there is 3" of water flowing, you consider this accessible. So how do you know this is not "usually dry?" And what would be considered "usually dry" and "some flow?" Ambiguity again. But I appreciate your concession to the point. Maybe you are beginning to see my point.

To me, the court decisions negate the need for a written "law" that would be just as, if not more ambiguous as the rulings. While virtually impossible, the only way to satisfy all parties would be for the government to designate what is floatable, and that ain't happ'nin' for a variety of reasons. But it IS obvious that both the DNR and MDC have the designation on many miles of stream as shown in the regulations and "where to fish" portions of their documentation. Now, does the lack of any mention of X creek in this documentation mean it is not floatable/navigable under the court rulings? I could use the logic of some that yes it does. But in reality, I don't know...

But, I have to tell you, that even though the creek running through my place is not continually flowing, I think if I took you to a couple of pools, you might change your mind... (But don't tell my neighbors down there that don't already know that... ) I just wish I could get down there more and fish it myself.

[Terry Beeson]

I am of the opinion that streams are too precious to be owned by any one person. I will access the stream at a legal point, stay in the stream, and act like a perfect gentleman. My attitude is never "to hell with the landowner". I'll treat the stream running through his land better than I'd treat my front yard. I will leave absolutely no trace whatsoever. And frankly, the landowner would have no reason whatsoever to try to kick me off, and if he does, he is a jerk, no matter what the letter of the law is this week. I know I have the right to be there. I guess you could call a subtle, non-confrontational form of civil disobedience with the laws as they are now. I'm not saying to hell with doing what's right. I feel I am doing the right thing, even if it is looked down upon by some. In the years to come, I want my children and my grandchildren to be able to fish these streams. So the least I can do is to make a little stand on this now. Not being a lawyer I'm honestly not sure if these streams are navigable or not, but they are very precious to me. Can landowner types not understand where I'm coming from here?

In case my last post wasn't clear, maybe this one will be. Terry, you may well be the nicest guy on earth, willing to let any nice looking fisherman fish your stretch of stream if they ask permission. And I appreciate that. But, heaven forbid, say you have financial trouble and have to sell the place. The guy who buys it starts an expensive fishing club/developement, and won't let anyone in who isn't a member that can pay the fee of several thousand dollars. And that can happen. Look up the Spring Ridge Club in Pennsylvania. Formerly open "just ask permission" water is closed to all but a wealthy few. If we don't have a stream access law, this guy can have his way. That's wrong.

First of all, if you "know I have the right to be there" then you, sir, need to explain to the court system and the rest of the world how you can KNOW and then say "whatever the letter of the law is this week?" No, my friend, in some cases you do not KNOW. You are interpreting the law as you see it.

Then you say in one sentence that your attitude is never to hell with the landowner, and then later say that if he kicks you off, he's a jerk. I think I understand what you are saying, but it does sound ironic. IF you are obviously in floatable water, then he has no right to run you out of the stream. But is he a "jerk?" I would say he's just attempting to protect his interests and has interpreted the court rulings differently than you. And I'm saying that this is the case if this is NOT an obviously open stream. If you are on the North Fork of the White, then yes, he's in the wrong. And, you do make a better phrasing later where you say you "feel" you are in the right. Give the land owner the benefit of the same instead of just labeling him a jerk. Maybe he thinks you are one for your civil disobedience.

Your statement of "That's wrong" is rather strong as well. YOU THINK it is wrong. That's your opinion. Is it wrong for these people to form the exclusive club? Is it wrong for Dogwood Canyon, Rockbridge, Spavinaw Creek in Arkansas and others to do the same? You say "If we don't have a stream access law, this guy can have his way." Why is it your opinion that this is wrong? I'm not saying it is RIGHT, but I'm not seeing a reason it's wrong.

In my opinion, there are many things wrong in this country. I think it's wrong to collect sales taxes on a used car that has already had sales tax collected when purchased new. I think it's wrong that I no longer have a very nice paying job because the company I worked for decided to close the plant and move operations to China, not to mention the one that I lost because the division was moved to St Louis. Maybe if these things had not happened, I could join the club in Pennsylvania... I think it's wrong that I have to have a special tag in order to hunt deer on a conservation area. That's my opinion because it affects me personally. But that does not make it absolutely wrong.

"In the years to come, I want my children and my grandchildren to be able to fish these streams." I want my grandkids to be able to have a place to fish and hunt myself. I don't think anyone is against that. But that is the reason we have the government programs in place to assure public land. That's why Johnny Morris can't buy a section of Lake Taneycomo and close that area to all but BassPro employees to fish. That's why those brown signs around Missouri announce public fishing access on many streams are there. In no way am I advocating privatizing all streams and waterways.

There is no stream access law in Missouri now. The challenge has been made for someone to access Dogwood Canyon via the highway bridge. I don't actually think that is necessary, but if someone would challenge this in a courtroom, then you can talk about the need for such a law. To my knowledge, this has not been challenged and my opinion is there is no need for such a law. It would be interesting to see what the outcome would be in such a case. I'm waiting on Troutfiend to file the papers...

I think many land owners, me included, see the part of your post about the streams being very precious to you very reassuring. Most landowners have the same feelings and actually want to protect them. Give me the benefit of the doubt that there are streams not already considered floatable by the MDC definition that would be damaged with such a law in place. I will give you the benefit of saying there would be some that would BENEFIT from conscientious anglers fishing the stream.

[troutfiend1985]

. Ok, I've been staying out of this as long as I can, but here I go. . .

First, let me state that I would love to fish any stream that is in MO, and that I would love to have an opportunity like this. But, we have to see this from both sides. While I may want to fish a stream that runs through the back yard of an individual, we can't subject another person to this because it would suit our preference. I will probably never have enough money to have a trout stream or smallmouth stream in my backyard, and that sucks. But I have access to some of the best waters in the state. Yeah, I have to share them with the knuckleheads, but there is always enough water to share. Water has a special quality to it, and I think that is why we are fisherman in one sense or the other. But land is no different, tell me that the redwoods in California or the Flint Hills in KS aren't any more special than a small creek in Missouri, can you? Maybe subjectively, but to the whole world I don't think this rings true. And yes it sucks when some owner comes in to a piece of property to close it down to the rest of the world, but guess what: by him purchasing that land he has the right to do this, he owns the bundle of rights to that land and he can freely do what he pleases, so long that it is legal.

I feel for both sides here, OTF I'm in your boat. But I can't sit there and marginalize another persons rights because I lack the financial capability to purchase that land. To me that would be no better than what we have done to the Native Americans. The sad thing here is that I see us telling people like Terry that you should forgo your rights in order to make my life better. Sorry, but that isn't going to fly by my morals or worldview. If someone has sacrificed in order to make a dream come true, then why should I have the right to tell that same individual that your rights to that land are subject to my passions and unique view of rivers?

It's not like we're talking about the areas that are floatable, or are capable of being floated. We have access to those areas, or at least there is a very strong argument that we have access to these lands under MO precedent. We're not talking about the proverbial "public roads" which are capable of supporting public traffic, I think the better analogy is that we are talking about your driveway to your house.

Anyways, there is my view of the situation. One of the greatest things in the US is that we have the ability to freely alienate our property, to allow those who we want to access our house while keeping intruders out. I hope that makes sense. Again, I would love to access any stream, and from my viewpoint that would be the equivalent of fishing Nirvana. But, I'm not willing to do this at the expense of landowner rights

[troutfiend1985]

I'm waiting on Troutfiend to file the papers...

I like it Terry and hopefully one day I'll be in that position.

However, I'm just waiting for the right situation. But, I want to make sure that one thing is clear. I don't think it is in the best interest of society to have every small creek and brook open to the public. Something like Shoal creek is different, in that it appears to be floatable and probably capable of transporting commerce. But a stream the size of Crane or Hickory is not what I think should be open. We haven't ever used those streams to transport commerce, and to me there is no reason today to say differently.

I want to make the floatable streams and the streams that are capable of transporting commerce open. Terry, to me it sounds like your stream and those like it are in a different category.