Little Piney Access - Run-In With Landowner

[Feathers and Fins]

Ok this thread has created more confusion that answers to me... Maybe its time to try and get the STATES AG to get togeather with MDC for a clear black n white defining of the law. Real simple if its a floatable / navigatable waterway is it legal to be in or around the water and banks below high water mark. Just put it in Black n White print once and for all..

In accordance with the ( Elder v Delcour ) the High courts ruling was simple

The trial court determined the issues presented by the pleadings and declared the law respecting plaintiff's rights as follows: "That the Meramec River at the place in question and as described in the petition is public water and subject to travel by plaintiff and those who desire to wade it or to float down it in boats * * * that plaintiff has a legal right to fish in said stream subject to the regulations of the Missouri Conservation Commission and the Laws of Missouri * * *." The court declared that plaintiff had "the legal right to carry his boat around obstacles in the river where obstructions preclude the passage of his boat, subject to liability for damage he might inflict on defendant's property * * * (and) the legal right to tie up his boat or to camp on said stream as long as he uses the stream bed, gravel bars and clearly recognizable area over which the stream flows during its normal stages." The trial court further ordered "that defendant desist in his efforts to hinder or close such free passage up and down the said stream."

This cleary needs to be spelled out in the Regulation Book it would make it simple to show Law Enforcement and Landowners, along with a list of, Rivers, creeks and stream etc covered so as no confusion could be made.

[drew03cmc]

Missouri is not a riparian rights state. From the way I understand the law as long as you are in a boat you are legal. Put your foot on the bottom of the stream and you are trespassing. Does not sound right to me but

It shouldn't sound right to you. That is not true. You can float or wade fish these creeks legally. The issue isn't the law, rather it is the lack of knowledge of the law by those either complaining or prosecuting.

[Kayser]

Right, wrong, they're the ones with the gun. So stay quiet, wear camo, and stay below the rise of the bank.

[Sharps4590]

This topic comes up on fishing sites all the time. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, angst and hot air spewed forth and not just about Missouri. I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject and I agree that it is a truly vague area in Missouri, mostly because of rumor, propaganda and plain ol' wrong information being put forth as fact.

In Missouri a navigable stream does not necessarily mean one that will float a canoe......or stick. To my knowledgeable the only streams/rivers that have been actually declared navigable are the Mississippi, Missouri, Osage, parts of the Gasconade and parts of the Meremac. Navigable in historic use has meant commercial. The float streams, again to my knowledge, fall under a different kind of "navigable" definition. Historical use of a body of water has been used in past court cases to determine "navigability" dating back to when Ozark streams were used to float logs to market. Some cases include specific streams that have been used for floating by individuals and outfitters for so long that it is assumed, and has been subsequently ruled, that they are "navigable".....in the sense that they are available for public use. On the smallish Ozark streams where a landowner owns both banks of a stream they can most assuredly close it off....from any public use, wading or floating.. If they own only one side then all they can control is their property to the middle of the stream and if they have an agreement with the property owner on the other side.....it can all be shut down.

In short, just because you can float a canoe or kayak in it or access it from a slab or other crossing does not mean you are within your legal rights. There are all kinds of places to fish legally and frankly I don't find a confrontation with a landowner worth the angst.....and sometimes a person can be dead and right....not an option that I find appealing.

In addition, being a landowner myself, I would probably shut it down. I live not far from Rolla and the litter around here is bad, and I hate it, but it isn't any worse than I've seen in several different states. That is NOT justiifcation for the crap we see, merely an observation. I wouldn't put up with other people's trash and filth on my property.

I fish around here a lot and I am in agreement that at least locally those who visit to fish are not the culprit of the litter problem, it's local.

[Al Agnew]

This topic comes up on fishing sites all the time. There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth, angst and hot air spewed forth and not just about Missouri. I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject and I agree that it is a truly vague area in Missouri, mostly because of rumor, propaganda and plain ol' wrong information being put forth as fact.

In Missouri a navigable stream does not necessarily mean one that will float a canoe......or stick. To my knowledgeable the only streams/rivers that have been actually declared navigable are the Mississippi, Missouri, Osage, parts of the Gasconade and parts of the Meremac. Navigable in historic use has meant commercial. The float streams, again to my knowledge, fall under a different kind of "navigable" definition. Historical use of a body of water has been used in past court cases to determine "navigability" dating back to when Ozark streams were used to float logs to market. Some cases include specific streams that have been used for floating by individuals and outfitters for so long that it is assumed, and has been subsequently ruled, that they are "navigable".....in the sense that they are available for public use. On the smallish Ozark streams where a landowner owns both banks of a stream they can most assuredly close it off....from any public use, wading or floating.. If they own only one side then all they can control is their property to the middle of the stream and if they have an agreement with the property owner on the other side.....it can all be shut down.

In short, just because you can float a canoe or kayak in it or access it from a slab or other crossing does not mean you are within your legal rights. There are all kinds of places to fish legally and frankly I don't find a confrontation with a landowner worth the angst.....and sometimes a person can be dead and right....not an option that I find appealing.

In addition, being a landowner myself, I would probably shut it down. I live not far from Rolla and the litter around here is bad, and I hate it, but it isn't any worse than I've seen in several different states. That is NOT justiifcation for the crap we see, merely an observation. I wouldn't put up with other people's trash and filth on my property.

I fish around here a lot and I am in agreement that at least locally those who visit to fish are not the culprit of the litter problem, it's local.

Sharps, you're right about "navigable", but you're not exactly right about your assertion that if the landowner owns both sides he can shut it down. That is entirely dependent upon the stream in question. And since the original section of the Meramec in Elder v Delcour was far upstream and small enough that it is only really floatable part of the year, and since one of the other "test cases" used in determining whether or not there is a "public easement" was on Indian Creek, a stream that is definitely only floatable for part of the year and small enough that it's not even mentioned in the MDC float book, it's likely that a court would determine that any stream the is big enough to get a canoe down it would qualify for being a "public highway". Since the Little Piney, for instance, is at least as big as Indian Creek (a tributary of the Meramec), it stands to reason that it would have that "public easement", in which case the angler is in the right to both float and wade it.

[Sharps4590]

I agree Al and I should have so stated that it depends on the creek in question. I also agree that given case law the court(s) would most likely agree. Now the question becomes who is willing to spend the money and time to find out? We all know the Danforth's have effectively shut down Spring Creek from pubic access above their property line. I obviously don't know but doubt there is much historical evidence to support that portion of Spring Creek as having been used commercially or publicaly for floating/fishing or navigable for floating logs to market. Anyone care to take on the Danforths? I'm not saying I agree with the current state of affairs, merely that I understand and to me it isn't worth a confrontation to catch a fish.

Until there is a state wide ruling I'm afraid it is on a creek by creek basis as far as my understanding goes.

[Al Agnew]

You're right there. It will be on a case by case basis. As for Spring Creek, I'm thinking that it's a little too small to feasibly take a canoe down it unless you're just dragging the canoe to say you did it. It's unfortunate that rich and influential landowners are quick to cut off access to small creeks like Spring Creek, but it's a fact of life in Missouri and elsewhere. I just don't want it to be allowed to stand when the stream involved IS big enough to be what a reasonable person would call floatable at least part of the year.

[Sharps4590]

I concur wholeheartedly.

[FishinCricket]

You're right there. It will be on a case by case basis. As for Spring Creek, I'm thinking that it's a little too small to feasibly take a canoe down it unless you're just dragging the canoe to say you did it. It's unfortunate that rich and influential landowners are quick to cut off access to small creeks like Spring Creek, but it's a fact of life in Missouri and elsewhere. I just don't want it to be allowed to stand when the stream involved IS big enough to be what a reasonable person would call floatable at least part of the year.

You mean like the 10 mile section of the Osage Fork that's patrolled by the "Evergreen Police"? They have signs hanging everywhere, they rebuilt the bridge at the end of their property (Orla Bridge) and deleted the boat accesses.. Heck, they even closed an old road that led to an old cemetery once, it took years of battling in court to get that road re-opened! Those folks think they can get away with whatever.. And they can afford to!!

Money may not be able to buy you love, but it can sure put a price on everything else, can't it!?!?! (some black hearted bastids don't care about love anyway)

[Smalliebigs]

You mean like the 10 mile section of the Osage Fork that's patrolled by the "Evergreen Police"? They have signs hanging everywhere, they rebuilt the bridge at the end of their property (Orla Bridge) and deleted the boat accesses.. Heck, they even closed an old road that led to an old cemetery once, it took years of battling in court to get that road re-opened! Those folks think they can get away with whatever.. And they can afford to!!

Money may not be able to buy you love, but it can sure put a price on everything else, can't it!?!?! (some black hearted bastids don't care about love anyway)

darn, that's brutal!!!! I know where I might just float this year.... need to ask my bro the particulars on that one.