Shoal Creek Is Private Property?

[drew03cmc]

Truly, I just don't understand what he did that he could have been arrested for?

I don't know. I guess people just need to leave others the heck alone and let folks go on about their business.

[Phil Lilley]

If I owned land along Shoal Creek, could I run a front loader down the creek bed, through both water and dry gravel, as long as I was in the creek bed, and then take gravel from my neighbor? Would I be trespassing?

I know that's a far-fetched "what-if" but same would go for running an atv down the creek.

I believe "low water mark" is just that... anything out of the water. I think a land owner on these creeks do own the gravel bars and should.

This guy- don't know him from Adam- but I bet he's been abused verbally and his land has been abused for years. I'm not making excuses for bad behavior but ya gotta see where he's coming from a little bit.

[Al Agnew]

Phil, I agree that the guy MAY be responding to bad behavior in the past, though I'm far from certain of it. There have been a number of instances of people buying riverfront land and then attempting to keep everybody off it.

More importantly, I own two pieces of riverfront property myself, and live on one part time. So I understand the other side. But I refuse to allow myself and other sportsmen to be lumped in with the idiots and pinheads who do not respect the RIVER, and that necessarily includes the property of river landowners. I also refuse to allow MY rights as a law-abiding and respectful sportsman to be lost because of the actions of the idiots and pinheads. All too often in the recent past, the actions of the bad apples have caused EVERYBODY to lose rights. That cannot happen on this issue.

People have been floating, fishing, and camping on gravel bars on these streams for well over 100 years, long before the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed their right to do so. As a river landowner, it seems to me that you have to expect the public to be doing so, even though that may occasionally cause you aggravation. The public does not have the right to damage your property or to stray from the river channel, and you have every right to do whatever is possible to see that doesn't happen or the perpetrators are punished. But no matter how distasteful it is it you, the public does have the right to use the river and your gravel bar as long as it causes no damage.

I just got home and onto the computer, and was going to put my own two cents worth on the "petition" thread, but find it's locked. If it helps in any way, you guys can copy it from here...

My name is Al Agnew, and I am an avid floater and fisherman who has floated Shoal Creek even though I live on the other side of Missouri. I am well aware that the Missouri Supreme Court has affirmed the public's right to float, fish, and camp or picnic on gravel bars on floatable streams in Elder vs. Delcour. I believe that, due to this decision, stream-side landowners have no right to harass or run off law-abiding, respectful sportsmen who have legally accessed the stream and are not causing any damage to the landowner's property, and such actions should not be allowed.

[FishinCricket]

Thanks Al, well said.

[Phil Lilley]

I haven't been apart of these discussions and don't float many rivers... so I plead ignorance. I read in a post about "low water mark" and came to that conclusion.

As for the thread being locked- Chief asked me to delete all the posts except the petitions so I did. And I closed it so other discussions wouldn't show up on the thread.

[flyfishmaster]

First off it looks as if you guys had a great day for a float.

Next, I realy feel bad for what you all had to go throught and to Chief... a warrant seriously...

Any way, I want you guys to take a look at this thread bewlow, it comes from a blog up in Canada. I just saw it posted on The Trout Underground today. It ties in perfectly with this thread.

TruthPrevailed

Later,

FFM

[hank franklin]

I agree with Al, I refuse to lose my rights because of the actions of idiots. But I will say this: The legislature and the Courts today would NOT BE ON OUR SIDE on this one. We would lose, clear and simple. Anyone who wants to push this to a ruling, either by action of a court or, worse, the General Assembly, in my view is extremely foolish.

A likely outcome in the courts would be a ruling more favorable to landowners. If the Legislature got a hold of it, all sorts of stupid crap could be thrown in there.

This is classic ain't broke don't fix. Of course harassment is uncalled for, but you as floater are the guest of the landowner. So if the landowner wants you gone you git. To try to press it and assert more rights in my opinion is to invite "clarity" via a ruling or worse a law, both of which in this political climate would very likely be a loser for us.

My two cents.

[woodman]

First off it looks as if you guys had a great day for a float.

Next, I realy feel bad for what you all had to go throught and to Chief... a warrant seriously...

Any way, I want you guys to take a look at this thread bewlow, it comes from a blog up in Canada. I just saw it posted on The Trout Underground today. It ties in perfectly with this thread.

TruthPrevailed

Later,

FFM

That is an assume story thanks....and to think 27 out of 900+views have signed Chiefs petition(shows how well we Missourians stick together..Ha)

Suppose all those who refused to go along and sign to the petition had their fishing license revoked forever. Ya think they'd finally get together for a cause then!!

[ness]

Truly, I just don't understand what he did that he could have been arrested for?

He said he had a meeting. Hardly sounds like an arrest. Perhaps I'm missing the joke -- it wouldn't be the first time.

However, if he does end up in a room at the Graybar, I hereby pledge the sum of 5 (five) dollars to the Free Chief Fund.

[Trout Commander]

Truly, I just don't understand what he did that he could have been arrested for?

Surely it wasn't anything more than being "wanted for questioning". In which case the LEO's were just doing their jobs and following up on a report of trespassing. How are they supposed to know if it's true or false without talking to him if they haven't even figured out what the internet is yet?