Shoal Creek Is Private Property?

[drew03cmc]

Guys, enjoy the accesses you all have in Missouri. In Kansas, Meeks v. Hays was our version of Elder v. Delcour, except the ruling went the other way. Landowners regulate the access to the public water flowing through, or adjacent to, their property. We cannot access the water, which is OWNED BY THE PUBLIC to float, wade or fish because of this ruling.

This is definitely not a molehill, this jackwagon Prater thinks he is going to keep people off the river, he is sorely mistaken.

[Chief Grey Bear]

If a feller who doesn't know any of you all, and who didn't sign no petition and never left no voicemails to a Constable Copeland. . . were to put in at Lime Kiln . . . just how far down and on which side of the river might he find himself in Praterville? Gonna laminate me some Elder vs. Delcor, pack the sidearm and my pitbull and plan a float with reststops and peebreaks at every gravel bar between there and Tipton Ford.

After reading your replies in numerous threads of recent on this subject and the ridicule that came from your fingers and you think I am about to tell you where to go?? You got part of it right, I'll tell you where to go but, water will not be invloved.

[FishinCricket]

Chief, you can't even spell ridicule!!! lol

[woodman]

It's going to be intresting when the Undercliff starts shuttling canoes again. Praters going to have to hire a whole bunch of good ole boys to watch his land.

Yea (FLOOD ZONE)

To bad the deputy sheriffs that showed up on the scene couldn't have told Prater the law right then and their...telling him "HE was to cease and desist" on harassing fisherman....You know Do Their Job...You would think down their in Ozark Stream Fishing Country the Sheriffs Dep. would be versed and ready for such a thing

On another note: Over-nighters on a gravel bar---Taking a couple days float...camping along the way.....(having a campfire etc. people do it on the Little Niangua)

[drew03cmc]

That does sound fun Woodman.

[woodman]

Yea these guys down in Txs. (who build their own kayaks) do overnighters on the Brazos River..

Quote:Ron and I hit the brazos below the Falls yesterday for a little R&R overnighter...

Needed a Bigger Cooler:

http://www.southernpaddler.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=8221

Best Late 4th yet

I had a trip planed with my grandaughters and there dad this weekend. An hour before we were suppose to leave ,I had a knock on the front door.

http://www.southernpaddler.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=7897

http://www.texaskayakfisherman.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=71&t=160194

Don't look like you have to worry about people messing with you on these Gravel-Sand bars.....

[flytyer57]

Yea (FLOOD ZONE)

To bad the deputy sheriffs that showed up on the scene couldn't have told Prater the law right then and their...telling him "HE was to cease and desist" on harassing fisherman....You know Do Their Job...You would think down their in Ozark Stream Fishing Country the Sheriffs Dep. would be versed and ready for such a thing

Hopefully with all the input from OAF, the sheriff had enough and finally informed his deputies of the law.

[Danoinark]

Maybe consider asking the Sheriff if one of his floater / fishermen deputies might like to make the next trip with you (out of uniform)so he can get an idea of what you may encounter.

That might solve the problem right there.

[Al Agnew]

It's always smart to let sleeping dogs lie. The guy will probably find others to harass and if it is one sided the sheriff may well get a little irritated with him. That won't happen if he believes there is harassment coming from this encounter.

I agree with Hank, he's not wrong and this isn't a battle you want to go to court. This doesn't happen very often and there is no use making mountains out of molehills.

I agree this is probably not a battle you want to go to court at this time. But at present, he IS wrong, and he will be wrong until a Supreme Court decision reverses Elder v Delcour.

Gotta wonder though about the chances of a court decision reversing it. The point above that this guy said something to the effect that the campground thinks they can rent canoes to float through his private property is telling. If Elder v Delcour was ever reversed, you'd immediately have a LOT of landowners on every stream (except the federal owned ones, Current, Jacks Fork, and Eleven Point, and not all of THEM are publicly owned) doing exactly what they are doing in Kansas. And that would spell the end of the canoe rental business in MO. Think that might hurt a lot of people, not just the canoe liveries, in their pocketbooks? It would be a huge hit to the tourism industry in MO. Maybe a few Supreme Court justices would be willing to risk that, but I think a lot of politicians just might be worried about it.

[troutfiend1985]

Maybe consider asking the Sheriff if one of his floater / fishermen deputies might like to make the next trip with you (out of uniform)so he can get an idea of what you may encounter.

That might solve the problem right there.

That would be a nice thing if one of the deputies would be willing to do that.

I agree this is probably not a battle you want to go to court at this time. But at present, he IS wrong, and he will be wrong until a Supreme Court decision reverses Elder v Delcour.

Gotta wonder though about the chances of a court decision reversing it. The point above that this guy said something to the effect that the campground thinks they can rent canoes to float through his private property is telling. If Elder v Delcour was ever reversed, you'd immediately have a LOT of landowners on every stream (except the federal owned ones, Current, Jacks Fork, and Eleven Point, and not all of THEM are publicly owned) doing exactly what they are doing in Kansas. And that would spell the end of the canoe rental business in MO. Think that might hurt a lot of people, not just the canoe liveries, in their pocketbooks? It would be a huge hit to the tourism industry in MO. Maybe a few Supreme Court justices would be willing to risk that, but I think a lot of politicians just might be worried about it.

Look, that case has been there for 57 years, and I'm sure that when it was decided it was controversial because this is a minority rule i.e. most states are like Kansas on these issues. However, it has been a fairly litigated matter, as there are more cases out there than Elder. But, the cases subsequent to Elder have followed Elder, distinguihsed Elder(mainly holding that not all small creeks are a public way) but have not overturned Elder. Elder still stands and on this issue, with the facts and circumstances and the nature of the stream that Chief's flotilla was on, this is a good case. It parallels Elder in a lot of ways, and they are in the right with the law. Facts + Law usually equals good results. The courts might limit Elder, but I don't see the proposition that Elder stands for going anywhere any time soon.