Shoal Creek Is Private Property?

[ness]

Welp, I'd say that deputy either didn't know the law, or elected to fudge a little to avoid a confrontation. Possibly influenced by previous problems with problem floaters/trespassers, and/or those landowners.

Hopefully you guys were able to put that behind you pretty quick and make something of the rest of the day.

I think you're right in going to talk it over at the sheriff's office. It needs to be figgered out.

Cricket -- why didn't you whip out your Dale Carnegie magic???? You coulda had them frying up some of those morels

[Trout Commander]

I just spoke with Sheriff Ken Copeland via phone. It was a lengthy conversation with more detail but the bullet points are:

I explained the ordeal and asked him what his take on it was to which he replied something to the effect that the river is everyone's and you can float down it anytime you want, but when you guys were stopped were you out of your boats? I explained that yes some of us were out of boats. Sheriff Copeland replied with something to the effect that if we were out of the boats and up on someone's land and that we were trespassing and that if the landowner asked us to we should. I then asked Mr. Copeland if we were just on the gravel bar under the high water mark would we be legal? To that he suggested I contact MDC in regards to that. He then asked someone else in his office if they knew for sure and they did not. I then asked, just to clarify, if the scenario I had described to him with me standing knee deep in the stream if I was legal or not. He told me I certainly was legal.

The phone was ringing here at work and I did not thank to ask him to clarify that with his deputies, but I did tell him specifically what the one deputy told me. Sheriff Copeland seemed to be a reasonable person and invited me back to float the river again. He also echoed what we have all heard that not all floaters are like us and that we should understand where the land owner was coming from. He did not take Prater's side whatsoever, only said that we would have to clarify with MDC what we were allowed to be on outside of the water.

I am glad that I called and talked to him.

[troutfiend1985]

The thing is TC he can be armed on his land and I think it would be hard to convince a jury that he was intimidating someone, even though that was most likely his intention. I read on another post that someone else was armed and if that was true then everything changes. If someone with no dog in the hunt came down there armed he would obviously be there to intimidate and play vigilante as a so called hired gun. The fact that he had the law on the way wouldn't help either of their causes, I would think so anyway.

I would even think he might be susceptible to legal action.

I think the difference is the context. IT's hard to tell what exactly happened(as far as the feeling in the air) but I doubt the guy was bringing the gun down to show off the new ammo he bought. And again, its a reasonable person standard, so if the guy was making motions or actively showed his gun, then you have some room to step foot on. And I don't think it matters if it was the land owner per se, intimidation meets that statute by a plain reading. Good cause is what you would have to argue, and good cause to illicit a threat, well? Did the situation get to a point that a threat is needed? Probably not, unless there is another side to the story that I'm not hearing.

Besides that, the thing is these guys need to know the law. Whoever said you can't step foot out of the canoe is wrong, this was established long ago unless there is a statute on hand that expressly states otherwise. This needs to get straightened out, and I think that the god ol' boys running the sheriffs office need to have a refresher course on tresspassing laws, what a person may do in defense of their "property."

[Wayne SW/MO]

TC it sounds like you had a good plan and I suspect your conversation will have some repercussions, albeit not earth shaking.

[Trout Commander]

Besides that, the thing is these guys need to know the law. Whoever said you can't step foot out of the canoe is wrong, this was established long ago unless there is a statute on hand that expressly states otherwise. This needs to get straightened out, and I think that the god ol' boys running the sheriffs office need to have a refresher course on tresspassing laws, what a person may do in defense of their "property."

You hit the nail on the head. Almost. In speaking with the sheriff, I now feel that it is more then young gun deputy (along with the land owner) that needs to quit trying to throw his weight around and learn the law. If he was so sure that he was right he would have ticketed me after I told him I was out of the water previously and then called his bluff.

[flytyer57]

You hit the nail on the head. Almost. In speaking with the sheriff, I now feel that it is more then young gun deputy (along with the land owner) that needs to quit trying to throw his weight around and learn the law. If he was so sure that he was right he would have ticketed me after I told him I was out of the water previously and then called his bluff.

Sometimes getting a ticket and going to court with all the proper info and law on your side is the only way to win in a case like this. The deputy would have to had been there to explain his side of the case to the court and when the judge throws out the case, the DA and everyone else involved will lay off future floaters.

[mic]

Gents,

I've been following this and now I'm confused. One, everyone keeps referring to the high water mark, but one the posts the Chief listed clearly states that ownership goes to the low water mark:

The Missouri Department of Conservation's legal counsel indicates that the law is clear that, in Missouri, title to the beds of navigable streams is in the State, and the riparian property owners own title to the shore of the navigable stream down to the low water mark.

Sorry, to me that sounds like you have to stay in the water or on a gravel bed not directly connected to land unless something was in the stream unless... portaging around difficult water or obstructions. I guess one question is a gravel bed considered part of the "bank".

So if you were out of the boats on the bank you (or anyone) are trespassing right?

[Trout Commander]

I caught that also, Mic but am not sure that is what the author meant to say. If is the low water mark you could be wading normal flow and still be trespassing. Additionally, unlike the visible high water mark, there is no way for the angler, land owner, law enforcement or MDC agent to know where the low water mark is. I think that is a typo and have been trying to find contact information for the author. If I can't find his contact info I will send an email to an MDC official asking clarification.

[ness]

Nice that you had a positive discussion with the sheriff. If it was me, I'd drop him a note thanking him and all his deputies (hint) for their efforts.

Did you guys ever figure out which one of you was the one that had been repeatedly warned?

[woodman]

All I can say to that guy is: that must be a mighty precious piece of FLOOD ZONE.

This is a prime example of what (...) man has done with this land since we stole it from (we all know who) we work all year to save up for time off to do exactly what they did every day.....Only some people are CONTROL freaks.....He would have a fit if his property was on the ELK with the ZOO that floats and trashes that stream...