Shoal Creek Is Private Property?

[ness]

A warrant? You just don't get a warrant out on somebody. You file a complaint, present your evidence and they call you up or visit. If there was a complaint filed it didn't come up in the conversation with the sheriff, right?

This guy's a nut job. Screw the legal stuff. You need to work up a number 6 on him.

[denjac]

Theres been alot of Chatter on this topic on the MDC Facebook page. They respond to most questions. Heres the link : https://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/MDCOnline

[denjac]

<LI class="uiUfiComment comment_15853992 ufiItem ufiItem">

This is a response That Josh had over the Jones creek episode. This was on facebook about a week ago.

Missouri Dept. of Conservation This is a tricky subject, and I can tell you right up front there is no simple, satisfactory answer. River and streams in Missouri can be classified as:

-- Public navigable – larger rivers capable of floating commercial boats like barges

-- P...ublic non-navigable – middle-sized watercourses capable of floating smaller boats like canoes

-- Private non-navigable – smallest streams not capable of floating even smaller boats like canoes

A county prosecutor would be the best reference for determining how a particular stretch of a stream is classified in that county.

For private, non-navigable streams, the property boundaries of adjacent landowners are the center thread of the stream so there is no public property along the stream. No fishing, wading or boating is allowed without landowner permission.

For public non-navigable streams, the center thread is also where the adjacent property boundaries lie. Fishing, wading and boating are allowed but the banks are private property as is the stream bottom.

For public navigable streams/rivers, boundary lines of adjacent properties stop at the high-water mark of the river. So, in that case, the river channel is considered public property. I think you would be safe to pick up artifacts from in-channel gravel and sand bars on larger rivers but not from smaller streams without landowner permission. Most managed public land (state parks, conservation areas) have regulations prohibiting the removal of cultural artifacts, which would include arrowheads.

[Trout Commander]

You won't belive this. I was informed by my boss today that Prater called one of our commisioners and said he had an arrest warrant out on me.

Also, if there is not a warrant, which I don't see there actually being one, spreading a rumor of that sort could really compromise ones character. I would get him for slander/libel.

[FishinCricket]

So in that summation Shoal Creek would be a navigable stream, public access points and all!

But wait, then I wouldn't be allowed to keep a heartshaped rock or arrowhead if I found it?

[FishinCricket]

Also, if there is not a warrant, which I don't see there actually being one, spreading a rumor of that sort could really compromise ones character. I would get him for slander/libel.

Well you go get him, tiger... Just don't forget to pack a lunch!

Where's your fishing report buddy? Was that a comfy ride for the day, or what?

[Al Agnew]

Guys, we've hashed this out before, and I've done a lot of research on it. Here are the facts, and I'm 100% sure I'm right:

1. Floatable streams such as Shoal Creek in this area are considered "public--non-navigable" as the MDC site said. In such streams, the landowner owns everything but the water, including the stream bed to the middle of the stream, or the entire stream bed if he owns both sides of the stream. That is long-settled law. However...

2. According to Elder v Delcour, the Mo Supreme Court case which has been considered the deciding ruling in MO, the public has a right to float, fish, wade, and get out on gravel bars. Here is the exact wording of the original trial court case, which was affirmed by the MO Supreme Court in its entirety and is considered settled law in MO:

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 in its normal stages."

3. Really, the only "gray areas" in the law concern marginally floatable streams. Since not every small but marginally floatable creek has been ruled upon as to its status as "public--non-navigable" or "private--non-navigable" (though some have) you're in that gray area if you are floating farther upstream than people normally float. But like I said, some pretty small streams, such as Indian Creek in Franklin Country, have been ruled "public--non-navigable". And that doesn't matter in this case, since Shoal Creek in this area is clearly floatable and would fall well into the classification of "public--non-navigable".

As a practical matter, it's usually wise to move on if asked to leave a gravel bar by a single landowner. There are other gravel bars, and as Wayne said, it's just possible that if there is ever another test case, the ruling could go against floaters. Wayne is right, the Farm Bureau is probably just itching to throw big bucks behind a court case that would restrict floaters' rights. It is also true that landowners have successfully gotten the county law enforcement to take their side in several areas, and it would take a court case to challenge them, even though the floater should have the law on their side.

However, I'm glad you guys are willing to pursue this with the county sheriff. It should be discussed with sheriffs AND county prosecutors. If everybody who gets harassed just lets it go, we are probably going to start losing the right of access to these streams.

[troutfiend1985]

As a practical matter, it's usually wise to move on if asked to leave a gravel bar by a single landowner. There are other gravel bars, and as Wayne said, it's just possible that if there is ever another test case, the ruling could go against floaters. Wayne is right, the Farm Bureau is probably just itching to throw big bucks behind a court case that would restrict floaters' rights. It is also true that landowners have successfully gotten the county law enforcement to take their side in several areas, and it would take a court case to challenge them, even though the floater should have the law on their side.

However, I'm glad you guys are willing to pursue this with the county sheriff. It should be discussed with sheriffs AND county prosecutors. If everybody who gets harassed just lets it go, we are probably going to start losing the right of access to these streams.

I agree with everything except for MO to turn around and reverse this precedent with the facts given in the situation presented. Probably a good rule of thumb to ask for permission, I don't doubt that at all. But you're going to have to convince the supreme court of MO, or the legislature to overturn 57 years of precendent. That's a lot to do, even with a big time attorney.

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

I am glad you did too! This is exactly what needs to be done by all that were there. You might make mention that you felt threatened and intimidatedby the gun toter who mysteriously dissappeared when the law showed up. Also it may be a good idea to relate to Ken of the revenue you are bringing with the purchse of food, gas, and lodgeing. Follow me here. I will be going to his office in a couple of days to meet with him.

If you all will do this, I think that when I get there, he will have a pretty clear picture. I will print the info from the links I provided and then see what his stance is and if favorable, see that he expresses that with his deputies.

[jdmidwest]

You might make mention that you felt threatened and intimidatedby the gun toter who mysteriously dissappeared when the law showed up.

He probably went back to tend his meth lab... Or if he is from Carter County, he may have been the Sheriff, and went back to tend his meth lab...

Carter County Sheriff Example of Meth's Reaches.

Did anyone say if the land Cricket trespassed on was Posted?