The "your Vote Counts" Thread

[Trout Commander]

Yes. Around here, the law is becoming anything that is dry. Even wading on the stream bottom according to Madison County and whatever county East Prairie resides in per MDC.

Site your sources (statutes, docket numbers from prior rulings, a link from the MDC site etc) or quit spouting your opinion as law.

[FishinCricket]

Site your sources (statutes, docket numbers from prior rulings, a link from the MDC site etc) or quit spouting your opinion as law.

Kinda sounds like nonsense to me too... :taps_foot:

[drew03cmc]

Yes. Around here, the law is becoming anything that is dry. Even wading on the stream bottom according to Madison County and whatever county East Prairie resides in per MDC.

Law, or what the landowners believe to be law?

Site your sources (statutes, docket numbers from prior rulings, a link from the MDC site etc) or quit spouting your opinion as law.

I, too, would love to see these TC.

Kinda sounds like nonsense to me too... :taps_foot:

Yep.

[ColdWaterFshr]

"Law? What Law?"

Burt Reynolds

[ness]

"There's the law, and then there's the LAW." ness

Don't you guys remember getting run of ol' man Prater's stretch of Shoal Creek by the LAW?

Q: "You got a warrant?"

A: "Yeah, I keep it in my shoe" (Buford Pusser)

[Mitch f]

Maybe the old man had some event in his past to make him feel this way. Maybe 25 years ago some fly fisherman got his daughter pregnant or something.

I'm sure there is a reason for this behavior, even though it's not the correct behavior.

[KevinC.]

All I see on here are opinions but no story. Anyone got an article I could read? I'm not from the Shoal area so forgive me for being so uninformed! Sounds like a nit-picky land owner deal where they want to be King of the castle just for the sake of being King. But isnt there a government-owned easement along our streams and rivers?

[Al Agnew]

There are three floatable streams in Madison County where jd is, St. Francis, Little St. Francis, and Castor. Two of them, Castor and Little St. Francis, aren't easily floatable year-round (though certainly doable if you want to do some canoe dragging). So those two could possibly fall into the gray area of whether the stream is big enough to be considered public--non-navigable or not. But both have a long history of being floated, so I would think they would be. It sounds to me like, if what jd is saying is true, the county officials are either ignorant of or ignoring the Elder v Delcour ruling. That's what's happening here and there throughout the state, and until somebody really calls them on it and is willing to do what Chief and the other guys did and confront the county officials about it, it will keep on happening. The landowners who are cracking down on floaters will continue to do whatever they can get away with until told they can't.

And as far as MDC, like I said somewhere before, we really need to get together and insist that they give correct info. Elder v Delcour insures that floaters have the right to use gravel bars, period.

[Trout Commander]

All I see on here are opinions but no story. Anyone got an article I could read? I'm not from the Shoal area so forgive me for being so uninformed! Sounds like a nit-picky land owner deal where they want to be King of the castle just for the sake of being King. But isnt there a government-owned easement along our streams and rivers?

Here is the first hand account: http://ozarkanglers.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=27899&view=getnewpost&hl=&fromsearch=1

[Trout Commander]

And as far as MDC, like I said somewhere before, we really need to get together and insist that they give correct info. Elder v Delcour insures that floaters have the right to use gravel bars, period.

I concur but am somewhat unsure where to start. I am all for placing a few phone calls and carrying on a civil conversation in regards to this as I did with sheriff Copeland. Any ideas where to start?