The "your Vote Counts" Thread

[ColdWaterFshr]

Love the title of that trip report TC!

[drew03cmc]

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?

TC, we could all start with the Madison County Sheriff and continue making calls as the alleged incidents continue to happen throughout the state. We can call him here:

David R. Lewis

573-783-2234

[KevinC.]

Thanks for the link, troutcommander, read it all. The story confirms my suspicion some land owner wants to rule the fort just for the sake of it. Hopefully that warrant for the gentlemen is like you said, just for questioning. Hope that matter gets resolved. I'm a bit more informed now since missouri streams and rivers are designated navigable or not which is apparently the trump card in this case. I had always thought there was an easement but from MDC, it appears that is surely not the case at all. This story makes me re-consider going down below 54 bridge and throwing off the bank on the osage. I had considered going down there but there is no way to access below the bridge by foot without walking through private property or taking a swim from the access 1/2 mile up stream (which of course is not sensible). And now I read even being on the bank is tresspass so going down there off the bank is out of the question for me, yet I have seen 10-15 people down there snagging. We snagged that bank and pissed people off for driving through their casting range but now I dont feel so bad since they are the ones who are tresspassing and we were fully within our right to be trolling along that bank.

Another situation: just below bagnall is a bait shop that apparently owns all the land now. They charge $2 to park and fish the bank. I had thought this was illegal but after getting more informed about the banks of our streams (and rivers) that land owner is entitled to charge us to be there! Insane!

Bad rule, but on the other hand equally as petty given this situation. I am only speculating but perhaps this rule is designed to keep land owners safe from strangers lurking, hanging around or loitering ones property. I have to admit if I was a land owner and folks were down there screaming and shouting, getting drunk, etc on the bank of my property, I'd be pissed. Not saying you guys were involved in that sort of behavior but unfortunately the law has to be black and white and we as people have to use common sense on what to prosecute/report and what not to. Sounds like this land owner was just flexing his arms at you guys. Stupid.

Since most of the folks discussing this has some affiliation with trout, I imagine you all were trout fishing, no? How in the world can you trout fish our streams without wading or even anchoring!? Ridiculous! I would sign a petition for the use of banks and wading (especially anchoring) if the activity is clearly fishing. Doesnt sound fair. Trout fishing seems like deer hunting food plots. Gotta own land just to do it.

Good luck with the legislation.

Kevin

[Trout Commander]

Love the title of that trip report TC!

HA! Glad you liked it. I can't take full credit. I piggy backed off of Tony's idea.

[Trout Commander]

Thanks for the link, troutcommander, read it all. The story confirms my suspicion some land owner wants to rule the fort just for the sake of it. Hopefully that warrant for the gentlemen is like you said, just for questioning. Hope that matter gets resolved. I'm a bit more informed now since missouri streams and rivers are designated navigable or not which is apparently the trump card in this case. I had always thought there was an easement but from MDC, it appears that is surely not the case at all. This story makes me re-consider going down below 54 bridge and throwing off the bank on the osage. I had considered going down there but there is no way to access below the bridge by foot without walking through private property or taking a swim from the access 1/2 mile up stream (which of course is not sensible). And now I read even being on the bank is tresspass so going down there off the bank is out of the question for me, yet I have seen 10-15 people down there snagging. We snagged that bank and pissed people off for driving through their casting range but now I dont feel so bad since they are the ones who are tresspassing and we were fully within our right to be trolling along that bank.

Another situation: just below bagnall is a bait shop that apparently owns all the land now. They charge $2 to park and fish the bank. I had thought this was illegal but after getting more informed about the banks of our streams (and rivers) that land owner is entitled to charge us to be there! Insane!

Shitty rule, but on the other hand equally as petty given this situation. I am only speculating but perhaps this rule is designed to keep land owners safe from strangers lurking, hanging around or loitering ones property. I have to admit if I was a land owner and folks were down there screaming and shouting, getting drunk, etc on the bank of my property, I'd be pissed. Not saying you guys were involved in that sort of behavior but unfortunately the law has to be black and white and we as people have to use common sense on what to prosecute/report and what not to. Sounds like this land owner was just flexing his arms at you guys. Stupid.

Since most of the folks discussing this has some affiliation with trout, I imagine you all were trout fishing, no? How in the world can you trout fish our streams without wading or even anchoring!? Ridiculous! I would sign a petition for the use of banks and wading (especially anchoring) if the activity is clearly fishing. Doesnt sound fair. Trout fishing seems like deer hunting food plots. Gotta own land just to do it.

Good luck with the legislation.

Kevin

Kevin, do not quote me on this - and Al Agnew and others that have more experience and have done more research may chime in - but I believe the property below and on the right of way of the bridge to be public. Like I said I may be wrong and will stand corrected if I am, but I think you would be legal. Also, as pointed out as per the Missouri Supreme Court ruling in Elder v. Delcour it is very legal to be on the gravel bars of navigable streams. But as is also outlined local law enforcement (and even more commonly land owners) may be ignorant to this law.

And we were warm water fishing (bass goggle eye etc) on this trip. Even though trout is my species of choice to target, the tig is the drug! There are some additional pictures on my blog in the link in my signature.

[KevinC.]

Noted on the legislature. Unfortunately, I dont think we can use legislation to argue with enforcement. That would be a valid argument in the court of law but may fall on deaf ears with water patrol/MDC (and rightly so since all they see is black and white). Unfortunately there are a lot of Joe schmoes like me who cant afford to pay a lawyer to make this argument and since our highest missouri court has agreed with us, I'm definitely in agreement with enacting a statute based on this ruling. Until then....you know what I mean! Hopefully the questioning for that gentleman is all that is due. I surely hope our sherriffs can use their noggin and use sensible judgment on whether to prosecute. If the landowner wants to press charges to the fullest he needs to pay his attorney for that instead of using our taxpayer money on our elected/hired public servants. Setting camp on a gravel bar in his vicinity is going to be seen as spite over matter. Hopefully no one tries to dig into his skin further before statutes are in place. That kind of move could backfire if there is political play involved. Sorry you had to go through that! In the meantime let's see some goggle eye pics.

[flytyer57]

Noted on the legislature. Unfortunately, I don't think we can use legislation to argue with enforcement. That would be a valid argument in the court of law but may fall on deaf ears with water patrol/MDC (and rightly so since all they see is black and white). Unfortunately there are a lot of Joe schmoes like me who cant afford to pay a lawyer to make this argument and since our highest Missouri court has agreed with us, I'm definitely in agreement with enacting a statute based on this ruling. Until then....you know what I mean! Hopefully the questioning for that gentleman is all that is due. I surely hope our sherriffs can use their noggin and use sensible judgment on whether to prosecute. If the landowner wants to press charges to the fullest he needs to pay his attorney for that instead of using our taxpayer money on our elected/hired public servants. Setting camp on a gravel bar in his vicinity is going to be seen as spite over matter. Hopefully no one tries to dig into his skin further before statutes are in place. That kind of move could backfire if there is political play involved. Sorry you had to go through that! In the meantime let's see some goggle eye pics.

I would have to imagine that there are already statutes in place. The Supreme Court can only give a decision based on existing law. They can't make the law. So if a decision was made in Elder vs. Delcour, there has to be an underlying statute they had to have used to base their decision on.

Does anybody know where to find that particular ruling? I've been searching the www for a few days and keep coming up empty. I'd also like to know what the statute was that they did use to make their decision.

[Trout Commander]

I would have to imagine that there are already statutes in place. The Supreme Court can only give a decision based on existing law. They can't make the law. So if a decision was made in Elder vs. Delcour, there has to be an underlying statute they had to have used to base their decision on.

Does anybody know where to find that particular ruling? I've been searching the www for a few days and keep coming up empty. I'd also like to know what the statute was that they did use to make their decision.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16972749023983545035&q=elder+v.+delcour&hl=en&as_sdt=2,26

[Trout Commander]

Noted on the legislature. Unfortunately, I dont think we can use legislation to argue with enforcement. That would be a valid argument in the court of law but may fall on deaf ears with water patrol/MDC (and rightly so since all they see is black and white). Unfortunately there are a lot of Joe schmoes like me who cant afford to pay a lawyer to make this argument and since our highest missouri court has agreed with us, I'm definitely in agreement with enacting a statute based on this ruling. Until then....you know what I mean! Hopefully the questioning for that gentleman is all that is due. I surely hope our sherriffs can use their noggin and use sensible judgment on whether to prosecute. If the landowner wants to press charges to the fullest he needs to pay his attorney for that instead of using our taxpayer money on our elected/hired public servants. Setting camp on a gravel bar in his vicinity is going to be seen as spite over matter. Hopefully no one tries to dig into his skin further before statutes are in place. That kind of move could backfire if there is political play involved. Sorry you had to go through that! In the meantime let's see some goggle eye pics.

Chief, the one with the warrant, met with the sheriff yesterday and cleared the air. He was not arrested and in no legal trouble. In my phone conversation with the sheriff on Monday, Chief's meeting with him yesterday and forum member DuckyDoty's phone conversation with him we all concur that the sheriff is not the issue. He stated we were all legal and that he would protect our rights just the same as the land owners. He seems very competent and well versed in the law regarding stream access. He is a man that uses his noggin as you put it.

[flytyer57]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16972749023983545035&q=elder+v.+delcour&hl=en&as_sdt=2,26

Thanks TC.