Shoal Creek Tresspass Closure!

[ness]

If this case were to be pursued, Ness, it wouldn't really be about the right to sit on Prater's gravel bar. The point would be to take it to the highest court possible to solidify floaters' rights in MO in general...all streams, not just Shoal.

But I do agree it would be a very costly venture (definitely more than $1500 or even $3000 if it was taken to fruition), and fruition is far from guaranteed. It's possible it could go the wrong way and we end up actually losing more rights.

It's a gamble, and only Chief can make the decision whether or not to put himself on the line and pursue it. I think he would find a lot of support here and from other organizations like MSA and possibly others. But still, the outcome seems pretty dubious, and I'm not sure I'd wanna do it if I were in Chief's shoes. Even if all the costs were covered through donations it would still be a very time consuming headache.

It would be a interesting battle, though, for sure, and we'd at least get some answers to the questions we've been asking for years.

Yeah, I know there's a lot more on the line than Prater's gravel bar. And I know if we were all wimps, a lot of stuff wouldn't be right in the world. It'd be like an old western where one bad dude could make the rules.

But really, it's not a big issue for floaters in general, and not really for anybody but Chief in this case. I'm just trying to be practical. Even if he had the support of a bunch of people and organizations and it didn't cost him a penny, it'd still be an awful drain of time -- at a minimum.

I've been down the path of dealing with crazy folks -- in this case, a neighbor. Even to the extent of having the police involved several times and serving as a witness for the city when the dude was up on disorderly conduct charges. At trial, the guy flat out made up stuff and in the end the judge said we BOTH needed to act right and dismissed the charges. I was pist, but I wasn't out a penny because it was city v. crazy neighbor. I'm sure the nut case spent several grand to get off. My family and I spent 10 years dealing with the schmuck and just let it all roll off. Stuff you wouldn't freakin' believe; stuff that was hard to let go by. I ran into him at a restaurant about a year ago, chatted him up and told him I just wanted to get this behind us. We're not buds, but he's civil now and the junk has stopped. I think that's a pretty good outcome and a great lesson for my kids.

[eric1978]

Well your anecdote teaches a good lesson about not letting insignificant disputes escalate into litigation, but I'm not sure it applies to this particular case. Pursuing this case could (or could not) turn out to be a step forward for the public's right to access and use public waterways, so it could be a useful undertaking and not just a pointless, elaborate courtroom grudge match. The questions that have to be asked are: What are the possible outcomes? What are the chances of winning? Would it have any real impact on access and usage rights in our state? And would it be worth the investment in time and money? I'm not sure anyone will know the answers to any of those questions unless the chips are pushed in and the hands are turned over.

And although no, this particular dispute is not a big issue for MO floaters in general, the slow but steady erosion of our right to access and use our state's small streams IS a big issue. The ownership society mentality has a firm choke hold on the public interest, and if we never push back, we're only gonna find ourselves more and more limited in our recreational opportunities in the great outdoors. Is this the moment to seize? I don't know. But we're gonna have to fight eventually, that much I'm sure of.

[ness]

Well I'm gonna keep fishing and hunting until the revolution comes.

[Al Agnew]

Chief, I don't have any problem with the way you are thinking about doing it, but I would certainly talk to the prosecuting attorney and make SURE it means just staying off his gravel bar and that you're still alright floating that section.

On the other hand, I think the prosecutor is dodging a question that he's going to have to face in the future, since the canoe rental went in, what's going to happen when a group of renters stops on the gravel bar and gets harassed by Prater?

I thought quite a bit about the "Occupy Shoal Creek" idea after last night, and my thoughts were along the lines of what some have said here. We'd have to make sure everybody was on the same page as far as how we acted. Everybody on their best behavior, and making sure that we did nothing to antagonize other landowners. And if, as it seems, this is a case of one crazy landowner, I'm not sure what we'd end up accomplishing.

To be honest, it may be that this is not the time and place to start the battle. In fact, the Little Piney affair that's being talked about on that board may be a better place. But at some point in the near future, we're going to have to fight it.

[woodman]

I don't know whether we could get enough people to do it, but seems to me that another good way to go about this is to get as many people as possible to float this section of creek together, get the media to go along as well or at least tell them what's going on beforehand, and tell the sheriff and prosecutor beforehand (after showing them the text of the Supreme Court decision) exactly what we are going to do, including stopping and standing on the gravel bar on Prater's property, and we want to have law enforcement there to do whatever they feel like they should do. It would be nice to have them look at the Supreme Court decision and realize that we are in the right, and to tell Prater exactly that, with a warning that he is not to harass floaters (or waders). But if law enforcement decides that they think we are in the wrong, so be it. I think it's time for this whole issue to get some serious attention.

I agree... I'll show up again..set a date...

[hoglaw]

^{Just weighing in here to defend the anoynomous lawyer. Nothing in what Chief copied was wrong at all (except, perhaps, for the copying and pasting of attorney-client discussions which would piss me off for sure...but then again I don't put in print what I don't want the world to see). For you guys badmouthing the lawyer and talking about a countersuit in a misdemeanor clown court criminal case, you're really shooting your mouths off with very little ammunition. I've prosecuted and defended, and now do higher-end litigation, and I can tell you that nothing in the lawyer's email was unreasonable.}

^{Chief, you just have to decide whether you want your day in court or not. I'm sure you could discuss with the prosecutor whether going on "Prater's land" involves the streambed or not and you can be clear on any agreement you make. You aren't going to make law here and you aren't going to the Supreme Court. I'd say listen to your lawyer first. Second, if they're going to kick the charges and make sure to note that you can float and fish until your heart's content as long as you don't set foot on his land, then it sounds to me like you're in pretty good shape.}

[ness]

Chief, I don't have any problem with the way you are thinking about doing it, but I would certainly talk to the prosecuting attorney and make SURE it means just staying off his gravel bar and that you're still alright floating that section.

On the other hand, I think the prosecutor is dodging a question that he's going to have to face in the future, since the canoe rental went in, what's going to happen when a group of renters stops on the gravel bar and gets harassed by Prater?

I thought quite a bit about the "Occupy Shoal Creek" idea after last night, and my thoughts were along the lines of what some have said here. We'd have to make sure everybody was on the same page as far as how we acted. Everybody on their best behavior, and making sure that we did nothing to antagonize other landowners. And if, as it seems, this is a case of one crazy landowner, I'm not sure what we'd end up accomplishing.

To be honest, it may be that this is not the time and place to start the battle. In fact, the Little Piney affair that's being talked about on that board may be a better place. But at some point in the near future, we're going to have to fight it.

Read what Chief wrote -- he's sposta AVOID Prater's land. This ain't a constitutional case -- it's a fisherman and a landowner with a history, some pals lipping off to the guy and the authorities just want it all to go away before it becomes a bigger problem. They've got bigger fish to fry.

I've chatted with the folks I think they're talking about on LP. Fished right on through (and back) without any issues.

Sometimes we make our own problems.

[ness]

^{Second, if they're going to kick the charges and make sure to note that you can float and fish until your heart's content as long as you don't set foot on his land, then it sounds to me like you're in pretty good shape.}

Yeah - that's been my position on this since the first thread. Not such a bad deal -- yet. Everybody sure is brave with Chief's arse.

[Njardar]

Chief, before proceeding, you need to know what case law is on your side. If your lawyer can't provide you with that then you have the wrong attorney. As you probably are already aware of, you need a solid property rights/conservationist attorney. If you feel your current attorney doesn't meet these requirements then it is time to fire him. You might want to talk to one or more conservationist groups to see if they would be willing to champion the cause. Any litigation is adversarial and any litigant needs to know how solid the ground (gravel bar) is beneath their feet. I enjoy your posts because of your heart felt enthusiasm for you position. I may not always agree, but I have respect for you. Best of luck to you.

Charlie

[LarrySTL]

"I have met again witht the prosecuting attorney and he has made a recommendation on your tresspass charge from last summer. He is willing to dismiss the charge against you if you voluntarily agree in the future to avoid going on Mr. Prater's property.

He is not saying I can't float this section, only stay off of Prater's land. "

Chief, as others have said, its your rear and your wallet on the line on this. I join those suggesting that you figure out what is best overall for you, and do that. I too will donate if you decide to go to trial.

One additional suggestion is that you might want to clarification on what the prosecutor means by Prater's "property". Some of the cases Al gave seemed to say that the landowner may own the land, on certain types of creeks, out to the center line of the creek channel and owns the creekbed underwater to that point. Does the PA mean "stay off Prater's gravel bar above that day's waterline" or "dont anchor or wade in the creek on Prater's side of the center of the channel" plus the point you raised about the possible need to portage.

Good luck and thanks for taking it this far whichever way you go from here.