ozark trout fisher Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Chief, we all appreciate your efforts fighting the good fight. If you do decide to take this to court, you can certainly pencil me in for a donation. If not, then you've already done a lot to bring this issue to the public's attention, and either way I thank you.
fishinwrench Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Hoglaw, how much preparation would his lawyer have to do? All he should have to do is ask the prosecutor to show him the law that indicates that Chief had actually acted against it. Do you believe the prosecutor can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Chief indeed broke the law? It appears that you do....and that interests me. I'm no lawyer, don't even play one online, but I can't see this even making it to a preliminary hearing. So how can he justify a 1500.00 retainer? That's nothing more than a number to scare (lead) him in a desired direction, as I see it. And I'm willing to bet there are a good number of silent folk reading this that agree. What blows my mind about this whole "gray area" BS is that while there may not be a law that says we CAN access said stream, there is equally no law that says we CAN'T. True or False? I'm curious as to why the "gray" is always darker on the defendants side of tbe scales.
Justin Spencer Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 It looks like the only way to get a definitive answer is to take another case to the state supreme court. This may be the case, but would another ruling be ignored just as Elder v Delcour is? Hoglaw, what is your stance (as a lawyer) on the supreme court ruling as it now reads, and why is the prosecutor ignoring it, if it is in fact the law? "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
ness Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 The thing I'm concerned with as far as Chief's situation is that Prater most definitely owns the gravel bar and the bottom of the stream to the middle of the channel (or if he owns on both sides of the river he owns the entire riverbed). Therefore, that's why I said that Chief needs to get it clarified what the prosecutor thinks he can do. Can he float the stream but just not get out on Prater's gravel bar? Or is Prater going to harass him if he even sees him floating the stream? As far as contacting the state attorney general, that's been done before. If you Google Elder v Delcour, one of the things that will come up is a letter from then attorney general John Danforth to somebody who was asking for clarification on the Little St. Francis at to whether it was legal to float and wade it. Danforth basically said that it was a gray area, same as every politician and every MDC employee seems to say when they are asked. And yet, the Elder v Delcour case makes it pretty darned clear in the case of a stream the size of Shoal Creek, or the size of the Little St. Francis, which is in the MDC float book and has MDC accesses on it. I would almost be willing to bet that the present attorney general would say the same thing, because they don't have enough gumption to take a stand. It looks like the only way to get a definitive answer is to take another case to the state supreme court. Ness, as for the Little Piney case, as I understand it the lady there basically tried to run off anglers who were getting ready to wade it. Whether or not you talked to her, and whether or not she was the one who "allowed" you to wade it and fish it, is kinda immaterial. She does not have the right to keep ANYBODY off it, and if she tried to do so as she did with whoever it was that she ran off, she's in the wrong and needs to know it. One of my major points is not who's got a right to what, but who's gonna get to fish hassle-free. I'm not gonna get involved in the technical discussions about stream bottom, midlines, cfs, navigable, or whatever. That's the immaterial part to me, and the vast majority of sportsmen, landowners and law enforcement. You guys can hash and rehash this thing and it won't change a thing. It hasn't yet. Chief will take the deal -- it's a darn good outcome compared to the alternatives which are (1) pay a fine or (2) pay an attorney so you don't get a fine. Just fish Shoal, scoot on by Prater's place and have a ball. If Prater and his goons are making trouble from the bank, give him a wave, paddle faster and wish them a good day. Then report his sorry arse when you're done, if you feel like it. You'll have a quiet day of fishing under your belt, and that's what really counts. If that approach would have been taken from the beginning, this whole situation wouldn't have come up. John
Justin Spencer Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Way to take the fun out of it Ness! "The problem with a politician’s quote on Facebook is you don’t know whether or not they really said it." –Abraham Lincoln Tales of an Ozark Campground Proprietor Dead Drift Fly Shop
ness Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 I'd add one more thing... The most practical thing to do here, and the one that will most likely fix this issue, is to get in front of law enforcement and discuss this thing. The sheriff was open to listening to Chief before and I'd bet he would be again. All you lawyer-wannabes could help Chief build a presentation to give to them. Make sure it's educational, professional, factually correct and not a bunch of hyperbole or name-calling. Just spell out things so they know how it's supposed to work and encourage them to educate the guys on the street. Maybe even make them up a cheat sheet. If you're lucky, they'll agree to go to Prater and discuss it with him. If not, they'll be a little smarter and have their little cheat sheet next time they have to go out there. And with modern photocopier and fax technology, the work could be sent to other law endforcement people as well. I'd chip in on a project like that. I would be MSA and other groups would too. John
ness Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Way to take the fun out of it Ness! No, no Justin. ness' way just puts the fun back in it! John
fishinwrench Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 This may be the case, but would another ruling be ignored just as Elder v Delcour is? Hoglaw, what is your stance (as a lawyer) on the supreme court ruling as it now reads, and why is the prosecutor ignoring it, if it is in fact the law? It'll be interesting to see the official answer to this. My guess is that it's because prosecutors can ignore the actual laws....but judges can't .
Feathers and Fins Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 This is what im curious about... If say Cheif were to pursue this and it did go to trial with Elder v Delcour appearing at least to be the case law. A judge im guessing would need to abide by that ruling. If that was to be the finding of the court then he and or for that matter anyone could take that ruling and show it to the LEO's if they get called to this area and specifically persons area and show it to any LEO that came to talke with them. Leo could then tell the Property owner of the ruling and after being advised if the property owner did it again could he not be arrested for harassment? Just curious as it seems as those this property owner appears on face value to be a potential threat to people on the creek. I have concerns that if this and other stories get out then those who have a CCP might look at this person as a threat to life and use deadly force if they encounter the person. The DA's wording tend to lead me to believe they know this person to be a threat. Just seems there is alot more ot this story then what we know. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Beaver-Lake-Arkansas-Fishing-Report/745541178798856
FishinCricket Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 "just float on by" I seem to recall a funky strainer on the section that is "Praters land"... What if I have to get out to avoid the obstruction? cricket.c21.com
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now