Shoal Creek Tresspass Closure!

[Al Agnew]

I think Ness is definitely the voice of reason here, and I also think that Hoglaw knows what he's talking about. The only thing to do at this point is to have the conference with the attorney and the prosecutor to make sure Chief's rights are clearly delineated. If Chief is unhappy with the answers, then is when he has to make the decision whether or not to go any farther.

One thing, though...as I noted in my last post, you cannot JUST go by the MDC float book. Here is a partial list of streams I have personally floated that are not in the book:

Whitewater River--30 miles or more, with a couple of MDC accesses

Castor River--40 miles or more, a couple of MDC accesses

Bear Creek--10 miles or so

Saline Creek--35 miles

South Fork Saline Creek--15 miles (lots more miles of floatable water downstream, but not good fishing)

River Aux Vases--10 miles

Establishment Creek--10 miles

Joachim Creek--15 miles or so, and a smallmouth special management area

Indian Creek--20 miles

Dry Creek--7 miles

Meramec--10 miles above the part that's in the float book

Big River--40 miles above the float book part

St. Francis--7 miles above the float book

West Fork Black River--7 miles above the float book

Sinkin Creek--10 miles or so

Little Black River--10 miles

Point is that while you can use the float book to "prove" a given stream that's in it is a "public highway", that does not mean that streams which are NOT in it are necessarily NOT public highways.

[eric1978]

Again, ness' proposal is a practical solution to this particular issue, but does nothing to address the larger problem of the erosion of our rights as outdoorsmen and law-abiding citizens. I'm not saying this case should necessarily be used as a springboard to petition the courts, or that it would even be useful to do so, or if it's even possible to do so (i.e. hoglaw's input)...and it's always convenient to let sleeping dogs lie. But at some point we're gonna have to make a stand against private interests curbing our state-granted constitutional rights.

The Prater deal sounds like it's easy enough to resolve, if it's not resolved already, and it really only concerns a small number of floaters on a small section of river. I'm more interested in the long-term ramifications of sitting on our hands and never asserting ourselves as a concerned body politic of anglers and paddlers.

[Justin Spencer]

I have no problem with the lawyer either, that's his business and that kind of retainer is not outlandish. I might decide to fire my lawyer so I could personally deal with the prosecutor by acting as my own counsel. If the fine isn't so much that losing would break me, I would go it alone and after talking to the prosecutor either agree to the "plea" or fight it if I so desired.

[drew03cmc]

Prater is harassing paying customers of Undercliff. That is a larger issue than just a small number of floaters.

Al, you are correct, which is why I mentioned not only the Float Book, but also the list of MDC accesses on the rivers and streams of the Ozarks. I think we should try to assemble some sort of document to submit to the offices in question regarding the legality of floating these streams from state owned or managed accesses. If people wish to claim private property rights, they are in the wrong to harass floaters and this needs to be brought to light in some manner.

[Feathers and Fins]

I just want to see it clearly spelled out. I do my best to obey all the laws and do not want to end up getting a citation or arrested because the law enforcement doesnt know the law and then have to spend the time and money to prove i was in the right. This is not some major law needing changing or political Bill, just people wanting clarification on the law. You would think MDC could get togeather with the states AG and get it right. After that its simple as sending a letter to each LEO Office for the commander to go over with the troops. Then everyone is one the same page i would hope.

[Justin Spencer]

Prater is harassing paying customers of Undercliff. That is a larger issue than just a small number of floaters.

As an outfitter I will be the first to admit that some of our paying customers deserve to be harassed, and in some instances I support landowners right to control some aspects of a gravel bar on his property. This is really the "gray area" in these cases. Most would stand up for the rights of a fisherman pulling up his boat and wade fishing a riffle, while fewer would support a group of adults sitting on a gravel bar drinking beer, and even fewer would support profanity and horseplay, loud music, etc. occuring on private property. It also depends on if the gravel bar is right in front of a house or in a wooded bottom (common sense), I don't have a problem with people stopping on my gravel bars, but if someone pitched a tent right in front of my house I would have a problem with it. This is where one supreme court ruling can't cover all the bases, and might be why it is taken on a case by case basis.

[Gavin]

I have a feeling that the rental boat operation will wear this Prater fellow down eventually. That or he will sell, or do something that you can actually charge him with.

[ColdWaterFshr]

I have a feeling that the rental boat operation will wear this Prater fellow down eventually. That or he will sell, or do something that you can actually charge him with.

Exactly. Until then, we should all do our part to float this section as frequently as possible.

[Gavin]

Dont fight him...outlast him.

[eric1978]

Prater is harassing paying customers of Undercliff. That is a larger issue than just a small number of floaters.

In the grand scale of public access rights within the entire state, it's still a relatively minor issue. Resolving this problem with Prater does nothing to prevent the next ordeal with the landowner down the river, or the next river over, or an entirely different river system on the other side of the state. Without clearly established and understood rules, and support from law enforcement, it will continue to be one harassed fisherman after the next.