Trespass

[Justin Spencer]

It does not guarantee you the right to run up the bank to take a leak, camp, party, hunt, ot acess the private lands surrounding the water. I have always heard talk about "high water line" access but I have never seen it in a description of the law.

Here is the part of the ruling that gives us the right to be in the area below the flood level.

The court declared that plaintiff had "the legal right to carry his boat around obstacles in the river where obstructions preclude the passage of his boat, subject to liability for damage he might inflict on defendant's property * * * (and) the legal right to tie up his boat or to camp on said stream as long as he uses the stream bed, gravel bars and clearly recognizable area over which the stream flows during its normal stages." The trial court further ordered "that defendant desist in his efforts to hinder or close such free passage up and down the said stream.""

When it says area over which the stream flows during its normal stages that would mean anything below flood stage (which also is what most of us would think of as the high water mark). The gravel bars you stop on when you are on the river are commonly under water during rises on the river, the river is well within its normal stage but these areas are under water often, that means we have the right to tie up boats or even camp in these areas, pretty cut and dried to me in this particular ruling.

[burninworm]

My attorney wife reads E v Delcour as saying that any walking, fishing, etc inside the normal confines of the stream bed is permissible, and you can portage around obstacles in the stream blocking passage. If I'm fishing and I come across an obviously angry landowner, which so far has been pretty rare. I'm always polite and just beat feet because the only conflict I like when I'm fishing is the one that's being had with a fish. When the guy goes from angry to actually threatening me with his gun or calling the police, then I tell him to go ahead and call and to please shoot my unarmed L.L. Bean wool vest wearing butt and see how it turns out for him. The phone camera comes out and on, the lawyer wife gets dialed and we play ball. I got no problems respecting a landowners wishes, even if they are wrong according to the law, but I'll be darn if you are gonna threaten me with a gun, or waste my time with it. Once the threats start, then it's on.

[ozark trout fisher]

It's not a gray area, but is often not understood or known by the land owner that E v. D does entitle the public to be on a gravel bar out of the water to take a leak, camp or party.

I agree with you, but it would do much to diffuse this situation if a whole lot less people used gravel bars as their own personal party space. I can see where the landowners are coming from, and JD is right about standing in their shoes. I mean, how would you like to have strangers yelling and screaming, littering and getting drunk on a gravel bar on your property? Legally, they are in the right, but if more people would be respectful and responsible, this maybe wouldn't be so much of a problem. There will still be crazy landowners that will cause trouble no matter what, but still I think a little respect would go a long way.

[drew03cmc]

Here is the part of the ruling that gives us the right to be in the area below the flood level.

When it says area over which the stream flows during its normal stages that would mean anything below flood stage (which also is what most of us would think of as the high water mark). The gravel bars you stop on when you are on the river are commonly under water during rises on the river, the river is well within its normal stage but these areas are under water often, that means we have the right to tie up boats or even camp in these areas, pretty cut and dried to me in this particular ruling.

JD, as Justin has stated, there is no gray area there. EvD gives us the RIGHT to access and use the river, water, bed, gravel bars, etc without harassment from landowners. I can respect your opinion on this, but do not discount the previous SCOM ruling.

My attorney wife reads E v Delcour as saying that any walking, fishing, etc inside the normal confines of the stream bed is permissible, and you can portage around obstacles in the stream blocking passage. If I'm fishing and I come across an obviously angry landowner, which so far has been pretty rare. I'm always polite and just beat feet because the only conflict I like when I'm fishing is the one that's being had with a fish. When the guy goes from angry to actually threatening me with his gun or calling the police, then I tell him to go ahead and call and to please shoot my unarmed L.L. Bean wool vest wearing butt and see how it turns out for him. The phone camera comes out and on, the lawyer wife gets dialed and we play ball. I got no problems respecting a landowners wishes, even if they are wrong according to the law, but I'll be darn if you are gonna threaten me with a gun, or waste my time with it. Once the threats start, then it's on.

Exactly, any threat from a landowner in this situation is illegal. They are harassing a person enjoying the natural beauty and bounty of the waters legally and are therefore breaking the law.

[FishinCricket]

I agree with you, but it would do much to diffuse this situation if a whole lot less people used gravel bars as their own personal party space. I can see where the landowners are coming from, and JD is right about standing in their shoes. I mean, how would you like to have strangers yelling and screaming, littering and getting drunk on a gravel bar on your property? Legally, they are in the right, but if more people would be respectful and responsible, this maybe wouldn't be so much of a problem. There will still be crazy landowners that will cause trouble no matter what, but still I think a little respect would go a long way.

We fine and imprison many people every year for not obeying the rules of the public roadways... Does this mean we should close the roadways? Seems like a logical analogy to me.

[ozark trout fisher]

We fine and imprison many people every year for not obeying the rules of the public roadways... Does this mean we should close the roadways? Seems like a logical analogy to me.

Of course not. If you pay attention to my posts, you'd know that there probably isn't anyone on here who believes more firmly in the right of the public to use navigable streams. I'm not talking about legality here. I'm talking about ethics, common courtesy. Even if it's legal, and even if it should be legal to party and yell and scream on a gravel bar adjacent to someone's property, that doesn't mean that it's okay. Rudeness and stupidity is not, and shouldn't be illegal. But it's still wrong, and it's still what causes a lot of our problems with landowners along rivers.

[Justin Spencer]

. Even if it's legal, and even if it should be legal to party and yell and scream on a gravel bar adjacent to someone's property, that doesn't mean that it's okay. Rudeness and stupidity is not, and shouldn't be illegal. But it's still wrong, and it's still what causes a lot of our problems with landowners along rivers.

I think this is an issue of drunk or disorderly conduct, among other things that could be cited, much like it would be if someone on a sidewalk in front of your house were acting that way. Doesn't have anything to do with trespass, but with other citable offenses.

This seems to be a different issue from that of Mr. Greybear.

[FishinCricket]

I agree, I was only re-iterating that the ignorance and stupidity is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak...

[FishinCricket]

I think this is an issue of drunk or disorderly conduct, among other things that could be cited, much like it would be if someone on a sidewalk in front of your house were acting that way. Doesn't have anything to do with trespass, but with other citable offenses.

This seems to be a different issue from that of Mr. Greybear.

Yeah, this too!

[eric1978]

Here is the part of the ruling that gives us the right to be in the area below the flood level.

When it says area over which the stream flows during its normal stages that would mean anything below flood stage (which also is what most of us would think of as the high water mark). The gravel bars you stop on when you are on the river are commonly under water during rises on the river, the river is well within its normal stage but these areas are under water often, that means we have the right to tie up boats or even camp in these areas, pretty cut and dried to me in this particular ruling.

Exactly Justin. It's crystal clear...I truly don't understand the confusion. At the very least, any stream that's in the MDC Paddler's Guide is unambiguously legal to float from headwaters to confluence as long as they are accessed legally and the provisions in E v. D are met.

The landowners need to understand...they own the LAND, not the water or the air.

And as far as noisemakers on the rivers go, yeah, I don't like it either. And I don't like when I hear some idiot's subwoofer driving past my house in the middle of the night. But I don't jump up and call the cops. I deal with it. If it really bothered me I'd move away from roads.