Lundenlure -- -Could It Be True?

[Jack Jones]

Just saw this posted on Craigslist:

"You read correctly. We got the call yesterday afternoon. The prosecutor's office has more thoroughly reviewed the situation and the precedent-setting Missouri Supreme Court case Elder v. Delcour and declared that Lindenlure is public up to the ordinary high water mark. In laymen's terms, this means the dry banks are public up to the point where the grass and vegetation begin growing. In addition, the prosecutor's office has informed the Linden home owner's association and instructed them to stop harassing visitors and to stop smearing purple paint on the boulders near the bridge.

As it is Memorial Day weekend, we would like to invite everyone to come down to the Lindenlure dam for a sort of "grand reopening" to the public. It was a long difficult fight, but the rich snobs in the Linden HOA have finally been given the message that the law applies to them just like the "riff raff" they've been trying to keep away from the river.

So come down this weekend and enjoy your legal recreational use of the river once again!"

Whether it's true or not, I do not know. I was going to call the PA, but they close at 4:30. I've got to be at the Courthouse tomorrow morning anyway, so I'll see if I can find out for sure. If it is, that would be a nice treat!!

[Wayne SW/MO]

I suspect that if it is true it might reach beyond Linden.

[RSBreth]

Linden is O.K. - but there are far bigger fish in greater numbers than there and not too far away.

I'm not saying it isn't a good thing if you can fish there unmolested - just that it's not the "Holy Grail" by any stretch.

But if this is true - fish on.

[Daveinozark]

yep, I went to Linden last weekend with my inflatable. The signs are gone and so is the paint. I asked a local about it and he claimed that vandals took down the signs. he didn't sound believeable but he was there picking up trash so I'm betting he wasn't happy about it. I did see a cop walking around the area. He didn't stop me at all and I know he saw me climbing over the dam onto the bank to get back to my jeep. I finished up around 2:00 and when I got back to the jeep there was about a dozen other cars and tons of people there. As far as the fishing, I picked up 4 small smallmouths, 1 small largemouth and a very large crappie. I was surprised by the crappie. All caught on small white spinnerbait.

I'm glad to see this spot open again but I hope the cop is a regular for the weekends there though. I wish they would prohibit alcohol, it may cut down on the antics and trash left behind.

[Jack Jones]

From speaking with the elected prosecutor today, it seems that she made no public statement, but did provide guidance to Sheriff Kyle in that she concurred with the county's attorney who wrote an opinion letter. My understanding of the opinion letter from the county's attorney is that the waterway is "non-navigable", and they are interpreting to mean that property owners do own the land to the middle of the river, subject to the right to portage obstacles. So no, the banks and the 'high water mark' are not areas you can be. Also, the no parking signs along the county road are proper since it is county propery. So if you paddle up to the dam, I suppose you could take out, climb the bank to walk around and then put in again without having a legal issue.

I drove there today to look, since I'd never been there. I took Canyon Rd to the gravel parking area under the bridge. I didn't see any major issues. The paint on the rocks was faded. No police were there. There were a few people and cars, and no one seemed to be misbehaving. Maybe it's a weekend thing.

I'd like to see if I can get a copy of that opinion letter, and may look into filing a Sunshine request.

So that's all I know!

[Daveinozark]

interesting if they can determine that the finley is non-navigable. I thought that was defined as being able to float a vessel.

I think in this case, the question should be, is the parking under the 125 bridge considered a public access spot to the river or not. Since there are not any no parking signs, I feel that it is permitted to park except where posted.

Therefore, the public should have access to the river and its banks without being prosecuted as trespassing.

I'd challenge the home owners there that claim to have ownership of the banks - if someone gets hurt on "their property" would they then be held responsible and be willing to cover a persons' medical expenses through their home owners insurance? I bet not

until they restrict that bridge from all parking and put up barb wire fencing, the public will still come. Heck, signs didn't keep people away.

you're right though, the weekend is a different story. Check back in the afternoon on Memorial day. Bet you won't find a place to park

I like to fish there because it is convenient and is actually a pretty good spot.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The concept that navigable has certainly changed since I was a kid. I still remember adults saying that navigable was determined by wether or not a stream could be depended up on to navigate from one area to another. As an example if I told some one to go up the James until they reached a stream flowing in from the right anytime of the year they would both be considered navigaible. This would hold true even if said stream would not float a craft because navigation is not water borne.

[Al Agnew]

Geez, guys, do we have to go through this again? All of the Ozark streams are legally "non-navigable", which means the landowner owns everything but the water...the banks, the bottom, the gravel, etc. But the Ozark streams, including the Finley, are still considered "public highways" under Elder v Delcour. That decision said that, although they are non-navigable, the public has an easement to float, fish, and use the banks below the high water mark (which to all intents and purposes means the gravel bars, not the solid banks). The public also has the rights to use the solid banks if necessary to portage around obstructions. The only question with the Finley would be whether it is big enough to be "floatable", not navigable, and thus subject to Elder v Delcour. And I think any reasonable person would say it is.

The other question is whether it's a legal access there. And that is pretty much up to whoever owns the land where you would access the river. If the county owns it, I guess they can post it against trespass, although traditionally highway rights of way have been used as accesses. If the landowners own it, they can definitely post it. In other words, you could legally float the river or paddle up it from someplace else, but you couldn't use that place to access the river.

[Jack Jones]

I agree Al. That pretty much sums it up. However, I'm sure we'll be going through it again fairly frequently, LOL! Them landowners and fisherman need reminders periodically.

[Jack Jones]

Just noticed tonight I spelled the title of my post wrong.... DOH!