Christian Co. Impeding Access To The Finley River At Linden

[gotmuddy]

Got a call from the prosecutor today. She wanted me to know she had told the sheriff that basically gravel bars were fair game for everyone to be on. Looks like they are abiding by it after reading a new report on the free linden website. Victory for the river goers, loss for the landowner that thinks he controls it all.

that is bittersweet Justin. On one hand, it pisses me off seeing the signs saying stay off the gravel bar on NFoW, but on the other hand it pisses me off seeing people leaving trash everywhere.

[Justin Spencer]

that is bittersweet Justin. On one hand, it pisses me off seeing the signs saying stay off the gravel bar on NFoW, but on the other hand it pisses me off seeing people leaving trash everywhere.

I agree, responsible people should be able to get out while others must stay in their boats!

[UnCivE]

Since we jacked this thread a bit, I'll relate that last weekend I took the canoe to Hooten Town last week and had to part the waters from all the fat girls, babys, and general rednecks who were lounging on the concrete and in the water, just so I could launch a freaking canoe. They seemed ticked at ME. Same deal when I paddled back to get out. As I was leaving one redneck in his beat up pick up truck actually backed the truck down the ramp and left it there while he and the family went swimming.

I wish we had a more beefed up Conservation Corp to roust these people a bit. I'm all for full access to waterways, but if you can't play nice, your butt needs to get gone. This would apply to Linden and all others. I totally understand the people at Linden not wanting to deal with that crap on a regular basis. I can only imagine how messy it gets on and near the 4th of July with all the fireworks.

Same thing with me the other day. They had a big ol' diesel ram sitting at the bottom of the ramp blocking access, blarin music. I basically said, you don't have to move your truck, but I'll need a hand carrying my kayak.... They were actually pretty good about it for once. . .

[OzarkFishman]

I have actually never been to Linden or the ramp there (even though I live in Ozark).

Is there a place to park legally??

Is the ramp good enough to actually back a boat in (maybe a stupid question, but I don't mind if people judge me)?

Maybe another stupid question ... are outboards allowed?

I do understand that I could just drive up there myself, but what would be the point of this forum ... fisherman helping fisherman ...

[RSBreth]

No ramp. That's the issue - people portagin up over the low dam there. You'd have to drive over there to really understand how the parking and whole situation is.

[OzarkFishman]

Thanks RS, I will check it out next time I float from up around there to the Park

[OzarksRiverman]

Just an update:

There was a story on KOLR 10 this weekend about the Linden situation. Sheriff Kyle clearly stated that people can "recreate in the river, above or below the dam, below the high water mark" (defined by Kyle as where the vegetation begins). He went on to say that the increased enforcement is to deter ''loitering on the dam itself'' i.e. climbing, standing, or sitting on the dam, and to keep people off private property--people have been getting out of the water and up into the people's yards who live along the creek north of the dam.

In my view, from what I've seen and heard, they're combatting these two valid problems by keeping people from crossing under the bridge to the dam side, effectively cutting off that part of the river and contradicting their own statement on public access.

???

[Free Linden]

Here's an update, guys. We've almost won this thing, but it's not over yet.

As others have said, there was a story done on KOLR 10. If you saw it, you might have noticed Sheriff Kyle with a big smile insisting that they "never intended to keep anyone off the property," and that everyone was welcome up to the high water mark. Nevermind that had a line of purple-painted boulders drug across the river for exactly that purpose. Nevermind that my family and dozens and dozens of others were thrown off the banks more than once. Nevermind that I was threatend by his office with obstruction of justice charges for saying I would let everyone know that the dry banks to the high water mark were public.

No, of course, he never intended to keep anyone off the property. I'm glad he finally conceded the dry bank issue, but I'm pretty disgusted with his two-faced routine on KOLR 10.

And it's not QUITE over yet. They are still incorrectly informing the public about the dam and threatening to arrest people about it.

The issue with the dam is this: Most of the dam is underwater, with water flowing over it. At each end near the bank is a dry raised portion. We have never disputed that it is illegal for people to loiter on these dry sections, as they are not only not part of the physical river but are well above the high water mark. It is, however, okay to walk across these dry sections while going from upstream to downstream (or vice versa) and it is literally the only way to go from one section of the river to the other because of the dam. The sheriff's department doesn't dispute this. In other words, when it comes to the dry sections of the dam, we are complete agreement with the sheriff's department and what they are currently telling people.

The problem is the submerged sections of the dam. They are telling people that they are trespassing if they stand or sit on the underwater dam. This is simply false and they are once again trying to twist river law. It doesn't matter that the Lindenlure Homeowner's association owns the dam. The public has legal right to the use of the river--all of it--and neither the sheriff's department nor the homeowner's association can legally do one single thing to diminish those rights. The fact that that exact portion of the river happens to sit on top of the homeowner's dam instead of creek gravel is immaterial. The public has the same right to stand in that section of the river and fish, or swim, or sit, or wade, or stand their and pick their nose as they would ANY other section of the river. Just as someone who purchases land along a river must be aware that the public has certain established rights to the use of the river, the same applies to if that same property owner decides to put a private construction UNDER the river. That private construction underneath the water doesn't suddenly cause the public's rights to the use of that river to evaporate.

In fact, if what Sheriff Kyle was describing was true, ANY river-adjacent property owner could simply close off their entire section of the river by putting a private construction under the surface of the water. For example, a river-adjacent property owner could cover the underwater bed of the river with cinderblocks and then claim no one could stand in that section and fish because they'd be standing on that property owner's cinderblocks. It simply does not work that way. The law does not allow that. You cannot put a construction, like the quarried blocks of the dam, under the water and then cry foul when the public has to stand on your dam to be physically IN that piece of the river. As a property owner, you have exactly two choices in that situation: Remove your dam so that nobody can stand on it, or realize that people will have to stand on it to be in the river.

So, if we can get them to acknowledge that they are incorrect about this one last issue as they have been incorrect about EVERYTHING else before now, this will finally be over.

Those of you calling and helping, THANK YOU! And please don't stop now. Please let them know that you know you are not trespassing if you choose to stand on the submerged sections of the dam and fish.