Meramec River Shooting

[remi74]

Al, amen.

[hank franklin]

It is not and will not come to the point of taking property. At best, it would be a legislative validation of what the MO Supreme Court decision already said--that although the landowner owns everything but the water, the public has an easement to use the rivers and gravel bars. That's really the way it is now on any of the float streams, and anybody that owns land on them either accepts that fact, or like this guy tries to go against it. But anybody buying river front property SHOULD expect that there will be people using the gravel bars.

I don't disagree with any of this.

However, the fine point is the landowner should also expect "quiet enjoyment" of the property. The drunk and disorderly mobs wreck this.

The business model that the outfitters use, which is to dump hordes of drunks onto public rivers with no responsibility for them past a piece of paper (floater release), and to expect the private landowners along the way to tolerate them, is seriously flawed.

I am not a lawyer but I deal with them regularly and know how they think. There is a collision here between "right of passage" and "quiet enjoyment." I feel a distinction the case could well turn on relates to commercial use, meaning the outfitters would have no right to expect unfettered use of the gravel bars for their clients (floaters) in a commercial capacity.

The floater and fisherman who is just "passing through" ("passage") would retain that right, but the commercial use would be brought into serious question. I feel the unfettered use of the streams by commercial outfitters does in fact amount to a kind of "taking" and the landowners may in fact be entitled to compensation.

The outfitters dump their customers at Point A. They provide absolutely no services (bathrooms, security, trash pick-up, etc.) between Point A and Point B. The outfitter in my opinion has no "right" whatsoever to expect private landowners and the state or local agencies to pick up this slack.

I believe the private individual has a right of passage, but I have doubts that the commercial operator would win the same case in court.

[Hog Wally]

I can't get my posts onto this site ?

[Terrierman]

Well, quit making stupid political jokes on here....people are getting blasted for it.....it's a fishing forum

Well, since you asked so nice and all.

[awhuber]

What is the tax rate on a gravel bar? Which could be gone come the next flood. Then what?

Not a word was said when Al Gore got injected into the conversation.

One gravel bar not much, However we have thousands of miles of streams in MO. Take 300feet X thousands of miles and thats a chunck of change.

[Greasy B]

I don't disagree with any of this.

However, the fine point is the landowner should also expect "quiet enjoyment" of the property. The drunk and disorderly mobs wreck this.

The business model that the outfitters use, which is to dump hordes of drunks onto public rivers with no responsibility for them past a piece of paper (floater release), and to expect the private landowners along the way to tolerate them, is seriously flawed.

I am not a lawyer but I deal with them regularly and know how they think. There is a collision here between "right of passage" and "quiet enjoyment." I feel a distinction the case could well turn on relates to commercial use, meaning the outfitters would have no right to expect unfettered use of the gravel bars for their clients (floaters) in a commercial capacity.

The floater and fisherman who is just "passing through" ("passage") would retain that right, but the commercial use would be brought into serious question. I feel the unfettered use of the streams by commercial outfitters does in fact amount to a kind of "taking" and the landowners may in fact be entitled to compensation.

The outfitters dump their customers at Point A. They provide absolutely no services (bathrooms, security, trash pick-up, etc.) between Point A and Point B. The outfitter in my opinion has no "right" whatsoever to expect private landowners and the state or local agencies to pick up this slack.

I believe the private individual has a right of passage, but I have doubts that the commercial operator would win the same case in court.

Interesting point,

[ness]

Looks like it's working Hog Wally. You haven't been misbehaving, have you?

To my thinking this whole thing boils down to a couple pretty simple concepts. Know and do what's right. If a property owner comes around, first -- keep you cool. A hello and a smile would be a good start. Quoting, or worse, arguing floater's rights streamside is a no-win situation, so don't even bother. Playing dumb and asking questions would actually be more to your benefit.

You can't make everybody in your group act right, so don't take responsibility for the everybody -- just worry about yourself and your family. If it starts to escalate give a friendly wave and a smile, then head on down the creek and have a good time.

If the situation dictates, report the landowner's behavior to the authorities at the end of the day.

[Chief Grey Bear]

One gravel bar not much, However we have thousands of miles of streams in MO. Take 300feet X thousands of miles and thats a chunck of change.

Well I guess it will even out then. Land is platted as if it is flat and taxed accordingly. So for those that own hilly property, which the Ozarks is just chocked full of, we already have lots of untaxed acreage that landowners enjoy. So you have your chunk back.

[Feathers and Fins]

Hank you bring up some interesting points. Do commercial outfitters have a leagl responsibility for the behavior of thier client/s. This would be an interesting question if it went before the courts there is in my opinion a good chance the courts may find they do.

I say this because of it could be argued they are allowing the clients to use ( private property ) without permission. Also reasonable arguement can be made to guiding on public land which is not legal. Very technical yes but an attourney could argue it. Never know what an attourney may find or argue. If this gets the right attourneys attention and the right home owner with money to pay for him this could become a major issue and possibly put sever limits in not closures on floating. Or nothing may come of it.

[id10t]

Playing devils advocate here.

I don't disagree with any of this.

However, the fine point is the landowner should also expect "quiet enjoyment" of the property. The drunk and disorderly mobs wreck this.

My Understanding of Quiet Enjoyment laws has more to do with parties entered into an agreement ie Lease, Rental agreement etc. If a neighbor is having a party while your trying to sleep Quit Enjoyment does not apply. Local Nuisance laws would apply in those cases. Nieghboorhood covenants could also apply. Regardless it requires Law Enforcement to be envolved and determine what it is.

The business model that the outfitters use, which is to dump hordes of drunks onto public rivers with no responsibility for them past a piece of paper (floater release), and to expect the private landowners along the way to tolerate them, is seriously flawed.

Its hard to expect a Outfitter to be responsible for a drunk 4 hours into a float. I don't want an outfitter asking me to go through my gear, Ice chest etc just to say I might get drunk. How does an outfitter determine who is or is not responsible? Who is or is not allowed to be on the river. The people using the right of way have vague laws at this point to abide by regarding the right of way. When the Sherriff, Game Warden, and Local Elected Officials all have different interpretations its kind of hard to beat up the outfitter and make him the only responsible gate keeper. Would it also be the outfitters responsibility to ask to see your fishing license if you have a rod.

I am not a lawyer but I deal with them regularly and know how they think. There is a collision here between "right of passage" and "quiet enjoyment." I feel a distinction the case could well turn on relates to commercial use, meaning the outfitters would have no right to expect unfettered use of the gravel bars for their clients (floaters) in a commercial capacity.

Since the state owns the water and gives rights to the high water mark (still cloudy issue) the land owner would have to take the issue up with or sue the state. It would seem to me it is the same issue with highway rights. The state built a new entrance to a state park a few miles down the road from my property and now there is 10 times the traffic, trash etc I have to deal with. Would quiet enjoyment apply in this case. In my opinion it would not.

The floater and fisherman who is just "passing through" ("passage") would retain that right, but the commercial use would be brought into serious question. I feel the unfettered use of the streams by commercial outfitters does in fact amount to a kind of "taking" and the landowners may in fact be entitled to compensation.

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. If I rent a canoe from an outfitter why should they be responsible for my actions in that canoe. When I rent a car and get a ticket for speeding is that the responsibility of the rental car company? If I used that car in the commission of a crime is it the responsibility of the rental car company. Not sure how that would apply.

The outfitters dump their customers at Point A. They provide absolutely no services (bathrooms, security, trash pick-up, etc.) between Point A and Point B. The outfitter in my opinion has no "right" whatsoever to expect private landowners and the state or local agencies to pick up this slack.

Again same as above applies. The outfitter is only providing a means (Rental Car) to from point A to B. While the outfitter may have no right whatsoever to expect help with picking up the slack the slack is not their responsibility in the 1st place. The slack takes all parties working together to resolve. The outfitters we use clean the launches and take outs. They have cleanup days where they provide the boats and clean between point A & B. Heck several on the Buffalo are running many of the day to day services at the campgrounds Trash/Bathroom Cleaning etc for the Feds during the furloughs.

I believe the private individual has a right of passage, but I have doubts that the commercial operator would win the same case in court.

Unless the laws change in regards to how they are expected to run their outfitting business they are doing everything they are expected to do. The majority of outfitters got into the business because the love the rivers and outdoors. They could be the fall guy but I don't see it happening. They don't want these issues and I would think most of them would be happy to have clear laws explain to floater.