Meramec River Shooting

[Al Agnew]

Bottom line is that people need to learn how to act in public. Morals and ethics have went out the door a long time ago for most of the general public anyway. It has been an ongoing conflict in the past few years on rivers, drunks, nudity, rude behavior, litter, and mass flotillas of party animals. You really can't hold the rental places responsible for others actions. They don't babysit from entry to takeout points.

Landowner should have handled it differently. He marked his land with stakes and a ribbon. IF they were trespassing, he had the right to ask them to leave. If they refuse, get law enforcement involved. Don't go getting a gun involved. Don't fire a warning shot. What if it would have ricocheted and killed an innocent child? At this point, it is just a trespasser on your land, not a threat to your life.

Floaters should have had more respect. If someone points out that you may be trespassing, don't argue, just leave and then get law enforcement involved. You can see what the end result is when you argue, threaten, and antagonize someone that feels they are a rightful landowner. Nothing on a gravel bar is worth your life. Let him have it and leave.

When it accelerated to the point that the landowner is cornered and several people are threatening him with bodily harm, then self defense MIGHT have come into play. The floaters were clearly threatening him at this point with rocks and bodily harm. But he still had the option to leave and get law enforcement involved, maybe. He MIGHT have been surrounded and had no exit.

A clear definition of the right of way and passage on all streams really needs to be defined. But until it is, there will be more and more conflicts due to the confusion of the law. Most of the articles I have read about this incident points out most of the above. Maybe we can lobby to get a good, FINAL, definition to stream access. I would be more than happy with a law that states waters edge + 50 feet of bank on all waters of the state defined as a public easement. That would allow docking and portage on almost any waterway in the state. Plenty of room to get out and whiz, have a shore lunch, and a good stretch to get rid of the canoe butt.

I wonder if we'll ever know the whole story, or if we'll only get "he said, no, he said" testimony from all involved.

I'm still very much afraid that any clearer definition will end up curtailing rights we already have on the streams. Your suggestion doesn't mention camping, and gravel bar camping is something I'd very much hate to see limited. Your idea of 50 feet on any bank to the water's edge included in the easement would make quite a bit of quite a few gravel bars off-limits, plus give the public a right to get up onto high banks and out into fields in many areas. I think the current definition of the easement is straightforward enough...it's pretty easy to tell the difference between a gravel bar and a high, wooded or cleared bank almost everywhere on these streams. I think what we need instead is a clear statement that the decision in Elder v Delcour IS the law of the land, but then you'd still have to go through every stream in the state and designate which ones are big enough to have that easement and which ones aren't...and THAT would in itself curtail some use of wadeable and marginally floatable streams in all probability.

Right now the Meramec at Cook Station, which is actually within or very close to the same stretch that figured in Elder v Delcour, is flowing about 30 cfs, and has typically flowed around 20 cfs this time of year. If that's legally big enough to be eligible for the easement, then any stream of the same size should be. But not all streams have gauges in their upper reaches. And I know that the upper end of Big River, which I regularly float and fish in the summer, often flows less than 10 cfs this time of year, and is flowing 10 cfs right now. I would hate to be told I couldn't float it anymore. The St. Francis at the Cedar Bottom bridge (Hwy. E) is flowing 12 cfs, and that's well downstream from the whitewater section. Would it be off limits? If that was the case, just in our part of the state, the eastern Ozarks, the Castor, Whitewater, Mineral Fork, and Little St. Francis would be considered smaller than the Meramec at Cook Station.

So when you look at it that way, I kinda like things the way they are, except I'd like to see that very clear legal statement that the decision in Elder v Delcour governs all streams of similar or larger size as the upper Meramec where the case was brought.

In deference to landowners, however, you could also make a law that any gravel bar that is adjacent to a dwelling so that the dwelling is clearly visible from the gravel bar and is less than, say, 100 feet from the gravel bar, and both the gravel bar and the dwelling are owned by the same landowner, cannot be used by the public for camping, picnicking, or swimming.

[joeD]

I'm going to write again.

Some unstable person shot an innocent person on a popular floating stream.

There are no "larger " issues at stake. There is no need to extrapolate "what this all means" and all these mental gymnastics trying to come up with a reason or solution. Because there is none.

Some poor guy got shot and killed on a river.

This type of tragedy happens every day, all over the world. Every day.

So take it as it is. A random event. There is no need to convene a panel of experts to interpret the "bigger" picture for us.

All

[LarrySTL]

About the float operators, I don't see the trash, etc being their fault. Its been a couple years since I rented a canoe but when I did, yes on the upper Meramec, the float place told us not to leave trash behind us, not to use the gravel bars or the river to throw our trash away, and gave us a mesh bag and asked us to use it for our trash and "if you pick up anything else too".If we had been inclined to be litterbugs I dont see how the float operator could have told that by looking at us, and I sure dont see how they could have kept track of whether or not we did litter.

If I rent a car from Hertz and take it to Mardi Gras at Soulard and empty my trash on somebody's yard and take a piss on somebody else's yard, I sure dont see how Hertz could have known that I was going to do that, nor how they could have prevented it. If I rent the car and then drive to a bar and get drunk, again I don't see how Hertz can/should be responsible if I drive drunk and kill somebody.

I dont know if there are limits now on how many canoes a float business can put on the river, but I knew there used to be no such limits. If we are not going to limit the amount of gas the gas stations in Steeleville can sell, or how many customers Hick BBQ serves, I dont see it as fair ( and I suspect legally it might be a governmental "taking" to talk about limiting what really amounts to the number of customers the float places can serve. The float operators bought or built up a legal business and if I do some math they have a lot of money invested in their rental stuff, bought land for their campgrounds, etc. Then after they have done all that, if we came along and said "you can't rent over X number of canoes in a day" isnt the goverment taking part of their business the same as if the gov said "Hick BBQ, you cant serve food to over X number of people in a day"

If we did limit the number of rental canoes/tubes/etc, would we also limit the number of individually owned canoes that can be put on a stretch of river ?

[Justin Spencer]

We do have limits on boat numbers we put in on federal accesses, and we go through an extensive evaluation to obtain our permit.

As I recall with the Prater incident, issues with landowners extend beyond party floaters into the realm of the almighty fisherman. Thankfully in that case no one was shot.

[hank franklin]

Justin Spencer, it's nothing personal. At some point this issue will be decided in the Legislature, the Courts, or both.

I personally hope nothing changes and that Elder vs. Decour as Al said is reaffirmed. Public easement, high water mark, etc.

However, my point is I feel landowners would have standing to challenge this, and may well win. It's possible we--all of us--could lose this right of passage on gravel bars altogether. That would be a terrible thing.

However, I think it's more likely that the law or the courts will recognize the time-honored Missouri right of passage, but I think the distinction may turn on commercial vs. non-commercial use. In the case of a non-commercial, private floater, either you have right of passage or you don't. No middle ground.

However extending that right of passage to a commercial operation raises different issues. Why should the commercial operator enjoy use of the gravel bars for his clients with no compensation or consideration to the landowner? I believe you would have a hard time defending your position on that question.

Like it or not, I believe the law would in fact hold you responsible for the impact of your commercial activity on the rivers and stream banks. This is not to say that you would be held responsible for the individual actions of clients (floaters), no. But the impact your activity in total has on the adjacent landowners would be called into question. On this point I feel you (not you personally, but the commercial operator in general) would lose.

[Smalliebigs]

agree 100% Hank......spot on my man....although it would be a spooky case for all of us fisherman, that's for sure.

Justin Spencer, it's nothing personal. At some point this issue will be decided in the Legislature, the Courts, or both.

I personally hope nothing changes and that Elder vs. Decour as Al said is reaffirmed. Public easement, high water mark, etc.

However, my point is I feel landowners would have standing to challenge this, and may well win. It's possible we--all of us--could lose this right of passage on gravel bars altogether. That would be a terrible thing.

However, I think it's more likely that the law or the courts will recognize the time-honored Missouri right of passage, but I think the distinction may turn on commercial vs. non-commercial use. In the case of a non-commercial, private floater, either you have right of passage or you don't. No middle ground.

However extending that right of passage to a commercial operation raises different issues. Why should the commercial operator enjoy use of the gravel bars for his clients with no compensation or consideration to the landowner? I believe you would have a hard time defending your position on that question.

Like it or not, I believe the law would in fact hold you responsible for the impact of your commercial activity on the rivers and stream banks. This is not to say that you would be held responsible for the individual actions of clients (floaters), no. But the impact your activity in total has on the adjacent landowners would be called into question. On this point I feel you (not you personally, but the commercial operator in general) would lose.

[Justin Spencer]

Like it or not, I believe the law would in fact hold you responsible for the impact of your commercial activity on the rivers and stream banks. This is not to say that you would be held responsible for the individual actions of clients (floaters), no. But the impact your activity in total has on the adjacent landowners would be called into question. On this point I feel you (not you personally, but the commercial operator in general) would lose.

I would argue other than some trash and noise pollution my activity has no impact on the rivers and stream banks, private landowners clearing the banks of trees and brush has a much larger impact on the integrity of the streambank.

We issue trash bags to every single boat we put out, short of going with them and making sure they use the bag there is not much else I can do.

If anything happens in court (which I don't think it will since the only discussions I have seen are on this forum) it will be an all or nothing deal, we shuttle plenty of private boats which would fit in to the commercial category as we collect a fee for this service, so anyone using a shuttle service would be screwed as well.

[Old plug]

You know before you get into a lot of law discussion and what it SHOULD DO. You need to read the law and its precedence history. Then you have those little things like passages and words that cause big problems. A example might be one I know first hand. The difference between the words into and in and how it relates to the wording of other laws that can be effected by those two words. Those two words have been the subject of many high level court actions over the past 68 yrs.

[Smalliebigs]

If you read thru this decision by the Missouri supreme court http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16972749023983545035&q=Elder+v.+DelCour&hl=en&as_sdt=400000002

It pretty much specifies and pertains to fisherman with proper licenses, I may be going out on a limb here but, I don't think in 1954 the court had the foresight to realize that there would be outfitters putting what amounts to a small Ozark town out on the river. Most of the towns I drive thru to any river I fish have much smaller populations than what one single outfitter is putting in the river. The trauma to the river is hard to quantify and Justin I agree there are landowners who are clowns that destroy the riparian corridors they own and pay taxes on but, there is no way to quantify which is worse. There are also many more landowners who do everything they can to preserve the corridor than ones who just bulldoze.

The Elder vs DeClour case was not talking about commercial use in the sense of outfitters.....they were using that as a precedent to establish that the streams were used as highway for commerce at one point in the past.

The reality is for most fisherman on here is that we don't use outfitters and stay way far away from any section that is serviced by an outfitter. I will only use the section of stream that are serviced by outfitters in fall and winter and haven't used an outfitter for well over 15 years. That's what two trucks and knowledge is for. I will say this, I have been to your place and floated thru there and you seem to have one of the cleanest and well maintained I have seen but, I am very partial to your stream as it is one the most beautiful jewels in the Ozarks It's abundantly clear Elder vs DeClour was not a decision that was thought out for the amount of use of our streams are getting in 2013. I'm with Al, man would it be a bummer to not be able to hit your favorite stream based on the navigability or a certain footage of easement.......I would be scared of what the courts would come up with nowadays.

This letter sent to the Prosecuting Attorney for Madison County in 1971 from a guy who was wanting to know which stream were navigable as he had trouble on the Little St. Francis. I found it interesting the streams and cases that determined which were navigable and not.http://ago.mo.gov/opinions/1971/264-71.htm

[fishinwrench]

It IS a fact that there'd be darn few (like None) loud, drunk & rowdy river partys if the participants had to use and shuttle their own boats. And it appears that it is the partying on gravel bars that upsets landowners the most. No?