Washington County Creeks & Streams Info: Don't Get Shot!

[BCBPII]

I am having a hard time understanding why someone would take their new, untrained dog to a creek fishing with them. I wouldn't want the dog trouncing through the water scaring off the fish. Kind of counter productive if you ask me. It also wouldn't allow for much time fishing if you are tending after your dog the whole time.

Man he already said he was WORKING the dog. Have you ever had a dog??? People take their dog with them when they go places, esp outdoor places. Some of you dog haters need to get over it!

[Hog Wally]

I personally like dogs.

[Flysmallie]

Cute dog, Flysmallie, but clearly well above the high-water mark and therefore fair game.

That's my buddies dog. Stray dog that he picked up a few years ago. You can't touch a canoe in his presence without him jumping in the truck.

And he was below the high water mark. I think he thought we were playing hide and go seek.

[Feathers and Fins]

The ( rights ) will all come down to "Public Trust Doctrine" sooner or later. Clear creek in that section may not fall in to that and remain private. Now if someone showed that it was used to transport wood or fur before Arkansas was a state just one shred of proof it would fall under public trust and be protected.

As for the Dog issue, I have no issue with a dog being worked or trained. I do have an issue with dogs who run wild and Threaten people or livestock. Anyone who thinks just because a dog can also be a pet gives it some sort of protection needs to watch a coyote in action or wolf they are killers! If you were on your property and a dog came on it I would bet you would watch it and see if it passes on, but if it went for your kids or grandkids or any of your animals I would bet you put a round in it. A dog gone feral is no different and possibly more dangerous because young kids might thinks it is that "pet".

As to training a dog in an area like that, probably not the best idea but you wouldn't know it until this incident happened. I suggest just going to a well know public lake or river to avoid issues like this with a dog. I have seen problems made worse by people having a dog with them, even the best pet can become increasingly protective of its owner when it is in unfamiliar surroundings especially a young pup. Its fear in that situation could lead to an overly aggressive pose that to another person who doesn't know your dog could be taken as threatening hence blowing up the situation.

The guy shooting, now that is wrong, I would be curious to hear what the outcome of the investigation is. The land owner may simply say he was target shooting or sighting in his rifle for deer season or so many different legal activities ( his word against your word ) deal. But another good reason to be very careful where you spend outdoor time, A person might well be doing a legal activity and never know a person is there especially if it is their property and an accident could happen.

Just way to much to think about and no good common since line because the water ways are the greyest area in the law IMO...

[doohickey]

I agree with everything you said F&F. The main reason I posted this incident is to make others aware of this particular situation and hopefully learn a little myself, which I certainly have. I have yet to hear back from the Sheriff's office, but I'm already expecting it to come down to my word vs. his. Worst case scenario, he denies everything and presses charges against me for trespassing which I've already admitted to. My hope is that he realizes the dangers of shooting at people and thinks twice next time. My mind is still blown by the fact someone would shoot into the water, which can be quite dangerous.

[Al Agnew]

So if you're in a Missouri navigable waterway, you just better stay on/in the water or you ARE trespassing. It is a low water state. Good info good read, thanks for sharing griz.

Nope. As was noted, Elder v Delcour is the determining case in recreational water law, and it specifically stated that the public has a right not only to float the streams but to get out on the banks below the high water mark (which is generally meant to mean the gravel bars) in order to camp, picnic, fish, swim, or portage around obstacles. The discussion on that page did not really make clear the definition of navigable streams in Missouri. Please understand, the Ozark float streams are NOT navigable by the definition of the law...in Missouri, only the Mississippi, Missouri, and the lower ends of a couple of the biggest tributaries are deemed navigable. In those streams, the landowner does own the land only to the mean low water mark, and the public owns the river bed itself. On all the Ozark float streams, the landowner owns everything but the water, including the stream bed...BUT Elder v Delcour established that the public has the right to USE those streams up to the high water mark.

You can Google Elder v Delcour and read the entire decision.

In Arkansas, as has been noted, the determining decision was McIlroy in 1980, based upon the Mulberry. It basically said pretty much the same thing as Missouri's Elder v Delcour.

Mark and others...the reason why it MIGHT not be a good idea to have waterways legislatively designated as being "navigable" is that depending upon how the legislature acted, a whole lot of the smaller streams could very well be left out. Once a creek was designated as NOT "navigable", any rights the public had to using it would be gone. For instance, we've both floated Saline Creek in Ste. Gen county many times, but it's not a well known float stream and does get too low for easy floating every summer. If it was left out of a "list of navigable streams in Missouri", we'd no longer be able to legally float it. Be careful what you wish for. Heck, half the stream sections all over the Ozarks that I've floated and float all the time get too low to be considered easily floatable in normal summer water, and it would be easy for the legislature to note that and put them off limits to floating if that particular legislature had a lot of sympathy for riparian landowners and the whole "property rights" thing.

[Mark]

Yeah Al, I thought of that too, that some streams would be deemed not navigable. My thoughts are that it would seem like that with all the controversy, confrontations, and incidents with police getting involved in the "rights of the public vs. landowners" that somehow the grey area of the law would have been cleared up by now. Like I said, this controversy has been going on all of our lives. And yes, I worry that we, the public, might not like the outcome.

[Blazerman]

The part i don't understand here is how do we know the guy was shooting anywhere near him? Did he see any shots hit anywhere around? I too am deaf in one ear and I can verify you have no clue which direction a noise comes from. For all we know the guy was on his property target shooting at something in the water. Maybe that is not safe but it is his property and he may do it all the time.

While he is doing this a dog shows up and then a dude. So now he is mad and lets the guy know about it. I have a hard time blaming him unless we know for sure he was shooting in the direction of the guy. If he was, then he crossed a line.

[Guest]

Seriously,

The part i don't understand here is how do we know the guy was shooting anywhere near him? Did he see any shots hit anywhere around? I too am deaf in one ear and I can verify you have no clue which direction a noise comes from. For all we know the guy was on his property target shooting at something in the water. Maybe that is not safe but it is his property and he may do it all the time.

While he is doing this a dog shows up and then a dude. So now he is mad and lets the guy know about it. I have a hard time blaming him unless we know for sure he was shooting in the direction of the guy. If he was, then he crossed a line.

Seriously, dude? thats freaking lame.

[doohickey]

He admitted to shooting into the water. I was standing in the water. Also he was yelling at me to get off his land while shooting.