rFisherk Posted March 11, 2015 Author Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'm with Muddler. One of the few things that is clear in this bill, is it redraws private property rights from the high water mark to the low water mark. Ross not only doesn't seem to care about the rights of his constituents, he must think they are extremely stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Muddler4 Posted March 11, 2015 Members Share Posted March 11, 2015 I think everyone who has looked at this must see that this is not a clarification of laws but a re-definition. Our legislators apparently need help understanding those two terms. And it looks like this is heading a direction that is in conflict with US constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions. There are plenty of resources on this subject. One of the resources on the side of recreational users is: http://www.nationalrivers.org/why-river-rights.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallieguy87 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 It does sound like a slight of hand to get some of pressure off of him. I called Ben Harris again today and he should be getting back with me soon. As soon as i hear from him ill post more information. In the mean time keep spreading the word through social media, calls, emails etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalliebigs Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 It does sound like a slight of hand to get some of pressure off of him. I called Ben Harris again today and he should be getting back with me soon. As soon as i hear from him ill post more information. In the mean time keep spreading the word through social media, calls, emails etc EXCELLENT JOB!!!! Keep it up Smallieguy.....we need as many Missouri residents like you as we can get. The only way to get through to these aholes is to show a massive indifference from the constituents to this proposed legislation. If you like to float and wade fish then you should be doing anything and everything you can to contact these douchebags and let them know how you feel about this. I am right there with you Smallieguy, I'm sure I am annoying some of my friends and certainly am pestering my state Reps and Senator about this bill and I really don't care. I'm old enough and have seen enough to know when smoke is being blown up my butt.......fight the good fight for what you care about......we are not the problem.....we clean streams and manage the corridor and try to help and volunteer when we can to support our favorite streams and if your not, well that's okay too. My point is river fisherman like us have extreme passions for this stuff, to a fault in a lot of cases, especially me......we are not causing the problems on Ozark streams, we are the ones who are trying to remediate where possible. Don't believe the hype from the response this guy gave......it's very typical and rehearsed. This bill is garbage and was written that way for a reason.....very ambiguous and incomplete.......why would there be outfitters and campground owners from across the state in Jefferson City to voice their opposition??? I invite anyone and everyone to take any form of action you choose to oppose this but, for Christ sake do what Smallieguy is doing....it can't hurt......otherwise I am gonna be one of the biggest law breaking stream walking freaks in Missouri ....screw them Smallieguy87 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Agreed! There is no confusion in the language of the bill concerning changing property owners rights from the high water mark to the low water mark. That part is as clear as an Ozark spring. And that is all the leeway a landowner needs to shut down a stream. With a change to the low water mark as the landowner's boundary, all it would take is dropping a log or two across the stream and forcing anyone to the bank to go around the logs, and suddenly you would be on private property. Then we are one step away from the Colorado law where the landowner owns the riverbed too! Smalliebigs and Smallieguy87 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallieguy87 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 EXCELLENT JOB!!!! Keep it up Smallieguy.....we need as many Missouri residents like you as we can get. The only way to get through to these aholes is to show a massive indifference from the constituents to this proposed legislation. If you like to float and wade fish then you should be doing anything and everything you can to contact these douchebags and let them know how you feel about this. I am right there with you Smallieguy, I'm sure I am annoying some of my friends and certainly am pestering my state Reps and Senator about this bill and I really don't care. I'm old enough and have seen enough to know when smoke is being blown up my butt.......fight the good fight for what you care about......we are not the problem.....we clean streams and manage the corridor and try to help and volunteer when we can to support our favorite streams and if your not, well that's okay too. My point is river fisherman like us have extreme passions for this stuff, to a fault in a lot of cases, especially me......we are not causing the problems on Ozark streams, we are the ones who are trying to remediate where possible. Don't believe the hype from the response this guy gave......it's very typical and rehearsed. This bill is garbage and was written that way for a reason.....very ambiguous and incomplete.......why would there be outfitters and campground owners from across the state in Jefferson City to voice their opposition??? I invite anyone and everyone to take any form of action you choose to oppose this but, for Christ sake do what Smallieguy is doing....it can't hurt......otherwise I am gonna be one of the biggest law breaking stream walking freaks in Missouri ....screw them Thanks SmallieBigs! I've had some property disputes with land owners around mineral fork a time or two while wading so this is something i'm passionate about. The worst part about area's like that is the locals usually tend to do more damage then people coming and fishing and floating. I haven't heard anything from either senators office but Ben did call me today. I don't have much to add really. Most of the people who are showing support tend to be surveyors and a group from bridgeton landfill. It seems at this point the bill isn't being bought by many people and the consensus is that it looks to have an up hill battle. Mr.Harris told me today that if it goes for a vote its looking like it would be the beginning of next week but there's no certainty that it even will go for vote(maybe shot down by the chairmen of the committee) i should hear back from him in about a weeks time. Smalliebigs 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallieguy87 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Agreed! There is no confusion in the language of the bill concerning changing property owners rights from the high water mark to the low water mark. That part is as clear as an Ozark spring. And that is all the leeway a landowner needs to shut down a stream. With a change to the low water mark as the landowner's boundary, all it would take is dropping a log or two across the stream and forcing anyone to the bank to go around the logs, and suddenly you would be on private property. Then we are one step away from the Colorado law where the landowner owns the riverbed too! its amazing that this bill is setup perfectly for a landowner to close off a stream yet Mr.Ross says that's not the intention and then the BS over it possibly improving stream privileges? And how exactly? Maybe if you own land said rivers and streams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOsmallies Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Received this today from Senator Joe Keaveny. Short but sweet... "Thank you for contacting my office. Please know that I am opposed to re-classifying the streams." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottK Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I got this from my Senator: "Thank you for your email regarding HB 955. This bill is in the House so I have not heard a lot about the issue. I do know that the Federal Government is trying to declare more waterways "navigable" so they can then regulate them. At first glance of this bill, it looks as if this is trying to keep Missourian rights in place. I noticed it had a public hearing this week. It still needs to pass the committee, House floor, and then Senate Committee before I will be able to vote on the measure. I will keep watching for it and keep your thoughts in mind. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention." Well, there's another angle. I sure don't see anything in it that is trying to keep rights in place.... Nothing else from my Rep. yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smalliebigs Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Great work guys...I guarantee they ate talking now if enough people are contacting them on this....social media windstorm there butt Smallieguy87 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now