What will happen next?

[Rusty]

Pulled this from another forum, but well worth the read.

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/topic/art...debate/C41/L41/

[LostMyWife]

Great article russ.

I never really thought about access in this light before. I live on a "private" lake. After sitting on the Board of Directors for 7 years I discovered that we own the land under the water, and all around the water, but not the water. If someone can gain access to the lake without tresspassing, they have every right to use it according to IDOC. This was a major blow to a lot of people, as we can't stop anyone from using the lake. We can fine members, but have no real recourse. If they use our ramp they can be arrested for tresspassing when they pull the boat out, but not for using the water.

I can see where this may be a problem for someone that owns the land on both sides of a river. Can you see someone putting a fence accross the Mississippi River and charging barges for access or denying it to boaters. The only difference is the size of the river. That may be a ridiculous exagerration of the facts, but is it really any different than someone closing off some of the small rivers in MO?

I am not sure what I think about TU pulling out of the debate. I guess I don't know enough to understand why they made that decision.

LMW

[Rusty]

Take a look at the people that are buying the land that the waters run through. Then you might have an idea as to why they might pull out. Would you rather have 2000 members who pay yearly dues of $35.00, or one who makes a yearly donation of $1,000,000.00.

[Danoinark]

Some of this has been debated in Arkansas. Some property owners along the famous Crooked Creek have tried fenching in the Creek on their property lines but most to no avail. The issue of whether streams are naviagable waterways is a topic that has even been played out in the Courts. My understanding of it is that if its determined that the stream is navigable then property owners don't have that right.

Dano

[jdmidwest]

Missouri has the navigable stream policy also, but it gets tested every year. Since I have bought the Kayaks, most every piece of flowing water in the state is a navigable stream. My previous mode of river travel was the canoe. We have problems with landowners cutting trees across the rivers to discourage floaters and farmers fencing across rivers with barbed wire for cattle. It is illegal to do so here but it still happens, and these are streams classified as rivers on the map. Another thing is the loss of access points along the streams I float. People have been buying up land on both sides of a river and then taking over the maint. of the county road that passes over it making the bridge and the land around it private property. Fortunately the MDC has keep up with them and has opened accesses to the rivers elsewhere.

[shawncat]

Trying to figure out river access in Mo. is one very hard nut to crack.Some land owners say they own up to the bank,some say middle of river,some say all of it ,when they own both sides. Very few say high water mark but I've heard that too.A call to the local conservation office will get you,the state only owns the water you float over on "navigable streams".Thats a bit confusing when you see hundreds of floaters,campers,fishers,frisbee thowers all enjoying a sand,gravel bar[high water mark] on a major holiday weekend.They can't all be guest of the landowner...or are they?I have put in many calls to find a solid answer but have yet found one.The best I can determine is it's up to how the prosecuting attorney of that county interprets the law[circumstance].Which may get you over a hundred diffrent answers seeing how we have that many counties. Won't be long and will see floating porta-potties with gang planks or pay toilets streamside.

[Terry Beeson]

I understand TU's position on this and it is not just a matter of membership. It is a simple matter of their mission:

"Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's coldwater fisheries and their watersheds."

If I own land that has a trout stream running through it and TU fights to allow access, there is an option for me to "fight back" with practices that would ruin the trout stream - perfectly legal practices. It would become a "pissin' contest" for sure. Now how would that fall in line with the mission statement?

I actually think this might be a good decision on the part of TU. Do we really realize how important it is to have the landowners all over the basin on the side of TU in order to preserve these waters?

As I have continually stated... We are ALL to blame and are ALL in this fight... if we realize it or not...

Now...let me ask a theoretical question....

Do you want:

A. A pristine trout stream that nobody is allowed fish?

or

B. A dead trout stream that anybody is allowed to fish?

[Crippled Caddis]

Terry wrote:

<I understand TU's position on this and it is not just a matter of membership. It is a simple matter of their mission>

It's that and much, much more. Having been concerned with stream access issues in several states and reading up on 'navigable waters' laws as much as possible, requesting legal opinions etc., I know the subject to be a more tangled mess than a backlash on a cheap reel. The legal definitions vary from state to state----even in the too-few cases where a legal definition even exists. In most cases the definition is left to the opinion of the court. In short it is one of the more tangled legal birdsnests of the American system of law. It would be beyond stupid for TU or any other advocacy group dependent on public support to become embroiled in such an insoluble morass.

Until the Supreme Court defines a national standard navigability cases will continue to be decided by local judicial authorities whose opinions are as widely varied as those of the public at large.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking refuge as I find I often must, I quote one more wise than myself:

"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant chances that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what is will be tomorrow."--- James Madison, principal author of the Constitution, Federalist no. 62, February 27, 1788

[LostMyWife]

Seems to me that the best way to solve the problem is through education and enforcement. Education has to start with the property owners so that they realize what they really own. I've been there and that was a hard one to swallow. We still have members that are in denial about that one. This is also where I feel TU has an obligation. They need to educate the public about the proper "use" of public waterways and how to use them. The property owners get bent out of shape when their property is damaged by the pulic using the waterways. If TU focused it's energy on theeduation side and not the fight side, it could be a win for both sides.

The enforcement part is the side that won't get done. The local prosecutors don't want to mess with something that is this expensive to enforce and has little upside for them. What would you want on the front page around election time. "Prosecutor Smith gets guilty verdict for local murder or for prosecuting a farmer for trying to protect his land. Catch 22

LMW

[shawncat]

I would also like to note that in my new avatar picture.That I was a fully licensed non-resident,accessed the river by a fully licensed and insured state concessineer,the fish was caught on artificial bait[brown trout #7 rapala]with one single,barbless hook,was immediately released after picture,I'm clearly above the sign but not past the cable and floating down the middle of a navigable river.

sign,sign,everywhere a sign,do this don't do that ,can't you read the sign