Members BEvERage Posted April 9, 2007 Members Posted April 9, 2007 I strictly wade fish here in my part of the world. I live in Arkansas, but fish in Oklahoma and Missouri as well. What are the laws concerning tresspassing or not tresspassing when walking a river and its boundaries. I was told in Missouri, that once you legally enter the river you may walk anywhere as long is it is in the natural river boundary or flood plain. Im not sure about Oklahoma and Arkansas, I have yet to be able to find a definite answer. Any and all help on this would be helpful, i dont need to be shot at!
ollie Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Dude, legal or not, that won't stop some landowners from taking a crack at you! "you can always beat the keeper, but you can never beat the post" There are only three things in life that are certain : death, taxes, and the wind blowing at Capps Creek!
Crippled Caddis Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 <I have yet to be able to find a definite answer> The definitive answer is that there IS no definitive answer. The laws regarding 'navigable waters' vary from state to state. He!!---they even vary from judge to judge! It is one of the larger can of worms you'll ever open. Federal court decisions have provided no firm guidelines. Ask for legal opinions from attorneys or other members of the bar and get ready for some of the fanciest moves you've ever witnessed as they dance around the subject like a ballet dancer on speed. It's a subject I've had an interest in for well over 40 years without discovering anything more definitive than what I've already mentioned.( Good luck! CC "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." ---Charles Austin Beard
Terry Beeson Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 CC is correct, but that seems the case in 99% of any laws when they come before a judge or judges... HOWEVER, according to the latest interpretation in Arkansas that is for the most part considered correct to some degree (dang... I shudda been a lawyer...) If you enter a "navigable" waterway by means of a public access (highway right of way, easement, public owned property) or permission from the landowner (easement or permission) you can navigate any portion of the waterway by foot or watercraft up to and including the "high water level" which has some fuzzy interpretation at best. I think, but am not 100% sure, that Missouri is the same, but don't know about Oklahoma. The problem comes in determining if a certain waterway isconsidered "navigable" and where the "high water" mark is. The next problem is determining if the landowner will use vocal warnings, rocks, 12 gauge, or .30-06.... That's MY understanding, but don't come cryin' to me if it's not 100% correct... (standard self-protecting disclaimer.) TIGHT LINES, YA'LL "There he stands, draped in more equipment than a telephone lineman, trying to outwit an organism with a brain no bigger than a breadcrumb, and getting licked in the process." - Paul O’Neil
John Berry Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 The Arkansas tailwaters are riparian rights water. You can legally walk up to the high water mark. You also have the right to egress (if the water comes up you may exit through someones property) the government does not want to lose any taxpayers. This does not mean that you can cross someones property to enter. Be advised that not all property owners understand this. I had to explain this to a Sheriff's deputy one day. John Berry OAF CONTRIBUTOR Fly Fishing For Trout (870)435-2169 http://www.berrybrothersguides.com berrybrothers@infodash.com
WebFreeman Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 How sad is that? “Many go fishing all their lives without knowing that it is not fish they are after.” — Henry David Thoreau Visit my web site @ webfreeman.com for information on freelance web design.
Terry Beeson Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 I hope his bullet was in his shirt pocket... No... you have to give them a bit of slack. Too many laws for them to know every stinkin' one by heart, BUT common sense would tell you it would be OK to egress from a rising river in lieu of drowning. "Riparian rights"... That was the phrase I was trying to think of... TIGHT LINES, YA'LL "There he stands, draped in more equipment than a telephone lineman, trying to outwit an organism with a brain no bigger than a breadcrumb, and getting licked in the process." - Paul O’Neil
Crippled Caddis Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 Terry wrote" <If you enter a "navigable" waterway by means of a public access----you can navigate any portion of the waterway by foot or watercraft up to and including the "high water level"> That is the general accepted interpretation of the law in most jurisdictions. But as with most aspects of life 'the Devil is in the details'. In this case the 'details' are that federal court decisions have varied so much that there is no firm body of law to bind local jurisdiction. As a consequence decisions are often so arbitrary that one can only assume the judge owes a political debt to the landowner. THAT is where the wicket gets sticky. Edit: Whoops---neglected to mention one of the other 'details'. In most cases 'navigable waters' is a states rights issue anyway so federal guidlines, such as they are, become moot in any case.:0( CC "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." ---Charles Austin Beard
Crippled Caddis Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 John wrote: <The Arkansas tailwaters are riparian rights water.> That may be a case where federal law applies since waters that come under the purview of the Corp of Engineers are exempt from states rights issues if I recall some of my reading properly. Do you know if that is the case in that instance? CC "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in their struggle for independence." ---Charles Austin Beard
John Berry Posted April 9, 2007 Posted April 9, 2007 It is my belief, that since these tailwaters are controlled by the Corps of Engineers they are deemed federal navigable waterways and therefore subject to federal law. The deputy was very polite and explained to the land owner that he needed to talk to the Corps and that he (the deputy) had no jurisdiction. By the way, the land owner was Charlie Cook on the Norfork. If you notice there is a sign on his property that says that this is a riparian rights water. That sign was put there for Charlie not us. John Berry OAF CONTRIBUTOR Fly Fishing For Trout (870)435-2169 http://www.berrybrothersguides.com berrybrothers@infodash.com
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