good luck OAF, everyone else can suck it.. Eh?

[Al Agnew]

21 hours ago, tjm said:

Got any ideas for a solution to the access problem?

I think the elimination of parking is deliberate, small enforcement budgets and lots of complaints (not just the few idiots, the many idiots) brings a county to the point where economics play a part. "No parking" signs didn't work so they remove the possibility. I know a couple places where the state road row is wide enough that you could in the past drive down the ditch bank to the stream under the bridge that the state removed the access. (I assumed at county request.)

Case law is (in my understanding) only applied in the courts, in this case it would be a guide for the prosecutor to press trespass charges or not to and to the court in deciding the charge.  But it would not prevent a landowner from filing charges, if a charge is filed I believe the sheriff is obliged to make an arrest, isn't he?

Navigability does play a large part, not because of the obvious reasons though, navigability at time of state hood determined who owns the stream bed and thus has bearing on land adjacent. Then fifty eleven prior decisions both at federal level and in similar state cases are compared with the facts . As to whether a stream meets requirements as an easement, in an A.G. opinion in 1971 John Danforth suggested the prosecuting attorney for the given county was "in the best position to make such determination" then lists a number of rivers in Mo. that had been judged as navigable or as to easement for the prosecutor to use as comparison. Danforth said that in Elder it says "Each case involving a river must be decided with reference to it's own facts".

I don't think size of stream bed or discharge rate is necessarily the determining factor.  

EVERY floatable Ozark stream is non-navigable water.  As I think you said before, or somebody did, the only navigable waterways in Missouri are the Mississippi, Missouri, and short sections at the lower ends of a couple other rivers.  None of the Ozark streams qualify, and land ownership on ALL the Ozark streams includes the river bottom to the so-called center line of the stream.  So navigability has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any Ozark stream is open to the public.

In a strictly legal sense, you're right that, as Danforth said (I've read that, too), "each case involving a river must be decided with reference to its own facts".  But Elder v Delcour has, without fail, been considered the legal precedent for all other streams...the only "facts" to be determined for any stream is whether Elder v Delcour applies, and Elder v Delcour, in effect (I've read the entire decision many times), says that if it's possible to float it, it's legal to float it.  Mention was made in the case to commerce, generally considered to include floating logs to market in the past, but that wasn't the deciding factor.  It's been considered a rather weird decision among those who study law, in that in the end the deciding factor did seem to be that if the stream was floatable it was legal to float it and enjoy it in all the other incidental ways that floating involves.  The decision basically made the modern day canoe (and now kayak and raft and inner tube) livery business possible.  And the only streams that are within that gray area seem to be those too small to be floatable in all but fairly high water and thus don't have any liveries on them...or when some influential landowner decides to push for HIS stream to be off limits to floaters.  Then it's entirely up to the county prosecuting attorney to decide whether to press trespass charges or not.  Some do, and get away with it because those being charged don't have the resources to fight it past the county court level.

[fishinwrench]

We have a few unique cases here concerning the Lake Ozark tributaries.  The boundary of the lake is at an elevation of 660.0 (technically it is 662.2) but there are a few landowners that will have you charged with trespass if you are wading in "their" creek even though the elevation clearly shows (by the effect of lake rises) it is in fact below 660.0 and therefore part of Ameren property. 

Further downlake, some lakefront land owners will have a fit if you walk the shoreline in front of their place during times when the lake is drawn down.  They seem to think that they also own the now bare land beyond their seawall.   They are mistaken.  You can walk the shoreline here right now since the lake is currently at 657 (3 feet low), just be sure to step over, or duck under their dock cables and walkways and DO NOT touch them.  

If someone is allowed to assume ownership of property, runs people off of it and stuff like that, and is allowed to continue to do so for a period of 7-10 years.....then they truly do (by law) take legal possession of that property.  It's called adverse possession.   So how long has Plaster been "assuming ownership" of the Osage fork of the Gasconade ?  He may very well own it now because he has been doing this for quite awhile and nobody has ever contested it.

Here on the LO tributaries if I ever get convicted of trespass then Ameren just lost a piece of their property.  So I figure if I ever get a ticket then all I have to do is call THEM and they'll set 'em straight real quick like, because they aren't going to give up land that easily.

Likewise if anyone has ever been charged with trespass on Plasters portion of the Osage Fork and they posted bond/paid a fine to the court....then the state/county, by taking that money, truly has given Mr. Plaster that river free and clear, and he truly does own it now.

[slothman]

Al, if floating is legal, what about wading? 

[XP 590]

13 hours ago, Phil Lilley said:

The video has been deleted...  I guess someone told them.

I did tell him. He replied with a bunch of garbage about not knowing the rules.   Yeah right.  Then he said he was deleting the video.  

[fishinwrench]

He, and I assume his dad (the buyer of trucks and boats?) fish all over the state, so you'd assume that they review the rules and regulations before they go.  But maybe since they always C&R they figure it doesn't matter.  

[Chief Grey Bear]

22 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

He, and I assume his dad (the buyer of trucks and boats?) fish all over the state, so you'd assume that they review the rules and regulations before they go.  But maybe since they always C&R they figure it doesn't matter.  

 I guess that would make sense.

 According to some of the East Coast crowd you can gig a smallmouth but if you don't keep it is not illegal. 

 So again if don't possess any fish in a fly only section then you're not illegal matter what you use. That's the way I read it .

[Old plug]

The thing is a lot of fishermen are all up about personal  recognition.  I seen a guy with his kids a year or so back on a dock taking picture of themselves holdung up stringer of small crappie must have been  between 3-4 ft  long. I bet there was close to 100 crappie on there. After the pictures  were  taken they jusr dropped the stringer in the water. very smug like they were real champions. 

[fishinwrench]

1 minute ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

 I guess that would make sense.

 According to some of the East Coast crowd you can gig a smallmouth but if you don't keep it is not illegal. 

 So again if don't possess any fish in a fly only section then you're not illegal matter what you use. That's the way I read it .

Well I don't think that's what the "ECC" is saying at all.   But I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment of the thought process going on with those other boys.

[Seth]

17 minutes ago, Old plug said:

The thing is a lot of fishermen are all up about personal  recognition.  I seen a guy with his kids a year or so back on a dock taking picture of themselves holdung up stringer of small crappie must have been  between 3-4 ft  long. I bet there was close to 100 crappie on there. After the pictures  were  taken they jusr dropped the stringer in the water. very smug like they were real champions. 

I doubt 100 crappie would fit on a 3-4' section of stringer. The most I've dealt with at one time was four limits (60) of 9-13" crappie and 3-4' of stringer wouldn't come close to holding all of those fish.

Does this look like 100 crappie to you? It doesn't to me. This picture is from Reelfoot, which has a 30 crappie limit and I'd imagine that's how many is on that stringer.

[Chief Grey Bear]

2 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

Well I don't think that's what the "ECC" is saying at all.   But I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment of the thought process going on with those other boys.

My mistake.