Kudos again to the MDC

[Terrierman]

I'm not your google boy.

[MOPanfisher]

11 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

 

Not trying to give anyone a hard time, just trying to understand how having less to regulate, with the same amount of (or more) staff, can make things harder on them.

If it is like most things it's not a matter of less things to regulate, more of a reduction in available tools/rules to do it with.  I will agree that a reduction in some regulations is a good thing if done correctly, however government driven changes are more often done with an axe, chainsaw or sledgehammer, not a more clear streamlining like we would hope for.  I would trade all their so called changes for a clear definition of where a canoe or fisherman can go or not go, but that ain't gonna happen either.

[fishinwrench]

22 minutes ago, MOPanfisher said:

.  I would trade all their so called changes for a clear definition of where a canoe or fisherman can go or not go, but that ain't gonna happen either.

At one time I wanted that too.   But then I thought about it and got worried about their potential clear answer, if we were to force one out of them.

At least with the current "gray area" we have something to blame our alleged ignorance on.....and can still get our feet wet (at the slight risk of a piddly fine).   If they clearly rule against us then we're all stuck at home with dry feet and all this excess energy and fishing gear.

[tjm]

7 hours ago, MOPanfisher said:

  I would trade all their so called changes for a clear definition of where a canoe or fisherman can go or not go, but that ain't gonna happen either.

 

7 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

At one time I wanted that too.   But then I thought about it and got worried about their potential clear answer, if we were to force one out of them.

At least with the current "gray area" we have something to blame our alleged ignorance on.....and can still get our feet wet (at the slight risk of a piddly fine).   If they clearly rule against us then we're all stuck at home with dry feet and all this excess energy and fishing gear.

Neither MDC nor DNR has any authority on that, actually the legislature nor the governor can't change it;  the Mo. constitution and multiple court cases in several jurisdictions and going back a couple hundred years have set those rules. The key to determining right to use a stream is to get charged with trespass and then take your case to the state  Supreme Court, chances are that if you hire a lawyer the case will be dropped, but then the next guy will get charged. Each stream needs a higher Court ruling to set it officially as a thoroughfare.  As long as no case on a particular stream is pursued to the higher courts that stream is open to more trespass charges.  Locally the canoe outfitters have been responsible for the closing of most accesses on ROW and private land.  

What MDC could do and has done is buy land and provide access to the streams. On the other hand DNR is prone to deny access, as they have told me in an email.

[fishinwrench]

8 hours ago, tjm said:

The key to determining right to use a stream is to get charged with trespass and then take your case to the state  Supreme Court, chances are that if you hire a lawyer the case will be dropped, but then the next guy will get charged.

The next guy shouldn't, since case law now comes into play.

[MOPanfisher]

Some distant part of my Swiss cheese brain thinks that "case law" only applies if there is a precedent, in order for there to be a precedent set the case must be adjudicated and survive appeal.  However chemo brain and the fact that I haven't slept in a Holiday Inn in a few years means I could easily be wrong.

[fishinwrench]

10 hours ago, MOPanfisher said:

Some distant part of my Swiss cheese brain thinks that "case law" only applies if there is a precedent, in order for there to be a precedent set the case must be adjudicated and survive appeal.  However chemo brain and the fact that I haven't slept in a Holiday Inn in a few years means I could easily be wrong.

You're probably smarter about it than I am, by far.   

In order to challenge anything in today's judicial system you need to first and foremost have ALOT of disposable money or assets.  Otherwise they just bleed you dry, sweep you under the rug, and carry on.

[tjm]

some vague memory says that MOPan is right, I seem to recall the AG writing an opinion to that effect ... so, as long and as often as the charges are dropped or the accused pays the fine, the adjudication never happens and "It's like déjà vu all over again." .. and again I live half mile from a lovely creek and have seen this happen many times over the last 60 years.

Some body with money needs to go creek by creek and get the case law established on every permanent stream in the state. Or we need a Constitutional amendment to require all streams be meandered and the land under them returned to the state, what a jolly undertaking that would be.

[fishinwrench]

2 hours ago, tjm said:

what a jolly undertaking that would be.

😂

[dave potts]

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 2:27 AM, fishinwrench said:

You're probably smarter about it than I am, by far.   

In order to challenge anything in today's judicial system you need to first and foremost have ALOT of disposable money or assets.  Otherwise they just bleed you dry, sweep you under the rug, and carry on.

How true.  Reminds me of a patent law course I took many years ago when I was still working.  One of the lawyers teaching the course said "we might not be the best lawyers you can hire but we are good enough to keep it in litigation till the other side runs out of money"