Are you trespassing?

[bryantsmallie28]

Ok im glad somebody mentioned him because i just heard this again the other day.

bob plasters land over on the osage fork of the gasconade. everyone konws it as twin bridges or the empire ranch or now evergreen. someone told me the other day that it was the only creek in the state that had it written in law that he owned even the land under the water like out west. I have floated it since he has owned it and i konw of others who have. but i have never heard a for sure thing. Someone like Al or someone else who knows a lot about this can you enlighten us on this. and if it takes a suit to open it who wants to volunteer.

[jcoberley]

there is a lot of other places to fish. And as you said it is the only place in Missouir like that so why worry! Just be quiet and move on. JMO

[brownieman]

Hank Franklin...well stated my friend

When the time comes for us to step up so our grandchildren can enjoy still having a little clean water...hope someone with a big fat wallet steps up with us poor folk because it will be an expensive lengthy battle in our judicial system...imo it's broken like many other things.

When the time comes it will be interesting to say the least, lol

[jcoberley]

brownieman, I think we think alike.... I have voiced and will contuniue to voice. We dont need our grandchildren in a 99% tax bracket. We need to leave some oil for them. Maybe we need to leave a few fish and streams for them. Maybe we would like a low cost family time like fishing. Or would we rather it be so high only the very rich can afford it. American need to wake up and watch whats going on, stop being selfish and greedy. Just maybe they need to think about the children and grandchildren!!! But thats just a thought.

[gonefishin]

Should read up a little bit on the history of water here in the USA. It is enlightening.

[bryantsmallie28]

Ok so you are saying it is ok for this landowner to have this then. What is to say that other wealthy landowners around the state decide they are going to go to the right people with the right amount of money and get their section of stream closed off. And the circle keeps going round and round until us in missouri end up like all these other states you talking about, having whole streams closed off and fenced off. I mean would your attitude be different if this were your favorite stream to fish.

[brownieman]

brysmallie,

jusy my opinion but I have experienced this.

I have a friend who owns land on both sides of an upper strech of an ozark river. About 3/4 mile downstream there is an MDC access. With the exception of a few put in points which are accessable by crossing private property or by county road (a cement slab bridge) the river is predominently inaccessable for many miles unless one is trespassing to get to it.

He and I are standing on a bluff above a cave which is on his land which extends on both sides of the river.

Mind you his land has already been trashed numerous times, cave raped and totally mutilated, gravel bars trashed by 4 wheelers, the list goes on.

We are standing on the bluff and here come 2 guys walking up the bank along the river not knowing we are watching them. We observe them for a bit as they begin to fish a nice hole right in front of the cave. One of them finishes a drink he has and pitches the can off in the brush...pisses my friend off and he yells at them..."You are trespassing on private land...GET OUT of here". One guy turns to the other one and says "get in the water quick, he can't do nothing if were in the water". An arguement starts...he threatens to call the sheriffs dept, they say go ahead, they know the law and he does not own the bottom of the river.

You are the landowner...what do you do?

For many years these slab bridges accessable by county roads have been party holes for the locals, big drunken river parties. Bond fires on the bridges, burnt tires, tons of broken bottles in and out of the water, any kind of vehicle you can name running in around and across the banks and river, matresses, chairs, dead animals, dumping trash...places are totally trashed in and around the water with about anything you can name.

It's all privately owned with the exception of the county road with a few feet on each side and the slab bridge. You're the landowner with this huge problem right in the middle of your land. What do you do?

Remember you are dealing with the "Good Ole Boy Network" on a local level.

Most of the landowners I know have chosen to and have been forced due the damage being inflicted to there property to try their best to keep poeple out.

There have been numerous court cases concerning these type incedents. Depending on who the landowner is and who the prosecuting attorney in the county (whom may or may not be part of the GOB network) most of these cases go no where...if charges do stick knowing how some people are you can imagine the problems this landowner suffers in the future.

It is all in stewardship between folks and respecting the landowners rights and likewise towards honorable fisherman.

If he had not seen them throw a can in the brush...instead maybe see them pick one up...I doubt he would have said a word.

I ask again...what would you do if you were the landowner and this was your property?

[creek wader]

Brownieman hit the nail on the head; "It is all in stewardship between folks and respecting the landowners rights and likewise towards honorable fisherman." ... "Respect" is the optimumn word. It only takes one weekend warrior, trashing it up to ruin it for others. One bad apple can ruin the it for the whole bunch. What a shame. I was a former lanowner in NW Missouri, and know well, what tresspassers can and will do. I was more civil than most, but I hear where they are coming from. I for one access many streams at the low water and other bridges. I leave everything the way I found it or cleaner. Also, I catch and release, so the only thing I take out, is other's trash. If I'm ever confronted. I would respect the landowners wishes and leave.

[hank franklin]

Brownieman, I would side with the landowner in your example. I have no problem with landowners asserting their rights to keep people off their land, i. e. the stream banks. However, I do believe a "right of passage" exists which would protect a wading angler's right to access at a county bridge and move up or downstream, if the stream is customarily used for such purposes.

Again, the prickly issue is the definition of navigable or floatable or whatever. I don't feel there's a particular "right of passage" on just any creek or ravine or stream section, and defining what is "public" water and what is "private" is up in the air. The federal and state government have asserted more and more regulatory authority over the watersheds themselves but that doesn't give the public the right to use them.

It goes back to my earlier post, that I believe that a fight over this is coming in the next 10 years or so. The Osage Fork example is illustrative. Let's say that guy wants to develop a huge resort on both sides of the river. Does he have the right to prohibit people from using not only the banks but the river itself? Most of us would say hey, the river is free and open and we should be allowed to float through. My point is I do think Missouri in general recognizes that right to float through, i.e. "right of passage" on a so-called "floatable" stream but you never know how a court may ultimately decide it.

It's my opinion that the right of passage on "floatable" streams will be preserved (the canoe industry depends on it, for one) but I think the landowner's right to keep people off the banks will also be preserved. That's the basic situation we have now. There will always be a gray area, because the definition of "floatable" will always be subject to a degree of subjectivity.

To expand the discussion a bit, one thing I see coming down the pike is what amounts to a no-development, or limited-development zone on stream banks in watersheds. This would be highly controversial and I'm not necessarily advocating it, but the logical outcome of increased government regulatory authority over watersheds is protection of the stream corridor from development. This is a whole other subject but it is linked in some way to right of passage, because if for example a 100 foot buffer on streams is protected from development, the public's right of passage on that corridor is at least somewhat enhanced, and the landowner's interest in keeping people out of that corridor is also diminished.

[brownieman]

Good thoughts hank,

Buffers you mention...whats good for the stream...whats good for the fisherman...whats good for the floater...well my friend, you know as well as I some will feel their rights are being taken away.

Bottom line...you can't please everyone no matter what is proposed...it's a double edged sword.

good points given