MDC Survey

[jdmidwest]

31 minutes ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

But were you trespassing 😂

Na, that just what happens when sugerbritches chases him across the yard.  He knows better than to bring charges against her....

[fishinwrench]

15 hours ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

But were you trespassing 😂

What difference would it make ?   

By the assumption that just because you had verbal permission, you then were allowed legal protection for your own stupidity....is rediculous.   

The "land owner" could always say that NO YOU DIDN'T.      You misunderstood.

Who gives WRITTEN permission to access their land?   Nobody, ever.

[Flysmallie]

2 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

Who gives WRITTEN permission to access their land?   Nobody, ever.

Actually when I was a kid my Dad had written permission to access a farm pond through an old lady’s property. That was 1970 something. I was with him the day she gave it to him. He said it was silly but kept it in the glove compartment. I thought it was cool. 
 

Even though he had that he always stopped by her house to ask if it was okay to fish on that day. Out of all the ponds he had access to that is the only one he asked permission every single time. It’s also the only landowner that got fish fillets dropped off to on a regular basis. 
 

I wish I knew where that letter is. 

[snagged in outlet 3]

8 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

What difference would it make ?   

By the assumption that just because you had verbal permission, you then were allowed legal protection for your own stupidity....is rediculous.   

The "land owner" could always say that NO YOU DIDN'T.      You misunderstood.

Who gives WRITTEN permission to access their land?   Nobody, ever.

I was kidding....  Never mind

[Johnsfolly]

I had access to a 32 acre wooded lot. The landowner not only gave me written permission but also laminated it. I kept that in my glove compartment. Probably still in there. Land was sold so it no longer applies anyway.

[nomolites]

I have written permission for the 190 acres I hunt in St. Louis County.  To your point, would never consider suing.

Mike

[tjm]

I've had written permission on several parcels in the past, and for any hunting, trapping or pond fishing would not go without it. It takes away my liability as well as the landowner's.

On 7/20/2021 at 11:39 AM, FishnDave said:

Or, as someone else mentioned, change river and stream laws with the stroke of a pen without spending a dollar.  Public access between high water/top of bank on all MO streams that typically have year-round flow.

A few things wrong with that, first off- MDC can't make any laws, that is the legislatures job; secondly the land under the streams is deeded to the landowner going back to the first owner after statehood and is a significant source  of tax revenue  to the state and all the counties, to provide the access you mention would require the state to buy back all those lands and lose all those taxes, likely also have to be run through the SCOTUS since federal laws dictated the original land distribution and stream designation. The current situation requiring access/use of each stream to be decided in court is based on an old US Court decision. Thirdly stream use in Mo. is based on Case Law, almost every stream big enough to interest fishermen could be opened to public access  as a thoroughfare if only someone would get arrested and then take the case before the State courts, this is pretty clear from past judgements.  Fourthly, if the city or state declared your back yard open to the public for BBQ and concerts, wouldn't you object, possibly sue the the city or state? Your proposal deprives thousands of landowners of their rights as landowners in the same way that opening your back yard to public use would. bet it would cost the State a few $billion when a class action got through the Federal Court system.

I like the idea of the state (regardless of agency) buying access to all the streams, but legally, that only gives us permission to use the part of the stream they own, unless the stream has been adjudicated  a public thoroughfare by a court or the state has acquired easement/landowner agreement, like they used to have on Capp's Creek.   I do recall when every bridge had parking and access and every place a state road came next to a creek there were lay-bys big enough for about three cars, all those were taken out in the '90s, I'm not sure why. At the time  I assumed the state had liability issues. Those places now are posted heavily with "No Parking" signs and "Keep Out State Property" signs. 

What I question but have never really researched is the legality of the County Sheriff declaring a "No Parking" zone near county road crossings of streams with no action by the County Commission, that seems to let the Sheriff make laws rather than be an enforcer.  A few times every month I see cars towed away from a nearby bridge area. 

[Devan S.]

38 minutes ago, tjm said:

What I question but have never really researched is the legality of the County Sheriff declaring a "No Parking" zone near county road crossings of streams with no action by the County Commission, that seems to let the Sheriff make laws rather than be an enforcer.  A few times every month I see cars towed away from a nearby bridge area. 

RR?

[tjm]

In the Elk drainage several places. I haven't been down where you're thinking in several years.

[jfrith]

On 7/20/2021 at 10:04 AM, snagged in outlet 3 said:

I don't have FB but could you post a link please?