Barren Fork

[ColdWaterFshr]

Had fun exploring this tiny little creek for about an hour while on my way down to 11 point.  Access is difficult as I discovered, but I did manage to fool one little beauty on a stimulator.  Beautiful area.  Needs more exploration.  Is it okay to wade all the way down the creek as long as you stay in the water?

 

 

[BilletHead]

50 minutes ago, ColdWaterFshr said:

Had fun exploring this tiny little creek for about an hour while on my way down to 11 point.  Access is difficult as I discovered, but I did manage to fool one little beauty on a stimulator.  Beautiful area.  Needs more exploration.  Is it okay to wade all the way down the creek as long as you stay in the water?

 

 

           Very nice! 

[jdmidwest]

2 hours ago, ColdWaterFshr said:

  Is it okay to wade all the way down the creek as long as you stay in the water?

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should be fine unless someone confronts you.  Its an identified stream designated for fishing, all landowners should expect the fishermen showing up.  Especially since the MDC has flaunted it as a premiere stream.

[2sheds]

My understanding is that its accepted to be OK if you stay in the water, but has not been tested in court for such a small creek (might fail the "Danforth Navigatability Doctrine") where a single landowner holds both sides.

Great trout for that stretch of water.  Interesting coloration - Any chance it's an escape from the private enterprise downstream ?

[tjm]

The Federal case law cited by Mo. Supreme Court  in Elder v. Delcour stated that every stream has to determined on it's own facts. So unless that is one of the few Mo. streams that has been in court and determined to be a public thoroughfare, it's landowner and local prosecutor's call. Danforth listed all the streams that had been in court at that time in  his 1971 opinion. In the past both MDC and DNR have published incorrect information on stream access and trespass, so, I wouldn't go by anything they say or have said. Of course like jdmidwest said you'll be  fine unless someone confronts you, on any stream any where.

[ColdWaterFshr]

This creek would definitely fail the navigability test.  Its tiny.  

I did e-mail MDC just a couple days ago about access and received a prompt reply from the biologist.  He sent me a better map (below) showing where to park (P) and if I cared to bushwhack to the middle section.  Beforehand, I had a good idea of this "bushwhack" spot he refers to in his map, but the road shoulder parking was almost non-existent unless in a very high clearance vehicle . . i.e., there was no shoulder and a scramble down a steep hillside all by my lonesome was tempting but also had the potential for the many ways in which it could go wrong.

The fish was full of fight and one of the prettier, more unusually colored wild fish I have caught in Missouri.  Iridescent green.  The picture doesn't do it justice.

 

 

BarrenFork.pdf

[jdmidwest]

Typically, trespass in this situation usually involves hunting or drunken stupidity.  I would assume landowners should be open to fishing and hiking in this area.  But you never know.

[Al Agnew]

2 hours ago, tjm said:

The Federal case law cited by Mo. Supreme Court  in Elder v. Delcour stated that every stream has to determined on it's own facts. So unless that is one of the few Mo. streams that has been in court and determined to be a public thoroughfare, it's landowner and local prosecutor's call. Danforth listed all the streams that had been in court at that time in  his 1971 opinion. In the past both MDC and DNR have published incorrect information on stream access and trespass, so, I wouldn't go by anything they say or have said. Of course like jdmidwest said you'll be  fine unless someone confronts you, on any stream any where.

Actually that's not quite what Elder v Delcour said, but essentially correct.  Elder v Delcour basically said that if you can get a "small boat" down it, it's legal to do so, as well as fish, wade, and camp on gravel bars.  Which, presumably, means that if it's too small to get a boat down it, it's private.  Federal law does not enter into it, and that's my only quibble with what you said.  ALL states have their own stream access laws (or in the case of MO and AR, state case laws).  None go by any federal law when it comes to streams that are not federally navigable.  

You're absolutely correct that both MDC and DNR have thrown out incorrect information, and you're correct about Danforth's ruling.  Basically, though, since Elder v Delcour was based upon the stretch of the Meramec from just a few miles below the Short Bend Access (the ford on Delcour Road to Cook Station, to be exact), a stretch that gets too low to float easily for more than half the year, presumably any other comparable stretch of stream should be covered under it.  But it can be a big gray area, and you're also absolutely correct that it's landowner and local sheriff's department and prosecutor's call.  Indian Creek in Franklin County, which HAS been ruled to fall under Elder v Delcour, still has several landowners that are notorious for hassling floaters, even though county officials have warned them not to in the past.

So bottom line...if you can legally get onto the creek, you MIGHT be okay, but on a creek the size of Barren Fork, if a landowner wants to run you off it, he probably legally can, since it's definitely too small to float except for in really high water.  That doesn't necessarily keep me off small creeks, but I try to keep a VERY low profile when on them.

[netboy]

If the landowners didn't want you in there, wouldn't they simply put up some No Trespassing signs?

[Devan S.]

When I was there it was clearly marked coming down river in the first public section. As I recall a large cable across creek and signs all along it. 

 

The middle section wasn't marked and the lower section going up wasn't marked but frankly both of those accesses are more difficult for even the adjacent landowners to get too.