US supreme court sides with New Mexico Anglers over access.

[BilletHead]

U.S. Supreme Court sides with New Mexico anglers over access | Hatch Magazine - Fly Fishing, etc.

[tjm]

I think refusing to hear a case is a little different than taking a side with anglers. State Supreme Court interpreted their Constitution and SCOTUS just looked away. There enough  vagaries in that interpretation that the law suits aren't over. The next thing will be can the public hike for miles down a dry gully to access water. The strictest reading of the case seems to say yes they can and landowners would not be able to prevent it. 

[Al Agnew]

4 hours ago, tjm said:

I think refusing to hear a case is a little different than taking a side with anglers. State Supreme Court interpreted their Constitution and SCOTUS just looked away. There enough  vagaries in that interpretation that the law suits aren't over. The next thing will be can the public hike for miles down a dry gully to access water. The strictest reading of the case seems to say yes they can and landowners would not be able to prevent it. 

I highly doubt that ANY reading of the case will support "hiking for miles down a dry gully".  There are NO states where such is the case.  In Montana, you must be able to legally access the stream at some kind of public access, or through a landowner, in order to fish it, but once you've legally accessed it, you can fish it for as far upstream or downstream as you wish as long as you stay within the high water mark.  Most states with permissive public access rules are some variation of that; in no state can you cross private property to reach the stream.  Missouri and Arkansas are a bit more restrictive than Montana, in that the stream must be floatable in small craft before the public has an easement to float and fish it.  

You are correct that refusing to hear a case is different from siding with anglers, though.  Had the Supreme Court taken the case and made a decision that affirmed the state supreme court decision, it would have probably been binding upon all other states.  As it is, each state will have to litigate separately in order to gain the rights the NM Supreme Court decided for that state.

[tjm]

Define "water course"?  The  article I read a few months ago didn't talk about steams and as far I am aware one state's Constitution does not apply to another state? How would SCOTUS upholding NM Constitution apply to MO or MT? would it void our Constitutions?

Since it's a Constitutional matter I don't think it matters outside NM?

Or does our MO Constitutional amendment on cannabis make the stuff legal in all states?

[scooper54]

6 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

Missouri and Arkansas are a bit more restrictive than Montana, in that the stream must be floatable in small craft before the public has an easement to float and fish it.  

Is "small craft" defined anywhere?  I would assume a canoe would fall into the category of "small craft," but I'm not certain.  

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, scooper54 said:

Is "small craft" defined anywhere?  I would assume a canoe would fall into the category of "small craft," but I'm not certain.  

Legal definition could be anything from a tire tube to a drift boat.

[Al Agnew]

20 hours ago, scooper54 said:

Is "small craft" defined anywhere?  I would assume a canoe would fall into the category of "small craft," but I'm not certain.  

Here is the exact wording in the MO Supreme Court case that settled public stream access in Missouri:  "this river is navigable in fact by canoes, rowboats, and other small floating craft of similar size and nature, but that it is not navigable in fact by larger boats and vessels."  Maybe not an exact definition, but not difficult to understand.

[scooper54]

Thank you, Al and Fishinwrench.  You two are some of the more knowledgeable and helpful posters on this forum.  Thanks again.  

[Ham]

On 3/5/2023 at 4:49 PM, Al Agnew said:Missouri and Arkansas are a bit more restrictive than Montana, in that the stream must be floatable in small craft before the public has an easement to float and fish it.  

 

The flaw with it is that some counties randomly decide that a section of river is non floatable even though it clearly is. A wealthy landowner that has a connection with a county judge can have it ruled “unfloatable” and run barbed wire across it to keep his cows in. The same cows that he lets ruin the streamside. 

[Al Agnew]

On 3/11/2023 at 6:51 AM, Ham said:

The flaw with it is that some counties randomly decide that a section of river is non floatable even though it clearly is. A wealthy landowner that has a connection with a county judge can have it ruled “unfloatable” and run barbed wire across it to keep his cows in. The same cows that he lets ruin the streamside. 

Absolutely.  

As a river landowner myself, I can see both sides.  But I bought my riverfront property (in two states) knowing that for the privilege of owning it, I would have to put up with public use.  In the old days, landowners didn't mind people using the rivers flowing past their property, or thought it was public water.  But in more recent years, and especially as more people (with proportionally just as many pinheads) began to use the rivers and new people bought up land along them, there have been many instances of stream stretches being closed off, informal accesses shut down, and all because either the landowner was influential in county politics or the law enforcement people would rather shut it down than do their jobs patrolling it.  

We are losing access, folks.  For every parcel of land MDC has acquired and put in a nice boat ramp, there are two or three bridge crossing being closed to access.