Landowner run in on a stream near Pineville

[tjm]

Part of Elder v Delcour, and it may be the most important part, is that per an old Federal case, each and every stream must be judged on it's own merits to find if it meets the public thoroughfare requirements. that means that unless a particular stream has been in a Court and determined to be a public thoroughfare, it can be argued that it is not one. I don't think any of the Elk drainage has been adjudicated in a Court, but I'm not sure of that. 

On another note, I'm not sure there are any " legal bridge accesses" in McDonald county as most of them are posted "No Parking" and at all that I can think of the road easement is no wider than the road.  The county road that I use has only a 30' easement/row, and in most places the fences make that smaller. The degree of harassment encountered seems to vary a little with who is the county sheriff at the time, and also who is the prosecutor; and what they will take to court. 

[ness]

We haven’t had a good old fashioned landowner-conflict-that-was-unnecessarily-escalated-and-bragged-about post in a long time!!

[snagged in outlet 3]

I'm sure @Al Agnew can clarify some of this.

[ollie]

See, with me having relatives down there and all I probably would have known him or someone else that we both knew, and it would have been alright. That is just me however.  I would like to point out though that there is only 4 bridges that cross that river upstream from Noel and at each one of them there is private property around them. If it was the low water bridge then you should have seen the signs. If under the interstate then I could understand because it isn't mark very well. If you were at the Pineville access then you had every right to be there. Although under that bridge it is iffy at best. The one at the low water bridge is the one the cops love to patrol in the summertime. K bridge I definitely wouldn't park anywhere around there unless I knew someone.

[snagged in outlet 3]

19 hours ago, drew03cmc said:

My son and I went to do some early season wading with a buddy in the Pineville area on Sunday and, lo and behold, we found ourselves at odds with a renegade landowner who, just happened, to own land right against the inside gravel bar along the deepest, slowest hole we found in a mile of river. This guy was certifiable. We waded upstream, in the water, accessed from a legal bridge access, and were setting our heels on the gravel to fish the far bank in this pool when he walked out and told us he does not allow fishing from the bank. We all took a half step forward into the river and continued to fish while he carried on about us being on the river illegally and trespassing. We didn't pay him much mind and kept fishing to see if we could entice a strike from a brave Neosho that wanted to eat a glide bait. Well, after we didn't appear to take him seriously, he proceeded to grab about an 18" chunk of log about 8" in diameter and exclaimed, "This will make good target practice!" He, then, pulled his pistol out and, after throwing the log into the river about fifteen yards upstream of us, put about 7 rounds into the water all through the pool. We laughed at him being an absolute fool and continued fishing. I didn't mention that my buddy pulled his phone out and began recording right after he mentioned target practice. After he saw the phone recording him, he holstered the pistol and pulled his phone out to record us, for what, I cannot possibly pretend to comprehend. We continued to wade upstream, staying in the water, where he blows all of his leaves (evident by the deep piles of leaves just below the water level all around his gravel bar) and kept casting. Not two minutes after he discharged his weapon, my son hooks up a nice 14 to 15" Neosho on a 7" glide bait, lands it and releases it. We kept going around the bend and there are big trees all along the outside bend here, so he fired his glide up into the tree lined bank, working it back to him and his rod bowed under the weight of a nice Neosho that measured every bit of 17" (measured on a tape). We all knew this landowner was still recording so I turned around to him and asked him, probably foolishly, if he would mind sending that video of the fish catch to us. We kept wading upstream trying to process what just happened and even laughed at it. The day went well besides that and my son has a great new memory and a story to tell. 

Is there a video of this online?  If so I think I saw it

[basska]

5 minutes ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

Is there a video of this online?  If so I think I saw it

I saw a video similar to this to. I thought it was on the Little Sugar in Arkansas though.

[rack_hunter]

You must have been on Little Sugar Creek because on Big Sugar and Elk River there are so many rafts, canoes and kayaks that it would send the guy over the edge.  
I would.call the Mac County game warden and ask about the access and if he said it’s a legal access then tell him your story.  

[rack_hunter]

You must have been on Little Sugar Creek because on Big Sugar and Elk River there are so many rafts, canoes and kayaks that it would send the guy over the edge.  
I would.call the Mac County game warden and ask about the access and if he said it’s a legal access then tell him your story.  

[rack_hunter]

You must have been on Little Sugar Creek because on Big Sugar and Elk River there are so many rafts, canoes and kayaks that it would send the guy over the edge.  
I would.call the Mac County game warden and ask about the access and if he said it’s a legal access then tell him your story.  

[Al Agnew]

9 hours ago, tjm said:

Part of Elder v Delcour, and it may be the most important part, is that per an old Federal case, each and every stream must be judged on it's own merits to find if it meets the public thoroughfare requirements. that means that unless a particular stream has been in a Court and determined to be a public thoroughfare, it can be argued that it is not one. I don't think any of the Elk drainage has been adjudicated in a Court, but I'm not sure of that. 

On another note, I'm not sure there are any " legal bridge accesses" in McDonald county as most of them are posted "No Parking" and at all that I can think of the road easement is no wider than the road.  The county road that I use has only a 30' easement/row, and in most places the fences make that smaller. The degree of harassment encountered seems to vary a little with who is the county sheriff at the time, and also who is the prosecutor; and what they will take to court. 

I don't think that federal case was a part of Elder v Delcour, but as a purely legal matter, Elder v Delcour applied only to the stretch of the Meramec in question in the case.  As a general matter of law, however, Elder set a precedent (actually more than one precedent), which means that it is presumed to apply in any similar situation.  Since the stretch of the Meramec in question was on the far upper Meramec, specifically the Delcour Bridge to Cook Station, the precedent would be that the same legal reasoning would apply to any stream of similar size or larger.  However, you are correct that one wouldn't know for SURE whether it applied unless a court case decided it did.  This has actually happened in a number of streams of similar size and even slightly smaller over the years.  One of note is Indian Creek in Franklin County, which is a bit smaller than the portion of the upper Meramec that was in Elder.  The real key to whether a stream applies is whether it is big enough to allow float trips in small boats (canoes, kayaks) in normal water levels during at least part of the year.  It should be noted that even though Indian Creek WAS adjudicated to fall under Elder, a couple landowners on it will still give floaters a lot of harassment, and have had to be warned by local law enforcement more than once that they can't do that...but they still do.  I'm not sure exactly what law they would be breaking by doing so, or what the penalties for doing so should be, which probably ties the hands of law enforcement in trying to stop them from harassing and intimidating floaters.

You're right about bridge crossings, but this is a relatively recent change (well, it seems recent to me because I've been floating these rivers for 55 years or more).  Back in the 1970s, most bridges on popular streams had lanes leading to the river or widened informal parking areas along the road shoulder, and it was just accepted that they were okay to use for access.  But as rivers got more popular and more people were pinheads about trashing access points and other stupid and obnoxious behavior, landowners either took it upon themselves to block access, or complained enough to local law enforcement and county officials that, to get rid of the headaches, counties began posting accesses at bridge crossings.  And although I know of no court case that ever decided that the right of way did not include use by the public, that's become the general interpretation now...that the right of way is for the benefit of the road departments, not for public access.