Landowner run in on a stream near Pineville

[tjm]

1 hour ago, Al Agnew said:

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. 

My familiarity with the local creeks only goes back to the early 1950s, but yes there were 'roads' built on the ROW adjacent the bigger bridges and parking under them as well as pullout parking built by the highway department in some areas. MODOT closed, removed, and/or posted all the accesses on the state highways in this area, including areas where the roads and creeks run parallel and adjacent,  over the past 30 years or so and back when it first started I was told (by the backhoe operator doing the work)  that it was at the request of the canoe rental places, they wanted control of where and how many floaters were on the streams, and the revenue from liveries.  I never confirmed that, but I later heard similar from other sources. I've seen deputies ticketing cars on the county roads and I've seen vehicles towed away from a couple of the low water crossings. My family has been in this area for ~150 years and I still find it prudent to knock on doors and confirm that it's still okay to use the land. Not all the current landowners are "natives" that might know the family, and not all are nice, but they do own the land under the creeks and they get taxed for it at the same rate as if were crop land.

And, about the "high water mark"; I'm not sure that's in any law, but,  on a creek that normally is less than 30' wide, the annual floods (some years several floods) can easily put the high water marks 400'-600' apart and no angler needs to be 200 yards from the water, it might be better to talk about use of the clean washed gravel rather than the high water mark that covers whole fields, if we want to get along with the landowners.

@Al Agnew what is your interpretation of Elder as pertains to "intermittent streams" or to streams that have run dry at least once in the past 50-60 years?

 

[fishinwrench]

3 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

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.

If a bridge area also has power lines crossing nearby.....then there is a definite easement.   And access is (or should be) legally permitted.

[BilletHead]

7 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

If a bridge area also has power lines crossing nearby.....then there is a definite easement.   And access is (or should be) legally permitted.

              If that powerline easement crosses the river, it is not for you and me. It is for the powerline builders and maintenance crews only. And what makes you think access is and should be permitted? 

[Terrierman]

11 minutes ago, BilletHead said:

              If that powerline easement crosses the river, it is not for you and me. It is for the powerline builders and maintenance crews only. And what makes you think access is and should be permitted? 

I think every bridge over every waterway should allow roadside parking where its' safe and always allow foot traffic from the road to the stream.

[Flysmallie]

21 hours ago, ness said:

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

Well he either didn’t get the response he wanted or it was just a drive by posting. 

[fishinwrench]

4 hours ago, BilletHead said:

And what makes you think access is and should be permitted? 

It isn't a what, it's a who.   By all means check with that particular county prosecutor.  

Do you know of anyone that has ever been charged with trespassing for accessing a stream at a power line crossing?   If so, whose property were they supposedly trespassing on ?

[BilletHead]

    Here is the deal Glen,

A power line easement is an agreement between the landowner and the utility company for the power company to use and maintain. It is not owned by the power company. It's still owned by the landowner and they have the say who gets to trespass. You can be prosecuted by the owner. If it's not posted and you want to go by all means do as you do but you have no legal right to do so. 

  Defer to your attorney if you think I'm wrong. 😀

[Terrierman]

30 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

It isn't a what, it's a who.   By all means check with that particular county prosecutor.  

Do you know of anyone that has ever been charged with trespassing for accessing a stream at a power line crossing?   If so, whose property were they supposedly trespassing on ?

Easements do not change ownership of the land they're located on.  They do allow certain uses granted to the easement holder.  For instance, half of my driveway entrance is on an access easement granted to our property.  My neighbor still owns the land but I get to drive on it.

[BilletHead]

1 minute ago, Terrierman said:

Easements do not change ownership of the land they're located on.  They do allow certain uses granted to the easement holder.  For instance, half of my driveway entrance is on an access easement granted to our property.  My neighbor still owns the land but I get to drive on it.

   Ya think Glen will believe us? You are (were) a moderator and I don't know squat. 😆

[fishinwrench]

14 minutes ago, BilletHead said:

    Here is the deal Glen,

A power line easement is an agreement between the landowner and the utility company for the power company to use and maintain. It is not owned by the power company. It's still owned by the landowner and they have the say who gets to trespass. You can be prosecuted by the owner. If it's not posted and you want to go by all means do as you do but you have no legal right to do so. 

  Defer to your attorney if you think I'm wrong. 😀

That sounds reasonable, and that's why I said "check with that particular county prosecutor",  but in this particular county that's the rule when it comes to county road bridges.....and access to the streams that they cross.   

Straight from the prosecutors mouth. 

 

Now this doesn't always imply that you are free to wade up/down the stream for miles.....but you can absolutely get your feet wet.