Landowner run in on a stream near Pineville

[BilletHead]

21 minutes ago, fishinwrench said:

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.  

I was responding to your thoughts about power lines being a legal place to access waterways. It's irrelevant if a bridge is close. It's illegal to trespass without permission. 

  As far as creeks and streams are involved I would like to access also.  Where does the public road right of way end and property ownership begin on sides of the bridge. 

  Its a slippery slope so to say. We could live in Wyoming and not be able to stand or drop anchor on any stream or river bottom with private ownership.

  We could live on Montana where you are permitted to access at bridges and legally walk the banks below the NORMAL high water mark. Not the high water mark. 

[fishinwrench]

1 hour ago, BilletHead said:

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

Oh I believe you 100% 

I went through a big stream access ordeal quite a few years ago in my county, and I got a first hand education on it.   

Of course in my county every ditch leads to Lake O......so you're automatically allowed to be in the water (and on the land) up to the elevation of 660.0 and you would be surprised how far up a creek that actually can be. 

[fishinwrench]

5 minutes ago, BilletHead said:

Where does the public road right of way end and property ownership begin on sides of the bridge. 

I was told it is a distance equal to the distance from the center of the road to the end of the shoulder.....on both sides.     

[fishinwrench]

If your vehicle runs off the road and ends up in the ditch you're not gonna be charged with "trespassing"........but if you drive off the road and start cutting ruts 4-wheeling out in a field then YOU ARE 😅

[drew03cmc]

23 hours ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

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

Yes sir, my son posted it on Facebook.

23 hours ago, rack_hunter said:

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.  

Definitely Little Sugar in Missouri.

17 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

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. 

This is what I was referring to. This is a common access that is used a lot by anglers and floaters. The landowner said he would permit floating in a kayak, but that his property line ended in the middle of the river. We made sure to stay within 12", one boot length, of the water, never encroaching on his property, or even desiring to. My buddy, who lives down there, wades and drags his kayak upstream to this pool several times each winter without issue. We encountered another landowner upstream who has a big Pyrenees for a guard dog and was as sweet as the day is long. This guy just wanted to be a dick for no reason whatsoever.

4 hours ago, Flysmallie said:

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

Nah, Ronnie, some of us have to work and have young kids at home, so we can't always be sitting here waiting for responses. I had a few minutes to log in and check this thread as I have not been on here in a couple days. Just wanted to warn others who may fish this watershed that there is a renegade landowner above Pineville a few miles, but below Griffin Ford. 

[tjm]

 Griffith's even though some maps get it wrong.

[Terrierman]

I'd like to see that FB video.

[basska]

23 minutes ago, Terrierman said:

I'd like to see that FB video.

I thought I saw it on the Ozark Smallmouth Anglers fb group, but now I can't find it. Could've been entirely different.

[drew03cmc]

[drew03cmc]

@Terrierman There ya go Rick. 

Our buddy who was with us did make a report with the sheriff and warden in Mac county. The landowner was told in no uncertain terms that he is 100% in the wrong and was told that if they hear his name on the river again, he is in deep trouble with the county and the state.