Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006 18:35:06 -0400, " JimH" not telling you @
pffftt.com wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
Holy Smoke!!!

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html

Another rogue judge appointed for life.

I did a Google on U.S. District Judge Robert G. James, Federal Judge Robert
G. James or Judge Robert G. James and I come up empty.

Hoax?

Nope - he's real.

I just received an email from a friend who is an attorney and is also
a recreational fisherman.

Apparently, this decision affects hunting and fishing only - it does
not affect normal recreational boating.

The case involves property rights and he went into the whole thing
about riparian property rights and it got confusing for a non lawyer
like myself.

Here are some excerpts from the RFA on the case.

"In this case, the local Sheriff is arresting fishermen while they
fish the edges and banks of the Mississippi River even while the water
is directly connected to the Mississippi River, and even when the
water is ten or twenty or thirty feet deep. The Sheriff will arrest
fishermen unless they stay in the River on areas that are always
covered by water at normal low water. The Sheriff's arrests are made
at the request of local landowners who are intent on claiming the
fishing waters of America's navigable Rivers as their exclusive
domain."

"If he fishermen on the Mississippi River can be pushed to the center
of the main channel, then America's fishermen on all the other
navigable rivers are destined for the same threatening treatment. If
the Sheriff wins this case, recreational fishing on public waters is a
thing of the past."

"This case has been ongoing for ten (10) years and is the culmination
of the public access fight by fishermen to access public waters to
fish. The Plaintiffs have asserted that navigable waters are useable
across the entire surface of the navigable waterway for boating and
fishing. The riparian owners assert that public boating and fishing is
limited to the main channel. "

Which is interesting because federal law only allows private property
rights only to the mean high water mark. Basically, this judge is
rewriting the law to make the new boundary the mean low water mark.

I wonder if the judge owns any river front property?

This ruling should be applauded by land owners who feel that private
property rights should supercede public access.