Glenn Ashmore wrote:
You better read this. Everyone here is about to be guilty of a criminal act
if we put out boats in the water!

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


Y'all seem have to missed the point. The judge didn't say it was illegal
to fish or hunt out of the main channel, the ruled that hunters and
fishermen don't have the right to hunt or fish on flooded lands that are
normally outside the riverbank...flooded private land.

Iow, if your house is on riverfront property, anyone who walked or drove
into your front yard to hunt or fish would be trespassing. The judge's
ruling only means that it would still be trespassing if the river
overflows and floods your front yard, allowing hunters or fishermen
invade your property by boat...that hunters and fishermen have to stay
IN public waterways...that they don't have the right go anywhere they
want to just 'cuz there happens to be enough flood water over it
temporarily that's deep enough to float a boat.

But as usual, the media found a way to make a big deal out of nothing.



--
Peggie
----------
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987
Author "Get Rid of Boat Odors - A Guide To Marine Sanitation Systems and
Other Sources of Aggravation and Odor"
http://shop.sailboatowners.com/books...ku=90&cat=1304

As usual Peggie, it looks like most folks had rather get all excited about
something that really "understand" the issue. From the following link:
http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=213 we can read what the
judge "really" said.

Here is where Peggie is talking the judge says it is trespassing to be on
someone's property when it's flooded.

James wrote in his ruling. "However, . the court denies to adopt Magistrate
Judge Kirk's recommendation that the plaintiffs have a federal common-law
right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River, up to the high-water mark,
when it floods privately owned land."

Here is where the judge says the banks of the river when not flooded are
subject to public use to the ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK.

"Walker Cottonwood Farms' property (where the arrests were made) is a bank
of the Mississippi River and subject to public use to the ordinary
high-water mark, as defined by Louisiana law."

Here the judge says again the judge says the land is open to fish and hunt
TO THE ORDINARY HIGH-WATER MARK, but not on to the land that is only
flooded.

"have a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary
high-water mark when it periodically floods Walker Cottonwood Farms'
property."

Just another case of the idea of "ethics in reporting" is to increase
circulation.

Ken H

"have a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary
high-water mark when it periodically floods Walker Cottonwood Farms'
property."

You missed a few important words that came in front of that quote:

"But he then reversed course, ruling that the group of anglers did NOT "have
a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary
high-water mark when it periodically floods Walker Cottonwood Farms'
property." "

Does that mean that you are restricted to the normal low water line when the
river is flooding or does it mean if it ever floods?

It is pretty well established that you can't go on flooded property when the
body is over its banks but this concerns use of the waters BETWEEN the
normal low and high water marks. In the case of a number of impoundments
where the water level varies considerably that could restrict access to
several hundred yards of water.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

You are correct Glenn, there was some confusion in the way the article was
written.... but from my reading, it "seemed" to say the point he was ruling
on was the normally "not flooded" land that folks did not have access to
when it's flooded. BUT in South LA, there are times it's really hard to
determine what is "ordinary high-water" because the land can flood every
spring.

Is land that "normally floods each season" considered as "normal high
water"? Or as "flooded land"...

IF the ruling is for "normal high water" as in "High Tide" - it will not
stand very long, IF they have the money to fight it.

I think my definitation would be based on "could the land farmed"? How
often is the land dry vs flooded?

Glenn, I am glad you brought this to the groups attention.

Ken H

"BellSouth" wrote in message
...
You are correct Glenn, there was some confusion in the way the article was
written.... but from my reading, it "seemed" to say the point he was
ruling on was the normally "not flooded" land that folks did not have
access to when it's flooded. BUT in South LA, there are times it's really
hard to determine what is "ordinary high-water" because the land can flood
every spring.

Is land that "normally floods each season" considered as "normal high
water"? Or as "flooded land"...

IF the ruling is for "normal high water" as in "High Tide" - it will not
stand very long, IF they have the money to fight it.

I think my definitation would be based on "could the land farmed"? How
often is the land dry vs flooded?

Glenn, I am glad you brought this to the groups attention.

Ken H


I contacted Boat US about this. They are aware of it, and are concerned, and
are taking action. So I tend to think that we are not misreading or
misinterpreting the judge's ruling.