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

--
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 right. I don't believe it.

Don W.

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

"Don W" wrote
You are right. I don't believe it.

Don W.

Well, it ain't April Fools Day. This is a real Federal judge and he is dead
serious. Get outside the "main shipping channel" of any navigable waters of
the US and you are guilty of criminal trespass.

--
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

I googled up the case and some other documents. It looks like a much
bigger deal if you are a fisherman than a boater. It seems to involve
access to the water that covers the intertidal zone when the tide is
above low.

I don't see how this could be an issue in this part of the world where
access to the intertidal zone for fishing and navigation is already
common law. There have been some attempts up this way by landowners
to say that sunbathing and reading books are neither fishing nor
navigation but no serious attempt to say that recreational boating is
not navigation.

If the common law in the river states is such that landowner's
property extends to the low tide line, this could be a huge flap.

--

Roger Long



"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:HezOg.45458$ok5.28443@dukeread01...
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

--
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

"Roger Long" wrote

I googled up the case and some other documents. It looks like a much
bigger deal if you are a fisherman than a boater. It seems to involve
access to the water that covers the intertidal zone when the tide is above
low.

I don't see how this could be an issue in this part of the world where
access to the intertidal zone for fishing and navigation is already common
law. There have been some attempts up this way by landowners to say that
sunbathing and reading books are neither fishing nor navigation but no
serious attempt to say that recreational boating is not navigation.

If the common law in the river states is such that landowner's property
extends to the low tide line, this could be a huge flap.

The problem is that the ruling limits access to only the "main shipping
channel". Also Louisiana law grants public access to the whole river up to
the normal high water mark. Common law grants access to the banks and
portages. This ruling negates both.

I don't think you can get away with thinking you can't worry about it
because it doesn't effect me because in all probability it will soon. I
don't mean to adopt the NRA's "don't give an inch" philosophy but this is
way more than an inch. Theoretically based on this ruling a shore side
property owner could go to Federal court and win a judgment voiding all the
mooring permits in front of his property out to the main channel.

--
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

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote

I don't think you can get away with thinking you can't worry about
it because it doesn't effect me because in all probability it will
soon. I don't mean to adopt the NRA's "don't give an inch"
philosophy but this is way more than an inch. Theoretically based
on this ruling a shore side property owner could go to Federal court
and win a judgment voiding all the mooring permits in front of his
property out to the main channel.


I don't see that "main channel" here means the buoyed shipping
channel. but just the part of the river that is wet 24 hours a day.
There aren't likely to be any moorings outside of that. Unless I'm
misreading something, this applies to the areas shown in dark green on
the chart.

This is still pretty serious and worth a big fight. I'll be surprised
if it stands up though. It's sort of like saying any property owner
can restrict aircraft flights over their property. There's a group in
MA trying that but I don't think it's going to sick.

--

Roger Long

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:X1AOg.45465$ok5.27970@dukeread01:

Theoretically based on this ruling a shore side
property owner could go to Federal court and win a judgment voiding
all the mooring permits in front of his property out to the main
channel.



Ah, we now see the root of the problem....control.

You cannot moor a boat anywhere around Hilton Head Island, already, long
before this ruling. SC has a law the millionaires passed saying that any
waterfront fiefdom controlled "one mile to seaward" from the shore of their
fiefdom. So, all they needed then was to write a city ordinance banning
boating, which, effectively is what they've done. The ordinance says you
can pass by his mansion, as long as you don't stop and spoil his personal
view.....

One waterfront land owner said she didn't want to look out her waterfront
and see that "floating trailer park" (marina) next door. Looks like they
may be able to get rid of them, too!



--
There's amazing intelligence in the Universe.
You can tell because none of them ever called Earth.

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:HezOg.45458$ok5.28443@dukeread01...
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

--
Glenn Ashmore

Glenn,

You do understand that Louisiana judges have a reputation in the legal
industry of... er, how shall I put this... a rather poetic interpretation of
Federal statutes as applied within the state. Texas attorneys are routinely
advised to steer well clear of "swamp law" wherever possible.

I predict a fairly rapid reversal on appeal.
--
Mike Harris
Austin, TX

"Mike Harris" wrote in message
news
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:HezOg.45458$ok5.28443@dukeread01...
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

--
Glenn Ashmore

Glenn,

You do understand that Louisiana judges have a reputation in the legal
industry of... er, how shall I put this... a rather poetic interpretation
of Federal statutes as applied within the state. Texas attorneys are
routinely advised to steer well clear of "swamp law" wherever possible.

I predict a fairly rapid reversal on appeal.
--
Mike Harris
Austin, TX


In the meantime, I think it would be a very good idea for those of us who
may be affected by this draconian ruling to make as much noise about it as
possible.

I'm guessing that this judge is trying to be stupid enough for W to appoint
him to the supreme court.


"Mike Harris" wrote in message
news
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:HezOg.45458$ok5.28443@dukeread01...
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

--
Glenn Ashmore

Glenn,

You do understand that Louisiana judges have a reputation in the legal
industry of... er, how shall I put this... a rather poetic interpretation
of
Federal statutes as applied within the state. Texas attorneys are
routinely
advised to steer well clear of "swamp law" wherever possible.

I predict a fairly rapid reversal on appeal.
--
Mike Harris
Austin, TX