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

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

"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

"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 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.

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

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



If this is fact.. you all had better run, not walk, to the nearest
Canadian Embassy and apply for citizenship. Act now...beat the crowds.