The ruling leaves boating open in all navigable channels, therefore
certainly doesn't "outlaw boating in all navigable waters" in the US.

All the ruling does is clarify that the riparian land owners also own
and control the shallow waters outside the main navigable channels.
While this affects rivers, creeks, etc to some extent it will effect
lakes almost not at all and coastal areas won't even notice any
difference.

But you couldn't pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Clinton. Too
bad.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...

The ruling leaves boating open in all navigable channels, therefore
certainly doesn't "outlaw boating in all navigable waters" in the US.

All the ruling does is clarify that the riparian land owners also own
and control the shallow waters outside the main navigable channels.
While this affects rivers, creeks, etc to some extent it will effect
lakes almost not at all and coastal areas won't even notice any
difference.


Interesting how your interpretation differs so much from the opinions of the
author of the article and the MRAA president.

So why should we believe your assessment?

But you couldn't pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Clinton. Too bad.


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

NOYB wrote:

Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

My head was not in my ass when I clearly read your false fricking
headline declaring that a Clinton apppointed judge had just outlawed
all recreational boating in the United States. The political comment I
could make as a result of your action is so glaringly obvious it
doesn't need to be made. And besides, there is no room for politics in
a boating NG.

But do stop playing fast and loose with the truth just to try and make
your sick and twisted political hate points. Thanks.

Do I see a trend? You betcha. Brightly and clearly. Only it's not the
trend you have in mind and it's not a proper subject for discussion on
rec.boats. Send me your email address and we can discuss politics
without disrupting the group. :-)

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:55 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

Thank your side for those poor judicial appointments to the SCOTUS. Seven
of the nine are *Republican* appointments. The situation is much the same
with the Circuit Courts. Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed
211 Judges, Democrats 122. Oh, and the District Courts? Republicans have
appointed 813, Democrats 508.

If you don't like the current crop of Judges, I suggest you vote Democrat. ;-)

Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On 15 Sep 2006 18:36:55 -0700, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:


The ruling leaves boating open in all navigable channels, therefore
certainly doesn't "outlaw boating in all navigable waters" in the US.

All the ruling does is clarify that the riparian land owners also own
and control the shallow waters outside the main navigable channels.
While this affects rivers, creeks, etc to some extent it will effect
lakes almost not at all and coastal areas won't even notice any
difference.

It's a little more important than that.

What is means is that, for instance on lakes like the ones I fish, I
can't go anywhere near docks or shore line because it could possibly
considered private property under this ruling. You would be limited
to using the middle of the lake.

It was explained to me by my attorney friend in the email, besides all
the legal beagle stuff, that instead of high mean water being the
level, it now means that it's low mean which, in a shallow lake, can
be anything. To give you another example, all rivers and streams are
deemed navigable by Federal Mandate and it could mean that where you
could walk a river or stream without having to worry about landowners
rights, that now changes.

It also affects coastal fishing because it may shift the old standard
of mean high water level to mean low water level which would put all
beaches off limits - it has changed how land rights are viewed.

At least that was his interpretation upon reading the ruling. There
may be other interpretations, but he's pretty sharp and understands
the issue very well. He helped work on the Rhode Island "Right to
Fish" legislation which also may be affected by this.

It does have some far reaching consequences for both fishing and
hunting.

Well I'm struggling to get a grip on just why some people find this
ruling so objectionable. It certainly isn't consistent with previous
positions expressed on similar matters.

For example: How can the same person decry the ruling that stated
private property rights can be extinguished by any community who wants
to exercise "emminent domain" to turn the land over to a private
developer and *also* bemoan a ruling that strengthens the right of
private property owners to be able to enjoy their property without
a parade of folks streaming through their back yard to go fishing? One
should either be an ardent supporter of private property rights, or
not, rather than blow around in the breeze on the issue coming down on
one side or the other depending upon apparent political opportunity.

Regardless, the ruling certainly doesn't "outlaw recreational boating
throughout the US", (or whatever the inflammatory headline was). Looks
to me like it says that the ownership of property and payment of
property taxes should entitle the property owner to the quiet enjoyment
of same. The public waterways remain public. Public access to public
waterways should be through public property, not through some poor
schumck's family barbecue on the 4th of July.

It may even develp that the ruling means the adjoining property owners
own the land on the bottom when there is high water, but that doesn't
restrict navigation above MLW. That's *exactly* the way it has been in
Washington for years. Our shorelines beyond MHW are owned by the State
DNR, and if an adjoining property owner wants to build a dock,drive a
piling, etc, they have to lease the *bottom* from the DNR. It probably
gets sticky whether you are going to be allowed to extract resources
from the private property- fishing may be a grey area and I'll bet you
couldn't even begin to dig for clams-
but you should be able to cross over the privately owned bottom land
when there is sufficient water depth to do so.

I'm somewhat familiar with these issues. Several years ago I was
Chairman of the Board of one of our local yacht clubs, and we got
involved in a waterfront property boundary dispute with a neighbor.
Among other things, he wanted to insist that club boats, when
underway, had to remain on one half of a common channel that separated
our outstation dock from his marina. He had no case. Yes, he owned the
upland property and was leasing the property beyond MHW from the DNR,
but he could not prevent boaters from passing *over* his property when
there was sufficient water to do so. (He did have the right to prevent
people from anchoring, tieing up to one of his docks, etc.)

Much ado about very little, I think, and certainly not a valid reason
to blame the politicians from one party or the other.

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:55 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect
of
poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It
was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain
ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what
has
always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your
eyes,
quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

Thank your side for those poor judicial appointments to the SCOTUS. Seven
of the nine are *Republican* appointments.

Roberts had to recuse himself from the case involving eminent domain,
because he was the judge who originally ruled for the guy trying to keep his
home. Had he heard the case, the outcome would have been different.

BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...


Much ado about very little, I think, and certainly not a valid reason
to blame the politicians from one party or the other.


Much of this subject is the reason why ocean water "dockominium" ownership
isn't really about "owning" a slip.
In every case I know of, including ours, the "purchase" of a dockominium is
really a long term, transferable lease. In our case it is 99 years. In
fact, MA banned all future dockominiums back in the '90s but grandfathered
the existing ones. The claim is that you cannot "own" part of the ocean,
but you can lease it's space.

Eisboch

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 20:50:59 GMT, NOYB penned the following well
considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats:


BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Interesting. Any citation?


http://www.eagleforum.org/court_watc...al-appts.shtml

The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 23:24:31 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The data is outdated, and was collected before any of Bush 43's
appointments. I'll look for a more up-to-date source.

Yup, before any of Bush's 252 appointments. It's only *slightly* out of
date. ;-)

The most up-to-date source I could find is he

http://www.allianceforjustice.org/ju...AndAppPres.asp



You are correct as it indeed looks like GWB has a lot of catching up to do
to beat Clintons numbers. ;-)