Fishing, boating, etc in navigatable water in the USA has been made illegal!!!

[loliver]

Breaking news from the news page on BoatTest
Our court system is severly broken


Court Ruling Makes Boating Illegal in Much of U.S. 09/14/06

The Marine Retailers Association of America is alerting its dealer members to a court ruling that some say could have serious consequences for boating.

Judge Robert G. James of the U.S. District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has declared it is a criminal trespass for the public to boat, fish or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters of the country.

"Even though this action seems like a horrible pre-April Fools’ joke, it is very serious," said MRAA president Phil Keeter, in a statement. "Because essentially all the waters and waterways of our country are considered navigable in the U.S. law, this ruling declares recreational boating, water skiing, fishing, waterfowl hunting and fishing tournaments – except if conducted in a navigable shipping channel — to be illegal and the public subject to jail sentences for recreating with their families."

In addition, the judge held that federal law grants exclusive and private control over the waters of the river, outside the main shipping channel, to riparian landowners. The shallows of the navigable waters are no longer open to the public, the MRAA reports, adding, “Boating has now become illegal in most of our country.”

In the Aug. 29 decision, Judge James rejected the findings of the magistrate judge who found earlier that the public had the right under federal law and Louisiana law to navigate, boat, fish and hunt on the waters of the Mississippi River up the normal high-water line of the river.

In that ruling, MRAA says Magistrate Judge James Kirk relied on long-established federal principles of navigation entitling "the public to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, for boating, sailing for pleasure, as well as for carrying persons or property for hire, and in any kind of watercraft, the use of which is consistent with others also enjoying the right possessed in common."

"MRAA is working with the Coast Guard, state boating law administrators, and NMMA ... to fight this onerous ruling," said MRAA chairman Glenn Mazzella, in a statement.

[eppefour]

If I remember correctly, in New Jersey all Riparian rights belong to the state not individuals. A few years ago the state made all landowners pay the state for any properties that ever had water on them if they were filled in. If they were still water covered the state owned them. That may not be true in all states. Judges seem to overstep their bounds quite often.

[Capt.Mick]

I fit in size medium hand cuff, get them ready......I only try to be a good law abiding citizen of the USA. Yes, I do get screwed with taxes because I am not an illegal alien, I pay extra car insurance for the uninsured, and I work everyday to pay for unemployed. WHY THE HELL I THINK IT WOULD BE OK TO FISH AND RELAX IN PUBLIC WATER!!!!! F--- it looks better to be an illegal alien, unemployed and uninsured……………………………………….F--- it all, I’ll take the cuffs…………..

[HOLWACHAGOT]

Scary, but I'll take the cuffs too! 100% crap legislation. The judge should be shot!

[rich]

That is a load of bull. It makes no sense at all to make it where you cannot use navigational channels for recreational activities.

[shoefish]

You have GOT to be kidding me. I don't even understand how someone could pass down a ruling like that. Imaging telling everyone on the mississippi river that they can no longer have some "good clean fun" by going out with their families to enjoy the water. What a douche. I hope for all of our sakes that the ruling gets overturned.

[gottaflylee]

Sounds about right, a couple of years ago in NC, P.E.T.A got a law passed so it was illegal to use live bait of any kind. Thank God that that law got changed.

[Glenn W]

This is a classic example of taking something out of context. Press releases such as this are all to common, and impeach the credibility of the party "twisting the truth".

This was a complex case stemming back to at least 2001 and involved arcain (yet legitimate) La. State law as well as the Federal Commercial Code ( note the word "Commercial"). This case was in Federal Court under the theory that Federal court has jurisdiction over interstate Commerce. ( remember these are guys fresh water fishng in a jon boat). As ridiculous as the "Commerce" theory may be, it is most important to undersatand that the State Courts had already decided the issue of whether the body of water in question was navigable or not. The state court ruled that the body of water was not a Navigable waterway.

Without trying to also take anything out of context, the following is a brief and partial history of the case:
The case stemmed from individuals arrested for trespassing on an Oxbow lake 3 1/2 miles ( that's right, 3 1/2 miles) from the Mississippi River. The lake (privately owned propery) had a ditch that would receive water only when the River flooded. The fishermen gained access to the lake by traveling the 3 1/2 miles up the ditch to the private lake.

Not withstanding the property owner not wanting the plaintiff's on his private lake ( fishing or otherwise), this is not what this Court opinion is about. This Court opinion is about interpreting a 1870 State law that says:

"Everyone has a right to bring his vessels to land there [on the banks of navigable waters], to make fast the same to the trees which are there planted, to unload his vessels, to deposit his goods, to dry his nets, and the like."

Futhermore, in very well established prior case law ( several cases), the servitude of public use under this provision (State law) is not for the public use for all purposes but merley for purposes that are incidental to the navigable character of the stream (body of water) and its enjoyment as an avenue of commerce.

When the Opinion is read in its entirety, is is clear (to me anyway), that this judge is entirely correct in properly applying the law as written and intended.

So what really happened, was recreational fishermen, trying to make a loophole in law law to allow them to trespass on private property.

I have a copy of the entire Opinion and will be happy to share it, if anyone is interested ( it's in PDF format)

[Capt-D]

This is a classic example of taking something out of context. Press releases such as this are all to common, and impeach the credibility of the party "twisting the truth".

This was a complex case stemming back to at least 2001 and involved arcain (yet legitimate) La. State law as well as the Federal Commercial Code ( note the word "Commercial"). This case was in Federal Court under the theory that Federal court has jurisdiction over interstate Commerce. ( remember these are guys fresh water fishng in a jon boat). As ridiculous as the "Commerce" theory may be, it is most important to undersatand that the State Courts had already decided the issue of whether the body of water in question was navigable or not. The state court ruled that the body of water was not a Navigable waterway.

Without trying to also take anything out of context, the following is a brief and partial history of the case:
The case stemmed from individuals arrested for trespassing on an Oxbow lake 3 1/2 miles ( that's right, 3 1/2 miles) from the Mississippi River. The lake (privately owned propery) had a ditch that would receive water only when the River flooded. The fishermen gained access to the lake by traveling the 3 1/2 miles up the ditch to the private lake.

Not withstanding the property owner not wanting the plaintiff's on his private lake ( fishing or otherwise), this is not what this Court opinion is about. This Court opinion is about interpreting a 1870 State law that says:

"Everyone has a right to bring his vessels to land there [on the banks of navigable waters], to make fast the same to the trees which are there planted, to unload his vessels, to deposit his goods, to dry his nets, and the like."

Futhermore, in very well established prior case law ( several cases), the servitude of public use under this provision (State law) is not for the public use for all purposes but merley for purposes that are incidental to the navigable character of the stream (body of water) and its enjoyment as an avenue of commerce.

When the Opinion is read in its entirety, is is clear (to me anyway), that this judge is entirely correct in properly applying the law as written and intended.

So what really happened, was recreational fishermen, trying to make a loophole in law law to allow them to trespass on private property.

I have a copy of the entire Opinion and will be happy to share it, if anyone is interested ( it's in PDF format)

Damn Glenn, Your pretty smart for a country boy!

Sounds like a perfect example of two professions that I loath trying to distort the facts (lawyers and the media!)

Thanks for the clarification!

-D

[Capt.Mick]

Glen you are smart.......but I want to be pissed at the goverment today....