Illegal to boat on navigatable wasters in US now?? WTF??

[undergroundpanther]

US federal judge declares boating illegal in all US navigable waters

By IBI Magazine

In a rather bizarre ruling that has marine industry officials worried, Judge Robert G. James of the United States District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has said that it is criminal trespass for the American boating public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters in the US.

WTF????

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20060814154923ibinews.html

[eleny]

1. Trashing the commonwealth, huh?

[originalpckelly]

2. WTF??? Dude go fuck yourself...

I think this might be an activist judge. Chances are he's a conservative too because most of the judges in our system are.

[originalpckelly]

4. Son of a bitch he's a damn Democrat!

Or how shall I say, was a damn Democrat. Who in the hell outlaws boating? Little fucker! I'm disowning him, who else is with me?

[Monkeyman]

3. Nope still going to fish

[undergroundpanther]

5. This makes me scared for Wiley 50

Wiley you out there? Shit..Be careful dude. .

I say this 'cause Wiley lives on his boat.Why? He's poor like me,couldn't afford rent if he had to.Fuck..

[nealmhughes]

6. This is truly bizarre: one of the tenets of the common law, later codified

into statute law in most states is that the waters are public. Even in most states, the "private beaches" are not really so, as in NYS, the beach from high water mark to the water is public, the only thing "private" is access. Even then, the common laws holds that custom preceeds all else in granting access to landing sites for fishing, boating, beach combing, etc.

How can anyone "own" a river or an ocean?

[jmowreader]

11. They can't

After the first time someone posted this, I looked up riparian land rights.

Riparian means "beside a body of fresh water." This is different from littoral, which means "beside a body of salt water."

The laws are different for both. Riparian landowners' property lines extend to halfway across the body of water. Yes, that means that if you have land on Lake Superior, your property line is technically halfway across the lake. In reality, it's probably the international border. This allows you to build a pier or something alongside your land without having to beg permission from the state.

(In case you're wondering: Littoral landowners' property lines are the nominal high-tide mark.)

The only possible explanation for this ruling that I saw is that he extended "air rights" to water. Property ownership comes with air rights over the property to an infinite altitude; however, the landowner must allow aircraft to use his airspace. Even that doesn't make sense, because air rights allow reasonable use of your airspace, and this judge's ruling disallows same when applied to the water above your land...which, according to the laws of every state, belongs to the people along with all the fish swimming in it.

This will be overturned at the first appellate level.

[Dr.Phool]

7. Bush sold all the navigatable waters (privatized) to Halliburton

And Bechtel.

[Alacrat]

8. This would cost states a lot of money

IMO, most states wouldn't enforce this. Recreational boating, fishing and hunting, bring in a lot of revenue, states would be cutting their own throats if they enforced this. IMO a higher Judge will over rule this nut, the uproar, if this stood, would be about as big as confiscating guns.

[jbonkowski]

9. Don't believe the hype on this...

All the ruling says is that when waters flood, you aren't allowed to boat, fish, etc. wherever you want, just because the water level rose.

In other words, it doesn't give you free reign to drive a boat onto someone's property and start fishing, just because the land is flooded. Flooding doesn't change trespassing laws.

If the judge really said it was trespassing to boat everywhere, don't you think a media outlet you have heard of would have reported it?

jim

[benEzra]

10. That doesn't seem consistent with this part:

In the case of Normal Parm v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, James ruled 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. That, in effect, makes boating illegal across most of the country.

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

Last month, James rejected the findings of the Magistrate judge who found earlier that the American public had the right under federal law and Louisiana law to navigate, boat, fish, and hunt on the waters of the Mississippi river up to the normal high water line of the river. Judge James Kirk relied on the long established federal principles of navigation that recognized the public navigational rights "…entitles 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."

If the magazine got it right (which maybe they didn't), the previous ruling said that boating rights apply up to the normal high water mark (not to flood stage), and this guy overturned that ruling and said boating rights apply only in the main channel.

Anybody have the text of the ruling?