cholst_at_bitstream.net wrote: > I'm a layman in legal matters, but it looks to me like this ruling is just > about hunting and fishing rights, and then only on those parts of the > river between the normal high- and low-water marks. So how is it supposed > to apply to kayakers and canoeists? You're not the only one who read it that way. If that is the ruling, the newspaper articles sound like they were written by someone who didn't read the judgement we just read. Unless there's something in the shorthand/legal references that indicate other rulings provide for the further restrictions, it sounds to me a bit like a tempest in a teapot. Any US (land use?) lawyers out in Paddlewise land? Mike I am not a lawyer but do Investigations for both defense and plaintiff. That said.. I have seen case's where things like this open the door. fishing is a recreation, hunting is a recreation, kayaking or canoeing is a recreation. See any similarities? If we can apply the rule to one, why not to all three. Does this case set precedence or case law as a platform to also apply to a kayaker? Some judge might think so. Best, Chuck *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author. Submissions: PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net Subscriptions: PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************Received on Sat Sep 23 2006 - 06:49:24 PDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:31:21 PDT