Does anyone have the actual ruling? What started this case? *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 13:44:49 -0400, Randall Moody wrote: Does anyone have the actual ruling? What started this case? Try this: http://www.spadata.com/index.php?name=Downloads&req=getit&lid=23 or http://snipurl.com/wsb4 *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> Try this: > > http://www.spadata.com/index.php?name=Downloads&req=getit&lid=23 > > or > > http://snipurl.com/wsb4 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? Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
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 *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Chuck Holst wrote: >That's my attitude for now. First, I doubt that the judge's ruling >currently applies outside his district, which is at the opposite end of >the Mississippi River from where I live. Second, it is such a bizaare >ruling that I doubt it could possibly be upheld on appeal. > That was a federal district judge's ruling. The point is that the case sets a precedent to be used elsewhere. I posted this earlier... http://www.ilfednation.com/BFN-Conservation-2006-04-18.htm >We've >already lost one big navigation lawsuit in Arkansas (Echubby Chute), but >we simply cannot afford to loose another. Two rulings would set a >national precedence for property owners to block access to waters that >have been open to the public for over 200 years. *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
> That was a federal district judge's ruling. The point is that the case > sets a precedent to be used elsewhere. I posted this earlier... > > http://www.ilfednation.com/BFN-Conservation-2006-04-18.htm > > >We've > >already lost one big navigation lawsuit in Arkansas (Echubby Chute), but > >we simply cannot afford to loose another. Two rulings would set a > >national precedence for property owners to block access to waters that > >have been open to the public for over 200 years. Point taken. My response was partly due to being overwhelmed with projects at work and at home and not having enough time for myself, let alone for another cause. It will take big bucks and probably volunteer lawyers to fight this one. Sounds like a project for the American Rivers Council, the ACA, the Sierra Club, and several sportsmen's organizations. I don't know of any purely kayaking organizations with the money to fight it. Chuck Holst *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
Randall Moody wrote: >Does anyone have the actual ruling? What started this case? > This comment comes from an article at a link I posted earlier: " More than four centuries ago, an explorer named LaSalle first navigated the Mississippi River to its mouth and staked a claim for France. Hence, the humble beginnings of our sportsmen's paradise. Based on a ruling by U.S. District Judge Robbie James last week, LaSalle might have starved before he made it to Missouri. For a decade, area fishermen have been battling Walker Cottonwood Farms, LLC, formerly Walker Lands Inc., over the right to fish on Gassoway Lake, north of Lake Providence. Walker Farms is a large land corporation that operates a hunting and fishing camp on the lake and has denied nonmembers access to fish the lake because the land actually belongs to the company. Responding to complaints of trespassing, East Carroll Parish Sheriff Mark Shumate has arrested fishermen numerous times for fishing on the lake and other Mississippi River tributaries during periodic rise and fall of the river. This case stems from those arrests. " The rest of the article located at this link: http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060914/OPINION01/609140319/1014 I don't have the actual ruling yet but will post it here if/when I can locate it. Jackie *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
On 9/20/06, cholst_at_bitstream.net <cholst_at_bitstream.net> wrote: > > > That's my attitude for now. First, I doubt that the judge's ruling > currently applies outside his district, which is at the opposite end of > the Mississippi River from where I live. Second, it is such a bizaare > ruling that I doubt it could possibly be upheld on appeal. > I agree with this totally. Just because it's a Federal Judge doesn't make it apply to the entire country. And it's extremely unlikely that such a highhanded decision will make it through the appellate process. No use getting all in a tizzy before we know we have a realy problem. Not, of course, that the boaters in this Judge's district aren't in trouble now. My sympathies go out to them and my action as well once we know just what this covers. Craig Jungers Royal City, WA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
I'm a layperson when it comes to paddling/use laws, but have read a bit on GA and FL's laws: FL law says if it was considered navigable at x point in time (sometime during the mid 1800s), it's now legal to navigate and use the banks up to the highest water line. GA law has two conflicting rulings. One matches FL's pretty closely, the other has some definition in navigability from the sea, which no major river or small creek in GA has with the exception of the Savannah below Clark's Hill Lake, and Oconee/Ocmulgee/Altamaha below Lake Oconee. Even the Chattahoochee and Flint river drainage, one of the larges in the southeast, isn't legally "navigable" because of the dams along it. I had this interpretation given to me by our local DNR officer in regards to camping on a sandbar outside a Wildlife Mangement Area. He stated it's not legal, even on the sandbars, because the sandbar is on the WMA side of the center point of the river, and the property line extends to that point on _non-navigable_ waters. Good explanations (from what I understand) of river navigation/rights is in the Florida and Georgia River/Stream Paddle Guides A Canoeing & Kayaking Guide to Georgia (Canoeing & Kayaking Guides - Menasha) by Suzanne Welander, Bob Sehlinger, and Don Otey A Canoeing & Kayaking Guide to Florida (Canoeing & Kayaking Guides - Menasha) by Johnny Molloy, Elizabeth F. Carter, John Pearce, and Lou Glaros Wynne Eden Americus, GA *************************************************************************** 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/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:42 PDT