Boating may be illegal in all of USA
Moderator: Jim Walsh
- Domenic
- Posts: 95
- Joined: Nov 1st, '05, 16:43
- Location: Cape Dory 10 Hull 1278 & Moody 45ac Janique III Liberty Landing Marina. Jersey City.
Boating may be illegal in all of USA
US Diatrict Court Judge near Louisiana ruled a few days ago that pleasure boating is illegal and trespassing on the Mississippi river. And perhapes the whole USA. Did any of you guys hear about it?
- Carter Brey
- Posts: 709
- Joined: Feb 5th, '05, 12:02
- Location: 1982 Sabre 28 Mk II #532 "Delphine"
City Island, New York - Contact:
Re: Boating may be illegal in all of USA
I knew there had to be a reason it was so much fun!Domenic wrote:US Diatrict Court Judge near Louisiana ruled a few days ago that pleasure boating is illegal and trespassing on the Mississippi river. And perhapes the whole USA. Did any of you guys hear about it?
Carter Brey
Sabre 28 Mk II #532 "Delphine"
City Island, NY
okay here's a link...
http://www.mountainbuzz.com/viewtopic.php?t=11027
There are several references to this if you GOOGLE it.
Biting my tongue, pinching tender things etc I will keep from commenting further except to say...ain't no way this ruling will survive appeal. Although I side with Carter, keep it illegal it's more fun that way.
We truly live in the Chinese proverb about '...living in interesting times!'
There are several references to this if you GOOGLE it.
Biting my tongue, pinching tender things etc I will keep from commenting further except to say...ain't no way this ruling will survive appeal. Although I side with Carter, keep it illegal it's more fun that way.
We truly live in the Chinese proverb about '...living in interesting times!'
Didereaux- San Leon, TX
last owner of CD-25 #183 "Spring Gail"
"I do not attempt to make leopards change their spots...after I have skinned them, they are free to grow 'em back or not, as they see fit!" Didereaux 2007
last owner of CD-25 #183 "Spring Gail"
"I do not attempt to make leopards change their spots...after I have skinned them, they are free to grow 'em back or not, as they see fit!" Didereaux 2007
-
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Feb 5th, '05, 17:25
- Location: s/v LIQUIDITY, CD28. We sail from Marina Bay on Boston Harbor. Try us on channel 9.
- Contact:
Re: Boating may be illegal in all of USA
So if you sail with a frown on your face, you're imune from prosecution?Domenic wrote:... pleasure boating is illegal ...
Fair winds, Neil
s/v LIQUIDITY
Cape Dory 28 #167
Boston, MA
CDSOA member #698
s/v LIQUIDITY
Cape Dory 28 #167
Boston, MA
CDSOA member #698
For some reason this ruling is making the rounds on tons of cruising message boards always with a misleading title suggesting "boating" may be illegal. This is simply not true, the ruling a few weeks ago was not directed at boating, in fact it specificly cites the rights of a boater in navigable waters of the US. The ruling is only about FISHING on flooded property. There is a marine professional association who is pushing misinformation about the ruling in order to get support from all boaters, basicly a bunch of retailers are worried they may not sell as many fish hooks.
Russell
s/v (yet to be named) Tayana 42CC
s/v Lady Pauline Cape Dory 36 #117 (for sale)
s/v (yet to be named) Tayana 42CC
s/v Lady Pauline Cape Dory 36 #117 (for sale)
-
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Feb 5th, '05, 10:14
- Location: "Lilypad"
CD27 #105
Annapolis, Maryland - Contact:
I just read the whole opinion, and it only applies to fishing and hunting on private property that is periodically flooded by the Mississippi River. Also, it only applies in the Western District of Louisiana. The one thing I found troubling is that it seems to give the landowner exclusive rights BELOW the mean high water mark. But the Mississippi is non-tidal at that point, so it might make sense in that context, as distinct from the tidal waters rule that the public has rights up to the mean high water mark.
In Maryland, with a very few minor exceptions, ALL submerged land under tidal waters is owned by the State, so we're all OK on the Chesapeake, at least as far as Virginia.
In Maryland, with a very few minor exceptions, ALL submerged land under tidal waters is owned by the State, so we're all OK on the Chesapeake, at least as far as Virginia.
Interesting note, since this showed up on a few message boards today, I went back to a site I had first seen the news story posted on. TradeOnlyToday.com their origonal story was this:
First Story
That day I sent them an email pointing to specific language in the court ruling and my displeasure with the irresonsible journalism they were practicing by just being spoon fed what some organization told them without checking the facts for themselves. They responded to my email asking if I wanted it included as a lettor to the editor, I said I didnt and that I just hoped they check the facts and report accurately about the story. Its not that I support the judges ruling making fishing or hunting not a right (I could care less) but it annoys me to no end misleading the public by suggesting all boating had been declared illegal. I notice now the day after that email exchange they posted a new story about the case:
Second Story
As you can see this one is much more clear on what the case is really about, and it is obvious that boating is still legal and even points out:
First Story
That day I sent them an email pointing to specific language in the court ruling and my displeasure with the irresonsible journalism they were practicing by just being spoon fed what some organization told them without checking the facts for themselves. They responded to my email asking if I wanted it included as a lettor to the editor, I said I didnt and that I just hoped they check the facts and report accurately about the story. Its not that I support the judges ruling making fishing or hunting not a right (I could care less) but it annoys me to no end misleading the public by suggesting all boating had been declared illegal. I notice now the day after that email exchange they posted a new story about the case:
Second Story
As you can see this one is much more clear on what the case is really about, and it is obvious that boating is still legal and even points out:
The judge says the land, because it is on the banks of the river, is subject to public use.
“Such public use, however, is limited to activities that are incidental to the navigable character of the Mississippi River and its enjoyment as an avenue of commerce. The court finds that fishing and hunting are not included in those rights,” James writes in his ruling.
Russell
s/v (yet to be named) Tayana 42CC
s/v Lady Pauline Cape Dory 36 #117 (for sale)
s/v (yet to be named) Tayana 42CC
s/v Lady Pauline Cape Dory 36 #117 (for sale)
- Sea Hunt
- Posts: 1310
- Joined: Jan 29th, '06, 23:14
- Location: Former caretaker of 1977 Cape Dory Typhoon Weekender (Hull #1400) "S/V Tadpole"
Interesting discussion. I must admit when I first heard of this story yesterday, I was surprised because those circulating it ("talking heads" on local radios programs) said things like “all boating in US declared illegal”; “boating and sailing banned on US waters”, etc. After a 30 year career as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Retired), I was even more surprised when they said it was a United States district court judge who issued the “ban”. Federal judges are very, very cautious about making broad rulings.
So, I actually went and got a copy of the opinion. It is reported as:
NORMAL PARM, JR., ET AL VERSUS MARK W. SHUMATE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2624
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
As has been stated in earlier postings, this case does NOT ban boating or sailing on navigable waters, etc. The court’s ruling pertains only to hunting and fishing. Apparently, in a certain area of Louisiana, the Mississippi River floods certain privately owned lands at certain times of the year. When this happens fishermen (and apparently hunters) have access by water to what is otherwise private land. The land owners were upset about fishermen and hunters trespassing on their private land when the Mississippi River periodically flooded their land, so they got the local Sheriff to arrest the fishermen and hunters, who then promptly filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff for damages claiming they were wrongly arrested.
The US district court judge simply found that the fishermen and hunters do not have “a federal common law right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River, up to the high water mark, when it floods privately owned land.” The important words here are “fish and hunt”. That is all that is prohibited and only so on privately owned lands which are occasionally flooded by the Mississippi River. The judge found that because the privately owned land is a “bank of the Mississippi River” and therefore subject to “public use . . . incidental to the navigable character of the Mississippi River”, hunting and fishing are prohibited because these activities are not incidental to the navigable character of the river.
Sailors and pleasure boaters are safe. Neil, you do not have to wear a frown when sailing.
If anyone has any trouble sleeping, you can read the entire opinion at:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/conte ... play/full/
So, I actually went and got a copy of the opinion. It is reported as:
NORMAL PARM, JR., ET AL VERSUS MARK W. SHUMATE
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-2624
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
As has been stated in earlier postings, this case does NOT ban boating or sailing on navigable waters, etc. The court’s ruling pertains only to hunting and fishing. Apparently, in a certain area of Louisiana, the Mississippi River floods certain privately owned lands at certain times of the year. When this happens fishermen (and apparently hunters) have access by water to what is otherwise private land. The land owners were upset about fishermen and hunters trespassing on their private land when the Mississippi River periodically flooded their land, so they got the local Sheriff to arrest the fishermen and hunters, who then promptly filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff for damages claiming they were wrongly arrested.
The US district court judge simply found that the fishermen and hunters do not have “a federal common law right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River, up to the high water mark, when it floods privately owned land.” The important words here are “fish and hunt”. That is all that is prohibited and only so on privately owned lands which are occasionally flooded by the Mississippi River. The judge found that because the privately owned land is a “bank of the Mississippi River” and therefore subject to “public use . . . incidental to the navigable character of the Mississippi River”, hunting and fishing are prohibited because these activities are not incidental to the navigable character of the river.
Sailors and pleasure boaters are safe. Neil, you do not have to wear a frown when sailing.
If anyone has any trouble sleeping, you can read the entire opinion at:
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/conte ... play/full/
Last edited by Sea Hunt on Sep 20th, '06, 20:25, edited 1 time in total.
Fair winds,
Robert
Sea Hunt a/k/a "The Tadpole Sailor"
CDSOA #1097
Robert
Sea Hunt a/k/a "The Tadpole Sailor"
CDSOA #1097
- Warren Kaplan
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Feb 5th, '05, 11:44
- Location: Former owner of Sine Qua Non CD27 #166 1980 Oyster Bay Harbor, NY Member # 317