• If you log in, the ads disappear in the forum and gallery. If you need help logging in or getting registered, send request to: webmaster@southernairboat.com

LA Fed. Judge's ruling affects hunt & fish /Navigable Wa

Daddy Dave

Well-known member
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE DECLARES RECREATIONAL BOATING AND FISHING ILLEGAL ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER AND AMERICA’S OTHER NAVIGABLE WATERS

In the case of Normal Parm, et al v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, of East Carroll Parish, (Civil No.3:01-CV2624; United States District Court; Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division) United States District Judge Robert G. James has declared it to be criminal trespassing for the public to boat, fish or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters of America, affirming the arrest of fishermen and boaters utilizing the waters of the Mississippi River. This ruling declares recreational boating, fishing tournament, waterfowl hunting, and pleasure boating illegal on navigable rivers, unless conducted within the main channel of the river, or with the permission of all riparian landowners along the navigable river.

District Court Judge James’s ruling under federal law grants to the riparian landowners of the Mississippi River, the exclusive and private control over the waters of the Mississippi River, outside of the main channel of the Mississippi River. The shallows of navigable waterways are no longer open to the public. This decision, based in federal law, equally applies to all other navigable waterways of America. For bass fishermen and duck hunters, and other fishermen and hunters that use the ever changing shallow waters of navigable rivers for their outdoor activities has been declared illegal. District Judge James affirmed that the public is subject to criminal arrest for trespassing on the riparian landowner’s privately owned and controlled water if they venture outside the main channel of a navigable waterway.

On April 30, 2006, Magistrate Judge James D. Kirk (Document 80) found 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, across the entire surface of the Mississippi River, up to the normal high water of the river. Judge Kirk relied upon the long established federal principles of navigation that recognized that the public’s federal navigational rights ". . . entitles the public generally to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, for boating or sailing for pleasure, as well as for carrying persons or property for hire, and in any kind of water craft the use of which is consistent with others also enjoying the right possessed in common." Silver Springs Paradise Co. v. Ray, 50 F.2d 356 (5th Cir., 1931). Further, Magistrate Kirk affirmed the public’s fundamental right to boat and fish on the navigable waters of Louisiana for both recreational and commercial purposes affirming the Civil Code’s declaration that " Everyone has the right to fish in the rivers, ports, roadsteads, and harbors, . . . ." (Louisiana Civil Code, Article 452), and the Louisiana Constitution declaration that "[t]he freedom to hunt, fish, and trap wildlife, including all aquatic life, traditionally taken by hunters, trappers and anglers, is a valued natural heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people." (Louisiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 27).

On August 29, 2006, District Judge Robert G. James, United States District Court, sitting in Monroe, Louisiana rejected the findings of Magistrate Judge Kirk, and declared that the American Public has no federal or state right to fish or hunt on the Mississippi River, or any other navigable waterway in America (Document 139).

U.S. District Judge James specifically declared that neither century old statutes enacted as each State joined the Union, nor federal common law of public use, create a right of the public to use the navigable waters of America for recreation, fishing or boating, unless the activity is done as a commercial enterprise, and limited to the main channel of the river. Judge James has declared that the public’s only right to use the navigable waters of America are limited to commercial activities, and specifically DOES NOT INCLUDE the right of the public to boat, fish and recreate on the rivers of America.

Judge James rejected the argument made by the Plaintiffs that the multi-billion dollar commercial activities that support the manufacturing and sale of personal and recreational water craft and related equipment, and the public recreational uses of the navigable waters, were sufficiently "commercial" to be allowed on America’s navigable waters. If the judgment of District Judge James is affirmed, the exclusion of the recreational boater, fisherman and hunter threatens the financial viability of the entire segment of the American economy that supports recreational use of public waters. Finally, Judge James declared that the people boating, hunting or fishing on the waters of the Mississippi River, at normal heights, are subject to arrest for trespass, unless the activity is limited to the narrow, main channel of the river. The following are quotes from the opinion of Judge Robert James, Western District of Louisiana:

CONCLUSION NO. 1: AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS NO FEDERAL LAW RIGHT TO FISH OR HUNT ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER OR OTHER NAVIGABLE WATERS OF AMERICA.

District Court Judge Robert James declared that the People of America do not have the right under federal law, holding that " . . . the federal navigational servitude do[es] not provide the Plaintiffs with the right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River."
District Judge James declared that the People of America do not ". . . have a right to fish and hunt on the Mississippi River up to the ordinary high water mark when it [the Mississippi River] periodically floods . . ." the riparian land.

CONCLUSION NO. 2: AMERICAN PUBLIC HAS NO STATE LAW RIGHT TO FISH OR HUNT ON MISSISSIPPI RIVER OR OTHER NAVIGABLE WATERS OF AMERICA.

District Judge James declared that under State law ". . . fishing and hunting [on the waters of the Mississippi River and other navigable waterways] is not included in these rights" that are granted on rivers of America as they naturally rise and fall.

CONCLUSION NO. 3: ANY PERSON WHO FISHES OR HUNTS ON THE WATERS OF THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER, OUTSIDE THE MAIN CHANNEL, IS SUBJECT TO ARREST FOR TRESPASSING ON THE WATER.
District Judge James declared that if you are fishing on the Mississippi River anywhere other than the main channel, ". . . the Sheriff . . . has probable cause to arrest you for trespassing."
 
Remind me why the hell I work and pay. I hope this don't end here are were all in trouble! I'm sure this case will be in the Supreme court for a while.
 
The words below are not mine but are those of a very well respected attorney:


It is accurate. Many folks are already mobilized on this. See link
below. This decision ONLY affects the district where the local court is.
It is NOT precedential for other areas of the country, onu persuasive.
In short, every District could have a different ruling. Now if one of
the Ciruit Courts of Appeal decides this, its binding on everyone until
their circuit or the US Supreme Ct decides it differently. Regards,

http://www.trumpetamerica.org/060917ta1815.html

Charles

Charles A. Morehead, III, Esq.
Bunnell, Woulfe, Kirschbaum, Keller,
McIntyre, Gregoire & Klein, P.A.
One Financial Plaza, Suite 900
100 Southeast Third Avenue
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33394
cam@bunnellwoulfe.com
954-761-8600
Fax: 954-463-6643
Web: http://www.bunnellwoulfe.com
 
It sounds like that judge wants to insitgate a revolution.

Go ahead Judge(s), keep it up and watch the armed revolt begin.

It's a crazy world we live in. Imagine if Lewis & Clark with their Corps Of Discovery were arrested for tresspass on the waters (and land) they travelled on. Imagine if the pioneers of old could not travel on certain rivers to go west. It's ridiculous!

matt.
 
I'll be really, really surprised if this judges lifespan extends til the end of the year.

I'm a watchin with great interest !

Scotty
 
Ain't it amazing how things read different when ya read it in detail. Headlines, I guess, are intended to elicit an instant reaction. It looks to me after reading that the judgement of the higher court is correct and legit. I sure have no problems with it.

Man talk about doing a 180 ! It all looks legit after reading the details. Thanks Rick for a GREAT catch ! Your the man !

Scotty
 
I beleive I said at the beginning of my post in the other thread on this "that boating was legal but fishing and hunting might not be". It looks like the judge said the same thing. Driving your airboat would be legal and tying up to the bank to unload you boat looks like it would be legal as well. Remember the devil is in the details which usually don't show up in the headlines.

Fishing and hunting are not considered navigation, I am no lawyer but it sure looks like that is what the LA. Courts had already ruled in simular cases. It appears that judge Kirk erred in his ruling and the next judge got it right. I have never looked at the florida laws as they would apply to fishing and hunting, Stan and I were only navigating on lake george so we were good to go. I heard once when I was younger about some guys who used to fish a river during times when it was flooded and they were ok unless they dropped an anchor. There also is some old oral law,( if someone knows what they are called fill it in for me), that enables you to use a certain portion of the bank above the high water mark for stopping and resting such as in camping, however It is not a written law although it is quoted as if it is. The state of florida has done much research on this law and it appears to only exist in an oral, passed down form.

This is interesting, it has serious implications for fisherman and hunters. Could get interesting if it is upheld on appeal that is if they even dare file an appeal often times they are not filed in order to keep it from becoming a law that is used next time. the state of florida did just that when they lost on lake poinsette it was a small loss to them but if they lost on appeal it would be real big to them. so no appeal was filed.

just my thoughts and not a legal opinion in any way
 
Back
Top