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

I wonder if the ACoE's definition of navigable waters will be used in the interpretation of this ruling.

Surely this will be overturned.

Hey Ric.

There has to be more to that than the article tells.

sounds like mr. james transferred his job from the ninth district court in S.F.

What was that Judge smoking????? :rolleyes: I would have expected that we would have seen something up in the great lakes if that were real or far reaching.

Well I am sure that if it is or was real it wont stand long. The public and the fishermen/sportsmen/NRA/Boat sales/ every other public interest group wont stand for it.

I think it did what the judge wanted tit to do, it made a name for the judge and it wont last long!

This is one more example of misrepresentation by an interest group who would like to take your private property rights. It is not as portrayed.

The lake in question is private and only connected to the river during high water. The right to traverse navigable waters are for navigation not public access to fish on otherwise private waters during high water. They run to the normal bed of the river not the water line. If it did people could go miles and miles across private lands during high water . The Judge is rightly concerned about your private property rights as protected by the constitution and not the special interests demands to use your land for free.

That makes more sense as to why we in the great lakes havent heard of such a potential wide ruling

ewest:

Actually...the judge said it's acceptable for you to boat over flooded private property. What he was actually saying is that "federal" law doesn't give anyone the right to hunt or fish during this boating activity. The rules only specifically allow "navigation" or those activities incidental to navigation.

The court adopted that portion of his ruling...but when he also added that people then have a "common law" right to fish and hunt these same areas, if not a written, legal right...the court chose not to adopt that portion.

Go to http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:t_e...us&ct=clnk&cd=1 to read the whole dang thing.

Matt :

I read the case and thanks for the link.

Use of the water and bank up to the high water mark are limited to use for navigation as expressed by local (state) property law. In this case the La. law does not allow hunting and fishing but only those rights incidental to navagitation.

The judge was protecting 2 concepts of law 1) private property as protected by the constitutions (US and La) and 2) the concept of state law primacy wrt property law. The idea that a judge would apparently ignore La. property law to find a federal common law right contrary to state law is questionable at best. That is why IMO the district court judge did not follow the magistrate judge's findings.

"The Second Circuit and other Louisiana courts have interpreted La. Civ. Code art. 456 to exclude fishing and hunting from the type of public use permitted on flooded private property because these activities do not “meet the definition of using the bank of a river at its high watermark for a navigational purpose.” "

What should be asked is why would a mag. judge ignore state property law , federal statutes and cases and interpret into this case general language from a US 5TH Cir. case to find a " Federal common Law right". That IMO is stretching to get the result you want. Could it be pressure from special interest groups or just bias against private property rights in favor of public use? I assume the 5th Cir. or the US Sup. Ct. will tell us.