NavList:

Chuck Taylor wrote:
> It would seem that the issue in that case was the
> right to hunt and fish between the low- and high-water
> mark of a river.  The full text of the decision is
> reproduced at the above link. 
>  

Yes. This is strictly about hunting and fishing on waters over privately
owned property below the ordinary high water mark of a freshwater river.
This did not cover boating in and of itself. It did not cover tidal
waters. It did not cover anything else.

Unfortunately, some of the marine industry press releases and
subsequent internet noise regarding this case have been outrageously
inflammatory and just plain ludicrous. I saw one press release that said
this outlawed recreational boating on every navigable waterway in the
country. Good grief! I'm really astonished at the irresponsibility of
the some of the marine industry PR on this one.

Though it has no bearing on the legal basis for the decision, it should
also be noted that this case was particular extraordinary due to its
geography. In this case, when the Mississippi flooded, it filled an
otherwise dry ditch that then connected to a small, shallow lake. This
only happens a few times a year and the rest of the year, the lake and
the river are not connected. The fishermen were taking advantage of the
flooding to access a otherwise enclosed lake on private property. The
elevation of the lake happened to be within the ordinary high water mark
of the river.

Carl




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to NavList@fer3.com
To , send email to NavList-@fer3.com
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---