NationStates Jolt Archive

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

In a rather bizarre ruling that has marine industry officials worried, Judge Robert G. James of the United States District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has said that it is criminal trespass for the American boating public to boat, fish, or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters in the US.

In the case of Normal Parm v. Sheriff Mark Shumate, James ruled that federal law grants exclusive and private control over the waters of the river, outside the main shipping channel, to riparian landowners. The shallows of the navigable waters are no longer open to the public. That, in effect, makes boating illegal across most of the country.

"Even though this action seems like a horrible pre-April fools joke, it is very serious," said Phil Keeter, MRAA president, in a statement. "Because essentially all the waters and waterways of our country are considered navigable in the US law, this ruling declares recreational boating, water skiing, fishing, waterfowl hunting, and fishing tournaments to be illegal and the public subject to jail sentences for recreating with their families."

So, if you're a landowner who has water access, you can go from your property line, out directly in the water to the shipping channel, and nowhere else. And if you don't own any property adjacent to the water in question, you can't go into the river without the permission of the property owner. Also, if you went in to the river (using a public boat ramp), you have to stay directly in the shipping channel, or you are trespassing in someone's waters.

Can't really fish or swim or do recreational boating in the shipping channel, unless you like being run over by towed barges and large ships.

And dont eat spinache either damm it ! Whats this world comming to ?

A picture of the judge:
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/iwemark/head.jpg

Can't really fish or swim or do recreational boating in the shipping channel, unless you like being run over by towed barges and large ships.

This is just plain nuts!

*prays SCOTUS isnt insane when this gets there*

That is just awful. In my view the rivers are public property.

that ruling seems to be contrary to US tradition of the past 200 or so years. it grants huge powers to shore property owners that they never had before. is it going to go to the supreme court?

that ruling seems to be contrary to US tradition of the past 200 or so years. it grants huge powers to shore property owners that they never had before. is it going to go to the supreme court?

I suppose it will. But the ruling sounds ludicrous. I'd like to see the written opinion to see how he arrived at this.

This is absurd. Maybe if he ruled that waretways not connected to the main waterway during low tide are property of the owner of the land, I would agree, but ruling that all shallow waters out to shipping lanes are property of the land owner is absurd. There is no way this will go too far, too many major groups in opposition.. well that is unless any major corporations that have an interest in this sort of thing get involved.

wah?

Next someone is going to declare the air that exists over one's property, private property too.

"What are you doing, inhaling the air of my property??"

There isn't much out there regarding the case, but this story (http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/conservation/news/story?page=b_con_news_fishing_private_property_ruling) has a few more details:

In Parm v. Shumate (Civil Action No. 01-2624), Normal Parm, Jr., and four others were fishing a section of the Mississippi River between the ordinary high- and low-water marks when the owner of the adjacent land, Walker Cottonwood Farms, contacted the local sheriff and had Parm arrested and charged with trespass.

The court found that although Walker Cottonwood Farms' privately owned property (the area between the ordinary low and ordinary high stage of water) is subject to public use because it is a bank of the Mississippi River, fishing and hunting were not among the permitted uses. Only those "activities that are incidental to the navigable character of the Mississippi River and its enjoyment as an avenue of commerce" are permitted.

There'll be enough groups to challenge the decision to get it brought to SCOTUS. The real question comes to the extension of private property rights over the Miss. River, but I don't have enough of a backround in property law to say how this might go.

On a side note, to anyone else familiar with American law, would this judge be overstepping his jurisdiction in making a decision that affects more than just his state, being as he is a District judge?

I suppose it will. But the ruling sounds ludicrous. I'd like to see the written opinion to see how he arrived at this.

Me too. We can't judge this decision unless we know why he made it.

Everyone here has views on what the law should be. But no judge should be deciding what the law should be - only what it is. If it turns out that the statutes and rulings support him, then he was right to make the judgement even if we don't like the consequences.


Sane Outcasts - I don't know the US system, but if is the judge is allowed to decide issues of Federal law then he is allowed to rule as he pleases, provided that the law backs him.

Mark Twain is rolling over in his grave right now...

wah?

Next someone is going to declare the air that exists over one's property, private property too.


Funny that you mention it, because in the first days of the airplane, it was. The judge ruled that the property limits extended only to a certain height and airplanes flying above that were not trespassing.

I'm sure this ruling will be challenged, but I guess that if there's some commercial use to be obtained from those waters adjacent to the property, the owners are entitled to that.

Fuck 'em. I'll fish where I want to.

I suppose it will. But the ruling sounds ludicrous. I'd like to see the written opinion to see how he arrived at this.

Here is the formula for arriving at this decision:
1 lb. of dumbass
1 lb. of dumbshit
2 lbs. of judicial activism
30 lbs of they cannot fire me

Mix well, add a bottle of scotch to drink while mixing the above, bake in a demented mind for 30 minutes and there you have it. :D

When there's a ruling of this sort--one that defies all shared understanding of the law by average people--usually it's because there's been some sort of stupid law passed and the judge is pointing it out by enforcing it. Like DK said, we can't really make a judgment until we've read the decision, but that's what this smells like to me. The judge is probably upholding the law and taking it to its absurdest length.

This would seem to contravene earlier court rulings and legislation regarding merchant seamen and navigable waterways.