Guys,

After a bit of 'digging' into this.

The mississippi 'flooded' out of it's normal banks and covered private property.

Folks fishing on this 'private property' were arrested/cited for tresspass.

In their defense, they claimed that the US law applying to navigable waterways, which ensures public 'access' but doens't mention fishing, hunting, or any other 'specific' activity, applied to them.

The Magistrate agreed. However, the District Judge did not. First, he cited that the US law makes no specific provision for fishing, which is true, but not truly germaine to the issue here, which was 'access' to public waterways-v-private property rights. He also cited that the public had the obvious right under the law to use the river UP TO, not 'above' the normal high water mark into 'flooded' areas.

What this means is that the District Judge didn't want to grant folks the right to trespass onto private property just because it was flooded. That sounds reasonable to me.

He definitely DID NOT open the door to restrict or prohibit fishing on navigable waterways. In fact, he UPHELD the current law which ensures public access to the normal river channel.

The priveledges of 'access' curently include fishing for those properly licensed to do so. Absent specific legislation to the contrary, this won't change.

This is a very narrow ruling on an unusual circumstance. Since it was a District Judges ruling, it sets no legal precedent, even for the same jurisdiction.

The statement in the Luoisiana Sportsman article about being able to boat but not fish is ludicrous and has no basis in fact based on the actual ruling.

In any event, I think the Restore Our Waterway Access folks are over reacting. They are a political organization, and that's not out of character for such, however.

I'd not worry too much. Just my opinion, though, and others may feel differently.

Good luck!

Buddy