I just came across this story; US federal judge declares boating illegal in all US navigatable waters www.ybw.com/ibinews/newsdesk/20060814154923ibinews.html
if this proves to be true it could have some very serious conotations for all of us. 
greatbear,
Let’s say your RICH and you own this river front property. Just think how upsetting it is when you have your rich friends over for cocktails and from out of nowhere a couple of COMMONER fishermen start fishing around YOUR dock!!! :evil:
These property owners need protection.
It seems like some kind of sick game. If you don’t have enough money for lawyers, that’s too bad!
Doug 
Orwell, 1984 … everyone is created equal, some more so than others … (especially when $ is involved)
Touchy situation in many areas … however, I get irked when (in most places) shorelines are ‘protected’ or ‘reserved’ for those with sufficient amounts of moolah. Cottage countries, residential properties, etc.
Shorelines collapse (natural occurance) - then after the property owners whine - the gov’mts usually fork over some of everyones dough to help them.
Floods - again, compensation with everyones money.
Ice flow damages … compensation
Oil spills … compensation
They buy, they build and they expect everyone else to help pay to clean up after disasters or messes that come along - after their choice to build in areas well known to bite back.
I’d support any notion of say a 50 ft or 100ft ‘open’ or ‘undeveloped’ area from high water levels along any waterway (riparian access areas). Waterways are natural features - natural - formed by nature. Nobody owns mother nature. They should be accessible for Joe Public - regardless of $ $ $
Do any of you honestly think this will fly ???
Never fly. And, with any luck, that judge will be drummed out of town before they can make another stupid decision like that. Talk about bought and sold… yeesh.
Wisdom is in short supply when it comes to rich people trying to get laws passed.
Enforcement of the river law is a JOKE!
WHO? is going to enforce it?
The state of Oregon only has a couple of state troopers. I know! they can call in the ARMY.
What ever happened to good old HORSE SENSE? It made it’s way to the rear of the horse.
Doug :roll:
Over the years congress (rich attorneys) has passed laws (granting themselves unconstitutional powers) giving themselves more and more powers (which then makes those laws ‘legal’). The laws made up by Federal Judges are examples. Only possible fix is a change of attitude by congress, you know who they are, those guys who by the constitution are the only ones who can declare war, but figured out how to ‘pass the powers’ (unconstitutional) to the President when it might not be a popular choice and literally give themselves raises in the middle of the night
Sounds like a cast off relative of Judge Smells…
This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever hear of…Other than that I have no comment, as my mother said if you don’t have anything nice to say then don’t say it…And I don’t need the world thinking I’m more redneck than they already think. 
But I feel I have to make some comment on this so hear goes. Something like this would never fly in Canada, and even if it was passed the rural dwelling locals would never obey it anyways so enforcement would be foolish, espcially when the local law would mostlikely be the same type of folks that would not suport a ruling like this to begin with.
That is my censored, politically correct, way of saying things. The fact that this is even an issue anywhere irks me and usally when things irk me I’m much more blunt.
-Hillard
HMD,
You did a good job of replying. Being diplomatic is not easy. You also don’t have anything to worry about being accused of being a Redneck, because Jeff F. has made them popular, the same as Bill G. has done for Nerds.
I hope you had good fishing this year!
Doug 
Hi Folks,
Federal regulations have always been pretty liberal
and favoring the public in these issues. IMHO it is
just a matter of time until one of these makes it all
the way to the Supreme Court and sets precedence to
level the uneven playing field that exists from state
to state. The federal government as well as a number
of states have always held that true navigable waters
were owned by the people and held in trust by the
governing bodies. My state of South Carolina spells
it out clearly that the people of the state own the
waters and that the state vows to protect these waters for the use of everyone for all time. Warm
regards, Jim
That is the silliest thing I ever heard. Yet, I am glad I own some riverfront property.
I’m not sure what worries me more; the judge’s ruling or the way it is being misreported by the press.
The ruling, according to other maritime news, was only directed at private property outside the river’s high water line that became navigable due to flooding. The ruling appears to state that you can operate a boat in a flooded area, but you cannot fish or hunt in that area if it is over privately owned land that does not usually flood. This is supposedly a very strict interpretation of a very old federal law.
Clear as mud? That seems to be the general opinion of the judge’s ruling. There is, and I think should be, much concern over how this ruling will be interpreted.
There are a number of appeals in process, and another hearing scheduled for November.
If there are any real attorneys reading, please jump in.
Regards
It is rare that I get such an easy one.
“If there are any real attorneys reading, please jump in.”
I need more time on this one, it is such a classic! :twisted:
Beautiful :lol: :lol:
So Perry Mason, the greatest!, is disqualified?
Doug :evil: :shock:
This should clear up some things.
http://www.nationalrivers.org/us-law-menu.htm
Gary