Anyone wanna buy a used boat?

http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html

Kevin

--
reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

I wonder how that will rub up against Montana's Stream Access Law?



"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
t...
http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html

Kevin

--
reply to: kevin dot vang at minotstateu dot edu

Kevin Vang wrote:
http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html


Why do I suspect this (Louisiana) judge is:
a) a Bush voter
b) a riparian land owner who doesn't like boats

On 16 Sep 2006 05:49:49 -0700, salmobytes wrote:

Kevin Vang wrote:
http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html


Why do I suspect this (Louisiana) judge is:
a) a Bush voter
b) a riparian land owner who doesn't like boats

Sorry to twist your worldview around to the front, but he was a Clinton
appointee. I don't know about his riparian views.

DB Rea wrote:
On 16 Sep 2006 05:49:49 -0700, salmobytes wrote:

Kevin Vang wrote:
http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html


Why do I suspect this (Louisiana) judge is:
a) a Bush voter
b) a riparian land owner who doesn't like boats

Sorry to twist your worldview around to the front, but he was a Clinton
appointee.

They don't teach reading where you come from, do they? The point under
consideration was not which sock-puppet hired him, it was which one he
may have voted for.

I don't know about his riparian views.

Well then, you're two for two, aint'cha, Sparky?

Wolfgang

"DB Rea" danielb@tribcspdotcom wrote in message
...
On 16 Sep 2006 05:49:49 -0700, salmobytes wrote:

Kevin Vang wrote:
http://www.ibinews.com/ibinews/newsd...23ibinews.html


Why do I suspect this (Louisiana) judge is:
a) a Bush voter
b) a riparian land owner who doesn't like boats

Sorry to twist your worldview around to the front, but he was a Clinton
appointee. I don't know about his riparian views.

You can read the actual docket here
http://www.spadata.com/downloads/Ruling.pdf

His riparian views are not the problem: the problem is his fishing and
hunting views. Simply put, Lousiana law allows public access between the
ordinary Low and the ordinary High Water marks "for legitimate purposes of
travel or transportation, for boating or sailing for pleasure, as well as
carrying persons or property for hire." Since the law says nothing explicit
about hunting and fishing, access to water that floods private or state
lands for these uses is not automatically granted. In this particular case,
the landownder had the fishermen arrested, a magistrate judge recommended
that their arrest be overturnd, as they were doing nothing wrong, but a
higher court judge said that the law does not protect fishing and hunting
rights on flooded private land, and did not accept the magistrate's
recommendation.

So for now, it appears that a private landowner can choose to ban you from
fishing or hunting on water that has flooded their property, and it will
hold.

--riverman

On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:28:18 +0800, "riverman"
wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/19/sc...l?pagewanted=1

Something the judge would have been aware was in the offing and which
might have had some influence on his decision.

If any of it is done, there will be new waterways and new land as a
result. Where there is new land, there will be new owners, with
rights to the property and the things like oil that go with the
property. I assume any new land will not be opened to simple
homesteaders....
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli