hoglaw

I smoked fish on a flying lure when I was 10.

Sorry Joe. Misunderstood. The picture is from my place.

No, I'm an hour and a half away. But mine is doing the same deal now. Flowing high but clear. I guess that's how it works when the water table is fully charged. Yesterday's rain had it really muddy and I thought it would be worse today, but when I crossed over it at 6 it was decently clear.

Well join the club if you river fish. We've had some windows of good high-normal water, but it's mostly been in the high department so far. The spinning rod/finesse lures might suit you well if you're having a tough time casting.

It looks right to me but I haven't seen the river. I know we had an issue a while back where it was all screwed up, but the rises/drops appear consistent with how it should act now. We got a bunch of rain in northwest Arkansas yesterday, and there should be some more today. It's unreal that it hasn't been at "normal" levels since May. It's just a high water summer. I know my creek has been flowing at twice the CFS as "normal" lately. In the summer it gets down to around 100, but it has been a steady 200 lately. Normally, 200 cfs means swift murky water, but this weekend it was 200 and crystal clear. I guess all the springs are fully charged and there's just a lot of ground water, albeit clear stuff.

Can't wait to rip up and down the Buffalo on one. The website said something like 30mpg? Could cover some serious ground like that. I'm one long night away from pulling the trigger!

Old Plug just hipstered your worm.

I think there is a difference between navigability and riparian rights. Upstream land owners should not be able to appropriate water from streams of any size in a manner that affects downstream owners. That means no damming, discharging, or diverting to the point that the downstream owners' use is impaired. But I don't think that means the water is automatically "public" in the sense that anyone can float or fish on any water anywhere.

What are you referring to? I must have missed something. What's a knifer?

He won't proceed because this was a favorable ruling for him. The court reversed his conviction. Had they upheld it he could have appealed to the us supreme court, but it is highly unlikely they would hear it.

Just wanted to bring this one home. The opinion came down this morning, and you can access it here: http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/Browse.aspx?startid=40626 The case is Pickle v. State, so click that PDF file if you want to read it. Bottom line, this was not a very good decision, and it was 4-3. The court ducked having to decide the most important (to me) issue - whether a game warden can lawfully stop anyone engaged in hunting or fishing to check compliance with applicable regulations. The court "assumed" that it was proper for the AGFC to check for compliance, but that calling in a warrants check went too far when the officers had no reasonable suspicion that a violation had occurred. My problem with the opinion is that the warrants check was conducted outside of the presence of Mr. Pickle, and was conducted with information that the officers had lawfully obtained during their encounter. This is what Justice Goodson said in her opinion. Justice Danielson's dissent (disagreeing opinion) pointed to the bigger issue of wheter a game warden can stop to check licenses, etc., without observing a violation, and said: "After reading the majority opinion, I have no idea whether game wardens are allowed to conduct the routine compliance checks that I believe are necessary in order for them to carry out their official duties." I don't say this wasn't a good decision because it got to the wrong result, but because the court still hasn't told us whether game wardens can stop folks to check licenses and equipment unless they've actually witnessed a violation.

That's incredible. Best fly rod fish I ever caught on the Norfork was on a tan humpback scud.

Yep, it comes up fast and goes down fast. Though it didn't get this high with the last flood we got. This was a lot of water at once.

In Logan, about half way between Tontitown and Fayetteville.

Where were they swimming? Goshen?

We got pounded somewhere. My creek (Osage) shot up ten feet overnight from 200 cfs to 7000! It was out of the banks this morning and flowing through the woods.

I'm leery of any Berkley floro because of how bad my experience with Vanish was. That stuff was brittle as could be. Maybe I got a bad spool, or left it out in the sun or something? Not sure, but it was awful. It was tough to bite through as well, but it would break extremely easily. CX Premium is the bomb for co-poly. I love that stuff. I don't know as much about lines as most, but I absolutely love Segaur's Red Label. It's not very expensive comparatively speaking, and I've had great results from it. I only use it on baitcasters though.

Not exactly. He got convicted below. As a convicted felon with a gun and meth, I'm guessing the sentence involved time. He may have even pled to it already subject to this appeal. If it was me, no amount of money would be too much if I were looking at pen time. And if I got my conviction overturned, then it would be the best money I ever spent. Also, his attorney may have been court appointed meaning he wouldn't pay him anyway other than a minimal access fee ($100 or so). But maybe he did have a private attorney. In either case, I assure you the system isn't set up so that they can go to court more times and make more money off of him. FF, I think the judge you're referring to is Josephine Linker Hart. She is indeed very sharp. Our state supreme court judges are elected, so you can get some "less qualified" judges on the bench that way. For the most part, the nine that sit on our court are pretty good. In the federal system the judges are appointed. Most would look at that and think that political favors result in appointments, but that doesn't turn out to be the case. Their appointment is for life, so they don't have to scratch anyone's back to keep their job. Most federal trial and appellate judges are incredibly intelligent.

Sobriety checkpoints are a different animal. There's a whole body of law on them and they have to be done in a certain way. The police can "stop and talk" and can ask for whatever they want. Whether they can detain you in a non-consensual encounter and prevent you from leaving is a different issue. A person is "seized" and it officially becomes a "stop" when a normal person in the same circumstances would not feel free to leave. An officer asking for your identification isn't really a "stop." Or at least that's how I learned it.

I think he had an active warrant. That wasn't in the article, but I believe it was the case. I could be wrong. In any event, confirmation of the felony conviction was what they needed to go back and pop him for being in possession of a firearm, so even if I'm mistaken it's of no consequence.

I feel the smae way on the stops. Personally I wish they could stop everyone who is hunting/fishing and check for compliance with all applicable regulations. I wish AGFC guys could get a little more leeway than normal law enforcement, but that leeway should only extend to folks they actually see hunting or fishing, or arriving at/leaving an area where they hunt/fish. If I were one of the justices, here's how I'd decide the case. I would affirm his conviction. I believe that stopping him and checking his license/verifying his identity if he doesn't have it on him (which he didn't in this case, but he did have one) falls within an administrative stop. Just as DOT can stop any trucker, the Office of Long Term Care can inspect any nursing home, and the Department of Health can inspect any restaurant, Game and Fish should be able to verify that someone has a license and is legally hunting. I would hold that to go beyond that and physically inspect equipment/search belongings, the officer would have to have reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed. In this case, the officer violated his constitutional rights by searching his belongings with no reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, even after they observed him for two hours. However, it was not that unlawful search that led to the discovery of his convicted felon status. The officer called in to verify that he had a license after contact was broken off, and went further by checking to see if there were active warrants. The officer was within his rights to do that, and used only information that he had obtained from the administrative functions of the stop. Once he verified the warrant, he went back and made the arrest and found methamphetamine on Mr. Pickle. So the convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance should be upheld. Even though there was an unlawful search, it did not result in the evidence that was used to convict him so it was not the fruit of the poisonous tree. That's just my $.02. I think the court should probably reaffirm that folks don't shed their constitutional rights just because they go hunting or fishing, but in this case it was not the violation of his constitutional rights that led to his arrest and subsequent conviction. If the officer can't do anything without actually OBSERVING a violation, how are they ever going to enforce short fish, licensure, steel shot, gun plugs, or barbless hooks?

I still think you lose voting rights when you're convicted of any felony. That may not be correct. I don't do much criminal law anymore, though I did prosecute misdemeanors at one point. You can lose other rights as a result of being on probation though. Your 4th amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures goes out the window if you're on probation or parole. You can be deprived of property without just compensation if it's civilly forefitted or confiscated. Can you still run for president as a convicted felon? There are probably a couple deprivations that happen in the criminal context.

One thing I'll add is I admit I get a little overly sensitive about carte blanche lawyer comments. As a profession we certainly have reputation issues, and there are some bad apples no doubt. But on the whole, the lawyers and judges I work with are highly ethical people and work hard to do what's right. It's unfair to judge someone negatively for representing a bad criminal client. But for folks willing to take that work on (and many for very very little money), the system just doesn't work. Let's say that a man punches his wife and breaks his arm, or a guy gets shot robbing a convenience store. Is the doctor who re-sets that arm or treats the gunshot wound an unethical doctor?

I respect you a lot, but you're a little misguided here. This isn't an issue of creating a new law, or twisting something obscure from a "book" or a "court transcript." If anyone wants to actually listen to the arguments (I don't know whether they have subtitling for hearing impaired viewers), here's the link. The hearing starts in 30 minutes at 8:58, but a ruling won't be issued today: https://courts.arkansas.gov/courts/supreme-court/oral-argument-videos What you have to understand is this guy was convicted below, but the court of appeals has already overturned it. Now the Supreme Court is hearing it (at least that's what I took from the article). His argument as I understand it is that the officers' initial search and detention was without reasonable suspicion. Once that happens, any evidence obtained is the fruit of the poisonous tree and is inadmissible to convict him. I'm not sure what the argument will focus on. One possible argument is that it was his identity that led to his arrest, and they discovered that by him giving the officer his name, not by "illegally" checking the weapons. As far as the lawyer for the defense, he took an oath to represent his client within the bounds of the law. It's unfair to criticize his ethics and call them "selective" when he is zealously representing his client, regardless of how unpopular the position may be. If you just want to decide right and wrong, then be a judge. If you want to represent your client's interest regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, then be a lawyer.

There you go. Thanks Bird Watcher, a much better version of the facts.