Court Ruling Effects River Users

[Kevin Turner]

Issue Date: 9/13/2006, Posted On: 9/13/2006

Court ruling makes boating illegal in much of U.S.

The Marine Retailers Association of America is alerting its dealer members to a court ruling that some say could have serious consequences for boating.

Judge Robert G. James of the U.S. District Court, Western Division of Louisiana, has declared it is a criminal trespass for the public to boat, fish or hunt on the Mississippi River and other navigable waters of the country.

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

In addition, the judge held 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, the MRAA reports, adding, “Boating has now become illegal in most of our country.”

In the Aug. 29 decision, Judge James rejected the findings of the magistrate judge who found earlier that the public had the right under federal law and Louisiana law to navigate, boat, fish and hunt on the waters of the Mississippi River up the normal high-water line of the river.

In that ruling, MRAA says Magistrate Judge James Kirk relied on long-established federal principles of navigation entitling "the public to the reasonable use of navigable waters for all legitimate purposes of travel or transportation, for boating, sailing for pleasure, as well as for carrying persons or property for hire, and in any kind of watercraft, the use of which is consistent with others also enjoying the right possessed in common."

"MRAA is working with the Coast Guard, state boating law administrators, and NMMA ... to fight this onerous ruling," said MRAA chairman Glenn Mazzella, in a statement.

[Rusty]

Do you have the court documents that states this, or was it a newspaper article? Either way, could you post the link?

[gonefishin]

Could you post the link to this? I would like to know more about it.

[MTM]

My home state Montana has been to the supreme court twice on this same issue and won both times. It is a Federal Law and as such can't be over ruled by a lower state judge but for his home state. In other words it may be ok in his home state but it won't hold water in the whole USA.. That is the information I have recieved. This judge is probably just like other law makers in Louisiana paying off contrubutions by this decision. Just a guess mind you. No one could be that stupid. Or could they? I know they are in Massachusetts. Isn't that were they are taking those homes from people and the citys are selling them to the rich so they can build high rises and make million's? I think you get the idea were things like this come from. What a pain in the butt.

All Louisiana is going to have to do is to take this to a higher court and they will throw it out. They have to it is the law of the land. Unless the Supream court changes there minds? This is not a federal judge is it? I don't think so? Ron

[stone9-7=2]

Question ifas your post say's makes boating in much of U.S. illegal then i think it would be all over the new's as most state's have alot of boating related activety's.

I have heard or seen nothing on this, am i missing something?

9-7=2,hidding the boat ha ha.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I'm sure it will be all over the news stone, but it won't apply to corp lakes, or in all likelihood to lakes such as Empires Taneycomo.

My hope is that it will raise a whirlwind of indignant outdoorsman, and the issue will be settled by congress in favor of free access to all waters that were naturally connected, once and for all.

[Phil Lilley]

Darn... I wanted to string barbed wire across the lake and have a section of trout waters all to myself!!

[MTM]

Phil you are lying through your teeth You are like me and would allow any person to fish your river if asked and they took care of it. Ron

PS: And probably tell them what was working well.

[Terry Beeson]

There are some "fine line" and "gray areas" that should be addressed here, guys. First of all, I'm wondering just what the lawsuit that prompted this action was all about? This - yes, FEDERAL - judge didn't issue an edict or rulinig just for the heck of it. Someone had to have filed some sort of brief and someone had to appeal the lower court ruling to get it to this level.

I'm on both sides of this issue. I love to fish, hunt, and boat. I want to be able to put my waders on or put my boat on water and fish, hunt, or just tool around without fear of being put in jail.

On the other hand, I own property that belonged to my parents. This was pastureland/cattle farm that I was raised on. In the early 60s, the COE and USDA paired up and started building "flood control watershed" lakes in the area. They built one on my dad's farm and an adjoining landowner. It was soon stocked with bass, crappie, and catfish and was a pretty popular fishing spot for years. Some years it even held a good population of Mallards that drew duck hunters. Now it's mostly mud cat, sunfish, and Bald Eagles in the winter.

BUT... My dad lived in "constant fear" that someone would drown or otherwise be injured and file a lawsuit against him since this was on "private property." I'm not sure how the law reads, but he was convinced that there was really nothing he could do to keep people from fishing on the lake, especially since it was located on two different landowners.

It also produced a lot of pain and suffering for the "farmhand" (me) who had to clean up after the slobs who hunted and fished and left trash, open gates, and cut fences behind.

There must be, and probably is, some sort of segregation of "public" vs. "private" waters. I have my opinions about it, but those are just mine. Again, I still want to fish the White River system and other (what I would term) public waters. But I have a hard time with my internal struggles when I'm invited to fish a warm water creek that runs through some guys farm - navigable or not.

It's funny to hear stories of fishermen being yelled at by someone who bought an overpriced lot on a river or lake and think that entitles them to ownership of the entire body of water. I've even heard of rock throwing and an occasional gunfire (hey... us Arkies can be pretty serious at times, ya know...)

But then I hear about someone who crossed three farms to get to a creek that runs through the pasture of a farmer who has busted his... chops... for years to eek out a living just so they could get to virgin smallmouth waters. Without the landowners' permission, I can't do it...

OK... I'll shut up now... But I still want to know the story behind the lawsuit.

[mizzouflyfisher]

You most likely won't see the decision regarding this case. It is only the district court. Almost all published decisions are appellate court cases. I looked all over the Louisiana gov't website, MRAA website and various internet searches and found nothing. I'll keep looking though.

Mizzouflyfisher