DuckSouth.com

DuckBoat wrote:

BR549 wrote:Let me know when the court date is I wanna come here the GUILTY verdict!

Been waiting for you to chime in. I know you say your not affiliated with them but I don't buy it.

And Im not affiliated with em in any way shape form or fashion!

Which federal law would that be? You're not still harping on Parm v. Shumate, are you?

BR549 wrote:

biggs wrote:

farmerc83 wrote:
At the end of the day, you have to remember that LA is based on Nepoleonic code and is therefore nothing like our rules in MS. Basically, you're arguing with a bunch of redneck Frenchmen.

Louisiana doesn't use Napoleonic Code. The Napoleonic Code wasn't established until 1804. Louisiana became part of the U.S. in 1803. Their law is different, based on old civil law rather than common law like the rest of the U.S. You are right, though. It's fairly different, especially concerning property rights.

No it's based on the FEDERAL law! You go past whats around 17 to 18' feet down there you asking for it! They can and will win! It's the same freaking thing for every body of water in the U.S.! Just some states decide to enforce it for whatever reason! If it were mine ????? I don't know what I'd do but if someone was 2, 300 yards over on me better look out cause a tickets a comin!

BR549,
Which Federal Law would you be refering to? This is a stae law issue anyway, it aint got nothing to do with federal law. MS and LA have different laws regarding this type of issue, I personally like MS stand point, but, hey what can you do? But I wish all the states woudl go by federal law, cause the federal gov. claims jurisdiction on everything below the OHWM (ordinay high water mark) which would give us more public water to hunt. It aint got nothing to do with the law and everything to do with $$$$$$. Everything is for sale, including politicians and sherriffs. no one will convince me that there is not any under the table dealings going on.

Way i always undertstood it fed law supersedes state laws ...least i think..and i am no lawyer or judge...but this is an issue that NEEDS to be clear up for good its been TOOOOO long of an on going grey area for yrs.......

I have been told by a good source that federal law will eventually rule. I hope that it does and I hope that it is soon. We need a definitive answer.............whatever the answer is??? I was also told by the same person that Ms Game Wardens have been told not to write tickets for people in floodwaters under the 43' mark at V-burg, so Ms is totally different. It affects me both ways.....I own land that borders the old river channel and I like to hunt other places that are under the same situation. Funny thing is I had one of the Tara guys come by my camp in his boat last weekend and I flagged him down and he told me what they were going to enforce and we cam up with the basic fact that he was tresspassing on my land!! It was funny......he was a super nice guy, but he walked into it. Bottom line is that we just need a good clear answer. Most people know when they are crossing the line though, and it has been too much line crossing on both sides.....with the public and with Tara.

JLT wrote:Most people know when they are crossing the line though, and it has been too much line crossing on both sides.....with the public and with Tara.

Well said. I hunt fairly frequently at Chotard and have never had an encouter with any LA LEO and only one from MS. I have spoken with a couple of people affiliated with Tara at the ramp, but that was a couple of years ago before things got so bad. People on both sides seem to have gotten their backs up and are taking a "Well, I'll just show that jackass" approach. The situation is getting more out of hand, and it seems that there is eventually going to be a major resolution that in all likelihood will be unfavorable to the public hunter, especially if people continue to push things as far as they can to try and make a point.

420racin wrote:BR549,
Which Federal Law would you be refering to? This is a stae law issue anyway, it aint got nothing to do with federal law. MS and LA have different laws regarding this type of issue, I personally like MS stand point, but, hey what can you do? But I wish all the states woudl go by federal law, cause the federal gov. claims jurisdiction on everything below the OHWM (ordinay high water mark) which would give us more public water to hunt. It aint got nothing to do with the law and everything to do with $$$$$$. Everything is for sale, including politicians and sherriffs. no one will convince me that there is not any under the table dealings going on.

The federal navigation act of 1979! It states: Anyone crossing a known posted boundry line subject to temporary flooding you are willfully. willingly and maliscously commiting the act of trespass! But the lastest opinion on this matter is Pharm v Shumatte. Untill this is overturned, (which is doubtful because the supreme brethrens in Washington said it wasn't overturnable) I guess that is going to be the law of the land sooner or later.

[

420racin wrote:
The federal navigation act of 1979! It states: Anyone crossing a known posted boundry line subject to temporary flooding you are willfully. willingly and maliscously commiting the act of trespass! But the lastest opinion on this matter is Pharm v Shumatte. Untill this is overturned, (which is doubtful because the supreme brethrens in Washington said it wasn't overturnable) I guess that is going to be the law of the land sooner or later.

[/quote]

I can't find that statue. Can you provide a link?

I can't find that statue... can you provided a link?

I can't find that statue. Can you provide a link?

Sorry for the double post.

biggs wrote:

JLT wrote:Most people know when they are crossing the line though, and it has been too much line crossing on both sides.....with the public and with Tara.

Well said. I hunt fairly frequently at Chotard and have never had an encouter with any LA LEO and only one from MS. I have spoken with a couple of people affiliated with Tara at the ramp, but that was a couple of years ago before things got so bad. People on both sides seem to have gotten their backs up and are taking a "Well, I'll just show that jackass" approach. The situation is getting more out of hand, and it seems that there is eventually going to be a major resolution that in all likelihood will be unfavorable to the public hunter, especially if people continue to push things as far as they can to try and make a point.

Well basically the public hunter has nothing further to lose. People are getting harrassed in the chute and other open water areas.

Yeah i understand that BR549, but the term "flooded", is in there, and right now the river is not "flooded" so there is now way Anyone could cross a boundry line in flooded waters.. This would be relavant if you were going way into the trees during a flood event. so anything that says Flood or flood waters etc.. is irrelevant due to the fact that the river is not yet at FLOOD stage. so right now we are a little bit above ordinary high water, but below flood stage. I agree there needs to be something doneto clarify this, btu it aint gonna be done. But the people I dealt with at Tara were assholes and they know it.

Let's Face it..Tara wants to give tickets to People in the middle of the lake (If they can get away with it). They want their own private lake just like the Guy that Bought Dent's on Albermarle does. That's the bottom line. If you think that's not what they are trying to do...Your kidding yourself

It's all about Money. The public lost their rights, to most public hunting places, years ago.

420racin wrote:Yeah i understand that BR549, but the term "flooded", is in there, and right now the river is not "flooded" so there is now way Anyone could cross a boundry line in flooded waters.. This would be relavant if you were going way into the trees during a flood event. so anything that says Flood or flood waters etc.. is irrelevant due to the fact that the river is not yet at FLOOD stage. so right now we are a little bit above ordinary high water, but below flood stage. I agree there needs to be something doneto clarify this, btu it aint gonna be done. But the people I dealt with at Tara were assholes and they know it.

That depends on what you call temporay flood waters! I say from what the DEQ says above the natural banks. In Chotard that's around 17 feet. So in my opinion anything beyond that is their's! I won't go in there, and if it were your's you wouldn't want anyone in there either!

I call flood waters, waters that inundate and area as a result of a flood event, it is impossible to have flood waters if you are not experiencing a flood event. You may be refering to high water, but that aint flood water. If it were mine, I would not want folks coming way into my property, you are right, but I would not get pissy about folks coming into the parts that are under water 8-10 months out of the year or more some years. There is no sense in arguing about this because it is what it is right now, but we all agree that there needs to be a definition, a clear defined set of regulations, but the powers that be don't want to get involved in this debate because it is such a vague area of the law.