DuckSouth.com

I have never hunted where ya'll are talking about and had to look the location up on MSN maps. I do, however, have a thought. If you are right and know for a fact you are in the right, I would think you could make someones day go to crap real fast. In this day of technology with cells phones having video capability and also the ability to record sound, start filiming. I you know there's a problem or potential for a problem, take the camcorder. In a zip loc bag of course. I would imagine when things start being recorded, they will move on.

Now if you are wrong, recording it is just going to make your day go to crap.

Just a thought.

Bonehead wrote:

DUCKAHOLIC wrote:The wardens in La got their heads stuck up Tara/Willow points booty. We ran in to this 10 yers ago. Had a Warden with a willow point guide in the boat come in on us and said we had to leave. We qustioned why and he would not ansewer. We stood our ground had everything checked by him except our colon......he was pissed. The day before the guide had coming running thru our decoys to tell us we were messing up the hunt for the deer hunters he had set up in the woods behind us (WillowPoint).

Strange how the same guide comes with a LA warden and they tell us we cant hunt but cant tell us why.........same thing happening now....


I will use a well known motto to sum this up........."@#$%#" TARA AND WILLOW POINT

The account of that story that I have heard from multiple sources is that SOMEONE(or someone's younger brother) told them that they might as well get a damn shotgun and start shooting ducks cuz yall wasn't going anywhere.

Are people lying on yall?

that's the story i heared too..

Does this ruling apply to these waters too:

http://howappealing.law.com/ParmVsShumate.pdf

it don't always matter what the law says.. don't matter that you are right and they are wrong.. only matters what the judge says.. if the judge is influenced by the other guy, guess what!!! you can argue all you want but when the judge says guilty, your guilty!!! not one to back down from a good fight but erm.. gotta ask yourself is it worth it?

Wildfowler wrote:Does this ruling apply to these waters too:

http://howappealing.law.com/ParmVsShumate.pdf

It likely does, but note that it does not agree that there is a federal common law right to fish/hunt on private property flooded by the Miss. river, in fact it specifically rejects the lower courts finding that such a right exists....

GordonGekko wrote:in fact it specifically rejects the lower courts finding that such a right exists....

That's what I was getting at. If this is now the law of the land, I suspect they'll be a lot of camo duck boats on the market in the near term.

GordonGekko wrote:

Wildfowler wrote:Does this ruling apply to these waters too:

http://howappealing.law.com/ParmVsShumate.pdf

It likely does, but note that it does not agree that there is a federal common law right to fish/hunt on private property flooded by the Miss. river, in fact it specifically rejects the lower courts finding that such a right exists....

Something about State Rights?

Double R 2 wrote:

GordonGekko wrote:

Wildfowler wrote:Does this ruling apply to these waters too:

http://howappealing.law.com/ParmVsShumate.pdf

It likely does, but note that it does not agree that there is a federal common law right to fish/hunt on private property flooded by the Miss. river, in fact it specifically rejects the lower courts finding that such a right exists....

Something about State Rights?

now there is a myth for ya....

With rising water their deer hunting real estate is getting slimmer. Their stats must be down.....Those stands on the waters edge over the cukkle birr patches are going under!! good.....i need a nice stable spot to tie my bow.

I read in the paper sometime in the last few days something about a supreme court ruling in la where the public didnt have the right to hunt or fish off the main channel. It stems from a lawsuit cottonwood bought the judge off i believe. Anybody else see that in the paper?

B.M.F wrote:I read in the paper sometime in the last few days something about a supreme court ruling in la where the public didnt have the right to hunt or fish off the main channel. It stems from a lawsuit cottonwood bought the judge off i believe. Anybody else see that in the paper?

Court sides with property owner in appeal by arrested fishermen
Flooded property not for fishing
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
MOST-READ STORIES
Saints need big fix for '08
Smoking ban up for vote
Shed spreading to Lyman
Freeze could bring record low tonight
Fire burns two apartment units
Three Coast lawyers honored
Obituaries
FEMA not happy with Biloxi City Council
GULF COAST CLOSES ITS DOORS
Laurent arrested on embezzlement charge in Pearl River County

NEW ORLEANS --Recreational fishermen don't have the right to cast their lines on a river-flooded parcel of private property in northeastern Louisiana, a federal appeals court has ruled in a case that some warn could lead to fishing restrictions elsewhere.

A group of fishermen, boaters and hunters had sued to stop East Carroll Parish Sheriff Mark Shumate from arresting them on trespassing charges when they ventured onto property owned by Walker Cottonwood Farms.

The fishermen claimed the public has a right to fish on ordinarily dry private property when it is submerged by the Mississippi River, but the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument Friday.

A three-judge panel ruled the state constitution gives private property owners the right to bar fishermen from using their land. Under state law, riverbanks are considered "private things that are subject to public use," but only for navigational purposes and not for fishing, the judges ruled.

The 5th Circuit also ruled that Louisiana law governs the right to fish on public trust lands, "and there is no reason for us to displace that law by adopting a federal rule of decision in this context."

Paul Hurd, a lawyer for the fishermen who sued Shumate, said the court's ruling represents "the largest shift in water rights that I've ever seen."

"What this court has held, for the first time ever, is that there are no federal rights for public recreational fishing," Hurd said, adding that the court's ruling means "you can tow a barge but you can't fish the same water."

Robert Cartlidge, president of the national Bass Federation fishing group, said the ruling could be used to restrict recreational fishing in other parts of the country.

"The idea of someone holding public water for private use is just not American," Cartlidge said. "That should never be allowed to happen."

Hurd said he is weighing his legal options, which include asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit's ruling.

Shumate's office has been arresting boaters fishing on Gassoway Lake since the property owner started filing complaints in 1996.

The fishermen claim they have a state and federal right to fish on the lake, located on the western side of the property, when it is submerged by the swollen Mississippi River during the spring.

East Carroll Parish District Attorney James "Buddy" Caldwell, who was elected Louisiana's attorney general this fall, has refused to prosecute any of the fisherman for trespassing until the legal dispute is resolved.

Harold Watts, one of the fishermen who sued Shumate over their arrests, said the 5th Circuit's ruling could be "just the tip of the iceberg."

"If they can stop people from fishing the Mississippi River, they can stop people anywhere they want to," said Watts, 68, of Collinston.

http://www.sunherald.com/218/story/272195.html

I never have understood the concept of thinking I can hunt on anybody's land just because it was covered by floodwater! If that were the case, I sure missed some good chances to hunt private land in the 70's! In '74 I could have hunted anywhere from Memphis to Vicksburg and from Greenville to Yazoo City. Navigable flood water covered just about all of it. It never dawned on me that I could have had free reign to hunt where I pleased during a flood.

Court rulings aside, I just don't understand the rationalizing process that would lead one to believe he could hunt off of a river onto someone's private land just because he could ride a boat to it.

Under those circumstances, you could hunt Panther Swamp's refuge during flood times. The channel has flooded that deep many times before.

crow

The problem is not with the people who are actually duck hunting....its with the ones who use the flood water for poaching and stealing stands. I was over there for a few years and did have several stands to vanish and found several deer with heads cut off at the water line during the times of flood. Some of the guys around there do have chips on their shoulders cause of a few bad apples but most could care less. After learning the hard way that first go round, just always made sure i was on top of my river levels so i could get um pulled before they went under. They didnt pay me near enough to get my ass shot off

The laws surrounding the proper public use of the MS River and its flowing waters has always been a murky issue. Why? The MS River and its waters are ever changing ---- the river channel has changed course many times throughout history, and it will again, and again. Adjoining land owners can lose land, and gain land, based upon the River's flow. Ole man River giveth, and Ole man River taketh away.

What makes this 5th Circuit Court opinion unique is that, for the first time, a federal court has ruled that state law trumps federal law with respect to the right of usage of the MS River that has heretofore been primarily under the jurisdiction and control of the federal government, as it involves and affects interstate commerce. And more specifically, the ruling suggests that public use of the river, with respect to recreation, is governed by state law. As to navigation, federal law still controls.

The federal laws regarding the MS River and its use have long been regarded to include the right of the public to use the waters of the River wherever it may flow, even over adjoining private land (as much of the land within the natural banks of the River is subject to private ownership). And that public use had always been interpreted to include recreational use as well as navigation. In other words, one could hunt, fish, etc. wherever the River's waters may take him (with few exceptions).

Leaving the recreational use to state law puts greater emphasis on such vague state law terms as "natural banks" of the River. What exactly does this mean? To me, a prohibition of hunting and fishing in "floodwaters" exceeding the "natural banks" of a River means that flood conditions must exist on the River for this restriction to even come into play. For instance, if a River is not at "flood stage", then all waters in the river or public waterway are not floodwaters and can be hunted and fished by the public. Only at flood stage does the importance of knowing where the "natural banks" are located come into play. And when it does, where is this line? What if the COE recently channelized the River by dredging, eliminating much of the adjoining river bottoms that were part of the previous bank of the River? Natural means created by nature. The new banks created by the COE would not be natural, but manmade. Thus, I would say the original natural bank is the line to which the public cannot cross. And while this all makes sense to me, others would strongly disagree with my rational interpretation of these terms ---primarily adjoining landowners seeking to restrict public use of the waters of the river or waterway as much as possible. And every time they do, and succeed, such is that much less public water available for the public for recreational use.

And when applying such state law to the MS River, it is even more challenging. The "natural banks" of the MS River are much, much wider than its main channel. Thus, the only real way to enforce such would be when the River was at "flood stage", as only then would any of the water be considered "floodwater". And beyond that, a lot of homework and history would be needed to establish exactly where the "natural banks" of the MS River are located at any given point on the River.

Good luck with all of that.

Po Monkey Lounger,

If you in fact wrote this, you should publish it, especially the 4th paragraph. This is by far the best explanation/argument I have ever read regarding this issue.