Naples Dentist fails to read beyond the headlines and rushes to take a political potshot.

All the ruling does is clarify that the riparian land owners also own and control the shallow waters outside the main navigable channels. While this affects rivers, creeks, etc to some extent it will effect lakes almost not at all and coastal areas won't even notice any difference.

But you couldn't pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Clinton. Too bad.

http://www.gamblerboats.com/Intimidator2000.html

I've gone fishing with him - that beast hauls some major butt.

I ran across this by accident, this is funny and I don't care who you are.... http://www.pleasurecaptains.com/

Anyway... NOYB piqued my interest on just what this administration has done in the way of matters that might interest boaters. I know, locally, we have seen harmful cuts in the Corps of Engineers that have adversely affected commerce and recreational boating. Here are some statistics that you might want to peruse: http://tinyurl.com/nhtv3

Here are some broader considerations: http://tinyurl.com/sxkh6

And one might also notice that boat registrations between 1996 and 2001 increased. From 2002 until present it appears that boating registrations have actually declined. http://tinyurl.com/rg9qp

Anybody have statistics going back further to other administrations?

So why should we believe your assessment?

>But you couldn't pass up an opportunity to take a shot at Clinton. Too bad.

Too bad your head is in your ass and you can't see the cause-and-effect of poor judicial appointments and how they shape the country we live in. It was the liberals on the SCOTUS that gave us that absurd eminent domain ruling, and now it's a liberal judge telling us we can't operate on what has always been considered public waterways. There's a trend. Open your eyes, quit playing netcop, and you just might see it.

But do stop playing fast and loose with the truth just to try and make your sick and twisted political hate points. Thanks.

Do I see a trend? You betcha. Brightly and clearly. Only it's not the trend you have in mind and it's not a proper subject for discussion on rec.boats. Send me your email address and we can discuss politics without disrupting the group. :-)

For example: How can the same person decry the ruling that stated private property rights can be extinguished by any community who wants to exercise "emminent domain" to turn the land over to a private developer and *also* bemoan a ruling that strengthens the right of private property owners to be able to enjoy their property without a parade of folks streaming through their back yard to go fishing? One should either be an ardent supporter of private property rights, or not, rather than blow around in the breeze on the issue coming down on one side or the other depending upon apparent political opportunity.

Regardless, the ruling certainly doesn't "outlaw recreational boating throughout the US", (or whatever the inflammatory headline was). Looks to me like it says that the ownership of property and payment of property taxes should entitle the property owner to the quiet enjoyment of same. The public waterways remain public. Public access to public waterways should be through public property, not through some poor schumck's family barbecue on the 4th of July.

It may even develp that the ruling means the adjoining property owners own the land on the bottom when there is high water, but that doesn't restrict navigation above MLW. That's *exactly* the way it has been in Washington for years. Our shorelines beyond MHW are owned by the State DNR, and if an adjoining property owner wants to build a dock,drive a piling, etc, they have to lease the *bottom* from the DNR. It probably gets sticky whether you are going to be allowed to extract resources from the private property- fishing may be a grey area and I'll bet you couldn't even begin to dig for clams- but you should be able to cross over the privately owned bottom land when there is sufficient water depth to do so.

I'm somewhat familiar with these issues. Several years ago I was Chairman of the Board of one of our local yacht clubs, and we got involved in a waterfront property boundary dispute with a neighbor. Among other things, he wanted to insist that club boats, when underway, had to remain on one half of a common channel that separated our outstation dock from his marina. He had no case. Yes, he owned the upland property and was leasing the property beyond MHW from the DNR, but he could not prevent boaters from passing *over* his property when there was sufficient water to do so. (He did have the right to prevent people from anchoring, tieing up to one of his docks, etc.)

Much ado about very little, I think, and certainly not a valid reason to blame the politicians from one party or the other.

BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Eisboch

>BTW--47% of active Federal judges were appointed by Clinton.

Interesting. Any citation?

http://tinyurl.com/382dq

Following data as of October, 2004:

Of the 849 total active federal judges, 201 have been appointed by the current president, and 262 were appointed by former Republican presidents going back to Nixon. In total, 55 percent are Republican appointees. The remaining 45 percent were appointed by Democratic presidents stretching back to Lyndon Johnson.

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/10/14/little-judges/

If a guy is going to barge in and stink up the NG with politics, it might be a good idea to actually check facts rather than just blindly regurgitate Rush Limbaugh's daily distortion.

It would be interesting to know how many of the judges are boaters. That would be more important than whether they were appointed by a democrat or a republican president. A judge that is a boater is more likely to actually understand and appreciate some of the issues that may come before his/her court relating to boating, the marine environment, etc.

More boaters on the bench! :-)