skywalker wrote:Now we know why hunters are looked down upon by many. Why 'block' access? Same people that take actions like this are usually the first to cry 'foul' when it comes back around to them.
Yep, and I get to deal with it on a daily basis.
skywalker wrote:Now we know why hunters are looked down upon by many. Why 'block' access? Same people that take actions like this are usually the first to cry 'foul' when it comes back around to them.
This particular oxbow is on the opposite side of the river and a good bit farther south than the one (I think) you have in mind.Deltaquack wrote:Seems obvious, but are we talking about land inside the levee? If so, yes, there would have to be permits pulled and the whole process followed or penalties can get expensive on a daily basis. Would the oxbow in question start with the first letter of the alphabet?
stang67 wrote:Didn't a a District Court rule on a case near Lake Providence that the public did not have a right to hunt and fish these waters? Has this lake suddenly become more interesting to boaters and sailers since I left town?
http://masglp.olemiss.edu/Water%20Log/WL26/26.3hunt.htm
stang67 wrote:
http://masglp.olemiss.edu/Water%20Log/WL26/26.3hunt.htm
Cords in a previous post show the crossing in MS by a couple hundred yards on Google and Bing maps .peewee wrote:The hypothetical crossing is not in MS and does not have to reach flood levels to be accessed.
teul2 wrote:Cords in a previous post show the crossing in MS by a couple hundred yards on Google and Bing maps .peewee wrote:The hypothetical crossing is not in MS and does not have to reach flood levels to be accessed.
So those cords are not the crossing in question?peewee wrote:Correct, those pics show the crossing when the MS river is below 15'. The crossing is a low water crossing that was permited by the USACE to a timber company. The timber company took the appropriate steps (acquired a permit) to use and access the crossing.
Also, those cords appeared to show a road that blocked a chute (in low water) that was accessible from lower down on the river. It would be a longer run, but still accessible.teul2 wrote:So those cords are not the crossing in question?peewee wrote:Correct, those pics show the crossing when the MS river is below 15'. The crossing is a low water crossing that was permited by the USACE to a timber company. The timber company took the appropriate steps (acquired a permit) to use and access the crossing.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests