DuckSouth.com

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.

Bottom line is that you cannot fill in a flood plain without a permit.

So if any works takes place he is in violation of the law. Also part of the permit process is a public comment stage. So this is when to address your concerns to the higher powers to be who regulates the flood plains.

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?

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?

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.

Flock it get 50 lbs of tannerite

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: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

The hypothetical crossing is not in LA and does not have to reach flood levels to be accessed.

stang67 wrote:
http://masglp.olemiss.edu/Water%20Log/WL26/26.3hunt.htm

Has it really been that long ago? Wow!

peewee wrote:The hypothetical crossing is not in MS and does not have to reach flood levels to be accessed.

Cords in a previous post show the crossing in MS by a couple hundred yards on Google and Bing maps .

teul2 wrote:

peewee wrote:The hypothetical crossing is not in MS and does not have to reach flood levels to be accessed.

Cords in a previous post show the crossing in MS by a couple hundred yards on Google and Bing maps .

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.

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.

So those cords are not the crossing in question?

teul2 wrote:

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.

So those cords are not the crossing in question?

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.

lemme get this straight... a landowner wants to build a land/bridge, near the mouth of an oxbow, accross public property, to connect his property(s) and/or to deny access?

well the river and/or dymamite will get that road sooner or later. public can build it an public can blow her up?

http://forums.bullnettlenews.com/24-mis ... and-4.html

http://forums.bullnettlenews.com/24-mis ... tacts.html

Pretty sure there's gonna be an excavator in there before too long. Just a hunch.