DuckSouth.com

What would be a good elevation for the water to be held at with the weir? Never hunted the area nor been on it, but know where you are talking about.....So what elevation would you put the weir at??

LODI QUACKER wrote:

Wingman wrote:

LODI QUACKER wrote:I guess that Wingman wasn't here to weigh in on this subject. I guess its just a circle the wagons response.

You are such a jerk.

That said, I couldn't open your link and read what you were talking about, but I gathered it was about the Scatters. I performed a search to try to find it and I found that pdf about a meeting on the same area in 2010. A PDF which I thought was interesting. Which is why I typed "interesting" in my post.

Joel is correct. I am not going to give you my opinion on the subject. I've been called in to the office multiple times for responding on this board, and most of it was for the most ridiculous crap you ever heard of. My chief is on this board. Ask him.

Well, I apologize. I "assumed". Cant say as I blame you for not commenting.



Meat, the water got high this year you could and can hunt those places when the water is high it just doesn't stay high but a few days without additional rainfall. The whole point in my opinion is how does the state go to working out this deal on a piece of property that is already owned by the citizens of MS that we can use but when they are finished with the "deal" we cant use. The sound of that is just wrong.

At what level will the weir hold water? Its not going to hold at lake full levels I don't think.

I do not get to hunt every day, so its tough to find a time to get back into those places in the few short days the water is up.

All negotiations have to be beneficial to both parties and reach a compromise. In this case there were private and state parties involved. Yes, we as citizens own the waterway, but we as citizens also own the WMA's we do get to hunt, but don't we get to make the rules we have to follow while being on those WMA's? We also own the refuge of Mathews Brake. Why can't we hunt that? I understand where you are coming from completely, but the landowners reached a deal with the state where they would not have hunters around them (perks of owning something someone else wants) and in return the state would re-create what was lost in surrounding areas which quadruples what was available in Six Mile. I understand this sucks for lifelong Six Mile hunters, but sometimes negotiations can swing in the party's favor that has what the other one wants. The water way on Six Mile that was marked as completely public was marked as the areas between the trees in the open water of the lake, therefore if you were hunting in the area inside the trees, you could not touch the ground (decoy lines included) or the trees themselves. Technically, that's trespassing. I don't like that rule just as much as the next man, but that's how the law was written.

I can't remember how the water level was described to me, but I think it was something like 124 feet which would be about a foot from the top of the levee in the back of Six Mile.

I'm not here to call people out or convince people to not fight this, each man is entitled to his own opinion. I just want people to understand what we can get if the weir gets built and it seems like giving up a small portion of Six Mile would cement that project. What we get in return will greatly outweigh giving up a small portion of water. I know nobody wants to lose something they're accustomed to, it does indeed suck. In this case, I am a firm believer that in the end everyone will win.

Proposed elevation of 124' is marked at Scatters and 6 mile landings - Go take a look. The proposed weir will not maintain this level year round, it will merely prevent the never ending rise/fall of these areas that has occurred since the dredging of the Tallahatchie. The water levels can, and do, fluctuate feet within hours.

meatcutter wrote: The water way on Six Mile that was marked as completely public was marked as the areas between the trees in the open water of the lake, therefore if you were hunting in the area inside the trees, you could not touch the ground (decoy lines included) or the trees themselves. Technically, that's trespassing. I don't like that rule just as much as the next man, but that's how the law was written.

That is not how the law is written. If it is private, the water is private also. If it is public water on top of private land, there are multiple opinions and cases saying you can wade, tie off, drop anchor, etc.

dawg-n-duck wrote:Proposed elevation of 124' is marked at Scatters and 6 mile landings - Go take a look. The proposed weir will not maintain this level year round, it will merely prevent the never ending rise/fall of these areas that has occurred since the dredging of the Tallahatchie. The water levels can, and do, fluctuate feet within hours.

The entire system of Six Mile and the Scatters is a flowing system. The weir will function as a dam and spillway with an overflow set to 124 feet. Most of the year, except in cases of severe drought, the water will be kept around that level (more than likely a couple of feet south of 124 in the summer months). Essentially, all the weir is doing is replacing the sediment deposits that were dredged years back, which allowed water to back up into the Six Mile/Scatters system. I remember fishing during the dry months in the summer time at the Scatters before the river was dredged and the water was plenty deep. I can't remember the elevation back before the dredging, but I think 124 feet is plenty deep to run an outboard with ease and we will more than likely be hunting out of boats like the good old days.

Wingman wrote:

meatcutter wrote: The water way on Six Mile that was marked as completely public was marked as the areas between the trees in the open water of the lake, therefore if you were hunting in the area inside the trees, you could not touch the ground (decoy lines included) or the trees themselves. Technically, that's trespassing. I don't like that rule just as much as the next man, but that's how the law was written.

That is not how the law is written. If it is private, the water is private also. If it is public water on top of private land, there are multiple opinions and cases saying you can wade, tie off, drop anchor, etc.

The law regarding public waterways varies based on location, surroundings, etc. In this particular case on Six Mile, any form of contact with the ground or contact with native objects touching the ground was considered trespassing. I'm sure people will argue both sides to the death because its such a grey area, but I'm just repeating how this particular case was described in court.

The law varies based on location and surroundings?

Wingman wrote:The law varies based on location and surroundings?

See wingman knows the laws like they are supposed to be used. Most folks done including othe GW. Because big land owner hunting club owner Mr douchebag told me so just doesn't cut it and shouldn't. But the sad thing is ms is the worst about that crap.

The gloves are off. It's on.

Wingman wrote:

meatcutter wrote: The water way on Six Mile that was marked as completely public was marked as the areas between the trees in the open water of the lake, therefore if you were hunting in the area inside the trees, you could not touch the ground (decoy lines included) or the trees themselves. Technically, that's trespassing. I don't like that rule just as much as the next man, but that's how the law was written.

That is not how the law is written. If it is private, the water is private also. If it is public water on top of private land, there are multiple opinions and cases saying you can wade, tie off, drop anchor, etc.

This is why I love Idaho. I can go on any waterway as long as that I'm under the high water line.

LODI QUACKER wrote:which one pee wee?

Held at Hinds CC several years ago concerning changes to our WMA's.

LODI QUACKER wrote:which one pee wee?

Held at Hinds CC several years ago concerning changes to our WMA's.

When we all gathered in Jackson we stopped the draw on the Malmasion. 2010 I think. Is that what you are referring to?

That time worked......

Wingman wrote:The law varies based on location and surroundings?

My apologies for not wording that better. What I meant by that was certain places have certain rules and regulations and each area may or may not have the same rules as the other. Some places you can get out of the boat, touch the ground, etc., others you can't even access the water even though they are part of the public waterway. It's a big grey area for sure because most of us don't know exactly what rules are applied where (especially at 6 mile). I really wish those in charge would clear things like this up for us.

meatcutter wrote:I would gladly give up a few hundred acres of Six Mile for the construction of the weir, which would quadruple the amount of huntable acreage that was lost in Six Mile deal. Anyone who is familiar with this area as a whole should see the big picture here. The benefits of the weir highly outweigh what was lost in Six Mile. The state acquiring this portion of Six Mile is allows for justification for the building of the weir.

Spot on.