Alligator defense question

[Interblog]

It may be the law, but it gets a big fat FAIL for common sense and intuitive deduction. The federal government backed off firearm restrictions in National Parks which are arguably more sensitive environments, but left the same provision intact for the surfaces of water bodies? How does that reflect any logic whatsoever?

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/manageme ... 2-2010.pdf

[Maxwell]

It may be the law, but it gets a big fat FAIL for common sense and intuitive deduction. The federal government backed off firearm restrictions in National Parks which are arguably more sensitive environments, but left the same provision intact for the surfaces of water bodies? How does that reflect any logic whatsoever?

https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/manageme ... 2-2010.pdf

It's the government; common sense and intuitive deduction are not applicable.

[couzin]

Can anyone expound on this please? The property adjoining the lake is private property. At some point there is an invisible line on the shore where we step onto USACOE property (dry land) as we approach the water's edge. Is the entire water surface (submerged land) considered "federal" for firearms purposes?

The fee boundary is very close to the normal pool level (164.40'asl) at Sam Rayburn in a number of areas, so a lot of private property abuts the fee boundary - and, in some cases or erosion, the fee boundary is 'out there in the water'. USACE fee lands are clearly marked with monuments or blazed trees. Additionally, there are flood pool (173'asl) easements that limit what can be done on the land even though it is private land - however, that is a real estate easement and the applicability of 36CFR327 does not occur (unless one is shooting into the fee owned portion. To further muddy the waters, so to speak, in that the US Forest Service has land abutting the pool as well as under water.

In a short answer, some land adjacent to the water is USACE fee owned, and the water/land for a distance below the structure (dam), the reservoir, and up the Angelina River is USACE controlled and subject to the regulations in 36CFR327.

I say controlled because the water in the reservoir is (usually) managed like a layer cake, some storage is for flood control, some is for recreation, some (in this case) is for power generation, and some is for water supply. Other State and Federal agencies have control of how much is used, how much is released.I

As to other issues raised in this thread. A bunch of bubbas in a boat duck hunting is legal, because they are hunting (assume legally), which is permitted.

As to the US Army not honoring the Constitution. Not true at all. Regulations in 36CFR327 were written when it was illegal to carry weapons on most Federally controlled lands. Things have changed at other Federal agencies, it is just taking longer for USACE to come up with changes. I suspect, but do not have comfirmation, that the reasoning is that USACE Park Rangers are not armed and do not have the authority to seize, pursue, or detain. They can only write citations, call for authorized law enforcement, or hose you down with pepper spray. Other Federal land owning agencies have their own armed law enforcement. So... for ranger safety, probably no foreseeable changes in the ability to carry firearms on USACE lands or waters.

[Zoo]

As to the US Army not honoring the Constitution. Not true at all. Regulations in 36CFR327 were written when it was illegal to carry weapons on most Federally controlled lands.

And if some Federal regulation was written that made Islam illegal?

[Interblog]

Thanks for that great info above. I would have thought that TPWD game wardens fulfill the function of enforcement on Rayburn as they do on other Texas waterways... but you know what they say about the word "assume".

The area in question where the private property abuts the lake... there are no demarcation signs posted. There are horrible numbers of widow-makers in that area, to the point where I've asked the community "Why don't you cut down those dead pine trees? These things can fall and really kill someone and you have people walking dogs etc. right there in that area all the time, with massive dead trees teetering right over top of them."

The response was that the USACOE controls some of that in some way, and dead trees simply cannot be felled even if they present a danger to human life. Well, I don't know if I believe that to be the full story, but I haven't had time to research the issue.

Speaking of dogs, they are what I believe to be the reason why we might really have a nuisance gator in the area (not just a rumor). Out in the country, in rural areas, a lot of people, especially older citizens, let their dogs run free. Well, in a concentrated community and with senior citizens preferring smaller lap dogs, this is a problem. The little dogs run around the shore off-leash and they are constantly going, "YAP, YAP, YAP!" as if they are announcing "LUNCH HERE!" to alligators. That's the natural prey. So yeah, I can believe that someone really did spot a monster gator in the area. Sufficient food enticement is certainly present.

[ELB]

As a result of Nesbitt v USACOE, the USACOE is supposedly reconsidering the regulations pertaining to firearms, in particular licensed carry.

Recall that in Nesbitt, The Ninth Circuit issued an injunction against enforcement of the Regulations for bidding carry firearms on corps of engineer lands.

Back in March On the eve of a hearing before the ninth circuit, the Army Corps of Engineers asked the court to delay while they reviewed their regulations.

During the delay the corps of engineers came to an agreement with the plaintiffs whereby Nesbitt and the other guy whose name escapes me would have permission to carry on COE lands. The COE also agreed to reconsider the regulations on firearms. Both sides agreed to drop the lawsuit and the ninth dismissed it, and as far as I know the injunction too, with leave to take it up again later if necessary. What the injunction was only enforceable within the area of the ninth circuit anyway.

I’m beginning to think we got scammed on this. I can find no record of the Corps of Engineers proposing any new regulations pertaining to firearms. My cynical side is telling me there are dragging their feet hoping for a change and political climate, because certainly the new House is not going to punish them for not living up to their agreement.

[couzin]

Thanks for that great info above. I would have thought that TPWD game wardens fulfill the function of enforcement on Rayburn as they do on other Texas waterways... but you know what they say about the word "assume".

TPWD has authority to enforce Texas laws on USACE and other Federal lands by agreement. They can also assist with enforcement of Federal laws by question, search, detain, arrest, and pursue. It is then up to the Federal agency to file charges and the Federal Judicial Court District Attorney will then consider the case or file it with the area Federal courts. USACE Park Rangers have the citation authority found in 36CFR327 and also have authority to initiate charges that are in violation of a whole host of other Federal laws.

If there is no discernable boundary between your property and that of USACE fee lands, and you have widow makers or dead timber that you are unsure of who owns what, go to the park office and ask to talk to someone. They are not unreasonable folks.

[Interblog]

... If there is no discernable boundary between your property and that of USACE fee lands, and you have widow makers or dead timber that you are unsure of who owns what, go to the park office and ask to talk to someone. They are not unreasonable folks.

Except I'd have to go to that office on a trip when I'm NOT traveling with firearms in my vehicle. Or I'd have to park in a location that is outside of "their" property (not simple in the case of Rayburn because the office appears to be at the dam).

Picky stuff, I know, but I'm re-emphasizing the point that they don't make being lawful easy.

[couzin]

You are just making this hard on yourself. Leave your firearm in the car and go into the office. Don't overthink this.

[KLB]

I realize that the odds of encountering a nuisance gator are very low, but (a) I like to kayak and (b) I like to have a contingency plan in my head, just in case. How would you handle it if you were in a one-person non-motorized craft and you were suddenly faced with a twelve-footer? This was the question I was asking myself yesterday as I was paddling carefully along the shore.

Obviously I can issue no guarantees, but I have canoed and kayaked in many places where alligators abound. I've never had one take any interest in me. Gatory places I have been include coastal bayous such as the Guadalupe Delta, Caddo Lake, the Angelina-Neches Forks at the back end of B. A. Steinhagen, and Choke Canyon Reservoir. I was in the back end of Choke Canyon paddling up the old river channel and encountered a gator on the bank that seemed to me, in the instant we confronted each other, to be as long as my 14-foot kayak. He immediately dashed into the water to hide.

I would not, however, want to go swimming in any such places.

[03Lightningrocks]

I realize that the odds of encountering a nuisance gator are very low, but (a) I like to kayak and (b) I like to have a contingency plan in my head, just in case. How would you handle it if you were in a one-person non-motorized craft and you were suddenly faced with a twelve-footer? This was the question I was asking myself yesterday as I was paddling carefully along the shore.

Obviously I can issue no guarantees, but I have canoed and kayaked in many places where alligators abound. I've never had one take any interest in me. Gatory places I have been include coastal bayous such as the Guadalupe Delta, Caddo Lake, the Angelina-Neches Forks at the back end of B. A. Steinhagen, and Choke Canyon Reservoir. I was in the back end of Choke Canyon paddling up the old river channel and encountered a gator on the bank that seemed to me, in the instant we confronted each other, to be as long as my 14-foot kayak. He immediately dashed into the water to hide.

I would not, however, want to go swimming in any such places.

This is why claiming to shoot a gator in self defense is pretty laughable.

[KLB]

This is why claiming to shoot a gator in self defense is pretty laughable.

Pretty much my thought. The first time I did this, I carried my .45, hoping I could get a head shot if necessary. But over time I quit bothering to carry.

[6L105]

Better to be judged by twelve than eaten by one.

[tbrown]

This is why claiming to shoot a gator in self defense is pretty laughable.

Pretty much my thought. The first time I did this, I carried my .45, hoping I could get a head shot if necessary. But over time I quit bothering to carry.

There are still plenty of reasons to carry, although most of them walk on two legs.

[KLB]

There are still plenty of reasons to carry, although most of them walk on two legs.

After I wrote the post, I realized that, on this site, I would get a comment such as yours.