Is the Party Back On the Bogue Chitto?

Finally, a Mississippi Supreme Court decision of imminent importance to the masses. On Thursday the Supreme Court decided Ryals v. Board of Supervisors, a “landmark” decision involving whether the Pike County Board of Supervisors can outlaw drinking on the “pristine” Bogue Chitto River and Topisaw Creek. 

The Board of Supervisors banned possessing and consuming alcohol on the river due to landowner complaints of littering, profanity, lewd behavior and…. two dozen reports of individual acts of perversion…. so profound and disgusting… that decorum prohibits listing them here.

Unfortunately for local business owners, no one wants to tube if they can't get their drink on. Business was down 90% following the ban, leading to the lawsuit. Pike County Circuit Court Judge David Strong sided with the Board of Supervisors and upheld the ban. The business owners appealed.

First, the good news for inner tubing drunks. The Supreme Court struck down the ban on possession of beer on the River. You  can take all the beer you want with you on your float.

Now the bad news. You can't drink it. The Court upheld the prohibition of consumption of alcohol on the River.

Will Bardwell—a lifetime Bogue Chitto River Rat—apparently theorizes that drinking on the sandbars will be permitted. I'm going to have to disagree. My interpretation of the decision is that it effectively means that the River will stay dry.

I'm not certain because I am not an Ole Miss fan, but this policy sounds like the exact opposite of the alcohol rules in the Grove before Ole Miss football games.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.mslitigationreview.com/admin/trackback/218825
Comments (5) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Bardwell - August 25, 2010 1:32 PM

Obviously, it depends on one's interpretation of the term "river," which I take to mean a body of water and nothing more.

Two words: test case. Grab your cooler. Let's go.

Philip Thomas - August 25, 2010 1:51 PM

I hear that the fine for violating the ordinance was $600, so no test case for me.

What ever happened to law enforcement just pouring your beer out?

Anderson - August 25, 2010 3:11 PM

Listing acts of profound and disgusting perversion can only increase your site hits, Mr. Thomas.

society's pliers - August 26, 2010 1:37 PM

The Supreme Court Goes All Out....

I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part.
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.

Anonymous - December 9, 2010 1:49 PM

Court denied all reconsideration motions, this opinion stays. At least it prevents the slippery slope of allowing boards of supervisors to ban possession of unopened beer, which could effectively make a county dry.

Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.