argument that pool did not fall within the HRUS requiremerits because it was not open to the general public); Stout v. United States, 696 F.Supp. 538, 539 (D.Haw.1987) (stating that the “statute appears to apply even if the military base was closed to the general public”). The fact that Holder Dock was closed to everyone except the instructors and students of the sailing course on the day of Howard’s injury does not strip the Government of its HRUS immunity. The Government limited access to the dock on that day to prevent injury to novicé sailors and/or because of the rough weather conditions. The Government can exercise such control and discretiori over who uses its land for recreational purposes without forfeiting the immunity that the HRUS provides. See Stout, 696 F.Supp. at 539 (<HOLDING>). C. Applicability of HRUS Immunity to Business
holding that whether the public invitee may have some commercial purpose in mind was irrelevant to recreational immunity instead by opening up the lands for recreational use without a fee the landowner brought itself under the protection of the immunity statute holding contractors could not claim recreational immunity because they had no continuing authority to determine whether the land should be open to the public holding that for purposes of initial seizure warrant in forfeiture action the government may seize land according to the description contained in the deed recognizing that land owners using industrialzoned land for other uses have not given up their right to any of the heavy industrial uses so come tomorrow they could flip a switch and start operating a sawmill if they so chose recognizing that a landowner cancontrol who uses his land for recreational purposes and that sjuch discretion should not result in the forfeiture of the immunity that thehrus provides