- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: CCA tagged redfish caught!!
Posted on 7/8/14 at 12:21 pm to Fifthstring
Posted on 7/8/14 at 12:21 pm to Fifthstring
Your problem is that the case law is against you. There is certainly an argument based on the language of the code article, that any navigable waterway belongs to the state, but that isn't the current interpretation.
It goes way beyond fishing. Immense vested property rights are involved. Oil royalties, parish property taxes, leases and other things make the status quo likely to continue.
It goes way beyond fishing. Immense vested property rights are involved. Oil royalties, parish property taxes, leases and other things make the status quo likely to continue.
This post was edited on 7/8/14 at 12:35 pm
1
Posted on 7/8/14 at 12:23 pm to shooter35
quote:What are they teaching? You sound like you attend LSU Law, so provide some cases that support the professor. I can't find anything to supplant Dardar v. Lafourche Realty.
Yes they do.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 12:25 pm to Fifthstring
quote:Law review articles carry no weight.
multiple law articles on the subject that disagree
Posted on 7/8/14 at 12:42 pm to boom roasted
This has been an incredibly entertaining thread.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 12:44 pm to boom roasted
quote:
leases and other things make the status quo likely to continue.
Sadly I agree with you
quote:
Law review articles carry no weight.
Agree again, but other than actual cases/decision I don't have much to go on, and review articles do just that for you, review cases, decisions, and interpretations, so they are a good guidance.
quote:
Dardar v. Lafourche Realty.
About all that is out there and involves the dredging of a canal in 1948, so that clears up some questions, but certainly not all.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 12:44 pm to bossflossjr
quote:
This has been an incredibly entertaining thread.
I concur.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:03 pm to Mung
quote:
Oil royalties,, parish property taxes, leases and other things make the status quo likely to continue.
mr fifth string, all I know is, who I used to pay, and why. you can tell yer yankee law professor that, I guess. I ain't sayin', jus sayin'.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:06 pm to 34venture
there's 2 posts now about only 10 reds being tagged, for some reason, and i may be wrong about this, I thought every year CCA tagged 50 reds for the STAR but will give prizes away to the first 10 tagged reds caught that year.
So if 50 reds were tagged over the past 20 or 25 yrs that this thing has been happening, the odds are a little better than just 10 fish a year being tagged. even counting the guys who catch them and arent registered over that time.
Anyone know for sure how many are tagged each year, where did this 50 tagged fish a year I have in my head come from???
So if 50 reds were tagged over the past 20 or 25 yrs that this thing has been happening, the odds are a little better than just 10 fish a year being tagged. even counting the guys who catch them and arent registered over that time.
Anyone know for sure how many are tagged each year, where did this 50 tagged fish a year I have in my head come from???
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:11 pm to joshric
"Its signature division is the Tagged Redfish Division. CCA releases 50 tagged redfish each year, if you are in the tournament and catch one, you win! "
from the STAR Louisiana website
from the STAR Louisiana website
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:18 pm to joshric
quote:
Anyone know for sure how many are tagged each year, where did this 50 tagged fish a year I have in my head come from???
Yes it is indeed 50 per year.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:18 pm to Fifthstring
quote:
my argument is that you should not post navigable waters that are influenced by tidal flow and their water bottoms are submerged on a average low tide, these are considered waters of the state and public access for recreation should not be denied.
There are many landowners trying to fight this since the state and the corp haven't been able to protect against LA's land loss, and in some cases (diversions) have accelerated it.
Think about it this way: You family has owned land for 200 years that has been withered away to something like this
due to governmental/oil company irresponsibility and now you have 10 boats fishing or hunting out there every time you go out to fish or hunt your own property. You politely ask them to leave and one pulls a gun and says "make me, this is navigable"
What is going to be your next step?
And what if oil is found on the property and the state of LA tries to lay claim to it merely because it has tidal flow since Katrina/Rita? Sound fair?
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:24 pm to shooter35
quote:If they are teaching that a "non-navigable stream that subsequently becomes navigable is subject to public use" they should be fired. They are ignoring the jurisprudence of the State.
Again, not saying you are wrong but there is definitely a difference in what you are posting and what multiple professors teach regarding whether a non-navigable stream that subsequently becomes navigable is subject to public use.
Now, if we are talking about a navigable river that changes course to take over a previously non-navigable stream, then that's different. Even there, the old bed reverts to private property if the new course takes property from a landowner.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:40 pm to xenon16
I hate as much as the next guy xenon, I've been on the front lines of costal land loss, both professionally and personally. Costal Louisiana has been a passion of mine and my families for many years.
I deal with idiots on the water all the time, you are right there is a right way and wrong way to handle stuff like this, threatening force is just stupid, and common courtesy seems to be of short supply.
I don’t know what the answers are, but I’m trying to get to some level understanding on true property rights of tidal waterways, and even in this 6 page thread I've mostly gotten opinions, no links or proof to hang my hat on.
Mineral rights is a separate subject all together… Companies can’t simply come in an area and start drilling.
I deal with idiots on the water all the time, you are right there is a right way and wrong way to handle stuff like this, threatening force is just stupid, and common courtesy seems to be of short supply.
I don’t know what the answers are, but I’m trying to get to some level understanding on true property rights of tidal waterways, and even in this 6 page thread I've mostly gotten opinions, no links or proof to hang my hat on.
Mineral rights is a separate subject all together… Companies can’t simply come in an area and start drilling.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:44 pm to Fifthstring
quote:
and even in this 6 page thread I've mostly gotten opinions, no links or proof to hang my hat on.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:52 pm to Fifthstring
How bout you just don't trespass
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:57 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Navigable waterways of 1812 are the only "public" access. Landowners can own, manage and police anything that you couldn't drive your little pos boat across 200 years ago.
This is all you've given me Alx, and continue to put up little laughin faces...
Is there something else I'm missing? A link, a quote on a Law Code, anything?
I really am asking for knowledge reasons, not to argue or put up
At some point I'm hoping someone provides something concrete.
Dardar v. Lafource Reality is the best I've been given so far (thanks for the reminder boom roasted) and it cleared up some things.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:59 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
They are ignoring the jurisprudence of the State.
They may. However, I haven't seen any jurisprudence (I admittedly haven't spent time searching) which backs up what you are saying.
Could you tell me what code articles/ jurisprudence says where a non-navigable stream turns navigable through natural forces, it is still off limits to the public?
Posted on 7/8/14 at 1:59 pm to Fifthstring
Did you try the link the first time that was posted?
Posted on 7/8/14 at 2:00 pm to shooter35
Read Dardar v. Lafource Reality.
Posted on 7/8/14 at 2:03 pm to boom roasted
IIRC that dealt with dredging. Not natural forces. Could be wrong though
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News