re: Gating canals in houma area

The tax dollars thing is a device he uses to make him feel better about himself and his anti-private property stance. Tax dollars build levees, and levees are the only thing keeping our largest cities from flooding, so all of that land is now public. Not to mention all the hunting land up and down the river. Go to it boys!

How about we balance the benefits from the canals? Has to be in the trillions, no?

quote:

---

Personally, I hope every single land owner gates their property. This includes Delacroix and Biloxi marsh. Shut the whole thing down. Lake Hermatige, closed. Lafitte, closed. Golden meadow public launch, closed. The list goes on and on.

---

You nor anyone else wants this, but it could come to this. I don't want you to think that I don't agree with you that sucks as a fisherman, as someone who deals with trespassers and poachers on an indisputable body of water, I can empathize with the landowners.

I did speak about protecting their interest

quote:

---

I can empathize with the landowners

---

I'm with you on this one. I feel bad that they are in this spot, and gates are far from cheap. But what is the answer? Are gates the answer? It sure does piss off a lot more people than it seems to help.

It's crazy to think that in Louisiana, if you leave the navigation canal you are trespassing. Unless of course you are on a WMA or state land.

Kayakers, criminals or good for the La coast?

quote:

---

...as someone who deals with trespassers and poachers on an indisputable body of water

---

In all fairness, no such map exists for people to reference to avoid trespassing. Signage isn't enough unfortunately. I've personally known two people who on separate occasions stuck a posted sign at the entrance to a pond on a WMA just to see what would happen. On both instances those signs stayed up for years.

If we don't have a change in legislation, we at the very least need a map that we can use to defend ourselves in court if need be. Before anyone tries to say you can go to the land office and get a map, good fricking luck with that one.

quote:

---

How about we balance the benefits from the canals? Has to be in the trillions, no?

---

Define benefits. You mean monitory benefits to the land owner and state, I assume. Would you deduct the affects of erosion from those benefits? If you made a trillion dollars but caused severe land loss over the next 50-60 years, would you still count it as a benefit? What happens when people start getting wrecked by hurricanes because our marsh is no longer able to help protect the mainland? Where does all that fit into the benefits?
This is also overlooking the canals that were constructed in the pre permit era. As well as the god knows how many more that were built illegally after permits become mandatory.

quote:

---

Effects of canals ripple across the wetlands
Eventually, some 50,000 wells were permitted in the coastal zone. The state estimates that roughly 10,000 miles of canals were dredged to service them, although that only accounts for those covered by permitting systems. The state began to require some permits in the 1950s, but rigorous accounting didn’t begin until the Clean Water Act brought federal agencies into play in 1972.
Researchers say the total number of miles dredged will never be known because many of those areas are now underwater. Gene Turner, a Louisiana State University professor who has spent years researching the impacts of the canals, said 10,000 miles “would be a conservative estimate.”

---

LINK /

quote:

---

You count state paying but not state benefiting. You have zero credibility.

---

What? How do you come to that conclusion from what I said? I feel that it is pretty I said benefits for both the land owner and the state?

Direct quote, frickhead.

quote:

---

Define benefits. You mean monitory benefits to the land owner and state, I assume

---

quote:

---

You post as if the canals were built solely to destroy the marsh

---

We have reached a point in the conversation where you're too wrapped up in disagreeing for it to be productive.

Of course I don't think that they built the canals so they could destroy the marsh. However, they built them knowing risks. The risks were accepted because the reward was great at the time. It was near sighted.

The problem is the restoration costs can't be absorbed by the land owners and the state. So the tax payers are left holding the bag while the private owners who profited from the damage are long gone. So now we are gating off canals in an effort to protect property rights but at what cost? If we continue to gate and post tidal marsh we will shrink the area accessible by the public. Less access turns into less participation, which turns into less licenses being sold, and so on and so fourth.

Don't be silly.

Frick that, i hope you rip your lower unit off and sit there over night with no Off. I hate a thief. That's all trespassers are, fricking thieves. Probably upset Cam lost and Beyoncé is getting bad rap.

The canals aren't the main problem, the levees are what killed the marsh. Who built the levees? And with what ?