- 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: Private vs public water in tidal navigable waterways
Posted on 12/7/16 at 4:41 pm to Barf
Posted on 12/7/16 at 4:41 pm to Barf
quote:
At some point all land was taken from one person or sold to another or set aside for all to enjoy. There is no reason it can not happen again
Wow dude! You clearly own nothing
Wow!
1
Posted on 12/7/16 at 4:43 pm to Ron Cheramie
And really really wants to fish 
Posted on 12/7/16 at 4:45 pm to Dock Holiday
Dereliction and accretion I think.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 4:54 pm to White Bear
What people have trouble with are these man made canals that are navigable and tidal. These weren't here in 1812 and if they cut through private marsh then you are absolutely trespassing
It's really no different than a pipeline on land. Just because it's a right of way dang sure doesn't mean anyone can just go hunt on it.
Wouldn't go over well if someone was deer hunting a pipeline on your property Just the same as in the marsh
It's really no different than a pipeline on land. Just because it's a right of way dang sure doesn't mean anyone can just go hunt on it.
Wouldn't go over well if someone was deer hunting a pipeline on your property Just the same as in the marsh
Posted on 12/7/16 at 4:58 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
You are creating a hybrid form of property that doesn't presently exist
in Louisiana? This is true.
quote:
What would be your definition of navigable?
I honestly don't have a clear cut stance/definition. It's certainly less stringent than barge commerce as judged upon in a case north of Lake P years ago.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 5:00 pm to Ron Cheramie
quote:
It's really no different than a pipeline on land
Well it is different. The difference is the tax money being spent to restore the property that has been destroyed because of the pipeline.
If we can all agree that we must restore our coast, we have to agree on who's going to pay for it first and give those who caused the damage the chance to fix it. If they can not, they should be forced to give up rights.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 5:11 pm to Ron Cheramie
quote:
What people have trouble with are these man made canals that are navigable and tidal. These weren't here in 1812 and if they cut through private marsh then you are absolutely trespassing
This is understood, what is not understood is this is actually unique to Louisiana for costal areas.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 5:12 pm to Barf
Give up rights to whom?
Posted on 12/7/16 at 5:32 pm to White Bear
quote:
Give up rights to whom?
The public.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 6:03 pm to White Bear
Whoever is funding the restoration and protection.
Like it or not we are losing coastline at a rapid rate. It's resources are far to great to not be protected. The issue is the land owners can not afford this protection, it has to be a collective effort from everyone or else it will protected by no one.
The marsh itself and the resources it provides is far more valuable than who owns it. Sadly it is the few who once enjoyed unlimited access are now the ones trying to keep it private.
Like it or not we are losing coastline at a rapid rate. It's resources are far to great to not be protected. The issue is the land owners can not afford this protection, it has to be a collective effort from everyone or else it will protected by no one.
The marsh itself and the resources it provides is far more valuable than who owns it. Sadly it is the few who once enjoyed unlimited access are now the ones trying to keep it private.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 6:52 pm to Barf
I don't know shite about marsh, but I figure the only way to rebuild it is to utilize the means which built it originally, the rivers. Cat and Komatsu don't make enough track hoes to dot it otherwise.
Posted on 12/7/16 at 10:18 pm to Ron Cheramie
The present day map should be all blue - showing how those un-plugged canals lead to massive soil erosion = still private "land".
Posted on 12/7/16 at 11:27 pm to Ron Cheramie
I like the law the rest of the country uses; something about if the high tide can float a toothpick there I can fish there. So if my boat can motor in, I'm fishing.
Hunting seams different, but I only hunt deer on high ground, so it's cut and dried on the hunting front. And I stay out of duck ponds in duck season.
Hunting seams different, but I only hunt deer on high ground, so it's cut and dried on the hunting front. And I stay out of duck ponds in duck season.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 6:38 am to dat yat
I don't understand the mentality that duck hunting is off limits, but fishing isn't.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 6:57 am to AlxTgr
I don't get it either. If you think it's public water open to fishing then it's public water for duck hunting too
I don't think the people who are up in arms really dont know what they are up in arms about or whom to blame or what exactly they are trying to accomplish
I don't think the people who are up in arms really dont know what they are up in arms about or whom to blame or what exactly they are trying to accomplish
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 6:58 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 7:44 am to Dock Holiday
quote:
Under the common law the issue of navigability was determined by a decision on whether or not the tide ebbed and flowed in a given portion of a stream or tributary. If it did, the stream was navigable. Because of the difference between rivers in England and those in the United States, this rule was not adopted in this country. The rule generally adopted here was that if waters were navigable in fact, they were navigable in law,
This law makes more sense to me than the Louisiana law (1812 navigability). Has our LA law ever been tested in US Supreme Court?
Posted on 12/8/16 at 8:05 am to Ron Cheramie
quote:
If you think it's public water open to fishing then it's public water for duck hunting too I don't think the people who are up in arms really dont know what they are up in arms about or whom to blame or what exactly they are trying to accomplish
they really have no idea the can of worms theyre opening just because they want to fish. Deer hunters lease land to deer hunt, but now everything would be open to duck hunting
Posted on 12/8/16 at 8:07 am to maisweh
quote:
they really have no idea the can of worms theyre opening just because they want to fish. Deer hunters lease land to deer hunt, but now everything would be open to duck hunting
I agree. My only real issue is basing everything on a likely very inaccurate map fro the early 1800s.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 8:18 am to maisweh
It's a big can of worms and there is actually quite a bit of very popular fishing spots in south Louisiana that are actually private.
The landowner could very well gate off these canals legally
Mess with the bull and get the horns
The landowner could very well gate off these canals legally
Mess with the bull and get the horns
Posted on 12/8/16 at 8:25 am to dat yat
quote:There would be no issue the US Supreme Court would take up.
This law makes more sense to me than the Louisiana law (1812 navigability). Has our LA law ever been tested in US Supreme Court?
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News