- 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 12/8/16 at 9:36 am to Ron Cheramie
Posted on 12/8/16 at 9:36 am to Ron Cheramie
quote:
That marsh (public or private) benefits is all. Shrimp, crabs, redfish, etc don't care if it's public or private.
So the public should be on the hook to pay for it. I guess they should pay for Dairy Farms and Catfish Farms too since it benefits the state.
1
Posted on 12/8/16 at 9:46 am to redfishfan
quote:
. I guess they should pay for Dairy Farms and Catfish Farms too since it benefits the state.
quote:
Dairy Program Subsidies in the United States totaled $5.6 billion from 1995-2014
quote:
Livestock Subsidies in the United States totaled $8.6 billion from 1995-2014.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 9:47 am to AlxTgr
Which I think is total BS.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 9:49 am to redfishfan
I think I agree, but not sure what life would be like without it. I just don't know enough to have a strong opinion.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:16 am to Ron Cheramie
What about this scenario. A hurricane comes and wipes out the marsh, leaving open water in between the public tidal waterbody and the private pond. Does it all become public land/water at that point?
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:17 am to Ron Cheramie
quote:
That marsh (public or private) benefits is all. Shrimp, crabs, redfish, etc don't care if it's public or private.
What happens when the inshore habitat is gone? Private or not we are losing it at a rapid rate. Are you willing to let it continue to erode in the interest of protecting private property rights? If the shrimp, crabs, redfish, ect benefit everyone, shouldn't everyone chip in to save them?
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:19 am to AlxTgr
quote:
That's for a thread I doubt I even open.
That's a bitch move.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:23 am to Ron Cheramie
quote:
The property owners did not destroy the land. The oil/gas companies did that indirectly You think Louisiana is going to go ago against the oil/gas companies?!
They tried. The lawsuit was immediately shut down by Jindal and Co. fearing oil and gas blowback.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:23 am to Barf
quote:How so?
That's for a thread I doubt I even open.
That's a bitch move.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:26 am to AlxTgr
quote:
How so?
Picking on peoples opinions while refusing to give yours makes you look like a bitch.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:30 am to Barf
quote:I so wish you would pay attention. I have not done that. You are talking about a totally different subject. This is: Private vs public water in tidal navigable waterways. I haven't picked on anyone's opinion re: payment for marsh rebuilding.
How so?
Picking on peoples opinions while refusing to give yours makes you look like a bitch.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:33 am to KamaCausey_LSU
It's happened for years. That's what some people are arguing about
Even though it's water, landowner still pays taxes on that The other thing is what if that land comes back? Does the state just take it? I certainly hope not.
And before barf shouts eminent domain. Eminent domain is being used right now just north of fort Polk on peason ridge. BUT the landowners are being compensated for their land
Even though it's water, landowner still pays taxes on that The other thing is what if that land comes back? Does the state just take it? I certainly hope not.
And before barf shouts eminent domain. Eminent domain is being used right now just north of fort Polk on peason ridge. BUT the landowners are being compensated for their land
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:34 am to KamaCausey_LSU
quote:But flood control and channelization of the MS River had nothing to do with subsidence? USACE should be first on the list of Defendants IMO if we're lawyering up. Maybe we could dig up Cap'n Eads and whip his arse while we're at it.
They tried. The lawsuit was immediately shut down by Jindal and Co. fearing oil and gas blowback.
So what if those oil and gas leases had environmental clauses, the companies followed the environmental rules at the time (there probably weren't many rules), but now the rules are more stringent so lets look back and recapture damages from what at the time were probably law abiding companies? Sounds like those bogus "legacy lawsuits".
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 10:36 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:38 am to AlxTgr
You do the same shite in every thread and the only reason you do it is to irritate people because you know they can't do anything to you.
Go ahead and press the downvote and the LOL emoticon and lets move along.
Go ahead and press the downvote and the LOL emoticon and lets move along.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:40 am to Barf
quote:You're just making shite up. Do anything to me? Dude, you really need help.
You do the same shite in every thread and the only reason you do it is to irritate people because you know they can't do anything to you.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:43 am to Ron Cheramie
quote:
Even though it's water, landowner still pays taxes on that The other thing is what if that land comes back? Does the state just take it? I certainly hope not.
This is a very important point and it's worth exploring. Not sure how you would define newly formed or reintroduced land, but I think it would have to depend on how the restoration was funded and if the land mass was a direct or indirect benefit. It's tricky but I'd like to think that land formed inside of private property lines should be in control of whomever holds title to that property.
quote:
And before barf shouts eminent domain. Eminent domain is being used right now just north of fort Polk on peason ridge. BUT the landowners are being compensated for their land
I never once said people shouldn't be compensated. The only question I've asked is if we have to pay to protect it, should we be allowed to use it. My person opinion is yes. I just don't see how you could articulate to the voters that saving something they aren't allowed to use is worth their vote.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:45 am to AlxTgr
quote:
You're just making shite up. Do anything to me? Dude, you really need help.
Wah wah wah quit being such a pussy.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:51 am to Barf
You're still doing it. This is not complicated. Focus man!
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:52 am to Ron Cheramie
You also have individuals that have illegally dug out natural bayous so boats can get down the natural bayou. Now they call it a private canal. Welcome to Louisiana the former sportsman paradise.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:52 am to Barf
I think we should protect individual property rights but what is and isn't public shouldn't be based on some inaccurate map form the early 1800s. It needs to be based on maps that used proven methods. The problem is I don't know shite about map making so I really can't have a very informed opinion on it.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News