- 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: HR 391 (Water Access Rights) Passes 5-3 in committee
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:08 am to yallallcrazy
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:08 am to yallallcrazy
This is another miscommunication between landowners and fishermen. Navigable refers to whether it was navigable in 1812. This can be discovered by one of two methods. Go to the General Land Office website which is part of the BLM. You can look back through the patent search by section township range and access the plat and surveyors notes.(I hope you speak French.) Or you can go to Google earth and scroll back on the timeline to the aerials back to the 1940s that are loaded onto their program.
The idea by most of the proponents to HB 391 that navigable refers to wherever my gator tail can access causes a big problem in the attempted conversations.
The idea by most of the proponents to HB 391 that navigable refers to wherever my gator tail can access causes a big problem in the attempted conversations.
2
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:11 am to Profit Island
Pretty much what I am saying.
If you desire a change, you must submit a re-definition of navigable because we already have such a definition. And it has nothing to do with any boat or where it can go.
If you desire a change, you must submit a re-definition of navigable because we already have such a definition. And it has nothing to do with any boat or where it can go.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:14 am to johnnyrocket
quote:
I think we as tax payers should not spend 1 penny on coastal restoration. Let the landowners who caused the damage fix the problem or let the gulf take the land. They caused the damage they need to fix the problem not the tax payer.
I usually refrain from calling people names, but you are an idiot.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:20 am to Teague
All navigable waterways are property of the state and federal government. All fish and game are property of the citizens though the state and government. If you own 100,000 acres on both sides of the Mississippi and decide to run a fence across the River you will be arrested and do time.
This is really the exact same scenario. Most of these Canals etc should have never beenbuilt to begin with and would be tied up in litigation for years now as they are one of primary reasons for vanishing marshlands etc. (big oil does whatever it wants in the bayou state without recourse and always has. You are their little bitch .
they were mostly built before serious Envirnomental impact studies were required, were generally permitted as navigatable waterways, etc. I bet a lot were built with taxpayer money or resources. Thus they are property of people of Louisiana thur the State.
This is really the exact same scenario. Most of these Canals etc should have never beenbuilt to begin with and would be tied up in litigation for years now as they are one of primary reasons for vanishing marshlands etc. (big oil does whatever it wants in the bayou state without recourse and always has. You are their little bitch .
they were mostly built before serious Envirnomental impact studies were required, were generally permitted as navigatable waterways, etc. I bet a lot were built with taxpayer money or resources. Thus they are property of people of Louisiana thur the State.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:38 am to TutHillTiger
quote:
This is really the exact same scenario.
It's really not.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:41 am to TutHillTiger
quote:
All navigable waterways are property of the state and federal government. All fish and game are property of the citizens though the state and government. If you own 100,000 acres on both sides of the Mississippi and decide to run a fence across the River you will be arrested and do time.
Wrong on count one. Misguided perception.
Right on count two but don't forget that doesn't give you the right to chase said fish and game where ever you please.
Right on count three and not because of count one.
The State through the Public Trust Doctrine took possession of the Mississippi River upon her entrance into the Union in 1812. Not long after that the State completed its Public Trust acquisitions. The Public Trust is not a perpetual doctrine that acquires property on a daily basis. At least that what the federal courts have ruled but who are they anyway ?? Right?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 12:03 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
If you own 100,000 acres on both sides of the Mississippi and decide to run a fence across the River you will be arrested and do time.
This is really the exact same scenario.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 12:31 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
All navigable waterway
Even if this were true, this has a definition. It has nothing to do with a boat being able to pass. It has everything to do with a specific map. It is a very concrete definition.
If you want to change access you must look to change that definition. Nothing else makes sense.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 12:39 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:Your entire post is wrong. Aren't you a lawyer?
TutHillTiger
Posted on 4/18/18 at 1:05 pm to TutHillTiger
quote:
All navigable waterways are property of the state and federal government.
Art. 450. Public things.
Public things are owned by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as public persons.
Public things that belong to the state are such as running waters, the waters and bottoms of natural navigable water bodies, the territorial sea, and the seashore.
Public things that may belong to political subdivisions of the state are such as streets and public squares.
quote:
All fish and game are property of the citizens though the state and government.
Art. 3413. Wild animals, birds, fish, and shellfish
Wild animals, birds, fish, and shellfish in a state of natural liberty either belong to the state in its capacity as a public person or are things without an owner. The taking of possession of such things is governed by particular laws and regulations.
The owner of a tract of land may forbid entry to anyone for purposes of hunting or fishing, and the like. Nevertheless, despite a prohibition of entry, captured wildlife belongs to the captor.
quote:
If you own 100,000 acres on both sides of the Mississippi and decide to run a fence across the River you will be arrested and do time.
this is probably correct
quote:
I bet a lot were built with taxpayer money or resources. Thus they are property of people of Louisiana thur the State.
d'oh
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:45 pm to Motorboat
Why don’t the same rules apply in the basin . You can go anywhere you want in the swamp when the water is high . Don’t make sense..
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:50 pm to cajunboatman
More like no one enforces due to remoteness of the location
Posted on 4/18/18 at 3:06 pm to cajunboatman
quote:
Why don’t the same rules apply in the basin .
There was one Rep yesterday that wanted to apply different rules above the I 10 ...
Posted on 4/18/18 at 3:18 pm to OverboredTgr
Not different but the rules that are in place today for anything above I-12. Some of the questions asked and amendments that were discussed were comical to say the least.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 3:18 pm to cajunboatman
quote:
Why don’t the same rules apply in the basin . You can go anywhere you want in the swamp when the water is high . Don’t make sense..
Who owns the "basin" land of which you speak? If it is private and you're traversing it when it is flooded, you are trespassing.
However, if you are in a public navigable river or stream or bayou, then the following applies to ownership:
Art. 456. Banks of navigable rivers or streams.
The banks of navigable rivers or streams are private things that are subject to public use.
The bank of a navigable river or stream is the land lying between the ordinary low and the ordinary high stage of the water. Nevertheless, when there is a levee in proximity to the water, established according to law, the levee shall form the bank.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 5:52 pm to JAB528
I don’t see why you would call someone an idiot who is a large property owner and I know what goes on.
On our property in some areas my family and I paid to put a levee around all our property to keep saltwater out along with other erosion prevention products. We did not have this problem until three neighboring landowners dug oilfield canals in the 1990’s which made it easier for saltwater to come from the gulf into a traditionally freshwater canal pre 1990’s. The saltwater killed trees and vegetation that lined our property as an erosion buffer from the bayou. The trees eventually died along with the vegetation and we had to flip the bill to levee off some of our land to keep the erosion down.
A lot of these companies dug canals without permits, studies, or parish oversight. They did not think you make it easier for a boat from the gulf to come in you also make it easier for saltwater to come in. They did not foresee the damage they caused. I guess they did not understand saltwater kills most trees, vegetation, and green shrubs which protect land from erosion.
They can gate them all they want until it is just open bays with fences. They can also pay for coastal restoration to restore their private, again their not the public’s property. The public should not pay for work on private property or to restore private property.
If all the marsh becomes one big bay then oh well they which Is the property owners did not keep up their land which they did not allow the public on anyway.
On our property in some areas my family and I paid to put a levee around all our property to keep saltwater out along with other erosion prevention products. We did not have this problem until three neighboring landowners dug oilfield canals in the 1990’s which made it easier for saltwater to come from the gulf into a traditionally freshwater canal pre 1990’s. The saltwater killed trees and vegetation that lined our property as an erosion buffer from the bayou. The trees eventually died along with the vegetation and we had to flip the bill to levee off some of our land to keep the erosion down.
A lot of these companies dug canals without permits, studies, or parish oversight. They did not think you make it easier for a boat from the gulf to come in you also make it easier for saltwater to come in. They did not foresee the damage they caused. I guess they did not understand saltwater kills most trees, vegetation, and green shrubs which protect land from erosion.
They can gate them all they want until it is just open bays with fences. They can also pay for coastal restoration to restore their private, again their not the public’s property. The public should not pay for work on private property or to restore private property.
If all the marsh becomes one big bay then oh well they which Is the property owners did not keep up their land which they did not allow the public on anyway.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 4/19/18 at 6:24 am to johnnyrocket
Why should they pay to restore land that was lost due the levees and river control structures? Seems to me like the state/fed owes em some dirt.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 6:51 am to yallallcrazy
quote:
Even if this were true, this has a definition. It has nothing to do with a boat being able to pass. It has everything to do with a specific map. It is a very concrete definition. If you want to change access you must look to change that definition. Nothing else makes sense.
Yeah, it's a terrible way to manage land. It should be changed. I know land owners don't want to give a single inch of their land, but unfortunately what they purchased has changed a lot since the 1800s. Louisiana needs to have some mechanism to protect it's assets like pretty much every other state in the union.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:13 am to Dam Guide
quote:Some has-some hasn't. The proposed solution treats both the same. That makes no sense.
but unfortunately what they purchased has changed a lot since the 1800s
Page 25 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News