- 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
0
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:50 am to Dam Guide
quote:
I know land owners don't want to give a single inch of their land,
Actually they don't want the State to take one single inch ..
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:54 am to OverboredTgr
quote:
Some has-some hasn't. The proposed solution treats both the same. That makes no sense.
Doing nothing makes no sense either for the state.
quote:
Actually they don't want the State to take one single inch ..
Mother Nature already took it in some cases. Sucks, but that's just the way it is and the issue with buying land in an area that is losing it. This problem is just going to get worse and worse, and people should come to the table and comprimise, but that's not likely to happen.
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 7:55 am
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:32 am to Dam Guide
quote:
people should come to the table and compromise,
A compromise does not start by saying we are going to take what we think is ours anyway. Now that we have what we think is ours, let's compromise the use of that of which we just took from you. As soon as the fishermen quit arguing the marsh is theirs the sooner everyone can begin a constructive resolution.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:45 am to OverboredTgr
quote:
A compromise does not start by saying we are going to take what we think is ours anyway. Now that we have what we think is ours, let's compromise the use of that of which we just took from you. As soon as the fishermen quit arguing the marsh is theirs the sooner everyone can begin a constructive resolution.
Fisherman wouldn't be reacting this way if gates weren't going up and land owners didn't get laws like you don't need to post anymore making it impossible to figure out what is trespassing if you aren't extremely famaliar with the area.
Both sides refuse to comprimise.
Our government has a long history of taking land away for the public good. That's the road it looks like Louisiana may eventually have to head down. Just ask the people of the Tennessee Valley who no longer have farms because they are underneath lakes.
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 8:51 am
Posted on 4/19/18 at 9:30 am to Dam Guide
quote:
Fisherman wouldn't be reacting this way if gates weren't going up
So fishermen are mad that landowner can legally put up a gate to HIS property?
quote:
land owners didn't get laws like you don't need to post anymore
then let's make it a law to post instead of taking private property. If fishermen are truly worried about trespassing, then this solves the problem.
quote:
Our government has a long history of taking land away for the public good. That's the road it looks like Louisiana may eventually have to head down. Just ask the people of the Tennessee Valley who no longer have farms because they are underneath lakes.
Yes, and the government PAYS for that property. Louisiana cannot afford this at present.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 11:45 am to Motorboat
quote:
So fishermen are mad that landowner can legally put up a gate to HIS property?
If the fishermen can get the law changed to what it is in other states, it won't be HIS property anymore.
quote:
then let's make it a law to post instead of taking private property. If fishermen are truly worried about trespassing, then this solves the problem.
You realize the law to take away the requirement for them to post was just created not that long ago because land owners didn't want to do it, I'm sure they really want to change it back.
quote:
Yes, and the government PAYS for that property. Louisiana cannot afford this at present.
Not if Louisiana changes it's public trust doctrine to something like other states already have on their books, basically change the meaning of what is navigable instead of basing it on a map from the 1800's, put it in the hands of a recent survey/etc, then it's pretty easy to take it for free.
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 11:49 am
Posted on 4/19/18 at 11:49 am to Dam Guide
quote:
You realize the law to take away the requirement for them not to post was just created not that long ago because land owners didn't want to do it, I'm sure they really want to change it back.
You literally missed the vote and the boat on that one.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 11:51 am to Dam Guide
quote:
You realize the law to take away the requirement for them not to post was just created not that long ago because land owners didn't want to do it, I'm sure they really want to change it back.
Not sure where you were on Tuesday but you missed the boat and vote there too which reiterates the problem ... most do not understand this debate.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 11:53 am to Dam Guide
quote:
Not if Louisiana changes it's public trust doctrine to something like other states already have on their books, basically change the meaning of what is navigable instead of basing it on a map from the 1800's, put it in the hands of a recent survey/etc, then it's pretty easy to take it for free.
This was the quote I wanted. Technical difficulty.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 11:54 am to OverboredTgr
quote:
You literally missed the vote and the boat on that one.
How so? It was early 2000's that they changed the law to consider all private land as posted no matter the signage. It's a lot easier on land to figure out where you are then when you are kayaking around in waterways.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 11:56 am to OverboredTgr
quote:
This was the quote I wanted. Technical difficulty.
Oh ok, yeah that may never happen, who knows with the way Louisiana operates.
The oil company land owners will probably prevent that from ever changing, who knows. This is all just random internet discussion about what ifs.This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 11:57 am
Posted on 4/19/18 at 12:07 pm to Dam Guide
quote:
You realize the law to take away the requirement for them to post was just created not that long ago because land owners didn't want to do it, I'm sure they really want to change it back.
I think this could be a point of compromise. I'm not familiar with the posting law. What is it? I would like to read it (and not just your interpretation--the actual law)
quote:
Not if Louisiana changes it's public trust doctrine to something like other states already have on their books, basically change the meaning of what is navigable instead of basing it on a map from the 1800's, put it in the hands of a recent survey/etc, then it's pretty easy to take it for free.
do you really want a precedent where the government can take land from private owners for free? I bet if it were any issue other than fishing, you'd say no.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 12:24 pm to Motorboat
The trespassing law requires no posting. The public is responsible for knowing where they are. The landowner has no responsibility to post his property. Was changed in 2011 I believe. Former law had a list of ways property owner could choose to post.
Current Language:
Current Language:
quote:
No person shall enter any structure, watercraft, or movable owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization.
B. (1) No person shall enter upon immovable property owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization. (2) For purposes of this Subsection, the phrase “enter upon immovable property” as used in this Subsection, in addition to its common meaning, signification, and connotation, shall include the operation of an unmanned aircraft system as defined by R.S. 14:337 in the air space over immovable property owned by another with the intent to conduct surveillance of the property or of any individual lawfully on the property. (3) The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Subsection shall not apply to any person operating an unmanned aircraft system in compliance with federal law or Federal Aviation Administration regulations or authorization.
C. (1) No person shall remain in or upon property, movable or immovable, owned by another without express, legal, or implied authorization. (2) For purposes of this Subsection, the phrase “remain in or upon property” as used in this Subsection, in addition to its common meaning, signification, and connotation, shall include the operation of an unmanned aircraft system as defined by R.S. 14:337 in the air space over immovable property owned by another with the intent to conduct surveillance of the property or of any individual lawfully on the property. (3) The provisions of Paragraph (1) of this Subsection shall not apply to any person operating an unmanned aircraft system in compliance with federal law or Federal Aviation Administration regulations or authorization.
D. It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a violation of Subsection A, B, or C of this Section, that the accused had express, legal, or implied authority to be in the movable or on the immovable property.
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 4/19/18 at 12:59 pm to LSUengr
welp, 26 pages of arguing and the whole issue can be fixed with this: It's not trespassing unless the land is marked according to law (or similar)
This way, landowners can't complain if their land is not marked. posted signs are cheap. fishermen can fish the waters when the waters leave private property. No one is taking anything from landowners and fishermen have no more fear of prosecution.
That was easy.
This way, landowners can't complain if their land is not marked. posted signs are cheap. fishermen can fish the waters when the waters leave private property. No one is taking anything from landowners and fishermen have no more fear of prosecution.
That was easy.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 1:02 pm to Motorboat
quote:
do you really want a precedent where the government can take land from private owners for free? I bet if it were any issue other than fishing, you'd say no.
It already exists in most states when it comes to determining if water is navigable. Your public trust document is different because you still rely on a map from 1812.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 1:06 pm to Motorboat
Hold up swole up, not so fast. Most of us proponents still want access to all public resources. Hopefully the next piece of legislation that will arise from this will be better written to alleviate any liability concerns of the landowners and be more inline with the rest of the nation. at least a man can hope, but this is Louisiana the most corrupt legislative body outside of say Chicago, Il...
Posted on 4/19/18 at 1:07 pm to Motorboat
...but then it goes back full circle to the land owner doesn't want to spend time and money putting up signs that a trespasser will pull down, trespass anyway, and when they get caught say "we didn't see any signs 
"
A giant cluster frick is what we have here.
" A giant cluster frick is what we have here.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 1:14 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:
Most of us proponents still want access to all public resources.
and you still have that, just not on private property.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 1:17 pm to CootDisCootDat
quote:
...but then it goes back full circle to the land owner doesn't want to spend time and money putting up signs that a trespasser will pull down, trespass anyway, and when they get caught say "we didn't see any signs
A trespasser is going to trespass anyway, no matter what the law, people looking to be able to obey the laws would like signs or some type of warning that isn't hard as hell.
Page 26 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News