- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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

Class Action Suit for recreational fishermen...
Posted on 5/18/10 at 11:49 pm
Posted on 5/18/10 at 11:49 pm
I'm sure there will be many. This was interesting though.
The whole suit can be viewed here. PDF link about mid page. LINK
quote:
The BP Companies have a history of poor safety and maintenance. At its Texas City,
Texas refinery, on March 23, 2005, explosions killed fifteen workers and injured 170, as a result
of hydrocarbon vapors being discharged from refinery components as a result of increases in
pressure in the components. The incident was caused by BP personnel not following procedures,
supervisory personnel not being present or doing their jobs, and using out-of-date procedures. In
Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in March, 2006, BP discharged over 250,000 gallons of crude oil from a
corroded pipeline it maintained, shutting down America’s largest oil field. The spill was the
largest in Alaska, with the exception of the Exxon Valdez disaster, and occurred as a result of
BP’s lack of maintenance on the pipeline. Two years prior to the spill, BP had been advised
about corrosion problems in its pipes. In November, 2007, BP was fined $20 million for the
discharge pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
The whole suit can be viewed here. PDF link about mid page. LINK
Posted on 5/19/10 at 8:25 am to MoreOrLes
Special place in hell for those lawyers.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:05 am to MoreOrLes
And a special place in Heaven for Big Oil.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:26 am to MoreOrLes
So what are the damages? A refund on their fishing licenses? 
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:28 am to Alatgr
quote:
So what are the damages?
I'm missing out on eleventy million worth of fun this summer, dammit.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:36 am to Bussemer
I got the severe worryations, have gained 5 lbs from all the fried shrimp and fried trout I've been eating the last few weeks, and am a zombie from lost sleep due to all the fishing before work I been doing. Maybe I should join up. 
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:39 am to Alatgr
There was a class action suit filed by recreational fishermen a few years ago in BIG LAKE(Calcasieu Parish) The fisherman got zeroed, because they could not prove they had a loss(money) 
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:47 am to bigwheel
which is the exact amount that these people should get. The lawyers on the otherhand should get a swift kick to the groin.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 9:57 am to CITWTT
So what about the guys who pay thousands of dollars per month for a boat sitting in a slip in Venice, LA? While there is fishing out there, you could easily make the case that it's too damaging to the boat to run it through the oil slicks to get to fishable water. And some of those boats can't just be loaded up on a trailer and towed down the road somewhere else. I think it's fair to ask BP to pay their boat note and slip fees for the amount of time that the area is surrounded by oil and unfishable.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 10:02 am to Alatgr
Obviously, the only folks that win in a lawsuit are the lawyers. Having said that I think at a minimum the license fee. However, many of us (recreational fisherman) have real money invested in fishing. Every year I spend 500-1500 getting the boat and rest of the equipment ready to go. Many pay for boat storages and or camps near the areas they fish. Point is, I believe more loss can be shown than you think. (In any event, the plaintiffs wont see much of any judgement as the NICE lawyers will suck it up in expenses beyond their 33&1/3."
I do acknowledge that the losses incurred to the "Hobby" of recreational fishing pales in comparison to other losses caused by this.
I do acknowledge that the losses incurred to the "Hobby" of recreational fishing pales in comparison to other losses caused by this.
This post was edited on 5/19/10 at 10:05 am
Posted on 5/19/10 at 10:11 am to Bussemer
quote:
I'm missing out on eleventy million worth of fun this summer, dammit.
Yeah, the hurdle of actually proving damages, seems a bit tough here.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 10:18 am to MoreOrLes
quote:
Obviously, the only folks that win in a lawsuit are the lawyers. Having said that I think at a minimum the license fee. However, many of us (recreational fisherman) have real money invested in fishing. Every year I spend 500-1500 getting the boat and rest of the equipment ready to go. Many pay for boat storages and or camps near the areas they fish. Point is, I believe more loss can be shown than you think. (In any event, the plaintiffs wont see much of any judgement as the NICE lawyers will suck it up in expenses beyond their 33&1/3."
I fish also, but it's not like you can't put your boat in a freshwater lake and still fish even if everything eventually gets closed off. Recreational fishing is a choice and I think this is going to be difficult to prove damages although it doesn't surprise me that lawyers would attempt it.
Posted on 5/19/10 at 11:18 am to TigerDog83
The Commercial fisherman were split into a different group, but it's been so long ago, that I have forgotten how they came out 
Posted on 5/19/10 at 12:47 pm to TigerDog83
I live in Metairie and fish the east side of Venice. Fishing freshwater is totally different, i'm not set up for it and something I'm not interested in. You become a little closed minded when the area you love is possibly destroyed.....any other fishing area would always be compared to Venice and would suffer by comparison badly
I see this suit as a money grab by the lawyers as most lawsuits are. However I would sign on to one on behalf of recreational fisherman where by the lawyers get a small flat fee and the proceeds after expenses went to the state/restoration of coastal habitats.
It wont happen though.
I see this suit as a money grab by the lawyers as most lawsuits are. However I would sign on to one on behalf of recreational fisherman where by the lawyers get a small flat fee and the proceeds after expenses went to the state/restoration of coastal habitats.
It wont happen though.
This post was edited on 5/19/10 at 12:48 pm
Posted on 5/19/10 at 1:29 pm to MoreOrLes
quote:
where by the lawyers get a small flat fee
Posted on 5/19/10 at 1:47 pm to Alatgr
I know I know...thats pretty much why I said it woudn't happen. 
Popular
Back to top
3








