re: BASS Helping the cause.......

The law is silly. No one would ever contest that the land under the water is not theirs, but seriously "our" water is sitting on top of that land and it continues to flow in and out.

If the landowner has the right to put in a barricade of sorts, I think the state should require it to be a earthen berm/levee, charge them for the cubic feet of public water that is now filling in "their" property and impose a berm/levee tax on top of their property tax. All after a very expensive environmental and engineering survey is done to make sure the public safety is taken care of before construction. (basically make it not work blocking it off financially) Or they can let the public access the public's water. Stay off their land, but access the water.

Would I be trespassing if my jig is bouncing on the bottom?

quote:

---

Yet, CCA Louisiana is no where to be found on this.

---

As long as the land manager for Apache sits on the CCA board you can pretty much forget about CCA publicly supporting anything of the sort.

quote:

---

Where in the hell is the CCA at on this? I've received no notification from them alerting me to this bill or their stance.

---

their stance as has been stated several times before over the years is "land owners have rights too" in other words, screw the fishermen, our rich land owner friends are happy with things the way they are.

CCA has clearly shown based on history that they only get involved in denying rights to fishermen and reducing their ability to take from the resources. they flat out refuse to even allow discussion on raising creel limits and reducing size limits on redfish and black drum even though there is clear scientific evidence of over population that is decimating the crab and oyster populations in this state.

they also refuse to support removing the reduced speckled trout creel limits in big lake area (15 fish limit) that was supposed to increase the average size and create more trophy trout there, yet scientific proof shows too many numbers of small fish decimated the food stocks and had the reverse affect of making the average size of trout there smaller. yet they refuse to support undoing this monumental error and failure of resource management.

quote:

---

You sound like a resident of North Baton Rouge. Gary Chambers is that you?

---

Not even close.

quote:

---

Yet, CCA Louisiana is no where to be found on this.

---

And they won't be, as stated. There is too much private money driving that organization.

quote:

---

I don't expect them to join in on some of these fights that are losing battles.

---

Help me understand this reasoning. You prefer to be part of an organization that won’t take on tough battles because the chance is losing is high? What’s the point of being a member of an organization that won’t fight for change that benefits the interest of the members?

Does the proposal enhance the present and future availability of water, (coastal resources) for the benefit and enjoyment of the general public? If so, that falls in line with what the CCA says they support, regardless of how it affects the rights of private property owners. You notice the mission statement neglects to mention private land owners, but mentions the “general public.”

You can put whatever spin you want it, but to claim the bill does not fall within the mission statement of CCA is just being obtuse. I can say just the opposite: I don’t see where it said to refuse to support legislation that restores angler access to fishable waters.