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

In 49 states, I can not own tidal water. Yet Louisiana allows me to control access to tidally influenced canals. Canals which not one of these landowners dug themselves but were instead compensated for by an oil exploration company. It boggles my mind how Ron C and AlxTgr can't wrap their minds around the concept that you simply can not own tidal water. If the property is yours, fine. Then put up a complete blockade across the opening so the fish and water that the citizens of Louisiana have every right to cannot move onto said property.

quote:

---

Excellent post.

---

Isn't already well established that property lines remain during times of high water? With property on a state claimed water body, everything below the average high water line is controlled by the state. Right? So during times of flooding you can not cross the high water line just because the property is covered by water.

Is the marsh different because the property lines are not described as ending at a high water mark but rather drawn off in plots with their property being fixed? Even though the water moves on and off the property property line doesn't change. Personally I think once you enter the water, you should be able to move around within it's normal range but I don't fully understand why it was ever treated as dry land in the first place.

Look at the land in the pics on this link
LINK /

That is Roseau cane. That is land right now. Someone is paying taxes on that land Let's say the scale kills that Roseau for good and now it's navigable open water. That "land" still belongs to the landowner even though it's underwater. The law as is stated right now, allows that landowner to keep people off it even though its submerged

It seems silly when you look at it from an elementary perspective. "Hey lousiana is the only state that allows tidal waters to be private". They fail to mention that it was once land and has just now become water and taxes are still being paid

What's crazy is that people think the landowner should just give up the land that has eroded away and is underwater now

I believe coastal waters should be treated differently. Problem=defining it.


As to the other point, we all lose if we don't protect the coast, private or no.

Mike Foster “ the so called sportsman’s governor “ was the one who helped lobby to legislators to pass laws to help owners gate canals.

My family and I have land in Vermilion parish. I do not feel sorry for landowners who allowed leasees or they dug canals on their property for the benefit of boats being able to travel from their property to the marsh. Some did it for oilfield workers to reach parts of their property. Others did it to make it easier for duck hunters that lease their land to move around. My grandfather was always against this. He knew you make it easier to get to the Bay, you also make it easier for saltwater to get to your property.

They also dreged vermillion bay for the shells and destroyed the bay by doing this.

I do not think any tax payer should pay one cent to help landowners who basically destroyed their property or allowed leasees to destroy their property.

Treat the marsh like open range grazing out west.

Fishermen could get a permit to fish tidal waters over private property. Money collected could be used to further coastal restoration efforts and reduce property taxes for those landowners who allow access/fishing.

Most legislation isn’t perfect and if you’re waiting for perfect it will never happen

These guys still complaining about not being able to trespass?

And calling people names that are supported by our law.