re: BASS Makes Louisiana "Off Limits"

quote:

---

I understand the law just fine. I just think it's bullshite that Louisiana chooses to interpret it arse backwards from every other state on the gulf coast.

---

They are arse backwards too when you die with their stupid usufruct rules.

quote:

---

I understand the law just fine. I just think it's bullshite that Louisiana chooses to interpret it arse backwards from every other state on the gulf coast. They are arse backwards too when you die with their stupid usufruct rules.

---

I disagree on both counts.

This is such a bad talking point.

The Louisiana Constitution prohibits the donation or giving of public money to private people or businesses. However, a whole lot of public money is spent on private marshland trying to protect and restore it.

Also, when talking about the law, people usually overlook La. Revised Statute 56:3 which reads:

§3. Ownership of wild birds, quadrupeds, fish, aquatic life, water bottoms, oysters, and shellfish
A. The ownership and title to all wild birds, and wild quadrupeds, fish, other aquatic life, the beds and bottoms of rivers, streams, bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays, sounds, and inlets bordering on or connecting with the Gulf of Mexico within the territory or jurisdiction of the state, including all oysters and other shellfish and parts thereof grown thereon, either naturally or cultivated, and all oysters in the shells after they are caught or taken therefrom, are and remain the property of the state, and shall be under the exclusive control of the Wildlife and Fisheries Commission except as provided in R.S. 56:4.
B. Wild birds, quadrupeds, fish, other aquatic life, and the beds and bottoms of rivers, streams, bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays, sounds, and inlets bordering on or connecting with the Gulf of Mexico, within the territorial jurisdiction of the state, including all oysters and other shellfish and parts thereof grown thereon, either naturally or cultivated, and all oysters in the shells after they are caught or taken therefrom, shall not be taken, sold, or had in possession except as otherwise permitted in this Title; and the title of the state to all such wild birds, quadrupeds, fish, and other aquatic life, even though taken in accordance with the provisions of this Title, and the beds and bottoms of rivers, streams, bayous, lagoons, lakes, bays, sounds, and inlets always remains in the state for the purpose of regulating and controlling the use and disposition thereof.

Levees are not an accurate comparison, as there is either a servitude on the property for the levee to sit on, or the government "took" the land the levee sits on. I don't see how this equates to spending state money to protect/restore privately owned marshland.

I don't understand why they cant put posted signs. If I don't want people hunting my land I put posted signs up. I don't see how they could enforce a ticket for fishing on "private water" when there is nothing indicating it as such.

So does marshland as it knocks down storm surge, but so what?

The money spent on levees is spent on gov't owned property. the money spent on private marsh land is not.

I agree with you here. I don't even think the trespassing law can be constitutionally applied in the vast majority of instances as applied to fishermen in a boat in the marsh. Criminal law is supposed to be clear and easy to avoid violating. Here you need to engage an expert on land status in 1812 and argue about navigability and how a couple cases may or may not help.