Started By
Message

re: Catahoula Lake could become off limits to duck hunters

Posted on 1/1/19 at 8:57 am to
Posted by Midtiger farm
Member since Nov 2014
5001 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 8:57 am to
quote:


What’s a good year for that place? From their own site, I would figure they’re slamming the birds erryday. 5,000-6,000 should be easy with as much property and blinds they claim to hunt.




I know guys who go every year. Sometimes it’s on, sometimes it’s not. For the amount of money they charge I’d rather go to one of the best flooded timber places in Arkansas
Posted by tigerfoot
Alexandria
Member since Sep 2006
56205 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 9:22 am to
I don’t go on guided trips for the production. I go for the amenities and hang out time. HinevBrake has good hunting and great other shite when not hunting.

I respect folks that take my money and do everything in their power to make my visit the best they can.

If you go to HB everything they can control will be well done
Posted by headedwest21
Member since Dec 2016
1108 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 9:47 am to
So are the private landowners out there patrolling today and running people off? Who knows who owns what?
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 10:07 am to
quote:

Who knows who owns what?
Best question in this thread.



Look for a writ application within 30 days. This is the type of controversy that our supremes look at.
Posted by headedwest21
Member since Dec 2016
1108 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 10:15 am to
Yea. It seems like the judgement was very vague. Of course i don't know the laws like you do. Seems like the landowners would still own the land until they receive their damages which will probably never get paid. And that goes back to who owns what and gets compensated for what. Will be interesting to see the whole outcome.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 10:27 am to
I think it boils down to what the primary payment is actually for. The finding of the inverse condemnation is what's troubling though. If the payment was just for the damages suffered due to flooding, I guess they could still be the owners. The trial court should have been more clear on that.

Can you imagine the cluster during a criminal trespass trial?

How do neighbors out there know where their line is considering the fact that it's based upon a meandering river?

I know one of these guys really well. Ironically, he works for one of the firms defending the state. I'll talk to him this week.
Posted by headedwest21
Member since Dec 2016
1108 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 10:30 am to
Give us an update of what he says.

I'm not familiar with the lake itself. Been invited but never have gone due to the shitshow I've heard that it is. Without the control structure, how much of it would normally flood enough to hunt/hold ducks?
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 10:35 am to
Really not sure. Early season would terrible for everyone not right on little river. I've driven across the lake right before teal season in some years. If the gates at the diversion were left open, I'm guessing some parts would never be wet without the Red and Black backing up big time.
Posted by PinevilleTiger
Pineville, LA
Member since Sep 2005
6205 posts
Posted on 1/1/19 at 11:43 pm to
If the lake goes private, the levee board will dismantle the control structure. The lake will be dry most of the year unless the canal backs up, then there will be no way to control the level. Greed may have destroyed Catahoula for good.
Posted by GeeOH
Louisiana
Member since Dec 2013
13376 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 7:54 am to
quote:

If I own land behind the levee along the miss river, I own the river?!??

Motherfricking tug boat mafia owes me some rent.


I think the point is that you would own royaltues of the oil under the river "on your property

Thsee people better be careful. If they "win", theyll be responaible for all activities, financial liabilities, legal issues, etc...that go with ownership
Posted by tigah headache
Member since Nov 2011
652 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 9:52 am to
quote:

Greed may have destroyed Catahoula for good.


I don’t agree with that. Catahoula Lake has wintered waterfowl for as long as ducks and geese have migrated. Before the control structure was put in ducks used it, and they’ll use it after it’s gone.

Every permanent blind on the lake should be burnt to the ground. The good ole boy bullshite that goes on out there is the reason decent honest hunters don’t utilize the lake since it’s been public property, part of the Catahoula NWR.

You have to buy the same permit to hunt it as you do to hunt places like Dempsey, Long, and Rhinehart lakes, which have a 10hp motor restriction, no permanent blinds, and no hunting after noon. If catahoula lake would have been handled the same way it would be a paradise for waterfowl and hunters who don’t mind putting in a little work.

Permanent blinds, no motor restrictions and the destruction that surface drives cause, joyriding and jumping resting birds, and the “ownership” mentality that people out there have, have been the factors that have brought about the decline we’ve seen out there over the past 10-15 years.

All that aside, nobody is going to post up at the mouth of old river and stop people from going out there hunting when the water comes up.
Posted by KemoSabe65
70605
Member since Mar 2018
5121 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:06 am to
^^^THIS X10
The control structures have done wonders for the fishing in Saline-Larto, it will go back to how it was in the 70's if they are taken out. Even so, I am on board with eliminating the Legacy blinds.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:25 am to
This should not have any effect on Saline-Larto. The weir at the diversion canal will still be there.
Posted by Mr Wonderful
Love City
Member since Oct 2015
1045 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:48 am to
Finally got around to actually reading the opinion. The 3rd circuit comes through once again with a terrible opinion. I’m not talking about the result (could care less), but the legal analysis. Seems as though they think the land is privately owned and the state owes those landowners “damages.” Although multiple references are made to “taking” throughout the opinion. The 3rd circuit probably doesn’t even know what the hell they were talking about.

If the Supreme Court takes the case, no doubt the damages portion will be reversed per Judge Amy’s dissent. They’ve prescribed. Even if it’s not, the state ain’t paying it anyway. So the damages are moot.

But, I’m not so sure that the state can acquisitively prescribe property (according to the dissent). I’m going to have to think on that for a bit.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 10:55 am to
Agree with every word.
Posted by MrLSU
Yellowstone, Val d'isere
Member since Jan 2004
25930 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 3:54 pm to
Mr. Wonderful you didn't go to North Dakota for law school did you?
Posted by Mr Wonderful
Love City
Member since Oct 2015
1045 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 4:08 pm to
quote:

North Dakota?

Only thing worth going to North Dakota for is goose hunting.
Posted by MrLSU
Yellowstone, Val d'isere
Member since Jan 2004
25930 posts
Posted on 1/2/19 at 4:28 pm to
There used to be another MrWonderful on the TD when TD was a baby and wondered if you were the same.
Posted by Drunken Crawfish
Member since Apr 2017
3822 posts
Posted on 1/9/19 at 8:42 am to
The Jena Times did a pretty full length story on the Catahoula situation for anyone that feels like reading it.

LINK

Just a few highlights:

quote:

In his written judgment in 2016, Judge Boddie found that the State unlawfully expropriated the riverbanks and owed the landowner plaintiffs over 30,000 acres of flooded land and nearly $38-million in damages, as well as over $4.5-million in unpaid oil and gas royalties. While the Third Circuit did affirm the trial court’s decision concerning the owners of the land/lake, they also vacated part of the decision concerning compensation and issued new financial orders changing whether they would be paid by the State or the common fund that will be received from the damages and unpaid oil and gas royalties.


quote:

With the Third Circuit’s decision two weeks ago, the only alternative for the state would be to appeal the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court. When contacted by this newspaper last week, a spokesman for La. Attorney General Jeff Landy said the AG office is reviewing the decision and weighing options in the best interest of our State. If the ruling is appealed to the Supreme Court, the current stay that was issued during the appeal process may be extended - meaning it would stay public until the Supreme Court rules.


quote:

As stated in the ruling, most of the land now considered Catahoula Lake would become private land again, reverting back to the landowners surrounding the lake. The only public water would be that area listed as the original Little River that flows from the Southwest part of the lake area to the Northeast area of the lake area into French Fork in a meandering path through the current body of water


quote:

Some think that once the lake reverts to private land officially after all court avenues have been exhausted, the issue of people duck hunting on waters above private land would be a trespassing issue to be dealt with by the sheriff’s departments of respective parishes.


quote:

Another unknown factor is what the state will do concerning the water level on the lake. With barge traffic still heavy on the Ouachita, many feel the level will continue to be controlled keeping the water high enough to maintain the barge traffic, but again, all of this is speculation at the present time. So, the unknown factor is exactly how much water will remain on the Catahoula Basin when the legal issues are finally settled.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81604 posts
Posted on 1/9/19 at 8:48 am to
quote:

As stated in the ruling, most of the land now considered Catahoula Lake would become private land again, reverting back to the landowners surrounding the lake.
I'd like to see that pointed out. Especially considering:
quote:

Judge Boddie found that the State unlawfully expropriated the riverbanks and owed the landowner plaintiffs over 30,000 acres of flooded land
Jump to page
Page First 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 16Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram