- 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
re: Fishing/boating on someone else’s property to remain illegal
Posted on 5/2/19 at 9:51 am to redfishfan
Posted on 5/2/19 at 9:51 am to redfishfan
quote:I do if it means protection to the state coast generally. The problem I have with this being in the discussion is how does this then transform a private canal into a public thing? Which ones? Just the ones owned by those assisted? All?
but I also don't think state money should be going to the restoration of private land. Do you think the state should be spending money on that?
2
Posted on 5/2/19 at 9:56 am to AlxTgr
Lets assume just the ones assisted.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:00 am to Decisions
quote:
Y’all just want to fish it, to use the place itself for its designed value. For free. No thanks.
Except it's designed value isn't fishing, any property involved in this debate was originally sold as dry land. That's the entire rub in a single sentence. I am as neutral as can be on this issue but that at minimum has to be acknowledged. The ability to fish said properties only exists due to land loss.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:02 am to AlxTgr
quote:
The problem I have with this being in the discussion is how does this then transform a private canal into a public thing?
That private canal is causing more erosion. If owners want to keep that canal private then block it off with a levee. If you are connecting it to public waters which is causing more erosion and the state is having to spend money to maintain it that's a major problem. Levee it off if you want to keep it to yourself. I have no issue with that. If it is not connected to public water at regular high tide then you can keep it. Again I'm torn on the issue but you can't have both. You can't be connected to public water that ebbs and flows with the tide that is causing more erosion and expect the state to maintain it.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:04 am to SpeckledTiger
quote:
Water is water and must be regulated uniquely
Unfortunately for the LaSC, the current water was surveyed as land in 1812 and that's pretty much all that matters.
LaSC should propose an optional program that the land owners could partake in that would pay the land owners a fee for the use of the area. IIRC, St.Bernard or Jefferson did something like this for a parish owned property. Making a new license that had to be purchased for their property.
They'll have to outbid the current lease holders though.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:05 am to redfishfan
quote:I have no problem with this statement. I have a problem with the maintenance turning into a taking.
You can't be connected to public water that ebbs and flows with the tide that is causing more erosion and expect the state to maintain it.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:07 am to TheDrunkenTigah
quote:
any property involved in this debate was originally sold as dry land.
Is this fact or debateable? Honestly asking. How much of the delta is actually dry land?
quote:
That's the entire rub in a single sentence. I am as neutral as can be on this issue but that at minimum has to be acknowledged. The ability to fish said properties only exists due to land loss.
If this is true I certainly don't have an issue, and I support states rights. But how many "Man made canals" were not originally mostly natural water ways made deeper and wider to support larger vessels? Now if we want to argue that shouldn't matter so be it. But all that water is going somewhere and coming from somewhere.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:10 am to AlxTgr
quote:
I have no problem with this statement. I have a problem with the maintenance turning into a taking.
I think the landowners should have the option. Levee of their canals off where the ebb and flow of the tide isn't impacting them and keep it. Specifically as long as the levee is above regular high tide. You can't have a storm throwing surge up and people think they can go into private canals. Keep them connected to public water furthering the erosion to our coast and wetlands and you still own the land under the water but can't restrict access to the public water that is flowing through them.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:15 am to redfishfan
quote:
Levee of their canals off where the ebb and flow of the tide isn't impacting them and keep it.
The issue is its not just the "canals", its the water (land) behind the canals. You levee off the "canal" and that kills the habitat behind the levee right? How well are the trout, shrimp, reds, etc. going to survive without the tides?
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:19 am to baldona
quote:
The issue is its not just the "canals", its the water (land) behind the canals. You levee off the "canal" and that kills the habitat behind the levee right? How well are the trout, shrimp, reds, etc. going to survive without the tides?
Those things weren't there in 1812 when it was all land which is what the current law is based on. See the landowners want to be able to base what's land and water on 1812 but damn sure don't want to lose the resources in those canals that weren't there in 1812.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:35 am to redfishfan
quote:
Those things weren't there in 1812 when it was all land which is what the current law is based on. See the landowners want to be able to base what's land and water on 1812 but damn sure don't want to lose the resources in those canals that weren't there in 1812.
I try to stay away from this debate, but you raise a very valid point.
I'm assuming the landowners were compensated by whomever dug the canals through their property allowing it to fill with public water.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:49 am to REB BEER
quote:
I'm assuming the landowners were compensated by whomever dug the canals through their property allowing it to fill with public water.
Unless the state dug them then I still don’t see where this matters. That’s an artificial waterway that’s still on my property.
Which brings me to my next point: artificial vs. naturally made waterways. Canals and marshes didn’t form in the same way. Why should the laws governing them be the same?
Let’s just say it IS okay to fish marshes since they have since been reclaimed by nature and are now public water, but the canals are not. How deep are these marshes? Can you access the fishing in them without using a canal, an airboat, or a gatortail? If not then you still haven’t gained much.
And I’ve heard the stories as to how destructive those boats can be on the marsh. It sounds to me like if we really cared about protecting our marshes they should be outlawed.
ETA: The easy fix for levee’ing and maintaining the habitat would be to build a water control structure in the levee to allow water and wildlife in as needed.
This post was edited on 5/2/19 at 10:52 am
Posted on 5/2/19 at 10:58 am to Decisions
quote:
That’s an artificial waterway that’s still on my property.
That's an artificial waterway that is connected to public water furthering the erosion to our coast and wetlands. Levee it off if you want to restrict access. If public water is flowing through it at regular high tide then the public should be able to access it.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 11:03 am to redfishfan
quote:
That's an artificial waterway that is connected to public water
The Panama and Suez Canals are connected to public water as well, but I don’t see anyone disputing their ownership.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 11:10 am to Decisions
quote:
The Panama and Suez Canals are connected to public water as well, but I don’t see anyone disputing their ownership.
Lol what? The Panama canal and it's ownership was disputed for many years and the United States actually sent military to the canal for that reason.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 11:11 am to redfishfan
quote:
That's an artificial waterway that is connected to public water furthering the erosion to our coast and wetlands. Levee it off if you want to restrict access. If public water is flowing through it at regular high tide then the public should be able to access it.
But why? It's not the law now, and never has been.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 11:13 am to redfishfan
I mean the fact that they are owned, not who owns them. They are not free for any and everyone to use.
This post was edited on 5/2/19 at 11:14 am
Posted on 5/2/19 at 11:21 am to Decisions
A lot of the waterways being gated off are not even man made. Most of them are made just by to rise and fall of tides. When you bought a piece marsh you should be aware that it will one day be open water. That’s your decision, no one made you buy it. Me I will continue to go where ever my boat will take me,game wardens don’t enforce this law anyway.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 11:23 am to AlxTgr
quote:
But why? It's not the law now, and never has been.
Bc it's negatively impacting our coast and wetlands.
Posted on 5/2/19 at 11:24 am to Gatorgar
quote:And shouldn't they be aware of the law as well? Law says it's theirs
When you bought a piece marsh you should be aware that it will one day be open water. That’s your decision, no one made you buy it.
BTW, The open water aspect of this is totally different to me than canals, and I think the State should treat that situation differently.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News