- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: Gating canals in houma area
Posted on 1/28/16 at 5:37 am to Capt ST
Posted on 1/28/16 at 5:37 am to Capt ST
POGTFO. The couple times I do fish in Bayou Black a year, I don't want to hit a gate at wide open throttle. What canals do you speak of Mr. Land Manager?
ETA: Also, I hunt during hunting season and am more of a Pan Hole then a Bass Hole.
ETA: Also, I hunt during hunting season and am more of a Pan Hole then a Bass Hole.
This post was edited on 1/28/16 at 7:18 am
3
Posted on 1/28/16 at 6:42 am to Capt ST
Geeze stereotype much ! It's nice to see you throw a whole fishing community under the bus by the actions of a couple people. If the guy was fishing tournaments and fishing in the mash he was cheating by fishing offlimit waters. Ive scene people in just about everytype of boat you can name doing stupid things at one time or another. Heck I've had a lease in the marsh for years. Every person I've ever saw trasspassing was using a surface drive, but I'm not stereotyping every duck hunter.
This post was edited on 1/28/16 at 6:43 am
Posted on 1/28/16 at 6:46 am to CootDisCootDat
stay off my property during duck season and don't bowfish it, I can care less what people do during the summer
this is leeville btw, not bayou black though.
this is leeville btw, not bayou black though.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 7:07 am to Bass_Man
Ignore him. Dude's a massive troll and he bass fishes more than most people on here.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 7:24 am to AlxTgr
bowfishing is a big reason several landowners gated canals....
what canals near verret are gated now?
what canals near verret are gated now?
Posted on 1/28/16 at 8:43 am to AlxTgr
quote:
It's really amazing how poorly you understand this. You're creating unicorns for an irrelevant argument you don't understand.
I don't know you so I'm not going to tell you what you do and don't understand. But it does seem highly unlikely you grasp that ownership of water and ownership of a river bed and bank can be completely separate.
I'm not implying that every stream that is "navigable" today is subject to the public's use. However, as I stated before, to state that "navigability" has no meaning, in the legal sense, is just plain wrong.
ETA: I'll stick with Yippi on this one.
This post was edited on 1/28/16 at 8:45 am
Posted on 1/28/16 at 8:59 am to Mr Wonderful
quote:Not in this context. We aren't talking water rights in here. Your strawman ability is above average.
I don't know you so I'm not going to tell you what you do and don't understand. But it does seem highly unlikely you grasp that ownership of water and ownership of a river bed and bank can be completely separate.
quote:No, no it's not. I'm waiting for an example.
I'm not implying that every stream that is "navigable" today is subject to the public's use. However, as I stated before, to state that "navigability" has no meaning, in the legal sense, is just plain wrong.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:11 am to AlxTgr
quote:
I'm not implying that every stream that is "navigable" today is subject to the public's use. However, as I stated before, to state that "navigability" has no meaning, in the legal sense, is just plain wrong.
No, no it's not. I'm waiting for an example
I'll sort of help him some, but I'll leave you guys to figure out where I copied the below from.
The court notes that connecting waterways made navigable through erosion are "naturally" navigable, and thus ordinarily subject to a navigational servitude, even if the erosion was caused by increased water flow from the privately dredged canal
Posted on 1/28/16 at 9:46 am to Dock Holiday
I have a question but I'll ask it so that it's relevant to the thread
Is stump canal gated off yet or is it still fishable? If it is, anyone fish it lately and have any luck?
Is stump canal gated off yet or is it still fishable? If it is, anyone fish it lately and have any luck?
Posted on 1/28/16 at 12:36 pm to Bass_Man
It's sad the good have to suffer for the bad. But much like attorneys, used car salesman and sub prime lenders, I'm sure there are a few good ones, just haven't found them yet.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 12:41 pm to CootDisCootDat
quote:
I don't want to hit a gate at wide open throttle. What canals do you speak of Mr. Land Manager?
Well the gates will be right next to the 4'x4' posted signs you all keep passing up. The canal in question you have to run across a shallow duck pond to get to it. If they'd just gate the Brady and Voss I'd be happy as a pig in shite.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 12:55 pm to Capt ST
quote:
you all
quote:
canal in question
quote:
Brady and Voss
Ain't no fish back up in thur.
ETA: everyone knows the fish are down Crawford Canal. Go to Crawford Canal people.
This post was edited on 1/28/16 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:10 pm to Dock Holiday
quote:
I'll sort of help him some, but I'll leave you guys to figure out where I copied the below from.
The court notes that connecting waterways made navigable through erosion are "naturally" navigable, and thus ordinarily subject to a navigational servitude, even if the erosion was caused by increased water flow from the privately dredged canal
Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co.
I don't know if it's relevant or what it means but here is the link.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:16 pm to Barf
Bingo.
Relavancy will be a matter of opionion, but it's an interesting statement in the case that many feel is the jurisprudence for this topic.
Relavancy will be a matter of opionion, but it's an interesting statement in the case that many feel is the jurisprudence for this topic.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:37 pm to Dock Holiday
I don't know dude, I'm not a lawyer so I can't really make sense of the thing.
Did you read the conclusion? Does it mean what I think it means?
Did you read the conclusion? Does it mean what I think it means?
quote:
V. CONCLUSION
The district court's careful, considered opinion on title rested on findings of fact amply supported by the record. The record ownership of Lafourche Realty Company was properly sustained. Appellants also failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the findings and conclusions that Lafourche Realty's title is unburdened by any state servitude. No federal navigational servitude exists on the Tidewater Canal. The judgment of the district court in all of these respects is affirmed. Consistent with our earlier discussion, we remand the case for further consideration (following an additional hearing, if the district court thinks it necessary) of whether a federal navigational servitude encumbers other waterways.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:38 pm to Barf
The context is a federal servitude.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:43 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
The context is a federal servitude.
Ok. The term federal servitude is no where in the link so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:48 pm to Barf
quote:
Ok. The term federal servitude is no where in the link so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
It's in you previous post. Here, I'll save you the trouble,
quote:
II. CLAIM FOR A RIGHT OF USE OR ACCESS
We next consider the State's and the private Plaintiffs' right-of-use claims. The Appellants assert a navigational servitude over the water bodies under federal or state law.
A. Federal Navigational Servitude
Appellants argue first that the navigable streams in this case are subject to a federal navigational servitude which gives the public unrestricted access. The navigational servitude arises by virtue of the Commerce Clause in some navigable waters. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 178, 100 S. Ct. 383, 392, 62 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1979), made it clear, however, that the navigational servitude does not extend to all navigable waters. Id. at 172-73, 100 S. Ct. at 388-89. When a navigational servitude exists, it gives rise to the right of the public to use those waterways as "continuous highways for the purpose of navigation in interstate commerce." Id. at 178, 100 S. Ct. at 392.
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:52 pm to Barf
They are concluding their judgement of federal navigable servitude of Tidewater Canal, the canal in question, but also leaving it in the hand of the lower court if they want to address federal navigable servitude for others. Basically punt...
This post was edited on 1/28/16 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 1/28/16 at 1:53 pm to CootDisCootDat
I'll readily admit that I dint know wtf is going on here, but it seems pretty simple. If someone digs a canal, they can gate it, correct.
And if they gate a canal that our forefathers didn't have access too and we have to take an alternate route, what is the big deal?
Simpleton view complete
And if they gate a canal that our forefathers didn't have access too and we have to take an alternate route, what is the big deal?
Simpleton view complete
Page 12 of 33
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News