- 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 2/11/16 at 8:44 am to Barf
Posted on 2/11/16 at 8:44 am to Barf
What irks me about this whole deal is the people putting up the gates have enjoyed unrestricted access for generations. Only now they have decided to gate their canals off, and it's not because they have been inundated with law suits. They are doing it to protect their resource because the marsh around them is washing away. This is in part due to the canals themselves but I digress. Gated canals on private property that do not connect to state claimed water bottoms aren't the problem, it's the canals that alter or divert the flow of public water.
Why should water lose its public character because someone changed it's course?
I would like to see our marsh grass granted protected status similar to that of the mangroves in Florida. Just because it's on your property, does not mean you can cut it down or cause damage. What would really be nice is if all tidal marsh was treated like Everglades national park but that's a bit of a pipe dream.
Since we do have a somewhat unique system here the only real solution would be grant access to tall tidal water for navigation. I'm going to lump fishing in with navigation since it does not require you leaving the boat. Let the duck hunters keep their property as long as they continue with property taxes, so no hunting without permission outside of public areas. This is more for safety sake than anything else and sine we already have hunter harassment laws the people who are fishing that find themselves near a set of decoys have to leave anyway.
I would also like to see an increase in saltwater license fees. Separate saltwater from freshwater licenses. Force people fishing tidal marsh to buy an annual pass. Sort of a tax stamp if you will, to help fund the protection efforts. This way people who don't fish above the saltwater line pay more money into the system, without buying a freshwater license they will never use.
If the Louisiana marsh had a system like the everglades, with things like Chickees and better parks/boat ramps, use will almost certainly increase. Could you imagine a publicly funded system of chickees in the Biloxi marsh? It would be an outdoors mans dream. We would actually have a place that isn't freshwater for organizations like the boyscouts to use.
Why should water lose its public character because someone changed it's course?
I would like to see our marsh grass granted protected status similar to that of the mangroves in Florida. Just because it's on your property, does not mean you can cut it down or cause damage. What would really be nice is if all tidal marsh was treated like Everglades national park but that's a bit of a pipe dream.
Since we do have a somewhat unique system here the only real solution would be grant access to tall tidal water for navigation. I'm going to lump fishing in with navigation since it does not require you leaving the boat. Let the duck hunters keep their property as long as they continue with property taxes, so no hunting without permission outside of public areas. This is more for safety sake than anything else and sine we already have hunter harassment laws the people who are fishing that find themselves near a set of decoys have to leave anyway.
I would also like to see an increase in saltwater license fees. Separate saltwater from freshwater licenses. Force people fishing tidal marsh to buy an annual pass. Sort of a tax stamp if you will, to help fund the protection efforts. This way people who don't fish above the saltwater line pay more money into the system, without buying a freshwater license they will never use.
If the Louisiana marsh had a system like the everglades, with things like Chickees and better parks/boat ramps, use will almost certainly increase. Could you imagine a publicly funded system of chickees in the Biloxi marsh? It would be an outdoors mans dream. We would actually have a place that isn't freshwater for organizations like the boyscouts to use.
1
Posted on 2/11/16 at 8:47 am to Barf
quote:
This doesn't fit because your private road does not cause the public road to become impassible. You are also not receiving tax payer support to help save your private road from the same fate as the public road you destroyed in the process.
The state has the right to change what is state water bottom if this scenario happens to allow passage so that's something to be taken up with the state.
quote:
You know what else you didn't get? The bill from the state for the damage you caused.
If the state approved the canal which would also have to be approved by the Corps then it isn't the land owner's responsibility to maintain the state water bottom.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 8:51 am to Barf
quote:
I would also like to see an increase in saltwater license fees. Separate saltwater from freshwater licenses. Force people fishing tidal marsh to buy an annual pass. Sort of a tax stamp if you will, to help fund the protection efforts. This way people who don't fish above the saltwater line pay more money into the system, without buying a freshwater license they will never use.
This concept is already in place and salt water went up last year.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 8:53 am to Scrowe
Yeah but we didn't gain shite from the increase. We pay more money for less access than the year before.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 8:54 am to Barf
quote:
What happens if Delacroix land decides to gate off bayou gentilly? Do we just shrug our shoulders and thank them for being so generous up until that point?
Just because a company owns all the land around a canal doesn't mean the canal isn't a state owned river bottom.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 8:56 am to Barf
quote:
We pay more money for less access than the year before.
Nope, you're paying for the same state river bottom access you had the year prior.
This post was edited on 2/11/16 at 8:57 am
Posted on 2/11/16 at 8:57 am to Scrowe
quote:
The state has the right to change what is state water bottom if this scenario happens to allow passage so that's something to be taken up with the state.
I have never heard of them doing this, but it is possible. Possible, however unlikely. The state will not bite the hand that feeds.
quote:
If the state approved the canal which would also have to be approved by the Corps then it isn't the land owner's responsibility to maintain the state water bottom.
In some cases yes, in most cases no. We don't know what canals were permitted and which ones were not. There was almost zero record keeping until the 70's. Most of the canals were dredged prior to any thing that resembles accurate record keeping or permitting process.
It's pretty well established that we don't know for sure how many canals exist and they are far too numerous to count. A safe estimation would 10,000 miles of "private" canals.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:00 am to Scrowe
quote:
Nope, you're paying for the same state river bottom access you had the year prior.
Except we don't because some of those state claimed water bottoms are now silted in to the point they can not be navigated safely. The state also gave up their lease to several areas in the marsh as well.
So no. Our access in 2016 is different than our access in previous years.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:02 am to Scrowe
quote:
Just because a company owns all the land around a canal doesn't mean the canal isn't a state owned river bottom.
If you are referring to bayou gentilly and Delacroix land, you are sadly mistaken. That bayou is partially private. The only reason people get to use it is because the owners allow it.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:09 am to Scrowe
quote:
state owned river bottom.
one of the issues that I have heard about is when a person goes to lease some land from a land company, he gets a square of land on the map and all the acreage inside that square. If there is a canal that runs through his square, so be it. That canal is considered land inside the square. I understand why a land owner would want to gate the canal. He thinks, "heck I'm paying for that acreage, I'm going to gate it".
ETA: this was from talking to my uncle...please correct me if I'm wrong.
This post was edited on 2/11/16 at 9:10 am
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:13 am to Barf
quote:
Except we don't because some of those state claimed water bottoms are now silted in to the point they can not be navigated safely. The state also gave up their lease to several areas in the marsh as well.
Sounds like a lot of this is on the state, their upkeeping process, and them charging more money while dropping their leases.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:16 am to crazycubes
Following this thread gives me the sads for the recreational fishermen.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:16 am to crazycubes
Only if in accordance with the law the canal isn't a state owned river bottom.
For instance if I buy property that is owned on both sides of the Mississippi River, that doesn't give me the ability to gate it off.
Using the Mississippi River in this case because it is a known state river bottom.
For instance if I buy property that is owned on both sides of the Mississippi River, that doesn't give me the ability to gate it off.
Using the Mississippi River in this case because it is a known state river bottom.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:32 am to Scrowe
It seems everyone has their own opinion on this matter and they should. It's what this forum is for ,to share opinions and advice ...
Still no one with authority, state or govt. etc. has made a statement that could guide us fisherman as what's the actual law.
Who's to stop anyone from going put posted signs or barricades on their favorite canals to keep the pressure off their spots. Am sure some of that is already taking place....
Still no one with authority, state or govt. etc. has made a statement that could guide us fisherman as what's the actual law.
Who's to stop anyone from going put posted signs or barricades on their favorite canals to keep the pressure off their spots. Am sure some of that is already taking place....
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:34 am to Scrowe
quote:
Sounds like a lot of this is on the state, their upkeeping process, and them charging more money while dropping their leases.
It's absolutely on the state. However it's not the states problem. The people within the state in positions to fix this shite have their own private land, so why would they want to open up their marsh to the residents?
We live in a state that allowed Biloxi Land to bully them into placing restrictions on Biloxi marsh WMA. That WMA is 100% privately owned and lease by the state of Louisiana. What would have happened if they told Biloxi land to piss off? Would they have thrown up a gate at Bakers canal and every entrance to the marsh outside of the main historically navigable state claimed water bottom that runs through the property?
We have a very real problem. Our kids and grand kids may never enjoy the access we have enjoyed over the last couple of decades. The people who are gating things off have had their fun, and now they are trying to prevent future generations, other than their own, from enjoying the same fishery that they enjoyed growing up.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:40 am to cajunboatman
quote:
Still no one with authority, state or govt. etc. has made a statement that could guide us fisherman as what's the actual law.
No state office will give you a map of private property. The liability is too great. It's up to you to guess to the best of your ability.
quote:
Who's to stop anyone from going put posted signs or barricades on their favorite canals to keep the pressure off their spots. Am sure some of that is already taking place....
Happens all the time. I've known people who have done it just for kicks to what would happen. I've sat in my skiff and watched a crab boat go along and pull up private property signs and move them to the opposite side of the canal, and then set traps the length of the canal. I took pictures, confronted WLF and was told that is a parish issue and not a wildlife enforcement issue. I approached Lafourche parish sheriff and was laughed out of the room.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:43 am to Barf
I think the real problem is assholes these days. You have assholes who abuse property (private and public). That causes landowners to be assholes. So what do you do as a landowner? You do your best to keep assholes from abusing your property and put up gates. Right or wrong, public or private canals, these landowners have a reason they put up the gates. That reason is assholes.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 9:48 am to jdavid1
If they put the gates on their land and not our water their wouldn't be a problem!
Posted on 2/11/16 at 10:06 am to cajunboatman
quote:
If they put the gates on their land and not our water their wouldn't be a problem!
You still don't get it, they are putting the gates on their land.
Posted on 2/11/16 at 10:07 am to Barf
quote:
I approached Lafourche parish sheriff and was laughed out of the room.
Here lies a problem, if the law enforcement won't deal with it then you can't blame the landowners for taking things into their own hands. Luckily the enforcement agencies where we are take it very seriously.
Page 24 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News