- 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: Gating canals in houma area
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:39 pm to Dock Holiday
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:39 pm to Dock Holiday
quote:
running to the end of Bayou Gentilly in Delacroix are both trespassing
Could you imagine if one day Delacroix land corp woke up and decided no more fishing and gated the entire thing? That entire dump of a place would quite literally cease to exist over night.
1
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:41 pm to Barf
quote:I'm starting to believe you are completely clueless.
The location of the canal is irrelevant.
I'm starting to think you're just screwing with people. No way are you that dense.
quote:Wait, why?
The property should have never been private in the first place.
quote:No it's not at all
That is the entire debate.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:44 pm to Barf
I know barf.. it would a shite storm for sure.
Alex, I commend your efforts, but the fact remains this law is flawed and many see right through it, even those that benefit from it.
Alex, I commend your efforts, but the fact remains this law is flawed and many see right through it, even those that benefit from it.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:45 pm to Dock Holiday
quote:Can you defend this at all without taking us away from the canal context?
but the fact remains this law is flawed and many see right through it, even those that benefit from it.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:47 pm to AlxTgr
All this mess down here is just going to force my hand into buying that dream camp on the Bend I've always wanted
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:50 pm to AboveGroundPool
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:58 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Can you defend this at all without taking us away from the canal context?
I'm not sure what angle you're taking here. The canals in question are/were canals dug on tidal marsh. That marsh should have never been leased to dig the canals in the first place. To compound the problem, those canals have caused irreparable damage to the wetlands surround them. Tax payers are footing the bill for restorative efforts, caused in part by oil/gas exploration canals.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 1:59 pm to Barf
quote:Why do you find that significant?
The canals in question are/were canals dug on tidal marsh.
quote:Why?
That marsh should have never been leased to dig the canals in the first place.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 2:00 pm to Barf
quote:
I'm not sure what angle you're taking here. The canals in question are/were canals dug on tidal marsh. That marsh should have never been leased to dig the canals in the first place. To compound the problem, those canals have caused irreparable damage to the wetlands surround them. Tax payers are footing the bill for restorative efforts, caused in part by oil/gas exploration canals.
but those canals were dug through private property - because they dug through it they should give up their rights to the property?
Posted on 1/25/16 at 2:02 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
without taking us away from the canal context?
quote:
location of the canal is completely irrelevant
This thread has taken many twist and originally the OP wanted to know about gated canals in the Houma marsh, thus there is a certain costal aspect to this discussion. Denying that is either wanting to steer this a certain direction, wanting to narrow the talk or wanting to mess with folks.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 2:04 pm to choupiquesushi
quote:
- because they dug through it they should give up their rights to the property?
If they can not afford to fund restorative efforts from erosion caused by the canals, then yes.
There is no denying that oil and gas exploration/transportation canals in Houma are huge contributors to coastal erosion.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 2:08 pm to Dock Holiday
quote:No, just no. A seashore discussion would be fine in such a thread. You will not see me there because I see boths sides of the problem and cannot choose.
This thread has taken many twist and originally the OP wanted to know about gated canals in the Houma marsh, thus there is a certain costal aspect to this discussion. Denying that is either wanting to steer this a certain direction, wanting to narrow the talk or wanting to mess with folks.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 3:05 pm to AlxTgr
Just trying to get a simple recap of all this.
1. Navigable canals are dug on private property and not on the map from the 1800's
2. These canals connect to navigable, natural waterways that are on this map.
3. The state rules that the canals can be gated off without being dammed.
So essentially, hunters who lease the land/marsh along these canals love it because it can keep the fishermen out of their hunting locations. Is that it? It would make for an interesting debate had the state not already ruled on it.
I knew years ago when they allowed for Lake Theriot to be gated off, that it would only get worse.
1. Navigable canals are dug on private property and not on the map from the 1800's
2. These canals connect to navigable, natural waterways that are on this map.
3. The state rules that the canals can be gated off without being dammed.
So essentially, hunters who lease the land/marsh along these canals love it because it can keep the fishermen out of their hunting locations. Is that it? It would make for an interesting debate had the state not already ruled on it.
I knew years ago when they allowed for Lake Theriot to be gated off, that it would only get worse.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 3:14 pm to shimanocurado
quote:Just remember, navigable is meaningless without adding "...in 1812".
1. Navigable canals are dug on private property and not on the map from the 1800's
quote:This is not relevant to the discussion, but I assume this is true.
2. These canals connect to navigable, natural waterways that are on this map.
quote:Just like a pasture.
3. The state rules that the canals can be gated off without being dammed.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 3:15 pm to shimanocurado
I literally just received a pic of a smashed in broken gate from a canal that was very recently gated...canal is not in the marsh. This one is going to get ugly.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 3:40 pm to Barf
quote:
If they can not afford to fund restorative efforts from erosion caused by the canals, then yes.
There is no denying that oil and gas exploration/transportation canals in Houma are huge contributors to coastal erosion.
that is not the issue here
Posted on 1/25/16 at 3:42 pm to choupiquesushi
Has anyone gated off property that was not being abused prior to gate going up.....
IE most I am aware of had good reason to gate them - it sucks but it is their right.
IE most I am aware of had good reason to gate them - it sucks but it is their right.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 3:42 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
This is not relevant to the discussion, but I assume this is true.
From a legal perspective, no, because a state court has already made a ruling on it. But I think that's where all the conflict from the fishermen comes from. In order to have a private waterway, it shouldn't be able to be accessed from public waterways. The idea from a fisherman's point of view is that all fish which swim in public waters are essentially public property and shouldn't be restricted.
quote:
Just like a pasture.
Not exactly, the water in these gated canals flowed in from a public body of water, and therefore should remain public. The land on either side of the canal, sure that's private but not the water itself.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 3:59 pm to shimanocurado
quote:Shouldn't? Why? Apply your statement above to deer and ducks and see what happens.
In order to have a private waterway, it shouldn't be able to be accessed from public waterways. The idea from a fisherman's point of view is that all fish which swim in public waters are essentially public property and shouldn't be restricted.
quote:This is a conclusory statement with no support whatsoever.
Not exactly, the water in these gated canals flowed in from a public body of water, and therefore should remain public.
quote:Of course the water is private.
The land on either side of the canal, sure that's private but not the water itself.
Posted on 1/25/16 at 4:04 pm to AlxTgr
One thing I have learned from this thread is that most of you sum bitches are smarter than me. I mean, who the frick uses "conclusory statement" in a sentence?
Page 5 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News