- 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: HR 391 (Water Access Rights) Passes 5-3 in committee
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:29 pm to rsoudelier1
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:29 pm to rsoudelier1
But there's nothing about it that's inherently wrong like what you compared it to. Some simply don't like it.
0
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:31 pm to rsoudelier1
Where did you make all of this up from?
So they get to keep paying taxes on it while being legally forced to allow the public to parade around on top of it? frick that.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:34 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
I have tried to determine the most ridiculous part of the bill, and it's quite a struggle.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:35 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Exactly which part of my post do you allege I made up?
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:37 pm to Capt ST
quote:
So how does this open borders type law protect the landowners from crap like this?
It doesn't, but who cares because landowners are "greedy"
quote:
Every year within a few weeks of it being gone some bassholes jump the banks and create ditch to access property.
This type of thing is going to occur more and more if this bill passes.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:41 pm to Motorboat
quote:There will be a war.
if this bill passes.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:41 pm to rsoudelier1
“No they would still own the water bottoms as deeded but the access to the public resource should not be infringed. If they want to control access to their land than maintain it and backfill it to prevent public water from flowing over it“
Sorry bud but there are laws and fines against filling in wetlands. Pretty much all the land affected by this is deemed wetlands.
Sorry bud but there are laws and fines against filling in wetlands. Pretty much all the land affected by this is deemed wetlands.
This post was edited on 4/12/18 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:52 pm to rsoudelier1
None of it. You quoted the ridiculous bill. I just read it and it's worse than I inferred from reading this thread.
This bill and everyone who supports it can frick off. It would be a MASSIVE land grab by the state.
This bill and everyone who supports it can frick off. It would be a MASSIVE land grab by the state.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:53 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:
I'm sorry to see that upset you, the point I am trying to make is that simply because its the law doesn't make it right. Humans write the laws they are not infallible.
Landowners who bought the land relied on this law to define their property. To change it, you are taking away something owned by someone legally (here, private use of the property to the exclusion of the public). That has value.
This has to be the worst argument yet from the fisherman side, and there have been some bad ones. I am really ashamed of my fellow fisherman that are taking such a hard line on this issue.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:53 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Except during duck season 
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:56 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Except during duck season
"Waterfowl season" actually. I'm starting to lose my cool with the proponents of this bill.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:58 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
There will be a war.
I need to get into expropriation law
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:59 pm to Motorboat
If this passed there would be NO private frogging...
Sorry but I side with the land owners on this bill
Sorry but I side with the land owners on this bill
Posted on 4/12/18 at 1:59 pm to Motorboat
I love it. It's worse than a land grab. You get to keep paying taxes on it!
Posted on 4/12/18 at 2:08 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Downshift and Alx-united again 
Posted on 4/12/18 at 2:22 pm to wickowick
quote:
Do you think the same about deer?
Most deer don’t move to new locations through tidal waters
Posted on 4/12/18 at 2:29 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:
Most deer don’t move to new locations through tidal waters
this is a non answer.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 2:31 pm to Motorboat
quote:
this is a non answer.
But it is. In one scenario you have deer, hunter, landowner
In another, you have fish, fisherman, land owner, state owned navigable waterways
Posted on 4/12/18 at 2:32 pm to gorillacoco
Coco, if you had a clue about Louisiana property law, you would not make that statement. As I stated before, the essence of private ownership of property is being able to exclude others from your property. The public water argument is a new, novel argument being used to legalize trespass. That concept has never been the law in Louisiana. If the state takes away a landowner's right to the private use of his property, that is indeed a taking by the state. And the dry land, free range hunting statement was a sarcastic statement, as I doubt that could ever happen. However, as a legal concept, it is a logical extension of your position.
Posted on 4/12/18 at 2:33 pm to Thib-a-doe Tiger
For the record If I own 2 lots at Holly Beach that have been consumed by the gulf of mexico over decades of beach and wetlands erosion. Can I build a fence around it and gate it randomly out in the gulf to keep fishermen off my property and from catching my fish?
Page 12 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News