- 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 9:47 pm to TigerDat
Posted on 4/12/18 at 9:47 pm to TigerDat
quote:
His gates have been up prior to March 18, or am i missing an amendment to that or reading it wrong?
No you’re right. I finally had a chance to read it too. No wonder this this thing has traction. Everyone already gated is grandfathered in.
1
Posted on 4/13/18 at 12:04 am to deaconjones35
Yea you right. I'll start a. 243 thread tomorrow
Posted on 4/13/18 at 6:25 am to tigerinthebueche
From what I understand, the gates must be permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to remain.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 7:53 am to AlxTgr
State boundary is 3 miles into Gulf. If tidal marsh is consider seashore (Gulf) then the State won't own most of the barrier islands. Seashore has been defined in court rulings that carry weight. And the guide that filed suit against the sheriff in Lafourche is appealing which tells you how that went for him.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 7:53 am to bayoudude
No sir there is still over 100 acres of actual land there...on the bottom underneath our public water.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 8:32 am to Thib-a-doe Tiger
quote:louisiana law says that you must chase all deer off your property before putting up a high fence. then, purchase deer from an in-state breeder. so, no, there are no state owned deer inside a high fence in louisiana.
When someone fences off their property, isn’t it illegal for them to keep state owned deer there?
Posted on 4/13/18 at 9:27 am to rsoudelier1
A new OBer comes out of the woodwork…
So we’ve got pro small government conservatives on social media calling landowners “greedy”, mentioning Saul Alinsky tactics, using words like “progressive”, claiming landowners won’t compromise yet they wonder why when all they do is bash anyone who has a different opinion.
Hell, if I was a landowner I wouldn’t want to compromise with a bunch of liberals who can’t see past that this violates current law. Even big brother manages Federal refuges more stringent than this law proposes (no fishing October through March on interior marsh if I’m not mistaken). So now we’re going to get the state to tell a property owner that he/she can’t restrict activities that would at least benefit waterfowl? I fear that people are being severely misled by this whole public/private debate as I’ve got Texas and Louisiana friends who are telling me the property owners just “claimed” these areas. If I’m not mistaken, holding title to specific acreage is actually ownership, is it not? A dangerous precedent will be set if we start voting to let the government take away our property rights. It is a joy to follow this on social media as the majority of the vocal ones have Facebook pages littered with pro Trump and anti liberal stuff yet here they are advocating for big government help and hand outs.
Disclaimer: I don’t own land, live in Louisiana (born there), or own a boat. I just save my money and pay for a hunting lease in Southwest Louisiana to get away from the public land craziness that is Sabine NWR.
So we’ve got pro small government conservatives on social media calling landowners “greedy”, mentioning Saul Alinsky tactics, using words like “progressive”, claiming landowners won’t compromise yet they wonder why when all they do is bash anyone who has a different opinion.
Hell, if I was a landowner I wouldn’t want to compromise with a bunch of liberals who can’t see past that this violates current law. Even big brother manages Federal refuges more stringent than this law proposes (no fishing October through March on interior marsh if I’m not mistaken). So now we’re going to get the state to tell a property owner that he/she can’t restrict activities that would at least benefit waterfowl? I fear that people are being severely misled by this whole public/private debate as I’ve got Texas and Louisiana friends who are telling me the property owners just “claimed” these areas. If I’m not mistaken, holding title to specific acreage is actually ownership, is it not? A dangerous precedent will be set if we start voting to let the government take away our property rights. It is a joy to follow this on social media as the majority of the vocal ones have Facebook pages littered with pro Trump and anti liberal stuff yet here they are advocating for big government help and hand outs.
Disclaimer: I don’t own land, live in Louisiana (born there), or own a boat. I just save my money and pay for a hunting lease in Southwest Louisiana to get away from the public land craziness that is Sabine NWR.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 9:29 am to LaTexan
It's very comical to watch.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 9:36 am to LaTexan
quote:There are good arguments and talking points on their side. They should really stick to them. Stuff like this makes them look so so bad.
I fear that people are being severely misled by this whole public/private debate as I’ve got Texas and Louisiana friends who are telling me the property owners just “claimed” these areas. If I’m not mistaken, holding title to specific acreage is actually ownership, is it not?
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:04 am to LaTexan
quote:
A dangerous precedent will be set if we start voting to let the government take away our property rights
I can only speak for myself on this but my contention is this: First and foremost this bill is not a land grab this bill is written to gain public access to a public resource that was taken by the landowner's failure to maintain his property or in many cases cut canals on his property that the end result is that a public resource (tidal water and aquatic life) has been captured and the public is denied access to public resources. The landowners should have been required by law and forced to maintain their property in such a manner as to prevent public resources from flowing onto their land and taking it over. If they want to deny access then they should be required to return public resources to the public by backfilling all their canals and marsh areas.
Just my opinion of what the bill is designed to do along with my 2 cents
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:07 am to AlxTgr
Alex, I would like to hear the good arguments. As a Louisiana lawyer who has practiced property law for over 40 years, I have not heard one yet that is based upon Louisiana law. I really think that the legislature should have the Law Institute study this and come up with a recommendation before they rush and approve this poorly drafted bill. What I really hate about this whole situation is that it has people who love the outdoors taking sides and the level of vitriol on this issue reminds me of the nastiness that is Washington, D.C. I guess that it is symptomatic of the state of our country, when reasonable people can no longer sit down and work out a compromise. It is either all or nothing. Remember, with a good compromise, neither side is truly 100 percent happy.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:13 am to rsoudelier1
quote:No...stop.
a public resource that was taken
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:16 am to byutgr
quote:No time to flesh it all out, but that basically, the cases decided on these issues are not following the letter of the Civil Code. Start with art. 450.
Alex, I would like to hear the good arguments. As a Louisiana lawyer who has practiced property law for over 40 years, I have not heard one yet that is based upon Louisiana law.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:21 am to rsoudelier1
Holy shite 
I tried and I can't even type a coherent response to that
I tried and I can't even type a coherent response to that
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:23 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Start with art. 450.
For Reference
quote:
Art. 450. Public things. Public things are owned by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as public persons. Public things that belong to the state are such as running waters, the waters and bottoms of natural navigable water bodies, the territorial sea, and the seashore. Public things that may belong to political subdivisions of the state are such as streets and public squares.
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:24 am to AlxTgr
quote:
No...stop.
So what is it? Is the water and aquatic life no at public resource? Is allowing your land to erode or digging a canal and in turn the water flows onto it not considered a taking?
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:26 am to rsoudelier1
quote:Whether it is or it isn't has nothing to do with the owner's ability to prevent access.
Is the water and aquatic life no at public resource?
quote:No, it is not.
Is allowing your land to erode or digging a canal and in turn the water flows onto it not considered a taking?
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:28 am to rsoudelier1
quote:
allowing your land to errode
Again,
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:44 am to AlxTgr
Hopefully this bill will pass and I assume lawsuits filed that will go to a court were it will be adjudicated and the answer to the question of "when someone denies access to a public resource does that mean that they are in turn taking a qualified ownership of that resource?". My contention is that if someone controls access to something(in this case public water and aquatic life)they are taking a qualified ownership of that thing. The landowners in this debate continually say that they own the land and the public owns the water but if they control the access to the water then aren't they at that point claiming a qualified ownership of that water?
Posted on 4/13/18 at 10:47 am to rsoudelier1
quote:And yet you don't want to talk about the air breathing game animals on private land. This is just not a good argument at all.
My contention is that if someone controls access to something(in this case public water and aquatic life)they are taking a qualified ownership of that thing. The landowners in this debate continually say that they own the land and the public owns the water but if they control the access to the water then aren't they at that point claiming a qualified ownership of that water?
Page 14 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News