- 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 4/15/18 at 8:44 am to Nawlens Gator
Posted on 4/15/18 at 8:44 am to Nawlens Gator
No. The more appropriate ananlogy is hunters will want to ride hovercrafts into the airspace over private land. They’re inches over the land so not trespassing. Right?
2
Posted on 4/15/18 at 9:35 am to Motorboat
quote:
“I would probably block off all my canals that are currently giving access to people, and I would suggest that a lot of these land owners behind me would, which would end up with less access for the public than what they enjoy right now. Are you really willing to roll the dice on that?” Allain said.
If the bill passes how would he legally be able to block off the canals?
Posted on 4/15/18 at 10:43 am to Motorboat
quote:
Message HR 391 (Water Access Rights) Passes 5-3 in committee by Motorboat No. The more appropriate ananlogy is hunters will want to ride hovercrafts into the airspace over private land. They’re inches over the land so not trespassing. Right?
Them baws better get to start understanding the FAA’s designations for airspace classifications then. That’s under federal control and they better know the regs. So it isn’t a good analogy because fedgov will be involved to protect you, from you.
Posted on 4/15/18 at 11:06 am to Junky
I just want to be able to hunt from a pirogue where ever it will float. Deer are buoyant too.
Posted on 4/15/18 at 11:52 am to Junky
quote:It's a perfect analogy.
isn’t a good analogy because fedgov will be involved to protect you, from you.
Posted on 4/15/18 at 12:43 pm to AlxTgr
Will the state be responsible for the invasive species that are carried onto private property by the public and it’s waters?
Posted on 4/15/18 at 2:26 pm to tgrbaitn08
Talked to a guy the other day said that Allain’s statement was gasoline to a fire. I can’t remember which organization but he said they got 300 new members after that statement
Posted on 4/15/18 at 3:06 pm to pointdog33
Please see if you can find out which organization that is.
I still would like to know how he thinks he can put up gates to block canals if this bill passes.
I still would like to know how he thinks he can put up gates to block canals if this bill passes.
Posted on 4/15/18 at 4:00 pm to tgrbaitn08
Simple solution if you want your “property” to be private then you need to dam it off where it’s not impacted by the ebb and flow of the tide. If it ebbs and flows with the tide then it’s public like everywhere else in the world.
Posted on 4/15/18 at 4:01 pm to tgrbaitn08
Tidal waters belong to the public, not the owner of the submerged land. He owns the submerged land, not the tidal waters on top. Next thing he'll want to ban airlines from flying over his land.
Posted on 4/15/18 at 10:23 pm to redfishfan
No, it isn't. That is directly contradictory to the law.
Posted on 4/15/18 at 10:50 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
I have a question for the supporters of the bill. Are you ok with the government telling you what guns you can or can't own?
No? Then why would you want the government to dictate how you control access to property you paid for? From what I can tell from the Facebook crap being spewed y'all are the poster children of the snowflake millennial movement. "It's not fair, they're greedy and rich, I want my shite for free too!"
If y'all would at least admit your liberal leanings I'd have more respect for the movement for "access".
No? Then why would you want the government to dictate how you control access to property you paid for? From what I can tell from the Facebook crap being spewed y'all are the poster children of the snowflake millennial movement. "It's not fair, they're greedy and rich, I want my shite for free too!"
If y'all would at least admit your liberal leanings I'd have more respect for the movement for "access".
This post was edited on 4/15/18 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 4/16/18 at 4:59 am to LaTexan
I agree. I'm a non-land owning, non-trespassing fisherman. I'm praying a compromise can be reached between both sides but this shite....
is absolutely true and very sad. They can't see the hypocrisy of their stance and I want no part of it.
quote:
From what I can tell from the Facebook crap being spewed y'all are the poster children of the snowflake millennial movement. "It's not fair, they're greedy and rich, I want my shite for free too!"
is absolutely true and very sad. They can't see the hypocrisy of their stance and I want no part of it.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 5:42 am to GeauxTigers0107
quote:
I'm a non-land owning, non-trespassing fisherman.
If you have fished the marsh south of I-10 chances are VERY good you are in fact a trespasser.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 6:06 am to Motorboat
quote:
it will eventually come back over public water bottoms and you can fish it then and tear up historically navigable water bottoms then.
You know what marsh is the most publicly accessible? Biloxi Marsh. You know what area sees the least land loss in Louisiana? Biloxi Marsh...
You know what areas are the most often "patrolled" and gated in Louisiana? Leeville and Lafitte.
You know what area suffers the most land loss in America? The Barrataria and Terrebone estuaries (Leeville and Lafitte).
Posted on 4/16/18 at 6:13 am to KemoSabe65
quote:
Bow fishin gonna buss wide open if dis passes
it already is, I know guides who get tickets for trespassing
Posted on 4/16/18 at 6:35 am to Dock Holiday
Spot on
Everyone should fish the Biloxi Marsh more.
Everyone should fish the Biloxi Marsh more.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 6:46 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Correct
Tidally influenced ponds and canals are legally owned and the public has no right to use them. The HB 391 can't change that unless the State purchases those canals or ponds.
Read the last sentence of the 5th Amendment.. it's an important one.
Tidally influenced ponds and canals are legally owned and the public has no right to use them. The HB 391 can't change that unless the State purchases those canals or ponds.
Read the last sentence of the 5th Amendment.. it's an important one.Posted on 4/16/18 at 7:34 am to OverboredTgr
quote:
Tidally influenced ponds and canals are legally owned and the public has no right to use them
Interesting claim...
The state of Mississippi disagrees and so did the majority of the U.S. Supremes Court justices when given the same claim.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 7:59 am to Dock Holiday
Still a hot button issue. Landowners claiming ownership of public fish and public water isn't right. If they want their own water and their own fish, fill the entrance in, and stop taking it from the public. Then, you won't have to complain about people riding through "your water". We'll see how everyone likes it when 90% of the marsh is closed off and fishing and fishing revenue completely tanks.
Hopefully the public wins out on this one
Hopefully the public wins out on this one
Page 17 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News