- 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 4/16/18 at 8:01 am to Dock Holiday
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:01 am to Dock Holiday
quote:
The state of Mississippi disagrees
And your point? Isn't this Louisiana we're talking about? Texas is different too, which is why I still pay to hunt in Louisiana where owners/managers can restrict access and in turn create better duck hunting conditions.
All this talk about duck hunters should be happy with the bill is complete B.S. So now my lease will have less restrictions than a Federal refuge? Last I checked those are public too, but they can restrict access from October through February/March. So as a duck hunter, why in the world would I support this unless I was just a public land hunter that wanted free access to someone's lease? Example: my lease has no boats running around chasing bass/redfish in the months leading up to the season and ducks are everywhere in the surrounding marsh, but now you open that up until the day the season starts and what do you think the ducks do? They leave and find other areas with less pressure.
1
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:13 am to LaTexan
quote:
And your point?
That your claim is not accurate.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:17 am to Hammertime
quote:
Landowners claiming ownership of public fish and public water isn't right.
Wrong. Private individuals can restrict access to public things that are within property lines of private property. The ownership of the water or the creatures that live within the water has never been up for debate. Ever. Like never never.
If you want to talk about private property that has eroded away and the owner of the property is now restricting access to where his property use to be, you may have an argument. Even still the current law is on the side of the landowner. It makes some sense if you look at it objectively. Their property lines have never changed despite the land being washed away.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:20 am to Dock Holiday
quote:How's that?
And your point?
That your claim is not accurate.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:24 am to AlxTgr
quote:
How's that?
He claimed the below with no exclusion or specificity.
quote:
Tidally influenced ponds and canals are legally owned and the public has no right to use them
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:36 am to Hammertime
I haven't seen anyone claiming they own the fish that swim into their property
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:36 am to HotKoolaid
quote:That is exactly what the problem is. When you gate it off, you're saying, "This is now my water and fish, not yours".
The ownership of the water or the creatures that live within the water has never been up for debate
This whole debate isn't about blocking access to public waters that contain public fishes? Maybe I read the wrong thread
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:37 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
When you gate off a canal with public fish, you are de facto claiming those are your fish, and no one else's
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:39 am to Dock Holiday
quote:Well, we can be pretty sure the canals were not there in 1812. Your use of "Mississippi" is confusing though.
He claimed the below with no exclusion or specificity.
quote:
Tidally influenced ponds and canals are legally owned and the public has no right to use them
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:44 am to Dock Holiday
quote:
He claimed the below with no exclusion or specificity.
quote:
Tidally influenced ponds and canals are legally owned and the public has no right to use them
You had me confused with another poster I guess...I was just pointing out that your argument of trying to compare Louisiana with Mississippi doesn't make any sense. Arguing that point doesn't help any if the bill unconstitutional. Sure, it may pass, but then what do you argue when it gets overturned by courts?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:47 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Your use of "Mississippi" is confusing though.
Phillips verses the state of Mississippi is by in large about tidal waters, both canals and ponds and judgement was given by the Supreme Court.
His claim came across as being the law of the U.S., which is inaccurate.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:50 am to Hammertime
quote:
When you gate off a canal with public fish, you are de facto claiming those are your fish, and no one else's
Do fish swim? I'm pretty sure they can, so they aren't "locked in" those canals. I know of an exclusive high dollar hunting club close to where I hunt and they spent millions on water control structures to regulate salinity, have better natural feed/vegetation, and in turn I know they hold better quality ducks and have better hunting. Are those ducks now de facto "claimed" or can they fly off that property?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 8:57 am to Hammertime
quote:
When you gate off a canal with public fish, you are de facto claiming those are your fish, and no one else's
You act like they trapped all the fish inside the canal. They are free to go wherever they want. There is a little bit of a discussion to be had on restricting access when the canal was filled up with water that is owned by public but the courts have decided public ownership of the water does not equal public access to the water. Only that the land owner can not do whatever they want with the publics resource. They can't dump a bunch of shite in it, pump it someplace for their own private use, or treat the fish within the water as aquatic livestock.
I am very much pro public access to all tidally influenced bodies of water on the simple basis that land owners should not be paying taxes on or restricting access to places where their land used to be. As for duck ponds, well they should have never been part of the deed to the property in the first place, but they were, and since I don't have a time machine I will just have to accept it and move on with my life.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:01 am to Hammertime
This stance is so crazy. If I put up a gate on my hunting club and throw corn am I now illegally holding the publics deer? The boundaries of private property are geographical and they don't give consideration to man made canals just like a driveway off the highway doesn't allow every Tom Dick and Harry to come hunt the deer on my lease.
When the neighbors run dogs and they come over on our property its exactly like some Toby coming onto my private property when I am trying to duck hunt.
I cannot believe how many of the fishermen I am hearing from are flat out communists on this issue. Lets take from one group and give it to the people. I wonder how man Bernie Bro stickers I am going to start seeing at the boat launch. Bunch of dirty hippy communist Cajuns.
When the neighbors run dogs and they come over on our property its exactly like some Toby coming onto my private property when I am trying to duck hunt.
I cannot believe how many of the fishermen I am hearing from are flat out communists on this issue. Lets take from one group and give it to the people. I wonder how man Bernie Bro stickers I am going to start seeing at the boat launch. Bunch of dirty hippy communist Cajuns.
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 9:05 am
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:03 am to LaTexan
Ducks migrate. Not a good comparison. If all fish held up one night on a piece of property, and then moved off of said piece of property, that would be a different story.
Fill in the entrances to your property, and there won't be a problem. Same as sticking up a high fence (that deer can't jump). You can't take advantage of public resources anymore
Fill in the entrances to your property, and there won't be a problem. Same as sticking up a high fence (that deer can't jump). You can't take advantage of public resources anymore
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 9:11 am
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:07 am to Profit Island
quote:
The boundaries of private property are geographical and they don't give consideration to man made canals just like a driveway off the highway doesn't allow every Tom Dick and Harry to come hunt the deer on my lease.
You are correct and the courts have agreed with you.
The argument against this is the driveway you build connecting your private land to a public roadway is not filled in with parts of that public roadway. Where as a canal dug on private property requires the use of the publics water to make the canal navigable. The public is not compensated for a private person taking a public resource of his private use. The courts seem to have ruled against this argument but maybe there is a room for debate.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:11 am to HotKoolaid
But the public doesn't really want access to the water for pleasure boating. They want access to the fish. Which brings it back around to my analogy with the deer.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:14 am to Hammertime
quote:
andowners claiming ownership of public fish and public water isn't right.
NO THEY ARE NOT. Landowners acknowledge that the waters and fish are publicly owned. They are just saying that USE of these public resources are off limits when on top of privately owned water bottoms.
this argument is retarded.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:15 am to Profit Island
quote:
But the public doesn't really want access to the water for pleasure boating. They want access to the fish. Which brings it back around to my analogy with the deer.
To be fair, you dug a canal on private property and then filled it up with the publics water without compensating them for that water or the wildlife within.
I don't like the deer analogy for a bunch of different reasons but the main one is if you create habitat for deer on your property, you do it with your own resources. You are free to restrict access to what you have created. If you dig a canal, you have no choice but to fill it up with water you do not own.
For the record, I don't think the public should be allowed to use private canals but they should have been compensated for the redirecting of their water.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:18 am to Profit Island
Why do you keep bringing political name-calling into this argument? Name-calling is a sign that you can't argue your point, and there are 18 pages of good arguments here.
As to your other argument, when you put up a high fence, you block yourself from receiving public property. What's yours is yours, and you don't get to utilize the public's goods anymore. Go ahead and put up your fence.....just don't have a legal road going through it
As to your other argument, when you put up a high fence, you block yourself from receiving public property. What's yours is yours, and you don't get to utilize the public's goods anymore. Go ahead and put up your fence.....just don't have a legal road going through it
Page 18 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News