- 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 9:19 am to Hammertime
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:19 am to Hammertime
quote:
Ducks migrate. Not a good comparison.
Actually it's a perfect comparison since I can't access someone's property to kill those ducks without permission.
quote:
Same as sticking up a high fence (that deer can't jump).
No, it would be the same as low fencing your property and managing food plots to try and hold the deer, but they are free to jump that low fence as they please just like a fish can swim off private marsh into publicly accessible areas.
1
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:26 am to Motorboat
"This is your stuff, except when it is mine". Park your car in my driveway. I wall you off and drive it around all I want. But it's still yours, so that's cool.
I know these analogies sound stupid, but that's what you're saying
I know these analogies sound stupid, but that's what you're saying
Posted on 4/16/18 at 9:31 am to LaTexan
Blocking yourself off from the public resources is basically the same. Stop all deer from coming in = stop all water and fish from coming in
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:01 am to Dock Holiday
From a case Dardar v Lafourche ... "citing Phillips Petroleum Co v Mississippi.. the plaintiffs contend that a federal navigational servitude exists in their favor over any areas that are now subject to ebb and flow of the tides. The Court disagrees." Let's check the facts at the door please.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:08 am to OverboredTgr
From the same case ... "in quoting article 452, the plaintiffs conveniently skip an import phrase: "Public things ... are subject to public use .. in accordance with applicable laws and regulations." Louisiana law permits Lafourche Realty to charge a toll or canal fee for any vessel that it chooses to let ply its waters" ... (it gets better) ... "Further, even though it may not technically own the wild animals and fish on its property, Lafourche Realty may legally prohibit citizens from hunting or fishing on its property" .... lets keep the facts checked at the door
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:13 am to Hammertime
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.
Art. 452. Public things and common things subject to public use.
Public things and common things are subject to public use in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Everyone has the right to fish in the rivers, ports, roadsteads, and harbors, and the right to land on the seashore, to fish, to shelter himself, to moor ships, to dry nets, and the like, provided that he does not cause injury to the property of adjoining owners.
The seashore within the limits of a municipality is subject to its police power, and the public use is governed by municipal ordinances and regulations.
Art. 453. Private things.
Private things are owned by individuals, other private persons, and by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as private persons.
Art. 456. Banks of navigable rivers or streams.
The banks of navigable rivers or streams are private things that are subject to public use.
The bank of a navigable river or stream is the land lying between the ordinary low and the ordinary high stage of the water. Nevertheless, when there is a levee in proximity to the water, established according to law, the levee shall form the bank.
Art. 490. Accession above and below the surface.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the ownership of a tract of land carries with it the ownership of everything that is directly above or under it.
The owner may make works on, above, or below the land as he pleases, and draw all the advantages that accrue from them, unless he is restrained by law or by rights of others.
Art. 506. Ownership of beds of nonnavigable rivers or streams.
In the absence of title or prescription, the beds of nonnavigable rivers or streams belong to the riparian owners along a line drawn in the middle of the bed.
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.
Art. 452. Public things and common things subject to public use.
Public things and common things are subject to public use in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Everyone has the right to fish in the rivers, ports, roadsteads, and harbors, and the right to land on the seashore, to fish, to shelter himself, to moor ships, to dry nets, and the like, provided that he does not cause injury to the property of adjoining owners.
The seashore within the limits of a municipality is subject to its police power, and the public use is governed by municipal ordinances and regulations.
Art. 453. Private things.
Private things are owned by individuals, other private persons, and by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as private persons.
Art. 456. Banks of navigable rivers or streams.
The banks of navigable rivers or streams are private things that are subject to public use.
The bank of a navigable river or stream is the land lying between the ordinary low and the ordinary high stage of the water. Nevertheless, when there is a levee in proximity to the water, established according to law, the levee shall form the bank.
Art. 490. Accession above and below the surface.
Unless otherwise provided by law, the ownership of a tract of land carries with it the ownership of everything that is directly above or under it.
The owner may make works on, above, or below the land as he pleases, and draw all the advantages that accrue from them, unless he is restrained by law or by rights of others.
Art. 506. Ownership of beds of nonnavigable rivers or streams.
In the absence of title or prescription, the beds of nonnavigable rivers or streams belong to the riparian owners along a line drawn in the middle of the bed.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:20 am to xenon16
Build levvvvveeeeeesssss 
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 10:21 am
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:42 am to Hammertime
quote:
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
They do this every single time I go fishing
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:46 am to Motorboat
Are you trying to make the argument for non-navigable? If fish or water can get in somewhere, one of those SWLA/Texas guys could run a boat in it
The antiquated law should be looked at again. Proponents, opponents, biologists, hydrologists, the Corp, LDWF, lawyers, judges, etc. It's not an easy decision, but judging from how passionate these debates always get, it needs to be done. People are not gonna be happy, but will have to accept it whichever way it goes
The antiquated law should be looked at again. Proponents, opponents, biologists, hydrologists, the Corp, LDWF, lawyers, judges, etc. It's not an easy decision, but judging from how passionate these debates always get, it needs to be done. People are not gonna be happy, but will have to accept it whichever way it goes
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:56 am to Hammertime
Just let the bassholes keep being unhappy 
Posted on 4/16/18 at 10:56 am to Hammertime
quote:
It's not an easy decision, but judging from how passionate these debates always get, it needs to be done. People are not gonna be happy, but will have to accept it whichever way it goe
Add in the amount of guns pulled out on the water because of this whole debate and there is a justifiable reason to look into it further. Make a decision that both sides can live with.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:05 am to HotKoolaid
They were compensated. There are permit fees and mitigation banking requirements in place. If the people now think that the prices paid at that time are not sufficient... well... sucks to suck lol.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:06 am to pointdog33
This is a fake talking point. When is the last time you heard of a landowner shooting a trespasser on the marsh. Social media is trying to make it sound like we are in the middle of a Mad Max movie.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:07 am to pointdog33
quote:Unpossible. It's all or nothing for either side, or maybe I'm not smart enough to come up with a middle ground
Make a decision that both sides can live with.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:18 am to Hammertime
I made a suggestion in an earlier thread to treat the marsh navigable waterways like open range in the west.
Allow the water bottom owners to open up their areas if they choose.
Exempt those who choose to open from property taxes.
Charge the fishermen a permitting fee to fish those areas. Share part of the fees with the opting-in land owners, the rest could go to coastal restoration.
There's no "land grabbing". It's all optional and provides compensation to those who choose to do it.
Allow the water bottom owners to open up their areas if they choose.
Exempt those who choose to open from property taxes.
Charge the fishermen a permitting fee to fish those areas. Share part of the fees with the opting-in land owners, the rest could go to coastal restoration.
There's no "land grabbing". It's all optional and provides compensation to those who choose to do it.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:20 am to dpd901
A picture depicting the opposition side of this argument.. the landowners on the horses with the lease holders behind them
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 11:21 am
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:34 am to Profit Island
quote:
They were compensated. There are permit fees and mitigation banking requirements in place. If the people now think that the prices paid at that time are not sufficient... well... sucks to suck lol.
Not sure I agree with this. Interesting point though.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:43 am to pointdog33
Then you're still charging fees to go into what they say is public water
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:43 am to pointdog33
quote:
I made a suggestion in an earlier thread to treat the marsh navigable waterways like open range in the west.
Allow the water bottom owners to open up their areas if they choose.
Exempt those who choose to open from property taxes.
Charge the fishermen a permitting fee to fish those areas. Share part of the fees with the opting-in land owners, the rest could go to coastal restoration.
There's no "land grabbing". It's all optional and provides compensation to those who choose to do it.
Have you lost your goddamn mind?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 11:57 am to HotKoolaid
No.
I think it's reasonable given the way LA laws stands currently, to make it an optional and incentivize land owners who would like to open their land.
Fishermen will get no where with the "floating on public waters" argument as seen in this thread and the fact that nothing has ever changed to date.
Fishermen can't expect something for nothing in this situation. They'll have to give in more than the landowners because the landowners don't have to give in to anything.
I think it's reasonable given the way LA laws stands currently, to make it an optional and incentivize land owners who would like to open their land.
Fishermen will get no where with the "floating on public waters" argument as seen in this thread and the fact that nothing has ever changed to date.
Fishermen can't expect something for nothing in this situation. They'll have to give in more than the landowners because the landowners don't have to give in to anything.
Page 19 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News