- 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 12:13 pm to pointdog33
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:13 pm to pointdog33
quote:
They'll have to give in more than the landowners because the landowners don't have to give in to anything.
That statement is pure fact. The laws have stood up in the courts, the average fisherman refuses to accept the fact that tidal marsh property and private canals can be privately owned. It is not antiquated. Where properties have been adjudicated in court there is no public access.
They'll have to give in more than the landowners because the landowners don't have to give in to anything.
That statement is pure fact. The laws have stood up in the courts, the average fisherman refuses to accept the fact that tidal marsh property and private canals can be privately owned. It is not antiquated. Where properties have been adjudicated in court there is no public access.
0
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:14 pm to Hammertime
quote:
Are you trying to make the argument for non-navigable?
No--I'm simply posting the law and how ownership is vested. If private ownership (specifically the right to currently keep the public out of waters over waters that were not navigable in 1812), then those owners need to be compensated, as it amounts to a taking.
quote:
It's not an easy decision, but judging from how passionate these debates always get, it needs to be done.
I disagree. Just because fishermen have all the sudden organized and decided they want more access, does not mean that it needs to be done.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:34 pm to Motorboat
quote:
No--I'm simply posting the law and how ownership is vested. If private ownership (specifically the right to currently keep the public out of waters over waters that were not navigable in 1812)
Food for thought the link below are a list of some laws from 1812, maybe its just time for Louisiana to catch up with the 21st century and realize those maps are pretty useless
LINK /
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:38 pm to rsoudelier1
quote:
Food for thought the link below are a list of some laws from 1812, maybe its just time for Louisiana to catch up with the 21st century and realize those maps are pretty useless
LINK /
You should get together with this dude from facebook and join forces. Nobody would be able to disagree with these rock solid points of view.
quote:
What if your kid had a public park he loved to play at. Now this park and all the slides, swings and monkey bars were paid for by your tax dollars. One day your whole family shows up to have a picnic, the kids are fired up, you turn down the road leading to the park and there was a gate. To add insult to injury, there is one family in the park having a picnic. You try to get there with your family only to have someone cuss you and pull a gun out. Would you be mad enough to fight? It happens EVERYDAY on Louisiana waters. This is what gates and posted waterways do to families like mine and countless other families. Please stand with us and support HB391 and put a stop to this madness.
Come on. How can you possibly disagree with this
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:45 pm to HotKoolaid
Except the water this bill seeks to allow public access is being paid for by private land owners. Their tax assessment includes the area covered in water.. probably described as marshland.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 12:45 pm to OverboredTgr
Go back and see that in Dardar the swing was the fact it was tried after Act 998 of the 1992 Regular Session was passed. Fact check comments are nice and all, but there needs to be details and context to why the courts opinion was rendered.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 1:54 pm to Dock Holiday
Dardar began in the mid 1980's. Original judgement rendered in May and October 1991. Vaughn v Vermillion Corp was 1979.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 1:59 pm to Dock Holiday
what is the cite for Dardar?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:10 pm to dpd901
quote:
Proposed law provides that no person may prohibit the public navigation of running waters
which are navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the
laws of this state or the U.S., except where navigation has been prevented or impeded by an
obstacle constructed by the landowner prior to March 2, 2018.
Does this mean if you had a gate up prior to March 2nd 2018 you can keep it up?
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:10 pm to bayoudude
So my dad owns property on a river. Over time the river bed has moved. So land that was once owned by my father is now the river. Would that mean that my dad can keep ppl from fishing bc he owned that exact piece of land 20 years ago?
This post was edited on 4/16/18 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:15 pm to redfishfan
No. That falls under the laws dealing with accretion and avulsion of the river bed. Your dad loses land to the water. The neighbor on the other side of the river actually gains ownership.
Unless you are unlucky enough to be dealing with the pricks at the state, like at the wax, where they claim the water and the newly created land.
Unless you are unlucky enough to be dealing with the pricks at the state, like at the wax, where they claim the water and the newly created land.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:17 pm to redfishfan
If instead the river was a canal, non navigable at the time of 1812, and the canal had eroded away expanding the original Right of way your dad would still own it all.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:23 pm to tgrbaitn08
The real question is can it remained closed ... and while we are at it let's make sure all these fishermen have insurance to cover the damaged caused to all of the property. Need insurance to drive a car, better have insurance to drive a boat as well. Those camps and wharves and blinds aren't cheap.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:56 pm to Profit Island
If avulsion (a sudden loss of land into river due to flood, etc.)happens on a navigable waterway, riparian owner would still own to original line. If it is erosion (gradual and imperceptible land loss that the eye cannot detect) over time, and riparian owner doesn't make effort to stop, fix, or reclaim, the title is lost to state.
Each case is subject to the courts decision though.
Each case is subject to the courts decision though.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:57 pm to CootDisCootDat
Which is funny as more than likely the army corps of engineers will not allow you to dump any material to abate the land loss....
Posted on 4/16/18 at 2:58 pm to OverboredTgr
Love seeing all this new blood in here. 
Posted on 4/16/18 at 3:02 pm to AlxTgr
Not new, just cant get the mods to unban my other account. My co workers got on my computer while I was out of town and wreaked havoc on my social media. baw.
Posted on 4/16/18 at 3:05 pm to Profit Island
Yikes 
Posted on 4/16/18 at 3:07 pm to bayoudude
Exactly. So the law says one thing, but what actually happens is a totally different thing...
I'm neutral on the HB 391 issue because I mainly fish in Lake Boeuf. I just chimed in because he threw out the words avulsion and accretion.
I think both sides make interesting points, but there are too many variables and grey areas for this thing to fully go through. I don't know what areas people are fighting for across the board, but there are way more than enough areas in Bayou Black the 3-4 times a year I go to not open this can of worms.
Carry on!
I'm neutral on the HB 391 issue because I mainly fish in Lake Boeuf. I just chimed in because he threw out the words avulsion and accretion.
I think both sides make interesting points, but there are too many variables and grey areas for this thing to fully go through. I don't know what areas people are fighting for across the board, but there are way more than enough areas in Bayou Black the 3-4 times a year I go to not open this can of worms.
Carry on!
Page 20 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News