re: HR 391 (Water Access Rights) Passes 5-3 in committee

I guess until you get your way, the whole world is just wrong and ignorant.

Which is pretty funny... I thought the same thing about the YEA voters

I wouldn't classify trying to gain access to a public resource and right a wrong that we believe was endured by the public as going full retard but to each his own. My stance on this issue is that either the water is a public resource or its not, it can't be public for a certain period of time and private another period of time. History has shown that anytime someone with power was dealt with by attempting to appease them never worked and the person or group in power always continued their expansion of power. This bill if anything bought a very contentious matter to light in the general public and the capital. Having the public get involved in political debate like this has done is a good thing and history has also shown that no great change ever happened quickly or easily.

quote:

---

Now everyone is gonna put up gates.

---

That will just embolden the fishermen that much more.


I sure am glad I don't go in the marsh to fish except with guides.

This debate never should have been duck hunters versus fisherman. The landowners used a scare tactic to set up the duck hunters to fight against fisherman. This debate should be strictly the general public versus big money and landowners to right a wrong that is endured by the general public. Its actually ironic that the average duck hunter in opposition is merely a lease holder or friend of leaseholder being allowed temporarily to enjoy access. Leases get revoked all the time( See Bob's Bayou Black Marina), lease price get raised to a price point the average sportsman can't afford or in some cases employees are laid off and the duck hunter who was in opposition and had access loses his access and may realize he was fighting those who where actually fighting for his rights as well.

quote:

---

I rather know my enemy than think they are my friend. In campaigns it is easy to lie and ride a fence, today they showed to whom their allegiance is with.

---

you sound like a gun nut

I guess I would ask you to define what a gun nut is. I do own several guns and defend the 2nd amendment; however, I break from some in that I don't have and issue with stricter background checks ( under certain guidelines) for gun purchases, I do not believe in raising the age to 21 to purchase guns ( if you're old enough to enlist in the military than you're old enough to purchase guns). My problem with stricter background checks is that the criteria to deny ownership would need to be a concrete and verifiable and I'm concerned that if mental problems are used to deny ownership then what happens to someone who goes through a rough patch in life and seeks medical care, would that person be permanently barred from owning a weapon?

quote:

Serious question: What would be your suggestions for compromise? ...


Answer: State creates marsh estuaries in State owned water instead of State take marsh estuaries that are not public domain.
For a compromise there is a dispute that needs to be resolved and each side makes concessions. If the dispute is settled in a court of law, there is no more dispute therefore there is no more need for concessions. There lies the problem, because one side simply ignores the fact that the courts have not ruled in their favor and settled the dispute.

The problem I have is when property owners manipulate the natural flow of water so they have enough water to enter their canal for oilfield boats to go to the back of the canal or duck hunters to go from their leased property to a main canal.
In some cases this has caused natural bayous to change course through their canal or damages to neighboring property like mine.

In the spillway some canals with levees around it keep North / South flow of water going North and South. It keeps the water stagnant during the heat of the summer that would normally flow South, and the stagnant water fills natural bayous killing even more fish. The army corps should not allow this.

They have also had one case a lawyer from Lafayette illegally drained a natural waterway in the basin and all he got was a slap on the wrist. The courts and army corps did not make him restore the damage he had done. Too much of this in Louisiana.

I think we as tax payers should not spend 1 penny on coastal restoration. Let the landowners who caused the damage fix the problem or let the gulf take the land. They caused the damage they need to fix the problem not the tax payer.