- 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 4/18/18 at 9:54 am to rsoudelier1
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:54 am to rsoudelier1
quote:
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.
A. The state can change creel limits tomorrow and it will not violate anyone's constitutional rights; the state can make it illegal to catch a speckled trout and it will not violate anyone's constitutional rights; BUT the state cannot infringe on private property without just compensation or it will violate a constitutional right.
That is in the top 5 of the Bill of Rights.
B. The general public wants to right a wrong? What is the wrong? The legal purchase of property? The legal digging of a canal across the property and then legally prohibiting the public from using it? The wrong you speak of is a perception that has no legal grounds which is why it fails time and time again. Take a good count of the number of attorneys that spoke at committee in favor. Take a good count of the court rulings that were brought up in committee that favor that perception. Hint: the number is the same. There's just as many individuals that own property that can't hide behind a corporation and don't have "big oil" money, but have rights too that are protected. That is not a perception. That is a fact.
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.
A. The state can change creel limits tomorrow and it will not violate anyone's constitutional rights; the state can make it illegal to catch a speckled trout and it will not violate anyone's constitutional rights; BUT the state cannot infringe on private property without just compensation or it will violate a constitutional right.
That is in the top 5 of the Bill of Rights.
B. The general public wants to right a wrong? What is the wrong? The legal purchase of property? The legal digging of a canal across the property and then legally prohibiting the public from using it? The wrong you speak of is a perception that has no legal grounds which is why it fails time and time again. Take a good count of the number of attorneys that spoke at committee in favor. Take a good count of the court rulings that were brought up in committee that favor that perception. Hint: the number is the same. There's just as many individuals that own property that can't hide behind a corporation and don't have "big oil" money, but have rights too that are protected. That is not a perception. That is a fact.
2
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:55 am to Profit Island
quote:
My point is that under the current law it is apples and apples. In both scenarios the law doesn't care if people used to be able to access it. When it enters the boundaries of the owners property the owner can control access as he/she sees fit.
Laws can change, that's what they are asking for since the nature of your land is changing since there isn't as much land on it anymore. The dude on the corner lot needs to have something happen to what use to be his land to allow the neighbor kids to take their kayaks through his yard instead.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:56 am to OverboredTgr
quote:THIS THIS THIS x1000000
A. The state can change creel limits tomorrow and it will not violate anyone's constitutional rights; the state can make it illegal to catch a speckled trout and it will not violate anyone's constitutional rights; BUT the state cannot infringe on private property without just compensation or it will violate a constitutional right.
That is in the top 5 of the Bill of Rights.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:56 am to johnnyrocket
You realize that you are proposing more legacy lawsuits? I’m for it but are you sure that’s what you want?
As far as a compromise, I would suggest the state do an entire survey of all tidal lands and have some measure of what is navigable now and then define the law of what is accessible.
As far as a compromise, I would suggest the state do an entire survey of all tidal lands and have some measure of what is navigable now and then define the law of what is accessible.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:07 am to OverboredTgr
Again I really do understand that the current law in effect is in direct conflict with what this bill was intended to do. But I also understand that some laws need to be changed, we actually had an Amendment to our Constitution repealed some 14 years after it was ratified by the states so it does happen. Maybe its just time to look at the navigability of our coastal water and update the laws accordingly, most reasonable people would look at the use of a map from 1812 and say its not adequate to the current landscape in this state.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:08 am to Motorboat
I do like the compromise you suggest
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:21 am to rsoudelier1
quote:
we actually had an Amendment to our Constitution repealed some 14 years after it was ratified by the states so it does happen
Civics lesson, you can't repeal one of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution without a supermajority. An amendment can be added to supersede an element of the Bill of Rights, but now you're asking for 2/3 vote in Senate/House plus 3/4 vote of the States to ratify. How's that been working for the people trying to change the 2nd amendment? Take the blinders off and look at the big picture, because shitting on the Bill of Rights is about as un American as one can be.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 10:24 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:21 am to Ron Cheramie
The state needs to outlaw those boats on public lands/waterways. The argument that they are helping with hyacinths eradication is bullshite because these guys are destroying native plant life and only further contributing to marsh erosion.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:31 am to LaTexan
quote:The 18th Amendment ratification was completed on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the 36th of the 48 states then in the Union to ratify it. On January 28, acting Secretary of State Frank L. Polk certified the ratification. The Amendment was in effect for the following 13 years. It was repealed in 1933 by ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment.
Civics lesson, you can't repeal one of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution without a supermajority
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:31 am to Profit Island
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong but, I'm pretty sure they could claim and acquire an easement by prescription. They would have the burden of proving certain elements providing they used it continuously for a certain statutory period. The owner could then file a suit of ejectment, but then the burden of proof is back on him. He can also put up a fence, but if use continues, (say the kids knock out a couple fence boards and keep using the path) the use time is tacked on. A prescriptive easement can be gained for any purpose but cannot be claimed against the U.S. government, States, and municipalities.
Eventually you want to stop them killing your grass so you put up a fence. Now the kids run to the neighborhood association and say that the continued allowance of the cut through has created a public servitude. Its not legal and it is not right.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:41 am to rsoudelier1
quote:
one situation involves a public resource (water) and the other does not.
Here is the link someone posted earlier. Is this public water?
LINK
What access proponents need to relaize is that a) there is currently a law that covers this. What you think is right or ethical or whatever is irrelevant, and b)IF one is going to try to solve the issue of access, the access proponents will have to bring something that the owners can live with, since there is currently already a law. But really, the whole matter is one of definition. What is navigable water? It has currently been defined. If you want to change it, suggest a way to redefine that in a manner that doesn't threaten landowners.
See the link above for an example.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:46 am to Motorboat
quote:
state do an entire survey
I like this idea. Work backlog of epic proportions.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:48 am to yallallcrazy
After watching the link you provided it appears that a few guys in a mud boat destroyed some land to gain access to something, if that is state land I would guess a law was broke in the destruction of the property. The land should be repaired back to original condition as to not allow any water to enter the ditch.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:49 am to Motorboat
I'm ordering my pipe today to block off access to my marshland. Never really cared about fishermen, but after this debacle, I feel like we as marsh owners need to make a statement.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:51 am to JAB528
quote:
I'm ordering my pipe today to block off access to my marshland.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:52 am to JAB528
quote:
'm ordering my pipe today to block off access to my marshland. Never really cared about fishermen, but after this debacle, I feel like we as marsh owners need to make a statement.
hold up motherfricker, I told you I couldn't get my measurements until Saturday so that we can order at the same time and get a better price
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:54 am to rsoudelier1
Yes, but there was visible water there. I promise you those type of 'boaters' will try to say they were in the right.
Policy or law requires a clear definition. We currently have one. You cannot remove it without replacing it. I see no one on the 'access' side really suggesting any clear definition other than "tidal influence" which is basically every wet spot out there.
The current definition may well be bad. I'd go so far as to say that personally I believe it to be bad. But nothing should pass without a new definition that is as clear as the current one.
Instead of trying to pass this poor bill, someone should be trying to come up with an amended definition of navigable water.
Policy or law requires a clear definition. We currently have one. You cannot remove it without replacing it. I see no one on the 'access' side really suggesting any clear definition other than "tidal influence" which is basically every wet spot out there.
The current definition may well be bad. I'd go so far as to say that personally I believe it to be bad. But nothing should pass without a new definition that is as clear as the current one.
Instead of trying to pass this poor bill, someone should be trying to come up with an amended definition of navigable water.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:57 am to CootDisCootDat
The idea of acquisitive prescription is a great point. That is absolutely why landowners lease the property out for hunting, crabbing, etc., while simultaneously asking trespassers to please leave. The requirement of the landowner to display open and notorious possession almost creates a requirement not to allow unfettered access by the public lest they create a public servitude.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:01 am to CootDisCootDat
The state has already admitted that they do not have an adequate budget to legally survey the coast. this is why the state land office map is constructed by sub contractors with digitization pens looking at aerial photos. Furthermore this creation of maps using photos instead of surveyors is why there is a huge disclaimer over the screen when you pull up the map that states it does not purport to represent ownership. Plus it would be a waste of money as quickly as the land is eroding.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:07 am to Profit Island
quote:
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.
This might be the dumbest thing in the whole thread
Page 24 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News