- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 4/11/18 at 5:49 am to Emmitt Fitzhume
Posted on 4/11/18 at 5:49 am to Emmitt Fitzhume
We are not talking about land we are talking about water. The only way you could possibly have liability is if the water is private. If it is public and they get hurt then they would have to go after the state, no?
2
Posted on 4/11/18 at 6:38 am to Janky
Wrong! The sue the landowner. I know of two separate cases where trespassers, 1 drunker than Cooter Brown and another spotlighting at night, got hurt and sued landowner and company holding the lease and got settlements. Until there is tort reform and a hold harmless agreement the landowners are still on the hook for the bass holes and flatbills.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 6:42 am to Janky
My family owns land/marsh/water bottoms in Reggio. Prior to Katrina it was about 10% land, 65% marsh and 25% ponds, bayous etc. In one day it became 75% water bottoms. I used to duck hunt on it but there is so little marsh left that it is a fishing/crabbing/shrimp estuary now. We would not dream of erecting a fence and keep the public off it. The way I see it is the water bottoms are owned but the tidal water and the resources are not. If we want to build a levee around the property and keep the tidal waters with the resources out that would be different. Bottom line is if the gulf can flow in and out of it it should be navigable, I suggest that the majority of "land owners" that have tidal water on their property just want the resources for themselves. Their own private fishery. Sure sounds great until you take into account they don't own the water or the fish. The excuse we are going to be liable for any injuries that occur on the "property" is an excuse to restrict access. Make no mistake this is about access plain and simple. Too bad my family bought property that disappeared. Yes we pay property tax but it is minimal. Now for the land that is hard ground it is posted and certainly we have the right to restrict access on that part of the property. It is all a sad situation because the coast is going so fast this fight won't matter too much further into the future 
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 6:43 am
Posted on 4/11/18 at 6:51 am to dpd901
I never knew the tOB had so many law experts and Marsh land owners... 
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:13 am to Uncle JackD
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:16 am to Capt ST
n/m. I don’t care anymore.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 7:27 am
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:08 am to Capt ST
quote:
I know of two separate cases where trespassers, 1 drunker than Cooter Brown and another spotlighting at night, got hurt and sued landowner and company holding the lease and got settlements.
Personal Injury Lawyers are the scum of this country. I was on a jury on time for a civil case and saw how dumb they can be first hand.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:10 am to iron banks
quote:
there is so little marsh left that it is a fishing/crabbing/shrimp estuary now.
sounds like you should lease it out to crabbers and make a little coin
quote:
I suggest that the majority of "land owners" that have tidal water on their property just want the resources for themselves. Their own private fishery
where I am, no one cares about fishing, everyone is just worried about people wanting to prop up and hunt anywhere or running through ponds during the season and flaring every bird for miles.
quote:
We would not dream of erecting a fence and keep the public off it
theres a Busbice joke in here somewhere....
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:14 am to Janky
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:02 am to maisweh
quote:
everyone is just worried about people wanting to prop up and hunt anywhere or running through ponds during the season and flaring every bird for miles.
Imagine the entire coastal region of LA being just like the Atchafalaya delta opening weekend with the surface drive guys booze cruising in the afternoon "scouting" for birds in all the navigable waters they can access with their 75hp modified Gatortail with the Loud Mouth exhaust System.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:10 am to Capt ST
quote:
4 C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to running waters during 5 any open migratory waterfowl season when such running waters have been posted 6 against trespassing, hunting, or fishing.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:13 am to pointdog33
Do you all not see how stupid this bill is. That wording right there is unreal. It does nothing for the people that are wanting to fish in these areas. Absolutely nothing
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:19 am to PillageUrVillage
quote:
I think y’all are paying attention to the wrong story here. The big story of the day is this one.
Louisiana law to ban sex with animals wins Senate vote 25 - 10
What good is water access if I can’t use it to go have sex with animals?
Nope the story is who the hell were the 10 pro barn sex votes?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:21 am to Ron Cheramie
I think the amendments provide a protection for the owners who still want to block off their property, as well as grant access to the fishermen during certain periods.
It claims the waters and fish are stated owned. The way I interpret that is since they are state owned then that allows access and fishing in those waters.
It claims the waters and fish are stated owned. The way I interpret that is since they are state owned then that allows access and fishing in those waters.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:21 am to cave canem
quote:
Nope the story is who the hell were the 10 pro barn sex votes?
bret allain...
the same one who threw a temper tantrum and said "do you want to test me" or whatever his words were
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:23 am to cave canem
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:25 am to pointdog33
quote:
4 C. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to running waters during 5 any open migratory waterfowl season when such running waters have been posted 6 against trespassing, hunting, or fishing.
right, so perfectly fine to be going run up in there the week before the season starts and cutting up?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:33 am to Ron Cheramie
quote:There is no legal principal that would allow access at some times but not others. It's incredibly dumb.
Do you all not see how stupid this bill is. That wording right there is unreal. It does nothing for the people that are wanting to fish in these areas. Absolutely nothing
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:56 am to dpd901
quote:
Unless, of course you’re a douche who thinks wealthy land owners should have exclusive access to the resources your tax dollars pay for.
I wasn't aware that my tax dollars pay for redfish, trout, flounder, etc
pretty cool I guess
Posted on 4/11/18 at 9:57 am to fishfighter
quote:
So, in another words, If I am walking down the street and I come walking thru your yard to get over to the next street, you wouldn't have a problem with that. Hey, I was using a state road.
Nope. But he could fly over your yard and you couldn't do shite about it. Comparing air access over land with water access over land is more appropriate than comparing land access over land(?).
Page 5 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News