- 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
0
Posted on 4/11/18 at 12:09 pm to joebuck
quote:
I've said it before , I lived on a private canal that was dug for the subdivision, it had a gate, it has no trespassing signs and is a dead end canal. People ignored that and fished it anyway.
Privately created canals I can see, but as land disappears through natural processes, it’s time to evaluate what is navigable and what is not again. It shouldn’t be determined by some map that is completely out of date.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 12:12 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 12:16 pm to Dam Guide
quote:
it’s time to evaluate what is navigable and what is not again.
this is the issue. some of these gator tails need...oh...about 1 inch of water to drive in. Is that really navigable?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 12:18 pm to Dam Guide
quote:Still going to be a shite show. Our bay boat can't go as many places as our flat, which can't go as many places as a kayak.
it’s time to evaluate what is navigable and what is not again
Posted on 4/11/18 at 12:37 pm to jimbeam
quote:
Still going to be a shite show. Our bay boat can't go as many places as our flat, which can't go as many places as a kayak.
Yep. and where your boats can go depends on tides at times. The definition of navigable is perfectly fine and quantifiable for now. They way the new law is written makes everything accessible by a surface drive navigable. but then there's this:
quote:
and no watercraft powered by a combustible engine may be used to navigate running waters over privately owned water bottoms and banks of waterways in such a way as to cause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway, or to the vegetation on or above the surface of the waterway.
how is a flat bill gonna discover new waters on "navigable" waters without destroying private habitat? Hint:--he's not. Everything is gonna be torn up. On my marsh lease, we make it a point to stay in the center of the canals so not to kill the feed. You think bubba in his pro drive is gonna afford the same courtesy? No. they are gonna go headfirst, score up my ponds, kill feed and probably litter.
While the proponents of this bill say that they are preserving habitat, they can't possibly believe this to
be the end result.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 12:40 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 12:47 pm to Motorboat
quote:Direct? What about propwash?
ause damage to the bottoms or banks of the waterway
Moral of story= there'll be pissed off people.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 12:54 pm to jimbeam
quote:
Moral of story= there'll be pissed off people.
and destroyed habitat at the hands of people that have no direct ownership interest other than they are able to float on the water above it.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:13 pm to Dam Guide
quote:
Privately created canals I can see, but as land disappears through natural processes, it’s time to evaluate what is navigable and what is not again.
quote:Well, but the date is important. Everything is based upon that. Again, saying navigable, right now, all by itself, is meaningless in this discussion.
It shouldn’t be determined by some map that is completely out of date.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:17 pm to Motorboat
quote:
They way the new law is written makes everything accessible by a surface drive navigable
mud flats are not and should not be considered navigable
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:23 pm to maisweh
quote:
mud flats are not and should not be considered navigable
Anyone with more than a couple seasons under their belt in the marsh knows a few passes using the same path and you have a ditch cut across flat that will be 2'-3' deep within a months time.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:28 pm to crazycubes
quote:
this is the issue. some of these gator tails need...oh...about 1 inch of water to drive in. Is that really navigable?
People bitched about this in Arkansas where canoes and yaks were accessing streams running through property. Commerce won out and private land owners had to allow paddlers in.
Louisiana was dumb to allow this stuff to be held privately. Unfortunately land owners will eventually be screwed, your land is disappearing. I definitely agree that it’s going to disappear a lot faster with the public allowed entry. If we are gonna try and save it though it shouldn’t be held in private hands and protected in such a way to preserve, that would mean limited access to everyone. Unfortunately this is Louisiana, so I am sure only a small buddy buddy group would get access in that situation.
Basically y’all screwed no matter what.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 1:29 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:29 pm to Capt ST
Doesn't the bill say the water bed can't be disturbed unless you are the landowner?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:32 pm to Capt ST
quote:
Anyone with more than a couple seasons under their belt in the marsh knows a few passes using the same path and you have a ditch cut across flat that will be 2'-3' deep within a months time.
Yep. And a gator tail/surface drive/whatever can access most places. So as long as they're in a boat and not wading it's fine? Hell no.
You kick up mud or hit bottoms youre tresspassing
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:33 pm to Motorboat
quote:
On my marsh lease, we make it a point to stay in the center of the canals so not to kill the feed. You think bubba in his pro drive is gonna afford the same courtesy?
This right here seems to be what this whole argument is about.
People are arguing the fact that you can’t claim navigable waterways. You try to obcscure what it means to be a navigable waterway saying certain canals aren’t navigable and can be owned by you.
But the very reason you claim why they should only be open for acces to you is because only you will navigate them a certain way. Meaning. That they are a navigable waterway and cannot be owned by a particular person therefore maiming your argument.
If you can navigate the waterway so can others
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:36 pm to Timmayy
quote:I don't think this is the case at all.
People are arguing the fact that you can’t claim navigable waterways. You try to obcscure what it means to be a navigable waterway saying certain canals aren’t navigable and can be owned by you.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:46 pm to Dam Guide
quote:
Louisiana was dumb to allow this stuff to be held privately
Not really. At the time the property was divided up and sold there was no way to know. Not to mention a lot of it was solid ground, so straight property lines were drawn. The ones that followed known natural waterways at the time have property lines similar to that of river front property without the ability to restrict access to the waterway. Some of those natural waterways moved around, some silted in, but at the time of the sale they did the best they could with the information they were provided.
This is a definition issue and not so much an access issue.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:48 pm to HotKoolaid
If this passes I'm just going to put a bunch of debris at the mouth of my canal. End that shite real quick when a couple lower units sink
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:53 pm to redneck
then somebody gets hurt or killed.
A kid maybe, and you go to jail.
That solves allot. Two families ruined.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:55 pm to Bigsampson
quote:
you go to jail
no cameras to prove it was me
Posted on 4/11/18 at 1:59 pm to maisweh
Simple solution is to ban all the trashy arse mud boats running around.
Page 7 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News