- 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 4/11/18 at 4:19 pm to Elusiveporpi
Posted on 4/11/18 at 4:19 pm to Elusiveporpi
quote:
When was all of the southern marsh aquired? from whom and to whom?
Check out this article.
Here's a quote many here will not like:
Running Water
quote:
Following Roman sources, the Civil Code of Louisiana includes
"running water" in the category of common things.3 2
Under the Code, "running water" is apparently distinguishable
from the space it occupies and from the bed which contains it;
while the water belongs to "nobody in particular," the bed may
belong to the state or to private persons.
According to modern continental conceptions, running water
should be regarded by the law as conceptually inseparable from
its bed.33 This means that running water should belong to the
owner of the bed, be it the state or private persons.
2
Posted on 4/11/18 at 4:38 pm to AlxTgr
Alex, quoting from possibly the foremost authority on Louisiana property law (and my old professor) will not appease those insistent upon trampling upon private property rights. I understand the emotions, and the difficulty of ascertaining where one can fish and where one cannot, especially along the coast. However just because we would like to fish wherever we can float our boats does not give us the right to usurp a person's private property rights. As you know, the essence of ownership is to be able to possess a thing, i.e. immovable property, to the exclusion of others. I can certainly do that on dry land, shoot the deer or rabbits (which are public things) upon my land and exclude others from shooting those on my land. Under the law, there is no difference, and if this bill passes, then, in my opinion, the state has taken the landowner's property without just compensation, and this law will be challenged in the courts.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 5:33 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Running Water
nice try but its apples and oranges.
"running water" is defined as brooks and streams and NOT navigable water ways
but keep trying to make up excuses to defend land owners, its amusing to watch
Posted on 4/11/18 at 5:45 pm to keakar
quote:
"running water" is defined as brooks and streams and NOT navigable water ways
Not saying you're wrong but do you expect people to just take your word for it? Source?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 6:36 pm to HotKoolaid
quote:
Not saying you're wrong
it doesnt take a masters degree in science to understand the difference in tidal waters and running waters.
one (tidal waters) the water ebbs and flows and changes depths with the tides and the other (running water) such as rivers, streams, brooks, and creeks, has a constant not stop flow of water in one direction of flow and rarely changes depths at all.
running waters are regulated different because in most cases they are very shallow, and in the case of creeks streams and brooks of only a foot or two in the deepest spots. its almost like talking about ditches running across your property.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 6:38 pm to keakar
How deep do you think most of the marsh is?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 6:46 pm to keakar
quote:You don't understand this at all.
keakar
Posted on 4/11/18 at 6:46 pm to wickowick
there needs to be a clear distinction between navigable and just a place you can float a boat.
they should declare any body of water or canal that is at least 3ft deep on the day of lowest tide of the year is navigable and thereby that water is public.
any area that doesnt meet that criteria should be considered as marsh land and not water and thereby privately owned "land"
no one wants to go plowing through your back woods marsh, at least the fishermen fighting for this dont.
i totally agree with land owners they need to be 100% liable free for anything that happens on waters withing the boundary of land they own. if the water is public then the state holds any liability to what happens on it.
they should declare any body of water or canal that is at least 3ft deep on the day of lowest tide of the year is navigable and thereby that water is public.
any area that doesnt meet that criteria should be considered as marsh land and not water and thereby privately owned "land"
no one wants to go plowing through your back woods marsh, at least the fishermen fighting for this dont.
i totally agree with land owners they need to be 100% liable free for anything that happens on waters withing the boundary of land they own. if the water is public then the state holds any liability to what happens on it.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:14 pm to keakar
quote:Pretend you're a legislator. How do you defend this 3ft suggestion?
3ft deep
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:16 pm to keakar
quote:
keakar
This is the kind of bizarro shite that will cause bills like HB391 to be killed. When you say things like this the people who own the land immediacy stop listening to what you are saying.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:25 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
You don't understand this at all.
Says the lawyer quoting the wrong civil code article.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:32 pm to jimbeam
[quote]Pretend you're a legislator. How do you defend this 3ft suggestion?[quote]
depth of water at lowest point of the year is a standard part of what defines navigable water because if a motorized boat cant use it then it cant be classified as navigable
what the hell do you think the word means? they arent talking about if kayaks can use it when they write a law calling a body of water navigable
Navigability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Navigable waters,
A body of water, such as a river, canal or lake, is navigable if it is deep, wide and slow enough for a vessel to pass or walk. Preferably there are few obstructions such as rocks or trees to avoid. Bridges must have sufficient clearance. High water speed may make a channel unnavigable. Waters may be unnavigable because of ice, particularly in winter.
Navigability depends on context: A small river may be navigable by smaller craft, such as a motorboat or a kayak, but unnavigable by a cruise ship. Shallow rivers may be made navigable by the installation of locks that increase and regulate water depth, or by dredging.
depth of water at lowest point of the year is a standard part of what defines navigable water because if a motorized boat cant use it then it cant be classified as navigable
what the hell do you think the word means? they arent talking about if kayaks can use it when they write a law calling a body of water navigable
Navigability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Navigable waters,
A body of water, such as a river, canal or lake, is navigable if it is deep, wide and slow enough for a vessel to pass or walk. Preferably there are few obstructions such as rocks or trees to avoid. Bridges must have sufficient clearance. High water speed may make a channel unnavigable. Waters may be unnavigable because of ice, particularly in winter.
Navigability depends on context: A small river may be navigable by smaller craft, such as a motorboat or a kayak, but unnavigable by a cruise ship. Shallow rivers may be made navigable by the installation of locks that increase and regulate water depth, or by dredging.
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 7:42 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:34 pm to Me4Heisman
quote:
Says the lawyer quoting the wrong civil code article.
Can you quote the correct civil code article?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 7:44 pm to HotKoolaid
Using that 3’ bs would be ridiculous when you consider all the trenausses criss crossing the fresh water marsh. Any a-hole could roll up into your duck ponds or deer lease saying they were looking for a spot to fish....
Also would this legislation limit recreational use of the water to just fishing? If not then there are plenty of soon to be worthless hunting leases
Also would this legislation limit recreational use of the water to just fishing? If not then there are plenty of soon to be worthless hunting leases
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 7:46 pm
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:21 pm to AlxTgr
This crap brings to mind the masses rushing Frankenstein’s castle with pitchforks and torches. Let’s just take someone’s property because the masses want to access it for pleasure. Sounds very socialistic to me, and I’ll bet that none of you voted for Bernie.
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:36 pm to keakar
quote:if we're talking about marsh context then, id say most boats in the marsh can draft 2 feet.
Navigability depends on context:
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:37 pm to bayoudude
quote:
Using that 3’ bs would be ridiculous when you consider all the trenausses criss crossing the fresh water marsh. Any a-hole could roll up into your duck ponds or deer lease saying they were looking for a spot to fish....
the wording used says the lowest point so all the trenausses criss crossing the fresh water marsh are not 3ft deep at the lowest tide of the year then the survey would call that private marsh land and not public water.
it gives you exactly what you say you want, your hunting leases can stay private but the deeper canals cant be blocked off
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:37 pm to bayoudude
All those pushing this should set an example by opening their deer hunting land up to the public. It's the same thing. Whys a fish any different than a deer? Why can't somebody own a private spot to fish?
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:41 pm to keakar
Yep, late winter after a number of cold fronts and there is very little water left in the marsh
Posted on 4/11/18 at 8:41 pm to jimbeam
quote:
if we're talking about marsh context then, id say most boats in the marsh can draft 2 feet.
thats exactly why most surrounding states use the 3ft rule at the lowest tide of the year. the average boat drafts 2ft so 3ft allows them to pass without digging up the bottom.
and any spot 3ft at the lowest tide of the year will "on average" be around 4ft deep most of the year so the BS argument that that lets people plow through marsh in mud boats is ludicrous and just the weakest argument ever.
the 3ft rule would open up the main canals to fishing but not open up shallow marsh areas, those would still be classified as private
This post was edited on 4/11/18 at 8:43 pm
Page 9 of 32
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News