- 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: Private vs public water in tidal navigable waterways
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:54 am to AlxTgr
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:54 am to AlxTgr
quote:
You're still doing it. This is not complicated. Focus man!
It's funny that you're willing to engage in a discussion outside the scope of the OP's topic as long as it involves you talking shite but you avoid any other questions you think aren't applicable.
1
Posted on 12/8/16 at 10:59 am to Barf
I'm discussing how off topic and crazy you are. Those are fun. I have no expertise, knowledge or interest in coastal restoration. I don't see how you don't get that. WTF would I have to add? it's good? It's desired? frick dude, pay attention.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:04 am to Barf
quote:
Timber shouldn't be managed the same way as tidal marsh. And not everything would be open to duck hunting, most people duck hunt above the saltwater line than below.
all the marsh I know south of the saltwater line is hunted for ducks. venice, the wax, delicroix, leeville, dularge.. all those areas hold big numbers of birds AND fish.
So do we allow hunters now into those waters as wella s fishermen?
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:05 am to maisweh
quote:
So do we allow hunters now into those waters as wella s fishermen?
I don't know dude. I'm not trying to decide who should be allowed where. The only thing I want to know is who pays for coastal restoration. If the answer to that question is the state, then how do you justify keeping them out?
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:12 am to maisweh
quote:
So do we allow hunters now into those waters as wella s fishermen?
I really think the only thing the State can do is base what is private and public using a newer more accurate map. I'm not saying 1950 but damn 1812 was a long time ago and no way that map is anywhere close to accurate.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:14 am to Barf
quote:
The only thing I want to know is who pays for coastal restoration. If the answer to that question is the state, then how do you justify keeping them out?
I don't necessarily disagree with you but there's literally hundreds of thousands of acres of land around the country that is private but taxpayer money was used to improve or enhance.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:15 am to redfishfan
quote:But what would be the rule applied to what comes from this map?
I really think the only thing the State can do is base what is private and public using a newer more accurate map.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:20 am to AlxTgr
quote:
But what would be the rule applied to what comes from this map?
Anything that was navigable at the time of the earliest possible accurate map is public water. Anything that wasn't is private. Also they need to have a program where the state will buy back marsh from landowners if the landowner wants to sell.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:21 am to RUNDMC
quote:
Nothing to really discuss other than the land owners want all the public fish and game to themselves. If you want a "private" canal or pond, dam it off, pump all public water and fish out and fill it with water from your garden hose. THEN you have a true "private" canal/pond.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while
Ok. So if you buy into a deer lease next to public land, I expect you to run all the deer off your property, fence it in, and raise your own deer
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 11:27 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:22 am to redfishfan
quote:Whether natural or man-made?
Anything that was navigable at the time of the earliest possible accurate map is public water.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:23 am to redfishfan
therein lies the problem. if you go look at the old GLO surveys from the 1800s, they were not able to traverse alot of the marsh. Picture trying to walk thru the marsh with a 66' chain. basically all they hit were corners of townships and some sections.
GLO
GLO
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:25 am to AlxTgr
quote:
Whether natural or man-made?
Man made canals should stay private. Canals made by oil companies should be restored to prior condition or the land/water is forfeited the state. Wont happen though.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:30 am to redfishfan
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:33 am to redfishfan
Man made canals should stay private. Canals made by oil companies should be restored to prior condition or the land/water is forfeited the state. Wont happen though.
What's the difference?
What's the difference?
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 11:35 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:35 am to Mr Wonderful
quote:
I don't necessarily disagree with you but there's literally hundreds of thousands of acres of land around the country that is private but taxpayer money was used to improve or enhance.
You are right but it's unlikely you will find any of those projects that specifically exclude the public from it's use. At least none that I could find. You may know something I don't.
This post was edited on 12/8/16 at 11:35 am
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:43 am to Barf
Either way, we just gated our canal so we don't have to worry about people breaking the law on their own personal beliefs.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:46 am to Ron Cheramie
We should go back to the law pre Murphy Foster. Our laws on tidal waters should be consistent with the states. Marsh is ever changing in a lot of areas you have marsh loss while other areas you have gains in land.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:48 am to CP3
quote:
Either way, we just gated our canal so we don't have to worry about people breaking the law on their own personal beliefs.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:49 am to Barf
quote:
You are right but it's unlikely you will find any of those projects that specifically exclude the public from it's use
Take any conservation program. ACEP, for example. Federal tax dollars improving/enhancing/conserving (whatever you want to call it) and there surely is no public access to these lands unless it's done on land that was already public (i.e. NWR/WMA).
I'm not saying I agree with it, but spending tax dollars on private land is surely not unique to Louisiana' coastal restoration efforts.
Posted on 12/8/16 at 11:52 am to Barf
If you all think man made canals should stay private what the heck are you guys arguing about?
Where are these natural navigable waterways created or formed after 1812 that you think should be public?
We need to know where to direct our anger
Where are these natural navigable waterways created or formed after 1812 that you think should be public?
We need to know where to direct our anger
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News