- 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: Spinoff of the Troy Landry Thread- When is trespassing ok?
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:06 pm to AlxTgr
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:06 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
The State messed this up big time.
I'm conflicted on the posting requirements. On hand I feel like it's the responsibility of the sportsmen to know where he is, and on the other you can't expect someone to know if you don't tell them.
2
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:09 pm to HotKoolaid
quote:There are times, and places where this isn't exactly easy.
On hand I feel like it's the responsibility of the sportsmen to know where he is, and on the other you can't expect someone to know if you don't tell them.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:20 pm to AlxTgr
This LINK helped me understand better.
I always thought Catahoula was a lake because it was already a lake when I was a kid. But it became a lake in 1973, but:
I always wondered what all the fighting about family blinds, and hating on "Cicero" was about. Now I see that those families had a claim to that land and blinds all along. I'm kinda siding with "The Crooks" on this one.
I always thought Catahoula was a lake because it was already a lake when I was a kid. But it became a lake in 1973, but:
quote:
Historically, the basin was composed of a small meandering stream for half of the year with extremely gradual banks, such that the seasonal overflow of waters from backed up tributaries caused the flooding of thousands of acres, turning the meandering stream into a lake.[16] In short, for half of the year, the basin contained a meandering stream, called Little River, surrounded by thousands of acres of grassland; for the other half of the year, Little River overflowed and flooded the thousands of acres of grassland creating what seemed to be a seasonal lake. Based on Dunbar’s description and the expert testimony, the court concluded that Dunbar’s description of a meandering water body is entirely consistent with a river, not a lake.
quote:
The plaintiffs argued that the permanent flooding of thousands of acres in the Basin caused by the construction of the Jonesville Lock and Dam structure in 1973 constituted an inverse condemnation for which they are due compensation....The court concluded that the constant interference with the plaintiffs’ natural servitude of drain caused by the dam structure established a continuing tort.... the court determined that the plaintiffs have a right of action against the State for unlawful expropriation of their lands
I always wondered what all the fighting about family blinds, and hating on "Cicero" was about. Now I see that those families had a claim to that land and blinds all along. I'm kinda siding with "The Crooks" on this one.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:28 pm to dat yat
quote:The blind situation is different though. We really aren't talking about those families. The blind fighting involved people who went there to hunt. None of the surrounding landowners, to my knowledge, actually acted as if it was there land. I know a few of them.
I always wondered what all the fighting about family blinds, and hating on "Cicero" was about. Now I see that those families had a claim to that land and blinds all along. I'm kinda siding with "The Crooks" on this one.
What I am most interested in about this is what I see as inconsistancies in the ruling. If we have this:
quote:
constituted an inverse condemnation for which they are due compensation
how can we also have this:
quote:and then this:
a continuing tort
quote:????
unlawful expropriation of their lands
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:44 pm to AlxTgr
Well I'm just a banker, not a super-smart lawyer like you, but
all seem like they mean the same thing. Their land got flooded, keeps getting flooded, was made into a public hunting area, and they never got compensated for it. They want compensation now.
I wonder how much cheaper it would have been to pay them in 1973.
quote:
condemnation for which they are due compensation
quote:
a continuing tort
quote:
unlawful expropriation of their lands
all seem like they mean the same thing. Their land got flooded, keeps getting flooded, was made into a public hunting area, and they never got compensated for it. They want compensation now.
I wonder how much cheaper it would have been to pay them in 1973.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:51 pm to dat yat
A continuing tort is inconsistent with an expropriation. If taken, then they are entitled to the value, but nothing further. This court seems to be treating it as both a taking and a damaging.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 3:54 pm to AlxTgr
quote:Since we talked about Florida in here
AlxTgr
I figured we could post the texas laws.
Most would agree Tx is the closest state to us in terms of coast line and man-made oil canals and such (397 miles of coastline compared to 367)
Texas thinks this, which is how I feel exactly
quote:
If a person legally dams a stream to create a lake, the stream bed is owned by the state; the rest of the lake bed is owned by the landowner. The public has the right to navigate the waters and take fish (both of which belong to the state) but not to use the bed and banks of the lake. For example,Diversion
Lake Club v. Heath, 86 S.W.2d 441 (Tex. 1935)
quote:quote:
Law 8. That No One has a Right to Build a Mill or Other Edifice on a River, by Which the Navigation of Vessels may be Obstructed. No man has a right to dig a new canal, construct a new mill, house, tower, cabin, or any other building whatever, in rivers which are navigated by vessels, nor upon their banks, by which the common use of them may be obstructed. And if he does, whether the canal or edifice be newly or anciently made, if it interfere with such common use, it ought to be destroyed. For it is not just that the common good of all men generally should be sacrificed to the interest of some persons only.
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 2/2/18 at 4:06 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
A continuing tort is inconsistent with an expropriation. If taken, then they are entitled to the value, but nothing further.
Got it, one or the other, but not both.
Either way, If I can paddle my kayak there, I'm gonna fish it....
Posted on 2/2/18 at 4:08 pm to dat yat
quote:
Either way, If I can paddle my kayak there, I'm gonna fish it
Posted on 2/2/18 at 9:54 pm to lsupride87
I don’t think the issue is as black and white as some of you make it out to be. You can’t use the same laws/principles for land as you do waterways because they are two different states of matter. For example, building a road on your property from a highway doesn’t affect surrounding land at all. Whereas building a canal from a public waterway can affect said waterway.
Think of water as public land with a high fence (bc fish are confined to water) around it and people coming in and cutting gaps in the fence where their property joins the fence.
For the record, I see both sides. I just don’t think you can apply laws designed for land to water.
Think of water as public land with a high fence (bc fish are confined to water) around it and people coming in and cutting gaps in the fence where their property joins the fence.
For the record, I see both sides. I just don’t think you can apply laws designed for land to water.
Posted on 2/2/18 at 11:25 pm to AlxTgr
(no message)
This post was edited on 2/2/18 at 11:29 pm
Posted on 2/3/18 at 2:19 am to lsupride87
quote:
lsupride87
just wondering how LDWF handles gated canals/water ways
i know how they handle private ponds/lakes
Posted on 2/3/18 at 2:21 am to Jack Daniel
quote:
That’s like saying since the deer on my property are the state’s deer, then my property is open to public hunting.
depends on how tall your fence is
Posted on 2/3/18 at 2:25 am to mylsuhat
quote:
mylsuhat
quote:
No, other places do have marshes and swamps. But how many of those places have canals dug by private companies through private property where the general public is allowed to have free reign?
and at the end of those canals dug by private companies you will find a STATE oil/gas lease.
Posted on 2/3/18 at 1:50 pm to HotKoolaid
What did I miss in here? Holy$^#^& !!
Going to take some time to get caught up in this thread.
Going to take some time to get caught up in this thread.
Posted on 2/3/18 at 3:11 pm to Dock Holiday
Not much other than a grown man that is pouting more than my 2 yr old
Posted on 2/3/18 at 3:32 pm to lsucoonass
It really is sad
Posted on 2/3/18 at 6:39 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
There are times, and places where this isn't exactly easy.
Should the difficulty of knowing property lines have anything to do with whether or not it should be posted? If so, who gets to decide? Assuming we are treating marsh and hard bottom property the same.
Posted on 2/8/18 at 9:54 am to AlxTgr
from my understanding of why Troy gated that canal is because there was a problem with the local good ol boy club of trespassing on his land via boat. Hell we deal with the same situation in N. LA. "My great grandfather used to hunt this land so I should still have rights to hunt this land."
My parents live on a gated canal that was built for the subdivision and it has "Private Canal Keep Out" signs at the concrete entrance. Every weekend we would run people out of the canal. The people would always say "I didn't know that this was private.". Next weekend they would be right back in the canal fishing.
A majority of "sportsman" in the state of LA have no concept of boundaries and conservation.
My parents live on a gated canal that was built for the subdivision and it has "Private Canal Keep Out" signs at the concrete entrance. Every weekend we would run people out of the canal. The people would always say "I didn't know that this was private.". Next weekend they would be right back in the canal fishing.
A majority of "sportsman" in the state of LA have no concept of boundaries and conservation.
Posted on 2/8/18 at 9:58 am to redneck
My buddy's brother in law applied for some tags on chicot. Got em, then the state revoked em. Come to find out they gave them to Troy. I told my buddy to get his bil to get an attorney.
Page 10 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News