re: Spinoff of the Troy Landry Thread- When is trespassing ok?

quote:

---

our state really is different than most in that we have expansive marshes and swamps that have been diced up with canals created mainly by oil and gas interests.

---

I wonder what other the other state that produces a shite ton of oil, also has over 300 miles of coastland, has what is considered one of the best functioning state governments, and a ton of oil made canals thinks of this law?

quote:

---

I wonder what other the other state that produces a shite ton of oil, also has over 300 miles of coastland, has what is considered one of the best functioning state governments, and a ton of oil made canals thinks of this law?

---

The debate is about navigating over water that was once considered land and how naturally occurring waterways became private. What Texas does is up to Texas, you would have to dig into their laws and find out how they handled eroded property. I don't think very many people are in favor of turning canals that were created with private money, on private land, into public property. There is a discussion to be had about how those private canals disrupted the flow of water or how they impacted surrounding property but even that isn't relevant.

A lot of it has to do with duck hunters not wanting to pay for a lease if someone can just come float around and shoot ducks just because the water isn't private. The land under the water is certainly private so simple idea is to make an adjustment to hunting regs. Adding an element that would require a duck hunter to trespass unless they owned/leased or had permission. Something as simple as requiring a boat to be anchored in order to hunt. We already have a law on harassing hunters that could be adjusted to keep fisherman from getting within a certain distance of someone who's hunting. They already hand out tickets from hunters who take pictures of boat numbers of trespassers, so nothing would change.

Maybe it's a stupid idea but nobody else has offered up shite.

We had a multi hour meeting today with federal lawmakers about the Re Snapper issue. The overall theme when talking about the federal system was how it is just wrong that the feds issue Individual Quotas to individuals that makes it to where they OWN the resource. It was stated several times that those fish ARE THE PUBLIC RESOURCE and that no one should OWN them. The argument was made several times that there was no other PUBLIC resource where PRIVATE individuals could claim ownership of said resource without paying a royalty for said resource.

They had no answer when I brought the conversation around to this very issue. What is happening is exactly what has been stated in this thread. Landowners and oil companies are or have dug canals that tap into the PUBLIC resource (flowing water) then have the audacity to call it their private domain. As part of this argument it is imperative that we point out that besides Red Snapper (in the federal arena) we do have another PUBLIC RESOURCE (water) that is being used without paying a royalty for said use.

This is not about ownership, it is not about terra firma. This about access to a public resource.

Said meeting was followed up with meetings with State Legislators on other subjects but the very first thing that they brought up was the public water issue. There is a potential compromise that is being worked on but will take a lot of time to work through the system. We are working to legally separate mineral rights and WATER BOTTOM ownership from the actual ownership of flowing water. Every lawmaker that we have approached with this issue understands and speaks that it is not right that private individuals can claim ownership of the public resource and the tide (no pun intended) is turning to the thinking that if they are not willing to come with a compromise then maybe they need to pay a resource rent for the use of the public water. It is a very tangled web to unweave.

You need to keep this conversation going and keep it in front of your lawmakers.

We have been negotiating in good faith but if the other side is not willing to come to the table there are plenty of revenue generating and permitting options that can be placed on the table.

The law is the law. I suppose the snapper law right guys?

What?

Of course not.

quote:

---

You are really dumb.

---

Thanks!

No, I just love the law just like you earlier in this thread

quote:

---

Landowners and oil companies are or have dug canals that tap into the PUBLIC resource (flowing water) then have the audacity to call it their private domain.

---

I think you're just a bit wrong here. La. Civil Code article 450 reads: "Public things.

Public things are owned by the state or its political subdivisions in their capacity as public persons.

Public things that belong to the state are such as running waters, the waters and bottoms of natural navigable water bodies, the territorial sea, and the seashore.

Public things that may belong to political subdivisions of the state are such as streets and public squares."

If it was dug out, it ain't "natural navigable".

That being said, the law is wrong here (and I'm a lawyer. Also fish 100+ days a year out of a kayak in southeast LA marshes). All this talk is just talk on a message board. Nothing matters unless and until a majority of the legislators vote to change the law, and the governor signs the bill.

But as neither the legislators nor the governor care, the law will never change.