No because most marshes have a main that is public canal
If the start levee off from tidal flow it will be awesome
Don?t have to worry about fish being on there ?private property ?
Law states tidal water are owned by state of Louisiana
No land owners
If my state waters are over you land o damn well stop the flow .

49 states have this law in place
We are only one who don?t

It?s time for use to move into actin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How do u feel about private canals dug with tax payer money?

Or Coastal erosion projects on private marshes
Like they said at meeting
We need to defund the coastal marsh projects if we can?t benefit from it .
Using our tax dollars to save Mr Oil Mans land and marsh




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think it sucks.

Also a reason I don't donate to certain organizations that will use that money on private land, but at least I have a choice in that matter.

How do you feel about the fact that the landowners pay property taxes on the land that said canal is on, and the public doesn't? Lots of marsh out there without taxpayer paid canals.

It wont pass (and shouldn't pass) because there are a lot of kinks to work out - kinks that should have been worked out before it was even put up for vote. When it doesn't pass, there will be outrage, but it NEEDS work before it goes back up for vote

I agree with the land being theirs that they pay taxes on, but once tax money is used to dig a canal, said canal should be open to the public. Then on top of that, tax paid sheriffs deputy to sit in a car and make sure no one goes down the canal.

I love the gate we have across our deer lease canal. it keeps the idiots out of there so I can enjoy the land I lease without seeing a bunch of sqatters and litterbugs. if you were seeing this through my eyes you would agree.

it must suck to have the poors. lol:work:

Ain't you got guns to be builted in the dust bowl of Texas?

Please explain to me what kinks need to be worked out ?
It?s pretty simple

It works fine in Texas so why would it not work here !

The power of people made a pretty bold statement and I personally spoke with two state senators who said they were really impressed with the showing of anglers support for this bill .
One who was opposed but now had change of heart and is for it .

Other will be a vote in House

Only ones who are worried are duck hunters thinking people are going to mess them up and it?s going to be law that it will be off limits during waterfowl season .

They need to use there BIg Money and levee there land from title waters


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because there is no specific wording that will allow you to fish those waters. They?re tricking the publIc while appeasing the big land owners. Typical politics.

There is no words that say i can?t fish it
It?s not about just fishing
It?s about our rights to navigate over state owned waters aka tidal waters

Key word is access


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Amen and that is the issue

This is the abstract of the bill

HB 391 Original 2018 Regular Session Pearson

Abstract: Provides for the public navigation of running waters, including those running waters passing over any privately owned water bottom directly connected to a state-owned water bottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.

Key word is NAVIGATION. Nothing says you can stop and fish

One simple sentence in the bill "to include fishing" would clear it up, but its not in there because they dont want it in there. The author probably doesnt want it in there. He is getting his cake and eating it too. He is appeasing the public access crowd because he is actually doing something, but he is also not offending the property owners because nothing is changing. He even went so far as to say if its gated now, it can remain gated. Its garbage.

Key word is navigation. You can navigate it to get somewhere else, but nothing about stopping and fishing. That precedent has been set. Include another sentence about fishing and it will clear it up. He wont add it because he is playing politics and everyone supporting this bill like a fiddle.

Exactly, technically nothing will change, but 90% of the public thinks it means a free for all.

X2, I never expected Salty Cajun to have so many liberals on the site. :work:

99.9% of the ones wanting this FREE access would have a Major ch ti fit if they owned this land - by having some jack leg passing thru property they own.

Kinda like welfare haha. Landowners spend their own money in a lot of cases to better their land, then people who did zero work get free access.

Kind of an extreme example, but similar in a way. People don't like their hard earned tax money taking care of people who do nothing, but when it comes to the outdoors they want their Obama phone.

CCA lets us down again
 

So explain how this works in 49 other states and don?t in La ?

It will be a free for all
Free to float any tidal state owned waters .

If it has a influx of tidal water it will be subject for anyone to fish .


And I can navigate all day with my Trolling
Motor while fishing

This bill is not about fishing or hunting
It?s about using our own state waters

It?s simple
If you don?t want anyone on your so called lease., marsh etc
Use your own money and levee it off ...

Make it with our state owned waters

Again .... this movement has shook the Capitol
If they were not worried or scared why did they hold a mid night meeting trying to get bill to go back to another committee vote ?

Land owners had 21 people show up to oppose It
There was hundreds for it , from high school kids to 90 year old fisherman who spoke for his grand children !

The senators are listening !!
I promise


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No it?s kind of like land owners using state money to serve a purpose on there ?private? land

Because without state water could those marshes Hold the value ?

Answer that question ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do they need state water to hold value? I would think property value would stay higher it the property wasn't for public use. if I had a piece of property that had really good fishing, is it worth more if only the landowner can fish or if the public can fish it as well? Why would someone want to buy a piece of property they have access to anyway?

Not every marsh out there is getting crazy help from taxpayer money like everyone tries to say. They probably get more help from DU and Delta and other organizations like those, and no one forces anyone to donate money to them.

All these marshes around us that are tidal feed will never levee off because of the ?Free? tidal flow

It?s not public land it?s public waters


Not sure why it?s hard to comprehend
It?s been like this in Texas , Fla , Miss , Bama ,
All the other coastal states .

I?m mean no one is going to try and take over anyone?s land or try to hunt it
You can not hold with anchor .
Can not touch bottoms .

It does not make a private marsh public it makes tidal waters accessible to the public because State of Louisiana has made clam in its laws
All tidal waters belong to the state


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There are some legitimate gripes out there. I know of 100% natural bayous that have been gated off (which is illegal btw), but what most people that are for this bill want is to be able to fish ALL waters that you can float a boat in, regardless of who owns the water bottoms. If that's what this bill is intending to do, it needs to be clearly written in there that you can FISH these waters. Not just NAVIGATE.

And just because a bunch of passionate people show up to show support doesnt mean it's right. There are marches on DC every single day with people passionate about being able to use whichever bathroom they want or wanting to marry their cousin or dog. Or passionate kids in Florida marching about gun control.

I agree with someone above saying this is like a bunch of Democrats trying to steal from someone with something and give it to someone else without compensation.

The bill AS WRITTEN is junk and opens up a huge pandoras box

Kinda like the burns. Using tax payer money to levee/unlevee their marsh and charging people for a permit to pay for the quiptment and work we already paid for lol.

If you've read all my comments you would see where I said there is a big difference between coastal marshes with majority open water vs marshes that are largely land with a few trails, canals to enter ponds off of some natural waterway.

What's done to this point is done, I don't agree with landowners using taxpayer money, but there is nothing anyone can do about that now. Not every canal you find was paid for with your money, and your couple dollars that may have gone to landowners that did have funding lack in comparison to the money they spend themselves I can assure you.

I completely agree that the public should be able to navigate natural waterways if they lead from one public area to another.

Going to House Vote Tues 4/17
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...66b5a5a8cf.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t know that it means anything, or will do any good. But this bill seems to be the only thing being done to maintain some access rights to public waters in the marsh. The reality that there have been completely natural marsh systems where access has been lost, because access is being run thru navigable waterways running thru someone’s personal land....and there’s a legal loophole allowing it don’t make it right.

I’m glad to hear that there have been amendments to the bill, that address the current lease system. But it seems like so many other things needs to be addressed before this “feel good” Bill is or isn’t enacted.

Does anyone know is there a real concerted effort to a stage where it becomes workable for more affected? Or is this the best that the state of Louisiana can come up with? Yeah I know we are not exactly known for our sensible and trustable politicians. ��

My outlook is this
Something is better than nothing .
We are the only state that can call running water private due to an imagery line.

With the added amendments to this bill it is right on pace to work for everyone .
The duck hunters will get there privacy during duck season .
Land owners can keep collecting there 100k a year marsh leases .
And state can collect on permits by the land owners.
Win /Win for everyone !!

Make Louisiana sportsman Paridise Great Again !!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except you can?t stop and fish those waters. Only navigate through them. What part of the wording of the bill don?t y?all understand? This is NOT a win for fishermen. This is going to be a cluster once this passes. Gonna be nothing but fights on the water with those (security guards) who patrol for the big oil companies and land owners. You know, the ones who run fishermen off and call the sheriff dept on them.

Both sides are gonna be interpreting the law their own way. That?s why we need SPECIFIC wording in the bill. It does not have it. Our politicians arent going to do it. They want to be liked by both sides. (Please resume your normal Louisiana politics)

Navigate is fishing ... I navigate reefs all the time
Once this bill passes you will not get a fine or ticket for trespassing
Hell the ?patrol ? can wraps donuts around you all day long also ..
I know 3 guides with trespassing tickets right now in Cameron Parish
For fishing our tidal waters
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...c646614273.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CCA lets us down again
 

Nothing in Texas laws talk about fishing but they fish it 365 24/7



Q: What is considered a public stream?
A: In Texas a stream is public if it is "navigable in fact,"or" navigable by statute." There is no precise test for whether a stream is navigable in fact. The term is based on the idea of public utility. One court has observed that "[w]aters, which in their natural state are useful to the public for a considerable portion of the year are navigable."1

A stream is navigable by statute if it retains an average width of 30 feet from the mouth up.2 It is important to understand that the entire stream bed is to be included in the width, not just the area covered by water on a given day. A navigable stream may be dry part of the year, but does not lose its character as a navigable stream.

To complicate matters, some Texas land titles originated with Spanish or Mexican land grants, and the law of Spain and Mexico did not distinguish public and private streams on the basis of navigability. Streams were valued primarily as a source of water for household use and for irrigation, rather than a way to move people and goods. So when the sovereign granted land, perennial streams were retained for public use, regardless of navigability, so as to make as much land as possible capable of settlement.3 A stream is perennial if it flows most or all of the year. In determining the rights of holders of title under Mexican grants, the laws of Mexico in effect when the grants were made control.4 So in counties that contain Spanish or Mexican land grants, there are an unknown number of perennial streams which are public streams, even though they may not be navigable.

A: The Texas Supreme Court has stated that the bed of a stream is "that portion of its soil which is alternately covered and left bare as there may be an increase or diminution in the supply of water, and which is adequate to contain it at its average and mean stage during an entire year, without reference to the extra freshets of the winter or spring or the extreme drouths of the summer or autumn.5" Not clear? Again, the Texas Supreme Court: The streambed is that land between the "gradient boundary" on each bank. The gradient boundary is defined as "a gradient of the flowing water in the stream, and is located midway between the lower level of the flowing water that just reaches the cut bank and the higher level of it that just does not overtop the cut bank.6" Clear as mud? Blame it on those civil judges.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I totally agree with you. But we?re talkinng about stupid Louisiana here.

Well you are right about that
But as long as I cant get a ticket for floating over it
I?m good ....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texas does have a private Harbor Law which has been tried and tested and upheld. So I wonder what that's going to do with any kind of boat launches in the marsh.
Don't get me wrong it is a step in the right direction for Louisiana but the politics of it are going to get crazy.

Private launches I'm sorry that are Private harbors.
Only in an emergency can you be in them or fishing them.
But I do think this bill will help la.fishmen. even with it's flaws it is a start.

yea, that's what I want to see.... guides bringing boatloads of sports thru my deer lease during hunting season, throwing trash and taking sheets all along the bank. I pay money to get away from u people. lol

My god have you read anything ?????

Why would trash be thrown ?
And why would they go on banks that would be trespassing ?
Are they doing it right now ? Because it would be same law now as it will be under HB391
Nothing about land will change ...

Is your deer lease running tidal water ?
And did you read it will be closed off during hunting season ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read it just like the white trash around here will read it, if they could read. it's just an excuse to trespass on your land. once they start poking around all day and night, you won't have anything left worth having.

I agree with the concept, but the reality is that the bad apples will screw it up for the good people.

My brother's welding shop has been flooded the last two weeks with people wanting him to build gates. We kinda in a pickle. Want to make the money, but dont want to give in to those greedy landowners.

Take the idiots money! It's after March 2 and surely not properly permitted!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

Well.....

so what happened today? will their be boatloads of people tearing up my deerlease tomorrow attempting to 'navagate' on a mudflat?

I'm waiting until Thursday to go.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Ready to navigate!Attachment 135544

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I heard it failed

Hopefully it did. BTW, I own ZERO land that has to do with this. So many people wanting to access someones property for FREE.....

We have some freaking free loaders on this site....:work::work::work:

The butt hurt is strong on facebook. People saying "it's not the sportsman's paradise anymore." Haha the law didn't change, it's still the same as it always has been.

Then there is the "we have rights to navigable waterways." Sure you do, go for it, bayous and rivers are free game far as I know. Not to mention all the public lakes, bays, and refuges that allow us access to hundreds of thousands of acres of marsh. Unfortunately, that's not good enough for some, they want to access every little mudboat trail to every little dead end pond they can get to. That's not right and not how it should be.

I would like to think that if one day I was fortunate enough to own some land, I could do as I please on it. Everyone has every right in the world to try and work their *** off and put themselves in that situation. Lots of these marshes are good because they are private and don't have a ton of pressure. This keeps property value up. I can guarantee that half of these places would be destroyed so quick it would be unreal.

And the ones whining and crying about their tax dollars being spent on this private land by the state....well if you own something of value....you would understand. Most of these jack legs that are whining about this might only have about 50 to 100 bucks of their tax dollars going to these rich land owners for these state funded projects....which is done because in the end it benefits the state and of course indirectly them to....but they are too ignorant to understand it.

So by that way of thinking, the state should be paying to remodel my home? I mean I own it but someone else should pay. Right? I really don't care about this access vs private crap. I just think if its private it should be leveed off so none of the states resources can get back there. If they want a private marsh to fish, then they need to stock it with their own fish.

Glad it failed after all those stupid amendments keep getting added

New bill will be submitted in 2019
The election year

This will be real interesting how it plays out

They wanted to prolong it till 2020 for a reason . This politics think we are stupid LOL

Can?t wait to see them try and buck the majority before Nov ballots !!!

Person should of pulled bill early in house when they keep adding amendments !!
He let them play way too long !!!!

Here is what bill looked like after the added 20 amendments lol
Was pathetic
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...ea66b7e56e.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You just want to fish there because with little pressure fishing is good there. However, if it were ever opened to the public it'd just become another spot and you wouldn't give fishing there a second thought.

If any of you think that this won?t lead to someone hunting that tidal water, that is ridiculous. When someone starts fishing it, guarantee people will start hunting it based off some of the same principals listed above while not anchored.
When your bait touches the bottom of that canal - is that trespassing?
When you overcast n touch the bank - is that trespassing?

And **some** of the public trashes public land/waters. Fact.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk