Louisiana Sportsmans Coalition
 

If any of you are concerned with the loss of our water ways due to landowners claiming and gating them ,please look at Louisiana sportsman coalition. The easiest way is on Face Book.
We will have a booth at the Sportsman show at Lamar Dixon That will be showing how much tidal water is being claimed by land owners and how many of the gates and buoy lines and booms are illegal in themselves.
we are meeting with legislators to try to get a bill out for a vote .
if you dont face book here is a link. louisianasportsmenscoalition.com

Can you please explain to me what the sole purpose of this coalition is for? I've read the goals and I like 1-4, but #5 seems to be the real reason for this coalition. Is that correct? Why is is wrong for a landownerto gate off his or her PRIVATE canals on THEIR OWNED property, navigable or not? Also, I am a lessee of a portion of land and we have a gate for our landing and our marsh.... Why is it wrong that we only want to keep our paying members or other area lease holders as being the only individuals allowed on our lease? We pay good money for these rights. I'm not here to bash your cause or coalition, but I would like you to explain this more to me. Maybe it will open a new outlook to me for this coalition.

Because LAND owners shouldn't be the same as WATER owners. No other state has WATER owners.

I should be able to drive through a bayou as long as I don't get out on someone's LAND!

What's wrong is the public's resources are in there. You don't have any right to the fish, shrimp, crabs, etc etc in there. Those are for the citizens of Louisiana. If you want to gate it off and keep the public out then dam it up and keep our resources out as well.

can you post a map of all areas that are so public that are posted/gated?

Can't say I agree with that statement 100%... Here's why... I put the gate across my canal to keep people off my LAND. We have camps out there with valuables. No different than a home. I'm sure you and everyone else on this site are very honest people, but I don't know anyone's intention when they are navigating through my land or lease. Does that make sense? I understand about the whole resource deal, but it has been this law in LA since the beginning of time.

Then tell me what the purpose of a gate is as opposed to a dam? You get mad cause the fish, shrimp, crabs, etc etc can get in there and you can't? It's to keep the folks that aren't part of the ownership and/or lease out. And, you and I both know that even if it was dammed off, you'd still get the people finding ways to get inside. I guess I'll get hammered for these comments, but that's ok, it's just the interweb....

well if you dam/levee it off then it is no longer navigable.

Yeaaa....... No

The purpose of a gate is to keep people out or off of your property. The purpose of a dam is to keep the people's resources off of your property. If it makes you happy, hang a gate over the dam.

or just sit at the gate and wait for fish and shrimp to come out. kinda like a weir

Crap...does this mean I need to build a fence to keep all those public resource deer and turkey off my property???

I'm guessing that all of the individuals commenting about how "wrong" it is to gate off navigable waterways are guys that don't lease land for hunting and fishing, right? If so, just go ahead and let that landowner know that you won't be paying for the water part of it, because it's navigable, and that you'll just lease the land area. See how far that gets you... How bout we just give y'all some participation trophies??

Would you call that a dam gate?

And another point...... How in the hell will you convince a lessee that is leasing a section that it's ok to let anyone, anytime to just run through your duck pond while you are hunting just because it's a navigable waterway? Wouldn't that just tick you off???

I can see this from both sides. Put a gate up and I'm fine with that, or at least put up a sign. Problem is half the time people don't even know if they're on private land. If landowners want to get upset about people being on their land, they ought to at least put up a gate.

Also, I think there is a big difference between a natural bayou and a little tiny mud boat trail.

Agreed, but at what point will these "caoalitions" stop? Because, technically, can't a tiny lil mud boat trail be navigable, at some point? So, at what point does it stop? This is the first listing on their "Vision and Goals" page.....

1. To represent all sportsmen of Louisiana, charter guides,
recreational anglers, commercial fishermen and persons in the outdoor industry related to their rights to fish and hunt on waterways or lands of this state.

I'm sorry and this is just MY view, but I don't think that everyone should just be able to stroll into our lease and just do as they please.....

We have some property that the drainage board came and dug a canal through back in the 1950's when my dad was a kid. We own the everything around it. They dug It through or private property.
I alligator hunt that because it's my property. I hunt and fish it because it's my property. So explain to me how it's legal for someone to come and fish and or hunt on my property?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Louisiana defines what a navigable water way is. Google dat

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Glad to have a comment from an actual landOWNER... I'm just trying to figure out how this idea would be accaptable. As noodle stated, I understand both sides of the arguement.

I think everyone should have access to tidal waters but it should be treated like refugee and closed during duck season

I understand where everyone is coming from. I don't know how other places are set up. I know some stuff off the intercostal that a friend owns is navigable by water but it's their property. I can only speak for myself. Just doesn't make sense to me in my situation for someone else to be able to come and set up on my property. Just weird. I don't know about other places though. Can only speak for my place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Kinda like ditches dug with tax payer money thats "private"

He should put a gate across the intracoastal

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Like the gray canal off the vinton drain ditch. Yes they own the land on either side of the canal but they don't own the water. I mean by yalls logic if I got land on either side of the Calcasieu I can gate it off cause dat section of the river belongs to me

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Y'all are to busy looking at the trees to see the forest. It is only a matter of time before we follow the precedent set by the rest of the country concerning water rights. The reason would be the vast amount of money the government is about to spend on coastal restoration in Louisiana. If you think I'm wrong remember what happened when Louisiana would not change the drinking age and the federal government threatened to withhold federal highway funds. Also the thinking that the public should pay "BILLIONS" to protect the ecosystem yet have no right to enjoy it is insane. To compare the deer on your property to the ecosystem of the Louisiana coast shows an extreme ignorance of the subject matter. I do not own land or lease land but I do pay 32% of my income to federal income tax. Why should my tax dollars be spent to protect your land from eroding, build weirs and locks to control salinity and fund research to determine future needs?

Well because they pay to lease it by God

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Here is where it gets sticky.
*the law was written to cover river bottoms during flood stage, not tidal waters.
*Canals dredged for oilfield production were supposed to be returned to previous state when field was vacated. didnt happen.
*landowner had the option of leaving the canals in place. it changed the hydrology of the marsh and accelerated land loss.
*canals that are "created" can be owned but natural canals cant. this is where landowners are taking advantage of the laws.
*Lessees can get hunting rights but they likely do not lease fishing rights. Gating a canal for hunting is denying fishermen their right to fish.
*As land erodes the state is still considering the eroded land that is no longer there "land that can be owned" which is ridiculous.
*There is no map available that currently shows public and private lands. LADNR has the SONRIS map but the disclaimer clearly states do not trust the data on the map.

just some points surrounding the problem.

Evis, good point!

I don't think a true navigable waterway should ever be blocked. However, if I own 1000 acres of mostly grassland, with a few potholes in the middle, I should be able to dig a boat trail to it and gate it off. The boat trail is navigable, but only because I dug it on my actual LAND. It should not then become accessible to the public, just because they can drive a boat down it.

Well our canal was dug back in the late 40's early 50's.

Not sure what year dad said it was dug.
So according to the previous post we should still own the water that runs through it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So what some of you are saying is that if I buy some land ...

And the state allows saltwater intrusion leading to erosion and that land disappears ...

I no longer own the land or the bottom or the water...

But now the water and bottom are the PROPERTY OF THE STATE.

How is this not a violation of the provision of the US CONSTITUTION (5th amendment) saying,

"Private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation"?

Converting private property to public use requires just compensation.

Your private property was not taken for public use. Your private property was washed away. Are you to say that the people who had land that is now gulf of mexico own that portion of the gulf and we, the public, are not allowed to float a boat over it?

Screw that. Ducks got enough refuges If it's tidal and I can fish it, why can't I duck hunt it too?

I signed it and emailed it to everyone on my aol list. Tidal waters should not be private. Those fish and crabs and ducks and gators are not privately owned. Apache and Miami corps and hackberry rod and gun should not be able to keep me out of navigable tidal waters if I want to duck hunt

Those refuges are illegal also. No one including the federal government should be able to own tidal water

Let's do this

As a land owner you have the responsibility to maintain your property Not the state .The state doesn't "allow" salt water intrusion. It is not the states job to spend tax dollars to maintain your property.

You should have put up bulkheads and protected your land.

I think if the waterway "dead-ends" into the landowner's property, he has a right to gate the waterway. However if said waterway is a passage of sort between 2 public water bodies, He cannot gate it. As in Statute 9: title 1254:

"The owner of an enclosed estate who has no access to his estate other than by way of an existing waterway passing through neighboring property shall have a right and servitude of passage on such waterway.  The existing waterway passing through the neighboring property shall be directly accessible from a publicly navigable waterway, and shall have been and shall still be capable of use for navigation by the owner of either the dominant or servient estate at the time of acquisition by act of sale, inheritance, or otherwise, by the owner of the dominant estate."

so should we not have coastal restoration projects so save everybodys land?

Basically no, I don't want to pay to save someone's land for them. You don't think it's a bit greedy of a land owner to expect the state and federal government to use everyone's tax dollars to save their land while excluding the very people who paid for it?

So first you say your land. But when it needs saving because you as a land owner did nothing It's everybodys land???

so you two goobers are cool with erosion and losing our coastal wetlands?

Agreed. If government digs onto your land, when there wasn't previous access through a natural waterway, then that should not become public waters.

However, if you go and buy a big chunk of wide open marsh with bayous and such all through it connecting other bodies of water, I feel the public should be able to use those waterways as access to true public bodies of water.

Most people who want to hunt and fish everyone else's marshes aren't land owners, but you better believe if they won the lottery and bought a big chunk of land that they would change their mind.

We're the only state in the nation having this argument, and I think sooner or later something will be done. Like W said, maybe something like having to allow access to fishermen from mid-March to mid-October. With the law written as is right now, I think landowners should either put up gates or quit their bit*****.

It's yalls land, protect it, don't ask me and the rest of this nation to do it for you. It's your land when I wanna go fish but it's everybody's land when u want some money to keep it from washing away. You keep asking questions but you've answered none.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

i keep asking questions so i can get a better idea what you jimbos are crying about... i could care less what happens, i guess thats why im not crying about it.

i dont own land near navigable water. but if i did, i would put a gate up and a sign that says "Feesherman keep out, everybody else welcome".

The gates are what we don't want. We want to take back are marsh

i dont believe i said anything about my land or me being a landowner.. good try homes

Lol perfect I would be welcome, hell I'll even show my ID [emoji12]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Then, can you please explain to me how you plan to have this unified voice and coalition to protect our valued coastal marine resources for future generations? Keep in mind that our state protected lands are a vital variable to your marine resources....

We just had a long meeting on this at the Capitol. The fact is that 49 States and the Federal Government says that ebbing and flowing waters that are an arm of the sea and are open to public navigation as long as they are susceptible of supporting commerce. That is a very broad definition, by simply leasing the waterway it is conducting commerce. This argument has been going on for several years in the Atchafalaya Spillway with the crawfishermen and they have won all of their cases. One of those cases involved a previously landlocked pond that was private but the owner dug a canal that tapped the public resource and the pond became part of the public waterway.

Rosa Parks used to have to sit at the back of the bus but she does not anymore.

The oil companies and the land owners have dug canals through our marsh that accelerated erosion, changed the flow of natural waterways and have failed to keep them up, Lets face it, its expensive. As part of the meeting it was acknowledged that the State is charged with coming in and claiming these water bottoms as a public thing but they have not been doing it because they do not have the funds to do it or to fight the legal challenges that follow, even though they end up being affirmed more often than not. But remember the Rosa Parks analogy. The legislature last year passed an oyster lease law that changed the way oyster leases were handled. Shortly afterwards in several areas of the State these "landowners" began getting very aggressive about claiming waterways as belonging to them. These two actions along with the Billions that are about to be spent in our marsh are now pushing the issue. Change is coming and after the meeting that was had yesterday, it ain't going to be pretty and compromise does not look good, so like the other 49 States it looks like it will be all or nothing.

I understand the landowners argument that it has been this way for years but every now and then the pendulum swings too far one way and it has to be reset, a few bad apples are forcing the issue and there will be collateral damage.

And if the government wouldn't let me?