CCA lets us down again

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

I don't own any land, but IF this thing passes, you better believe gates will be all over the place.

No they won't. Read the bill. Only gates erected previously with a permit from the Corp will be allowed to remain.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Ranger

No they won't. Read the bill. Only gates erected previously with a permit from the Corp will be allowed to remain.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Pretty sure there will be ways around it. If not gates, levees, weirs, etc. Most of the big time land owners have plenty of pull, and Louisiana is about as political as it can get.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Ranger

Bill has ZERO to do with land.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Has everything to do with what was once land, that's the issue

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

Originally Posted by eman

If water ebbs and flows with the tide it is tidal. If you dig a canal on your land and connect it to tidal waters ,it becomes a tidal waterway.
I have been fighting this battle for many years and yesterday at the capitol we got a bill passed through committee that is amended to say that you can not touch any land including the water bottoms you can not destroy or damage any vegetation . You can not damage the banks of anyones property. And the posted areas will be closed during waterfowl season. we understood the people that pay for leases to hunt didn't want anyone pulling up into there pond while they are in the blind. Like i said this fight has been going on for years and really gained traction in the last 18 months. For those that complain about the bill: I didn't see you at the capital lobbying the legislatures, i never heard from you in any discussion with Lasc. This bill was not filed by Lasc matter of fact we didn't even know about it until it was filed. The original bill had nothing in it for duck hunters or land owners . It was we want tidal waters open ,all of it all the time. Lasc discussed this for a few weeks on line and on FB with anyone that had an opinion and then sat down with the author and sponsor of the bill to make amendments to give some relief to the duck hunters and lessee. Is it Perfect ? Hell No . But it's what we have to work with. will it make it all the way through ? who knows . but i have been spending Hours upon Hours every day working towards this and i'm not going to stop now.

How can I soak shrimp if I cant touch the bottom. We gonna be topwaters only?

[eman]

no anchors ,no traps or nets. no tonging ,no power poles fishing lure does not destroy damage the bottom.

[redaddiction]

Originally Posted by eman

no anchors ,no traps or nets. no tonging ,no power poles fishing lure does not destroy damage the bottom.

I guess I will need multiple banks of batteries run in parallel to keep an ipilot running all day in anchor mode since we can?t use an anchor. LOL

["W"]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

It absolutely does. People dig on their LAND in order to access pices of their own marsh. In cases like this, that water where they dug is only there because they dug a canal or trailer on their property, that at one point was land.



Lets go further. Do you believe that is tidal or navigable too, even thouhh it is not a natural waterway? I'm guessing you will answer yes.

Who?s water are they using to fill up there canal ?
States water
They sure the hell ain?t bringing water hose and 5gall buckets to fill it up
Again had zero to do with land
It?s tidal water only ..

49 other states have zero issues but La seems to have it ..
It?s simple
If Gulf of Mexico waters move it we should be able to fish it
State owns all tidal water

If I?m sitting at Jetties and that same water 5 hours later goes in a marsh it don?t become private.. it?s still tidal waters owned by the state

If land owners don?t want people fishing in marsh
Levee it off and have zero tidal state waters on it
It?s our fish shrimp oysters and crabs not the land owners !!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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 waterbottom that is subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
http://www.legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDo...aspx?d=1071594


Sorry guys, aint no new fishing grounds going to open up with this bill. You can drive through it, but dont stop to fish

Proposed law provides that no person may prohibit the public navigation of running waters which
are navigable by a motorboat required to be registered or numbered pursuant to the laws of this state
or the U.S., except where navigation has been prevented or impeded by an obstacle constructed by
the landowner prior to March 2, 2018.

No old gates coming down, if its gated up, still going to be gated up

This bill has added amendments to it already
You need to get the updated version


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by "W"

Who?s water are they using to fill up there canal ?
States water
They sure the hell ain?t bringing water hose and 5gall buckets to fill it up
Again had zero to do with land
It?s tidal water only ..

49 other states have zero issues but La seems to have it ..
It?s simple
If Gulf of Mexico waters move it we should be able to fish it
State owns all tidal water

If I?m sitting at Jetties and that same water 5 hours later goes in a marsh it don?t become private.. it?s still tidal waters owned by the state

If land owners don?t want people fishing in marsh
Levee it off and have zero tidal state waters on it
It?s our fish shrimp oysters and crabs not the land owners !!



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No one owns the air or ducks or geese either. Does that mean I can go hunt wherever I want too? Same principle.

I understand that no one owns water, and broken up coastal marsh is one thing. But, there are lots of marshes with only one or two ways in and out, and often times these ways are only there because the landowner dug a canal or trail on their LAND. That should not entitle everyone on earth to go into these marshes and do as they please. Hell, lots of these marshes are dead ends, which makes it tidal but not navigable.

50/50 on it passing, and if it does, I'd be willing to bet there will still be ways to keep people out. I'm not a landowner, and you know I mostly redfish, but I can't sit here and think that because I can get to someones land via way that they created, that I should just be able to go fish it. It's not a natural waterway at that point.

[schol]

If land owners don?t want people fishing in marsh
Levee it off and have zero tidal state waters on it
It?s our fish shrimp oysters and crabs not the land owners !!

Won't this result in the supply of shrimp and crabs, which feeds our estuary, being cut off? That's what makes me nervous.

["W"]

Originally Posted by schol

Won't this result in the supply of shrimp and crabs, which feeds our estuary, being cut off? That's what makes me nervous.

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

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

No one owns the air or ducks or geese either. Does that mean I can go hunt wherever I want too? Same principle.

I understand that no one owns water, and broken up coastal marsh is one thing. But, there are lots of marshes with only one or two ways in and out, and often times these ways are only there because the landowner dug a canal or trail on their LAND. That should not entitle everyone on earth to go into these marshes and do as they please. Hell, lots of these marshes are dead ends, which makes it tidal but not navigable.

50/50 on it passing, and if it does, I'd be willing to bet there will still be ways to keep people out. I'm not a landowner, and you know I mostly redfish, but I can't sit here and think that because I can get to someones land via way that they created, that I should just be able to go fish it. It's not a natural waterway at that point.

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

["W"]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

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

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by Top Dawg

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

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.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

No one owns the air or ducks or geese either. Does that mean I can go hunt wherever I want too? Same principle.

I understand that no one owns water, and broken up coastal marsh is one thing. But, there are lots of marshes with only one or two ways in and out, and often times these ways are only there because the landowner dug a canal or trail on their LAND. That should not entitle everyone on earth to go into these marshes and do as they please. Hell, lots of these marshes are dead ends, which makes it tidal but not navigable.

50/50 on it passing, and if it does, I'd be willing to bet there will still be ways to keep people out. I'm not a landowner, and you know I mostly redfish, but I can't sit here and think that because I can get to someones land via way that they created, that I should just be able to go fish it. It's not a natural waterway at that point.

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

[Top Dawg]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

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.

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.

[jopete]

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

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by jopete

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

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

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

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

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

[redaddiction]

Originally Posted by "W"

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.