Louisiana Sportsmans Coalition

[cgoods17]

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

[noodle creek]

Originally Posted by meat killer 86

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

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*****.

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

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

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

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by Feesherman

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".

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

Originally Posted by noodle creek

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*****.

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

[cgoods17]

Originally Posted by eman

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

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

[Feesherman]

Originally Posted by cgoods17

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".

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

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[boatdriver]

Originally Posted by eman

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.

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....

[Reel Screamers]

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.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Crawl79

You should have put up bulkheads and protected your land.

And if the government wouldn't let me?

["W"]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

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.

Its 100% your job to maintain your land ... by installing bulkheads etc.
Everyone with camps on the water at Big Lake has bulk head for a reason so that they do not lose land to the wind , waves and water .....

You buy land its yours to maintain period .

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

Its 100% your job to maintain your land ... by installing bulkheads etc.
Everyone with camps on the water at Big Lake has bulk head for a reason so that they do not lose land to the wind , waves and water .....

You buy land its yours to maintain period .

What if the government is responsible for the erosion? Ship channel being installed, MS and Atchafalaya levees installed?

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Reel Screamers

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.

The definition of commerce in this context does not mean hunting/fishing/trapping. it means trade. As in T-boy could navigate the bayou and sell his furs/crabs/redfish/trinkets. Doesn't mean he could hunt/fish/trap there.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Reel Screamers

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.

This is where people are getting confused. There are people gating up natural bayous (that is illegal), but then there are folks gating up these oil/gas canals that traverse or dead end into their property (this is legal by the way). There are thousands of oil/gas canals in some very popular fishing areas that could legally be gated (think about Lake Verret)

It seems to me that this coalition wants every bit of tidal marsh to be accessible. That is ridiculous, because basically everything south of I-10 would be open for hunting/fishing

The landowners are just going to give up their land? (sounds like communism)

Or is Louisiana going to buy it? (yeah right)

Are the landwoners going to keep the land but have to allow hunting/fishing on their property? Bye bye leases.

Where do we draw the line of what is "navigable"? Navigable by 25hp motor? Mud motor? Airboat?


Thinking y'all are going to poke this bear and get MORE canals gated off

["W"]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

What if the government is responsible for the erosion? Ship channel being installed, MS and Atchafalaya levees installed?

still your land and your responsibility , you can either watch your land disappear and fight it in count or protect it.


In la you can actually claim lost land but at the end of the day its your choice..


My dad has a fence next to a ditch and over the last 40 years that fence has gotten real close to that ditch now and T Post are starting to fall ..

Reason ? We sprayed round up on that fence line for 40 years and rain has eroded the dirt over the years and we lost a ton of land between our fence and the ditch because we chose to not protect it.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by "W"

still your land and your responsibility , you can either watch your land disappear and fight it in count or protect it.


In la you can actually claim lost land but at the end of the day its your choice..


My dad has a fence next to a ditch and over the last 40 years that fence has gotten real close to that ditch now and T Post are starting to fall ..

Reason ? We sprayed round up on that fence line for 40 years and rain has eroded the dirt over the years and we lost a ton of land between our fence and the ditch because we chose to not protect it.

None of that is the fault of the government, that is your fault/your responsibility

When your land is lost due to levees being installed, ship channels being installed, which leads to saltwater intrusion, that is a different story, especially when you are still paying taxes on that land

[evis102]

Everything south of I-10 sounds good to me. It has to be all or nothing. If not the public will be fighting loopholes forever. I would say at present it is more like a oligarchy.
The landowners control the resource and the public pays to maintain it. The prime mover in the publics side is social media. It is allowing a vast amount of people to connect over a common issue. I do not care how good your lobbyist are a politician is not going to support something that may get him voted out of office.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by evis102

Everything south of I-10 sounds good to me. It has to be all or nothing. If not the public will be fighting loopholes forever. I would say at present it is more like a oligarchy.
The landowners control the resource and the public pays to maintain it. The prime mover in the publics side is social media. It is allowing a vast amount of people to connect over a common issue. I do not care how good your lobbyist are a politician is not going to support something that may get him voted out of office.

The landowners just give up their property rights without compensation?


The public is maintaining it because the public benefits from it. The crabs, shrimp, redfish, ducks, etc. come and go whether its private or public waters. It beneftis us all to have healthy marsh. All those critters can swim under a gate. A duck can fly over the gate

[evis102]

You still own the "land" as you are the land owner. No one can trespass on your property, your property being the land. You are asking to be compensated for something that was never yours to begin with. The current Louisiana state law uses a single case from Mississippi as its justification. I can name you 3 cases from Texas, one of witch made it to there Supreme Court, that supports the right of public use. The case law is on the side of the public, all it is going to take is someone with the money to push it through the court.

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by evis102

You still own the "land" as you are the land owner. No one can trespass on your property, your property being the land. You are asking to be compensated for something that was never yours to begin with. The current Louisiana state law uses a single case from Mississippi as its justification. I can name you 3 cases from Texas, one of witch made it to there Supreme Court, that supports the right of public use. The case law is on the side of the public, all it is going to take is someone with the money to push it through the court.

You CAN own tidal marsh in Louisiana. But this coalition wants to make all tidal navigable waters open to the public. Your argument will then be what is navigable. Navigable by what?

The other question would be what do you consider marsh? Land or water?