Arrested for fishing part of sabine river???

[jchief]

This battle has been fought and lost on the east side of the state. There was a huge push to get CCA involved and they would not. Not knockin CCA, just stating fact.

Do some research on the net.

[BigMamou12]

Dont give up Mike. Screwem all!!!!

Your caring and loving cousin,
Jamie





---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?eilnf5

[regsterdcoonass]

Originally Posted by Dink

The way I understands it is, if they owned the property with a pond on it, then dredged to the river, it is private property. That's not a public lake

WRONG like i stated, they dreged the cut to the powerline channel deeper. the cut has always been there. in other words all they did was modify it, but if you google earth the lake, or actually go there you will see an entrance at the north end of the lake. also you can see the lake itself is an anctient oxbow of the river, its rather obvious in my opinion but i may be being biased. therefore that would make it navigable by pulic in either entrance.

[regsterdcoonass]

Originally Posted by Kenner18

You are more than welcome to take the land owners on,trust me you wont be the first one. Its not a matter of giving up easy ,its a battle that has already been fought and lost . Some years back there was a group called P.O.W.(People for Open Water) that took on the land owners over access to the Greys Ditch in Vinton. Long story short its still off limits to the public ,even though it is tidal and runs in the Vinton Drain Ditch.

So go right on ahead and take them on .Good Luck I hope you win.
Just remember -If you stick it out there ,dont be afraid to get it chopped off.

similar scenrio happened on the red river in 2010, attorney general buddy caldwell ruled the land under the water is private but the water on top is public, the two are two different subjects thus the public was granted access and the land owners had to remove the fences and gates. heres a litte of that.




[SIZE=3]"In five separate Attorney General’s Opinion requests in 2010, staff from the Attorney General’s Office had the opportunity to analyze whether the State has control over various types of surface waters.26 The requests included a privately-owned (bed) creek, the Red River, and two privately-owned (bed) lakes. In all four scenarios, the Office opined that, as to the "running waters" within these water bodies, irrespective of the ownership of their beds, the State owned the water.27 The conclusions from these analyses were based upon the language of the Civil Code, noted above, which classifies "running waters" as a public thing. These conclusions are consistent with the notion that running water is essentially a fugacious thing that is transient when over any one piece of land and thus that the law should treat the water separately from the land over which it runs. Further, it is axiomatic that impacts to running waters in any one location can have downstream impacts, it is thus necessary to recognize that this resource is public in nature to which the protections embodied in the public trust doctrine must attach.
The creek and the Red River are obviously "running waters." However, the lakes present a unique situation: are they actually "running?" In the scenario that involved Smithport Lake and Clear Lake, that question was irrelevant. In that situation, the private owners had granted the State a servitude that provided the authority for the State to control, use, and protect the waters of those privately-owned lakes. Thus, whether the waters were "running" was a superfluous question, as the State has control of the waters by contractual agreement regardless of their "running" status. In the Lake Claiborne situation, because the waters are connected with numerous bayous that flow in and out of the lake and are otherwise connected to other running waters, this lake was considered to be the running water of the State.28 This result seems logical, as lakes are seldom unconnected (and thus flowing to and from) other water bodies. Hence, they should be considered "running waters." In fact, it is difficult to imagine a scenario when lake [SIZE=3]
waters are not connected to some other running water source and are thus running in their own right. Admittedly, the question of how much flow is required for a water body to be considered "running" has not yet been addressed, however, even seasonally-existing waterways are "running" when there is water in them. Thus, it seems that even periodic or seasonal streams, when holding "running water" should fall under the Civil Code classification of public things and should be subject to State control and ownership"
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

[jchief]

http://restoreourwateraccess.com/

[jchief]

http://www.nationalrivers.org/states/la-law.htm

specific to rivers

[BigMamou12]

Damn Mike I didnt think Sulphur had that good of an education


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?4trjfr

[regsterdcoonass]

my point exactly jchief. if you read the la state laws, access is permited. if you read the FEDERAL laws access is permited. in other words they can do nothing. ive been to those and numerous other sites, including the attorney generals website. and found nothing stoping me from going to that lake.

[Duck Butter]

Similar case happened on MS River on Gassoway Lake. This was an oxbow lake cutoff from the main river until the water was up high enough to get into it. People were arrested for fishing it. Long story short, the judge ruled that even though the water was navigable, the land underneath was private and the only thing that was allowable was navigation (no hunting no fishing). The law of navigable waterways does NOT include hunting/fishing rights, the land is still privately owned. However, the regulations were put there to allow fishermen to moor and hang nets to dry from these areas but not hunt/fish.

This may be a similar case to yours, but not sure. IF the pond was private and then connected to the main river, its still private

I understand your frustration, believe me, but they are likely in the right here, just as many (not all) of the landowners in SE LA. People think that because the place is open water, that they should be able to fish/hunt there, and I was once in this camp. However, since the land is subsiding so much, what was land is now underwater, their land is still there, so technically they own it. If the state just 'took' all that land and made it public, then for some godly act the land reappeared, the landowner just lost his land. I understand both sides, I was mad at CCA, but then I realized that they were probably not going to win the fight and need to focus on coastal conservation and fixing the problem of land disappearing

[Duck Butter]

Originally Posted by Duck Butter

Similar case happened on MS River on Gassoway Lake. This was an oxbow lake cutoff from the main river until the water was up high enough to get into it. People were arrested for fishing it. Long story short, the judge ruled that even though the water was navigable, the land underneath was private and the only thing that was allowable was navigation (no hunting no fishing). The law of navigable waterways does NOT include hunting/fishing rights, the land is still privately owned. However, the regulations were put there to allow fishermen to moor and hang nets to dry from these areas but not hunt/fish.

This may be a similar case to yours, but not sure. IF the pond was private and then connected to the main river, its still private

I understand your frustration, believe me, but they are likely in the right here, just as many (not all) of the landowners in SE LA. People think that because the place is open water, that they should be able to fish/hunt there, and I was once in this camp. However, since the land is subsiding so much, what was land is now underwater, their land is still there, so technically they own it. If the state just 'took' all that land and made it public, then for some godly act the land reappeared, the landowner just lost his land. I understand both sides, I was mad at CCA, but then I realized that they were probably not going to win the fight and need to focus on coastal conservation and fixing the problem of land disappearing

Let me add to this

Lets put ourselves in their shoes. Lets say you own a house and 1 acre near the Sabine River. If the Sabine comes up in December/January and floods your land would you allow people to duck hunt there? I think not, even though its navigable water. We have to look on both sides of the issue. This is private property, and we often let our emotions get in the way of logic. I see where someone posted this very message on lasportsman, I am assuming it was you, and a representative from the Marsh Club gave the answers to all the questions. There are 2 sides to every story, and the truth is in there somewhere

[sniper3726]

Originally Posted by Kenner18

You are more than welcome to take the land owners on,trust me you wont be the first one. Its not a matter of giving up easy ,its a battle that has already been fought and lost . Some years back there was a group called P.O.W.(People for Open Water) that took on the land owners over access to the Greys Ditch in Vinton. Long story short its still off limits to the public ,even though it is tidal and runs in the Vinton Drain Ditch.

So go right on ahead and take them on .Good Luck I hope you win.
Just remember -If you stick it out there ,dont be afraid to get it chopped off.

Kenner is right . This battle went on for years. Good luck, but there is a lot of history here and we are in Louisiana.